logo

LIVE STREAMING: George Zimmerman Trial

MOBILE USERS: CLICK HERE for live video
iPad Users: Download the ABC News app for iPad to watch

Screen Shot 2013-06-24 at 9.10.10 AM

Please note: When court is in recess, the seal for the State of Florida will be shown in the video feed.

by KYLE HIGHTOWER and MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — A friend who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin moments before he was fatally shot by George Zimmerman testified that she told the Miami teen to run after he told her he thought he was being followed.

Rachel Jeantel testified Wednesday in Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial. She is considered one of the prosecution’s most important witnesses.

Jeantel said Martin told her that he thought he had evaded the man following him. But a short time later, Martin let out a profanity on the phone.

Jeantel testified that Martin then said Zimmerman was behind him and she heard Martin ask: “What are you following me for?”

She says she heard Martin’s phone headset fall and then Martin say “Get off!”

Zimmerman is pleading not guilty, claiming self-defense.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.


  • fayvored1

    I believe the evidence for both sides, prosecution and defense will be quite even. What I believe will make this case a second degree murder conviction or mistrial case will rely on witness testimony. The defense did a great job of turning prosecution witnesses yesterday. Today, the powerful witness testimony opening the morning; even when considering the great efforts of the defense to portray the witness as assumptuous, and overly tramatized by what she heard and saw did little to discount that it is evident that the witness is very convinced and compassionate about what she believes she heard and say. GREAT witness for the prosecution. Let’s see if the defense can produce an eye/ear witness of the same caliber to dispute and dilute the powerfulness of this witnesses testimony.

    • M3ATSHI3LD

      Perhaps we were watching different testimony. There was nothing great about the ‘witness’ you are speaking of. She was exactly what the defense claimed she was. I would say less traumatized and more wanting attention to be honest.

      She made a bunch of assumptions, which were clearly pointed out. She stated she saw the shooting itself, claiming that Martin was stomach to the ground, Zimmerman fired 3 times, and at night she didn’t see any muzzle flash. Zimmerman fired 1 time and if she saw that then she would have definitely seen the muzzle flash.

      Then she refused to answer legitimate questions with legitimate answers. Example: Defense asks, “Having worked with teenagers around puberty do you agree that teenagers can certainly have a deep pitch to their voice?” Witness responds, “I haven’t been around teenagers for about 2 years.”

      What kind of response is that. Does she think puberty, which has been pretty much the same since the dawn of time, somehow changed in the last 2 years since she was around teenagers? To me, she was just trying to avoid admitting that her assumption of whose voice was whose, based purely on age, was exactly that; an assumption.

      The list can go on with the ridiculous testimony she gave. There was no fact in it when it came to anything relevant to the case. She saw Zimmerman fire 3 times. She was convinced of that absolutely. The absolute fact is Zimmerman fired 1 time. So anything she recounts about the situation cannot be trusted as truthful based on her inaccurate testimony related to how many shots she witnessed Zimmerman fire. Remember that her claim was that she saw Zimmerman on top of Martin, with Martin on his stomach, when Zimmerman fired 3 times, which due to physics would have all been in Martin’s back. Instead it was 1 shot to Martin’s front.

      There is no logical thought that I can come up with to be able to agree she was a ‘powerful’ witness for the prosecution. In fact, she technically perjured herself by saying she witnessed the shooting with claims that are so far off the mark that the only explanation is she fabricated the story. She won’t be charged, but she should be.

  • MrT419

    This lady Rachel Jeantel ain’t doing anything but lying you can hear it in her voice and see it her face! I really hope the jury hasn’t believed one word she has said. She’s clearly out to try and get Zimmerman locked up. This a very sad case no one deserved to die there’s faults on both sides. And it really doesn’t matter if Trayvon was unarmed if he starting beating the hell out of Zimmerman with his hands it explains why he got shot. Still can’t believe the world wants to try and act this was ome kind of lynching or cold blooded murder. There very wrong had anything they said about Zimmerman just wanting to take the law into his own hands I highly doubt he would have wasted his time making 911 calls and reports like he did. Ol Trayvon and everyother black person he seen would have already been dead with all the breaks in that were happening leading up to this night. The only way to see if this was a real accident is to hear Zimmerman on the stand and how he desicrbes that night will tell if he’s lying or not. I don’t think he is I believe they crossed eachother’s paths whether he asked what are you doing or not Trayvon was ready to fight cuz he’s the only I heard of now really using racial slurs “creepy ass cracker” so soon as Zimmerman asked him or not I believe Trayvon thought it was none of his business and threw the 1st punch catching Zimmerman off guard and well the rest is history that’s my gut feeling and i’m usually right 99.99% of the time. I pray for Martins and Zimmerman’s family they are both going thru a very hard time! And this whole hearing a soft crap I haven’t heard Martins voice but I’m willing to bet it was much deeper than Zimmerman’s. George sounds real soft the whole 911 call was soft and not sounding hostile in anyway.

    • M3ATSHI3LD

      What is really sad is the way the prosecution and judge are conducting themselves. Every single time the defense proves a witness’ testimony is faulty and well outside of anything factual, the defense then asks if knowing the facts makes them second guess all of the assumptions they have made. The prosecution then objects saying that the answer would be speculation and the judge sustains it.

      That is ridiculous. Asking a person that has a belief based on assumptions if they reconcile the event differently once presented with the facts is nothing close to speculation.

      I really hope the prosecutor is brought before an ethics committee as not a single witness they have put on the stand has had anything remotely close to accurate testimony. Knowing their testimony is inaccurate a prosecutor should never put them on the stand and then have them speak of what they witnessed as if it is absolutely factual in relation to how things happened. That is suborning perjury in my opinion as one of the parts of the definition of the term is to allow another party to lie under oath.