tv Self Defense CNN July 12, 2013 7:00pm-8:01pm PDT
"self-defense or murder, the george zimmerman trial" starts right now. [ applause ] the arguments in, the deliberations begin. good evening, everyone. welcome to another special report, "murder or self-defense, the george zimmerman trim." this is it, six women now hold his fate in their hands, after deliberating 3 hours, 33 minute with three choices, second degree murder, manslaughter or not guilty. they decided to sleep on it. >> the jury would like to adjourn tonight at 6:00 p.m. and begin tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. if possible. nibble have any objections? >> no, your honor. >> thank you, your honor. 2:30 eastern time.the case about two hours later they asked for and got a list of evidence in this case. tonight, we'll be asking who the
jurors are and what goes on during the deliberations. we'll get allegations that mark o'hara made to martin savidge. he says this case never would have made it to court had it not been for what he called a racially loaded smear campaign by the martin legal campaign. >> reporter: defense attorney mark o'hara began by reminding jurors the prosecution had to prove its case against george zimmerman. and pointed out the prosecutor's own words lacked conviction. >> how many could have beens from the state in this case? how many what ifs? >> reporter: then mark o'hara said he would do what he was not obligated to do, prove his client innocent. what followed was a three-hour summation soft spoken matter of fact style. >> if i walked in today and just as an example, walked in, like
this. just walked into the courtroom as a lawyer, you would have an impression, what is he doing with his sunglasses and who does he think he is? you might have an impression of george zimmerman. you might have an impression of him because he's sitting at the defense table, and that may be as we talked about, he's not just the accused, but maybe he is a defendant or he has something to defend. >> reporter: he has the jury not to judge zimmerman by their first impression but to use common sense. >> if it hasn't been proven, as the instruction tells you, it's just not there. you can't connect the dots for the state attorney's office. >> reporter: it may have taken three hours to deliver the argument to the jury, but part of those three hours was just pure silence. >> we're going to sit tight and we're not going to talk.
>> reporter: four minutes of silence ticking by to show the jury the length of time he said martin had to escape after he spotted george zimmerman watching him. >> that's how long trayvon martin had to run. about four minutes. >> reporter: instead of running, he said martin tried to confront zimmerman that night and showed a 3-d animation of martin punching zimmerman in the nose. >> there's the shot to the nose. >> reporter: a repeated tactic by o'mara in the courtroom, outright disbelief at the prosecution's case. >> seriously? really? really? come on. really? i almost wish that the verdict had guilty, not guilty, and completely innocent. because i would ask you to check that one. >> reporter: the prosecution delivered a strongly worded rebuttal, saying trayvon martin's blood is on george zimmerman's hands. >> that child had every right to
be afraid of a strange man following him. first in his car, and then on foot. and did that child not have the right to defend himself? from that strange man? >> reporter: that child, according to the prosecution, but a dangerous teenager according to the defense. >> that's cement. that is a sidewalk. and that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but skittles trying to get home and the suggestion by the state that that's not a weapon, that that can't hurt somebody, that that can't cause great bodily injury is disgusting. >> reporter: martin savidge,
cnn, sanford, florida. >> let's bring in sunny hostin, jeffrey toobin, danny cevallos and mark geragos. so mark, let's start with you. what's your assessment of o'mara's closing today? >> i just lost you. >> mark, can you hear me? danny, your assessment? >> sunny has her mcdreamy. to me, o'mara is mcawesome. i thought the prosecutors did a good job. their style was a little more fiery. what i admire is somebody who can -- as an attorney who tries cases, i see someone do that measured calm way of delivering a closing summation after he's lived this case for so long. it's hard to keep emotion out of it. i admire someone who methodically goes through the case and challenges every piece of the prosecution's evidence. i thought it was a terrific closing. >> it was such an extraordinary contrast to the prosecutors, just on volume of voice alone.
