The six-person jury for the $1 billion defamation suit against CNN heard closing arguments on Thursday and started their deliberations. Both parties urged the jury to use their “common sense” to see them through deliberations and secure them the legal victory. But it was the argument of Vel Freedman, the lead counsel for Navy veteran and Plaintiff Zachary Young, who called on the jury, “Your verdict will stand in history” and to use the opportunity to “Stand up against fake news.” Before the parties made their final pitch to the jury, they needed to be read the jury instructions. Noting that they should be viewing the evidence as an average person, Judge William Henry of the 14 Circuit Court in Bay County, Florida listed the issues the jury had the responsibility to determine: If CNN had published what was being viewed. If said material was "of and concerning" Young. If the materials published were false. If the material was defamatory. If CNN was negligent at the very least. If Young sustained damages from the material With that out of the way, Freedman argued that in the opening statement from CNN’s lead counsel David Axelrod he told them that every word in CNN's report was "true” and now they were able to see for themselves. He called out how every CNN witness used the same false definition for "black market," claiming the definition was an “unregulated market.” He call that evidence of a “conspiracy” at CNN to get them on the same page, pointing to the fact that CNN did not produce dictionaries with that definition (a CNN employee also testified that they did not have a preferred dictionary).     Further he pointed out that no witness from CNN testified that they were sorry; worse yet, each one testified that they didn’t like the apology CNN aired and seemed resentful of their legal department. In fact, CNN’s VP for newsgathering Adam Levine testified that the apology was only issued as an attempt to head off the lawsuit. That comment prompted a juror question that called it a “disingenuous apology.” Freedman told the jury that, "Your verdict will stand in history” and called on them to “Stand up against fake news.” “Make the phone ring in Georgia. Send a message [to CNN]," he concluded. For his argument, Axelrod made “use your common sense” his catchphrase for the duration but there wasn’t much of it in his argument. He argued that Young could have called on any of his former contacts to testify that they don’t want to associate with him because of the CNN report. But why would they help him if they don’t want to associate with him? Axelrod argued that they could have subpoenaed them. Freedman countered with the fact CNN didn’t subpoena them either. It was the same back and forth argument for why each didn’t bring in Young’s psychologist from Austria. That was part of Axelrod’s dismissal of Young's mental health woes and claim that Young was "malingering." Freedman countered by noting that CNN didn’t product their own mental health expert, only their lawyer. Probably the most telling part of the closing argument that may have betrayed a concern for the ruling, Axelrod apologized to the jury for being annoying or rubbing them the wrong way, and asked them not to "take it out" on CNN. As off the positing of this piece, the jury is almost 4 hours into deliberation.