yesterday, it was so much yelling in that courtroom. today, i don't think o'mara even raised his voice at any point. i think to a fault. i thought he was almost too sedate. but it was a conversational discussion of the evidence. >> which works better? one makes the jury lean forward and listen. the other can risk alienating a jury. >> what you learn is you have to be yourself. people's personalities are what they are, and you can't fake it. there are good people in both categories. i think all these lawyers are good. but i think the jury was
>> he also said that he had, you know, that trayvon martin grabbed his gun and then it was reaching for his gun and there was no evidence to support that. >> jeff, to you, that's the most significant. >> well, i think it's the weakest part of the defense case. the claim that trayvon martin reached for the gun, because it just doesn't seem possible that he would see it, that he had access to it. there was no evidence of fingerprint or any sort of -- there's no evidence that he got to the gun. that sounded to me like an embellishment on the part of zimmerman. >> and remember, jeff, what he said was he had to shoot him. george zimmerman told police and told his friend he had to shoot
him, because he, trayvon martin, was reaching for his gun and walls going to kill him. now, that would be -- you would feel like you were in imminent danger of death if that were true. and i've got to tell you, that appears not to be true. >> mark? >> well, look, i was going to say, the problem with this closing by the prosecution is, they focused so much on the supposed inconsistencies of zimmerman, that there's only one problem. it was a great closing argument if zimmerman had actually taken the stand. as i said a week ago, anderson, when you asked is he going to take the stand, i said no, and the reason is, because you don't want to put the defendant on the stand to be cross examined, because when the jurors get back there, all they're going to talk about is what did the defendant say? in this case, he didn't testify. he had his statement in there. >> he testified like five, six times. >> hold on, hold on. sunny, hold your horses. the problem with this is, they
didn't see him under cross-examination. they didn't see him waffle on the stand. they didn't see a cross-examination do any damage to him. so the prosecutor gave this closing argument as if he did this damage and he didn't. in fact, they had five or six people saying he was credible. that's why this was not effective. >> watch the style points. watch how o'mara does address these inconsistencies. he says that zimmerman talks to the police, not once, not twice, not thrice, but he talks to them several times. we heard many of those. then he says if this was some conspiracy or plan of his, some mastermind plan and if he learned about law enforcement and criminal justice, why didn't he know about one of the fundamental bedrocks, which is miranda? don't talk to the police. that made him credible. >> he was too smart for them. >> that's part of the master plan -- >> oh, gosh, sunny.
one minute he's not smart -- >> the master plan to go hunt down a kid in your neighborhood included being on the phone with 911 while you do it. then talking to the police five times with your substantial education of criminal justice. >> i don't know about that. >> it just doesn't work, sunny. >> we've got a lot more to talk about. ahead of a decisive weekend. we'll big deeper, the women on the jury, who they are, how their backgrounds may factor into their decision. and martin savidge's interview with mark o'hara. and what he called a racial smear campaign is why he was arrested. we'll be right back. i'm the next american success story. working for a company where over seventy-five percent of store management started as hourly associates. there's opportunity here. i can use walmart's education benefits to get a degree, maybe work in it,
or be an engineer, helping walmart conserve energy. even today, when our store does well, i earn quarterly bonuses. when people look at me, i hope they see someone working their way up. vo: opportunity, that's the real walmart. american express credit card, every purchase earns you 2% cash back, which is deposited in your fidelity account. is that it? actually... there's no annual fee and no limits on rewards. and with the fidelity cash management account debit card, you get reimbursed for all atm fees. is that it? oh, this guy, too. turn more of the money you spend into money you invest. it's everyday reinvesting for your personal economy. ♪ unh ♪ ♪ hey! ♪ ♪ let's go! ♪ [ male announcer ] you can choose to blend in.
talk about. talking is a no-no outside the jury room. judge nelson today reading them a long list. >> do not discuss the case amongst yourselves or anybody else. do not read or listen to any television or news reports about the case. do not use any type of electronic device to get on the internet to do any independent research about the place. and do not read or create anything about the case. >> in addition, while they spend the night at a hotel, their notes are in the jury room. these six women are carrying around plenty in their head. >> reporter: for weeks, the jury of six women has been a captive audience as prosecutors and defense lawyers try to sway them. from the moment it started, pure drama. prosecutor john guy's opening statement. >> good morning. [ bleep ] punks.
these [ bleep ]s, they always get away. those were the words in that grown man's mouth as he followed in the dark a 17-year-old boy who he didn't know. >> reporter: cnn legal analyst sunny hostin has been in court every day. >> the inference is yeah, these are shocking, ugly, hateful words. and that wasn't lost upon the jury. i looked at them very, very closely, and some of them did seem shocked and offended almost by the words. >> reporter: at other times, the jury seemed to be captivated by the defense, especially when defense attorneys pulled out a dummy in court to help illustrate the confrontation. >> i was impressed when they stood up to get a bird's-eye view when they were trying to replicate or reproduce what was going on between trayvon martin and george zimmerman.
it was very telling. it showed how into this they were, how they were watching a tennis match. >> reporter: jurors were especially engaged when the mothers of both trayvon martin and george zimmerman testified. five out of six jurors are married and almost all of them have children. prosecutor john guy keyed into that here. >> was that child not in fear when he was running from that defendant? isn't that every child's worst nightmare to be followed on the way home in the dark by a stranger? isn't that every child's worst fear. that was trayvon martin's last emotion. >> i looked directly at the jury
when he said those words and their eyes didn't leave his face. and so i think that it couldn't have been more powerful for the makeup of that jury. >> reporter: juror e-6, a blonde with two children, put down her pen during that moment and stared intently at the prosecutor. her children are 11 and 13. she's a proud member of her church. her husband is an engineer. other specifics on the women decides zimmerman's fate. juror b-29 is originally from chicago. she's been married ten years, the only minority on the jury, either black or hispanic. she had eight children, only one older than 18. juror b-76 has a son who is an attorney. she sun employed now but used to run a construction company with her husband. she loves animals. juror b-37 is the daughter of an air force captain. one of her children is a pet groomer.
another a student at the university of central florida. juror b-51 is the only juror who isn't married. she's a retired real estate agent and a transplant from atlanta. and juror e-40 is married to a chemical engineer. she has one son, in her spare time she watches football, reads and likes to travel. this jury took lots of notes. copious mounts while george zimmerman's re-enactment at the scene was being replayed. and when the dna and medical examiner testified. it seemed as though they wanted to be sure they understood what was being said. they didn't want to miss a thing. ashley merriman is an expert on jury behavior. she predicts they'll exhaust every alternative and look at every piece of evidence. >> telling that best friend all of your secrets and having no hierarchy. everyone has agreement and avoids conflict.
they continue to apply that even in that group setting. >> reporter: she says don't expect any yelling in this jury room but don't expect a quick verdict, either. randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> reporter: sunny hostin has been in the courtroom and is back with jeffrey toobin, danny cevallos and mark geragos. sunny, you've been observing them every day. we've seen them ask for a lips of all the evidence. what do you think is going on? how do you see their deliberations going on? >> based on their behavior and first question two minutes into the deliberations, they're asking for an inventory list of all ofhe evidence. this is going to be a jury that is going to methodically look through all of the evidence. i don't know that i've ever seen a jury take notes the way this jury took notes. and it's also clear to me that they've gelled. they have been sequestered together.
remember, there was no jury, no courtroom on july 4. they were able to go out together. they eat together. i've recently seen some of them offer mints to each other. one of them put a shaw on the shoulders of another. this is a group of women who are getting together and getting along quite well. and so that kind of situation, i think you do have that collaborative type of deliberations as opposed to some where you see everyone is butting heads. i do not get that sense from this jury. >> in terms of sequester, what does that mean? they're staying in a hotel room, ten jurors, four are alternates? are they allowed to stay in contact with their friends? they can't watch reports like this on the news. but they can watch old tv? >> normally when there was newspapers they would cut out articles and give them the newspaper. sometimes they'll give them movies and things like that. today the reason they wanted to be recessed at 6:00 is so they
could get back to the hotel and break open a couple of nice bottles of wine. it would not surprise me if they get into a couple of glasses tonight. i think the fact that they were sequestered is one of the reasons you don't see a friday verdict. a lot of times in my experience, in doing hundreds of these cases, if you have your closing arguments on a friday and you finish in the morning, you can expect the verdict by 3:30 or 4:00 on a friday afternoon. in a case like this, they're aware the count try is looking at this case. even if they had a verdict, and it happened in susan macdougal's first trial, the jury told me they had a verdict on friday but they didn't want to be seen as an o.j. jury, so they wanted to monday and came back and delivered the verdict on the monday. >> this is a real thing mark is
talking about, the legacy of the o.j. simpson jury, which as many people remember, came back with a not guilty after just one day of deliberations. a lot of people criticized them given the complexity and length of the case. >> four hours or something. >> how could you decide a case that quickly? ever since then, i think i've covered most if not all of the high profile cases since then, none of them have come back that quickly, even when there was a lot of agreement on the jury. here, i think given this first note, they are going to be much more meticulous. i expect tomorrow we'll hear some of the exhibits that they want to see. >> you don't think there will be a verdict tomorrow? >> i would be very surprised. >> for this reason or because there's so much stuff to go through? >> if you get a list of all the evidence, that means you're going to want to see stop of the evidence. that becomes time consuming. once you get into readbacks of testimony, that's really time
consuming. the lawyer has to agree what's responsive to the note. i don't see a verdict tomorrow. sunday, monday, we'll see. the notes will give us a hint of how they're doing. >> mark o'hara, the defense attorney, asked the jury to consider only the facts while deciding the case. >> what i don't think you should do is fill in any gaps at all. connect any dots. if the decision was made by the state not to present additional evidence to you, do not presume, do not assume and do not give anybody the benefit of the doubt except for george zimmerman. >> for the defense, that's essential to make that point. >> i love it, it's very important. this case is inverted. the prosecution is asking the jury to fill in gaps, asking them to use common sense and make assumptions and fill in where they failed to really create a narrative, a concrete
narrative. i understand that the main person who would contribute to that narrative is no longer with us. however, unfortunately for the prosecution, that doesn't lessen their burden. mark o'hara did a very good job without the fire and brimstone walking through where the state came up short and admonishing jurors not to gill in gaps. >> up next, mark o'hara believes that george zimmerman was charged due to what he calls a smear campaign. he blames that on ben crump, an attorney for trayvon martin's parents. we'll hear from mark o'hara about what he has to say and reaction from darrell parks, ben crump's law partner, who is also an attorney for the martin family. my asthma's under control.
i don't miss out... you sat out most of our game yesterday! asthma doesn't affect my job... you were out sick last week. my asthma doesn't bother my family... you coughed all through our date night! i hardly use my rescue inhaler at all. what did you say? how about - every day? coping with asthma isn't controlling it. test your level of control at asthma.com, then talk to your doctor. there may be more you could do for your asthma. details are really important during four course. i want to make sure that everything is perfect. that's why i do what i do. [ male announcer ] it's red lobster's just $14.99. start your feast with a choice of soup, then salad, plus biscuits! next, choose one of nine amazing entrees like new coconut and citrus grilled shrimp
now that the zimmerman the winding down, mark o'hara sat down for an interview with martin savidge who joins us now. you asked him whether he has any regrets about cross examining trayvon martin's parents. i want to play that. >> reporter: you took what some might consider risks during the trial, one being that you cross examined a grieving mother. >> yes. >> reporter: any regrets on that? >> no. i hope that people think or i think i handled it properly and respectfully. i have handled, i think, 30 or so murder cases. and in every murder case, you're going to have some interaction with the victim's family. >> you certainly would hope that your son, trayvon martin, did
nothing that could have led to his own death, correct? >> reporter: and you did tracy martin, as well. and that one didn't seem to go so quite well. >> so your words were i can't tell? >> something to that effect, but i never said no, that wasn't my son's voice. >> well, i think that the state should have put him on. that's their witness. i think it was strange that they decided not to call the father of the victim. but they did so because of the very reason i had to call him, which was that tracy martin told two cops who testified that when he listened to the tape, that's not his son. >> reporter: that's not what he said on the stand. >> it is not. but it is what two cops said that he said no, that's not my son's voice. now, it's got to be extraordinarily difficult to be in tracy martin's shoes and sabrina fulton's shoes. they have to go through their
life believing in their heart and soul that that is trayvon martin's voice. >> reporter: is that what you asked when you asked, and i believe you asked this of trayvon's mother, that he shopped to hear his voice? >> how could she not? we know, being able to analyze it in the cold light of day, we know that one of two things were evident on that tape. trayvon martin was screaming for help and george zimmerman murdered him. two, george zimmerman was screaming for help because he was being battered by trayvon martin and he reacted to that battering by shooting trayvon martin. if you're the mother, the friend, the father, how could you not want that to be the first alternative rather than the second? >> it's interesting, martin, clearly in those cross-examinations, particularly with trayvon martin's mother, he doesn't want to be perceived as the bad guy during the trial. >> reporter: what he wanted to
do, he said he's cross examined grieving mothers before, many people were just stunned that he would do that. normally you would let her make her statement and be done. i think that he wanted to push back. he had specific reasons why he asked what he did. does he mind being perceived as the bad guy? no, he says that is the price you pay to defend somebody that needs to be defended. >> fascinating interview. more of martin's interview ahead. i want to get reaction from the panel. danny, i heard you shaking your head when i asked martin if o'mara had any regrets about calling sabrina fulton. >> i understand people seeing that as a risk. but to me the real risk is not cross examining a witness. this witness had valuable information and it's mark o'hara's -- >> what did he get out of her? >> i thought he demonstrated to
the jury that she was less than credible, and the second part is, even if you -- >> oh, please. >> hold on, hold on. the test is not ultimately what he got out of her. the test is ultimately what were his objectives? when he made that decision to stand up and ask her questions, the critical thing here is not so much what did he get out of her, but what if he didn't ask her questions? there's no fear to me worse than if you sit down and think about the questions that are left unanswered for a witness. >> he didn't gain anything. >> sunny, you're looking at the outcome. we can talk about whether the outcome was beneficial and disagree. but the decision -- hold on. >> he didn't gain anything. >> the decision to cross examine was one that i think was the opposite. i think it could have been more risky to not cross examine a witness. >> oh, come on. >> you have an obligation. it's not a tea party, and it's not a popularity contest.
>> mark? >> sunny, you keep saying he didn't gain anything. i don't disagree, believe it or not, but do you really think he hurt himself? a lot of times it's a calculation when you're doing cross-examination. you figure what's the risk or reward. what's the burden versus the benefit? you have to make that decision every day when you're in a trial and sometimes it's a miscalculation. >> it was a miscalculation, there's no question it was, because his questioning was blame the victim. he wanted sabrina fulton to somehow admit that her son's death was his own fault. and you're arguing -- >> i don't think so. >> you're asking that question in front of five mothers. you can play the tape. that was his question, and it was ridiculous. it was terrible. >> sunny, i don't think you -- >> let me finish. the way it's handled is the way that the state handled the cross-examination of george zimmerman's mother, with
respect. he didn't ask any of those kinds of questions. he barely asked any questions. and it didn't hurt him and it didn't help him. >> o'mara had some choice words for the lead prosecutor. i just want to play that for the viewers. >> i have concerns about the discovery perspective. my view of information we were supposed to get from prosecutors is a much different definition than he is. >> reporter: so he's a liar? >> i think that he has a -- i think he's probably more used to running against public defenders in cases that he gets to cherry pick and that he has overwhelming evidence. and that some of the nuances of how he handles discovery don't come to light. i don't think that don and i have presented our severals as a
couple of young defenders. >> mark, you've been critical of the prosecution. you agree with what he's saying? >> i agree with him. when he talks about brady, he's talking about a u.s. supreme court case that says if there's exculpatory evidence, you have to turn it over, the prosecutor has the duty to turn it over to the defense. i think what mark has articulated there, which is a lot of prosecutors, when they're up against overworked public defenders, the public defenders are the unsung heros of the criminal justice system, because they're overloaded, overworked and they get no respect. a lot of times prosecutors take advantage of that. when they get put up against the test of experienced criminal defense lawyers, it exposes a lot of times some of the fast and loose hide the ball tactics a lot of prosecutors engage in, which unfortunately happened all too often. i think in this case, mark did say for the first time in his
30-year career that he didn't do one, two, three, but six motions for sanctions for playing hide the ball with discovery. in a case like this, that's unforgivable. >> the problem is, we don't know the nature of these disputes. so for us to make a judgment about who's right and who's wrong. it is true prosecutors get used to a certain level of sort of overworked defense lawyers. when you run into guys like this, who will push everything to the max, you know, the prosecutors sometimes don't know how to react and sometimes they don't react well. >> when it comes to discovery disputes, this debate is old, it's the sharks and the jets. defense attorneys and prosecutors are always arguing and the defense feels like they're entitled to see everything, and the prosecution feels like you're asking for the
sun, moon and stars. >> we're going to let you guys dance to the sharks and jets during the commercial break. o'mara believes zimmerman was charged because of what he calls a publicity campaign to paint his client as a racist and murderer. you'll hear it yourself and you'll hear from an attorney for the martin family. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke.
there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed. no routine blood monitoring means bob can spend his extra time however he likes. new zealand! xarelto® is just one pill a day, taken with the evening meal. and with no dietary restrictions, bob can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto® rivaroxaban without talking to the doctor who prescribes it for you. stopping may increase your risk of having a stroke. get medical help right away if you develop any signs or symptoms of bleeding, like unusual bruising or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products, nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto® if you currently have abnormal bleeding. xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto®, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor
that he puts the blame on benjamin crump, an attorney for trayvon martin's parents. he made his comments with an interview with martin savidge. >> reporter: do you think that george zimmerman would have even been charged had ben crump not been pulled into it? >> no. ben crump or someone like him. had ben crump not got involved in the case, maybe for some good reasons to begin with. if he believed there was something being swept under the rug, get into it. i'm very okay with that. >> reporter: but you didn't say it that way. you made it sound like if not for ben crump, george zimmerman would be free at this time. >> that's correct. i think it was a made-up story for purposes that had nothing to do with george zimmerman. and that they victimized him, they complain about trayvon martin being victimized. george zimmerman was victimized by a publicity campaign to smear him, call him a racist when he wasn't and call him a murderer when he wasn't. >> reporter: so angela cory and the governor and all of those
that had a hand in bringing about this prosecution, they were all manipulated by ben crump? >> i don't know that it was ben crump doing all that manipulations. i'm very surprised that the prosecution team decided not to take this case to a grand jury when one was sitting and ready to take on the case, and determine whether or not there was enough evidence and enough information to charge him with any crime. rather than do that, they decided to have a press conference, pray with the victim's family and announce second degree murder charges. >> it's very strong position on mark o'hara's part. i spoke to martin family attorney darrell parks, ben crump's law partner. darrell, i want to start off with this interview mark o'hara gave to miles per hour. he accuses ben crump of manipulating facts, making up stories, victimizing george zimmerman to use his words in a smear campaign, and he said that
without his actions, zimmerman would have never been charged. how do you respond? >> well, anderson, let's take our time and go through this, because it's very important. remember, and i remember when ben first came back to our firm, this guy had killed trayvon martin and the sanford police department were getting ready to close the investigation. and they indicated that they were not going to arrest this guy. and we believe whole heartedly that if you killed an unarmed teenager, you at a minimum ought to be arrested. now, mr. o'mara may have philosophical problems with that, but we're civil rights lawyers. when someone kills someone that is unarmed, that person should go into our justice system and go through that process. that is not a decision that should be made by one or two people. it's a decision that should be made by the process. and that's what we argued for. and so we have not done anything
to talk about anyone but to make sure that this process worked. >> o'mara also says that the smear campaign labeled george zimmerman a racist, labeled him a murder and he used that word. do you think that is true at all? do you believe at the time -- >> no, not at all. >> -- that you and ben crump were trying to introduce race as an element in this? >> well, let me say this, we don't know george zimmerman, and in fact, i heard ben say today when asked that same question, we could never call that man a racist. now, we believed that this case in its totality has a racial undertone to it. and so that's a huge difference, anderson. >> i want to play something that you said back in march of last year for our viewers. >> whether or not trayvon was a perfect student is irrelevant to whether zimmerman's conduct that night was justified. trayvon was a kid. he was another unarmed black boy whose life was lost because of
unfounded stereotypes, suspicions and fears. >> during the trial, the idea of racial profiling wasn't talked about. profiling was talked about, but not racial profiling. do you think there is an underpipping of race throughout this that wasn't brought into the trial? >> what he was charged with was criminal profiling. george zimmerman talked about all these people who had committed crimes and we then saw where mark o'hara put on the last witness to talk about the crime in this case. the problem in this case, though, is that trayvon was not one of those people. >> what happens next? if george zimmerman is not found guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter, do you pursue a
civil case against george zimmerman, regardless of whether he is found guilty or not, do you pursue a civil case against anymore >> obviously, we have the right to do so, because he killed trayvon martin, and we know that standard is a negligence standard and we have every right to do that. we have not made that decision yet. obviously, at some point my clients will make that decision. but that's not a decision we'll make in the public. >> how are your clients feeling a about the case, about the wait? >> we're feeling very strong. my clients had an opportunity to listen to the closing that the state did today. the state's closing was very powerful. they did an excellent job of bringing all the evidence together and putting it before the jury, and making that jury have a very, very deep thought about the whole concept of judging george zimmerman for a situation that he created, causing the death of trayvon.
and as much as they tried to portray trayvon in a negative light, the truth of the matter, trayvon did nothing to cause his own death. >> darrell parks, appreciate the time. thanks. >> thank you, sir. up next, some final thoughts from our panel. we'll be right back. ance. like . so his family never has to worry, right? mr. goldman didn't have life insurance. why not? well, he's just a goldfish. ignore him. [ male announcer ] you've got questions. your state farm agent has answers. backed by the life insurance company millions of moms and dads already trust. we put the life back in life insurance.
identity thieves. they can find your personal information and do some serious damage. like your birthday or your mother's maiden name. you need a new friend. lifelock. we scour billions of data points every day, and if we discover that any of your personal information is misused... lifelock is there. call us at 1-800-lifelock or go to lifelock.com today.
...and we inspected his brakes for free. -free is good. -free is very good. [ male announcer ] now get 50% off brake pads and shoes at meineke. big day in court today. the end of closing arguments. george zimmerman's fate being decided by the jury. they'll pick up deliberations 9:00 tomorrow morning. i want to get some closing thoughts from our panel, sunny hostin sunny hostin, jeffrey toobin, danny cevallos and mark geragos. jeff, what do you expect? you're not expecting a verdict tomorrow? >> i'm not, but i want to see the notes.
we've spent so much time asking what are they thinking? now we get to find out. what evidence do they want to see? do they indicate which part of the law confuses them. do they indicate any deadlock? we learn a lot from jury notes. >> danny, they asked to look at all the evidence. that's standard stuff. >> that doesn't surprise me. but it means they're going to take it seriously and go through all the evidence, instead of just locking at each other and say, let's move on and get out of here. i can expect that would add at least a day if they go through that list. but we don't know what it means. >> sunny, tomorrow or sunday? >> i'm not sure. i think after observing this jury, this is a very methodical jury. this is a jury i think that's going to be very deliberate and very cooperative as well, though. i think to expect a verdict very, very quickly, i'm not
there, but i think it's anyone's guess. >> mark, same thing? >> i'm in vegas tomorrow, so i've already let the jury know i don't want to interrupt my vegas trip, so they're not coming back until at least sunday at 2:00 when i land. >> i'll keep that in mind. thank you very much. i want to get caught up with some of the other stories with randi kaye. >> a third victim from asiana airlines flight 214 has died. the girl had been in critical condition. 304 others survived saturday's crash. this evening, the runway at san francisco's international airport reopened. cleveland kidnapping suspect ariel castro now faces 977 counts. that nearly triples the amount of charges against him and covers and a decade when the three girls were allegedly raped
in his home. homeland security secretary janet napolitano is resigning in saturday. no word yet on a success sor. >> i have no names to float, if you will. i would say that the president greatly appreciates secretary napolitano's four plus years of service. and if you think about it, those 4 1/2 years account for almost half of the existence of the department of homeland security and she's done a remarkable job on her watch. >> her next stop, academia. she's been nominated to become president of the university of california. an anonymous bidder bought a mercedes racecar for $30 million. he won two grand prix races in the 1954 mercedes-benz which now has the distinction of being the most expensive car ever sold at
good evening. tonight, are they far apart or close to a verdict? only six women know the answer to that after deliberating three hours and 33 minutes with three choices in front of them, second degree murder, manslaughter or not guilty. those six members of the zimmerman jury have decided to sleep on it. >> the jury would like to adjourn tonight at 6:00 p.m. and begin tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., if possible. anybody have any objections? >> no, your honor. >> no. thank you, your honor. >> the jurors got the case about 2:30 eastern time. two hours in, they asked for and got a list of the evidence. the judge saying it's up to them to decide which of it to believe. tonight, we'll look at what they are weighing, who they arend