Return to Transcripts main page
NANCY GRACE
George Zimmerman Trial
Aired July 13, 2013 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Nancy is next as VERDICT WATCH continues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Day two on verdict watch in the Zimmerman trial. The jury continued its deliberations.
JOHN GUY, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: Use your heart.
MARK O`MARA, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You can`t allow sympathy to feed into it.
BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: He`s a wannabe cop.
O`MARA: I call this case the bizarro case in my practice.
DE LA RIONDA: The defendant claims that he was the only one yelling out there.
ROBERT ZIMMERMAN SR., GEORGE ZIMMERMAN`S FATHER: Absolutely, it`s my son George.
GLADYS ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN`S MOTHER: My son George.
TRACY MARTIN, TRAYVON MARTIN`S FATHER: I was listening to it, coming to grips that Trayvon was here no more.
O`MARA: Who do you recognize that to be?
SYBRINA FULTON, TRAYVON MARTIN`S MOTHER: Trayvon Benjamin Martin.
GUY: Whose voice do you recognize?
JAHVARIS FULTON, TRAYVON MARTIN`S BROTHER: My brother`s.
GUY: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) punks.
O`MARA: With this really f-ing punks.
DE LA RIONDA: George Zimmerman. The man who is guilty of second-degree murder.
O`MARA: George Zimmerman is not guilty of anything but protecting his own life.
JUDGE DEBRA NELSON, SEMINOLE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT: We have a jury question. The question reads as follows, may we please have clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter.
The post answer that has been agreed upon by both your council in the statement that follows. The court cannot engage in general discussion, but may be able to address a specific question regarding clarification of the instructions regarding manslaughter. If you have a specific question, please submit it. Is that acceptable to you, sir?
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT: Yes, your honor.
NELSON: Acceptable to the state?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, your honor.
NELSON: Acceptable to counsel for the defense?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
NELSON: Thank you all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NANCY GRACE, HLN HOST: Good evening. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us. We are live in Sanford, Florida, and we are in a VERDICT WATCH here at HLN.
A 17-year-old, walking home gunned down by the captain of neighborhood watch. Cities across America tonight brace for a verdict. Bombshell tonight, literally as we go to air, a stunning shift in that Sanford courtroom. Murder two off the table. Repeat, the jury clearly rejecting murder two.
Now that Florida jury focusing on a lesser included offense. Voluntary manslaughter. The jury now deliberating over 14 hours, asking dinner be delivered to the jury deliberation room as they continued to work into the night. What that jury doesn`t know, what any jury is never allowed to know, the sentence. The sentencing that voluntary manslaughter could carry. A sentence of 30 years behind bars for George Zimmerman.
We are live and we are taking your calls straight out to Jonathan Beaton, joining me at the courthouse. WDBO.
What happened, Jonathan?
JONATHAN BEATON, REPORTER, NEWS 95.3 WDBO: Well, Nancy. The jury asked for clarification on the manslaughter charge and the attorneys on both sides said they need some clarification of their own. They need the jury to be more specific of what their question is.
GRACE: Jonathan, Jonathan, hold on. Hold on, Jonathan. Let`s go into the courtroom.
NELSON: Please be seated. We`re on the record. Case number 12CF10838A. We have a jury question. Question reads as follows. May we please have clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter?
Does counsel want to come up here and view it and propose a response?
Please be seated. We`re back on the record.
Who are these? All of them? OK. OK.
RICHARD MANTEI, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: Your honor, having discussed the matter with Mr. O`Mara, I believe we have almost an agreement to our suggestion for the next point in the process.
GRACE: OK. I cannot stress the significance of what is going on in the courtroom. These decisions that the lawyers and the judge making right now can affect whether this is case, if there is a conviction, will be reversed on appeal. They`ve got to be very, very careful in the wording they use to send back to this jury. It could be reversible error.
Go in, Liz.
MANTEI: Recent case of Hazuri, H-A-Z-U-R-I, versus State where the request was for a generalized readback, the Supreme Court of Florida held that the court should have asked which portions of the testimony the jury wanted read back. McGirth, I think, M-C-G-I-R-T-H, versus state which is 4873rd 2010 case I believe it`s probably the most descriptive. That`s a Florida Supreme Court case as well.
And there`s a section in that that discusses a trial court in that case. The jury asked whether it can have a discussion with the court regarding the jury instruction on principles and the court responded they could not engage in a general discussion with the jury who would be willing to address any specific question the jury might have.
And I think that obviously it`s within the court`s discretion to do that. But I think that that should be at least at this point the extent of any communication would simply be ladies and gentlemen, if you have a more specific question, there`s a possibility we can answer or something like that.
O`MARA: It sounds like an agreement. I think that in a couple of cases -- and I don`t know if you have all these so --
NELSON: Well, if you have some kind of agreement, can you tell me what kind of --
O`MARA: Sure.
NELSON: -- response. I left the jury question in my chambers.
GRACE: OK. You`re hearing them talking about a couple of cases. What they were talking about is legal precedence. Other cases by a higher court, like the Florida Supreme Court, that have dealt with this very issue. They don`t want a law from other jurisdictions like California, Georgia or New York. They want Florida law on this particular very, very narrow issue.
Let`s listen.
O`MARA: References, Perriman, P-E-R-R-I-M-A-N, Florida Supreme Court Case of 1999, 731771243. It says that where there are questions of law, the court can ask -- can get clarification on their confusion, and then can actually answer specific questions of law with a sort of straightforward quick answer. So I think the step is let`s find out their clarification --
NELSON: And also give me the wording of what you can agree on, of what to send back to the jury. I`ll go ahead and send that to them. And then we`ll wait to see how they respond. So what type of --
O`MARA: I`ll suggest one.
MANTEI: Either that or we could just work -- if he gives us five minutes we can come up with a written one ourselves.
NELSON: Do you have a sheet of paper?
MANTEI: Yes, your honor.
NELSON: OK. If you can agree to one, that`s great. And if not, I`ll try to help you word it.
O`MARA: Great. I was going to approach -- did you get the state`s cases?
NELSON: I do have the state cases.
O`MARA: OK.
NELSON: I do have Perryman. I do have --
GRACE: OK. What they are doing is trying to agree on the wording of what they`re writing and sending back to the jury, and I cannot tell you how important this is, the majority of reversals once there is a conviction occur because of jury instructions. How the judge reads the law, what the judge says to the jury, not what the lawyers or the defendant does or what a witness does, but jury charges.
Now this is how we know that murder two is out of there. They`re past that. Typically juries go down the list. The highest charge they had was murder two. They`re past that. Now they want to hear about voluntary manslaughter.
All right, straight out to Beth Karas, legal analyst, former prosecutor.
Beth, explain what is voluntary manslaughter. Why is that a lesser included offense of murder two?
BETH KARAS, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, IN SESSION: You know, it looks like second-degree murder without the ill will and the hatred, basically the malice, the depraved heart. It`s basically an intentional killing. A voluntary act. An act that`s not an involuntary act, not a criminally negligent act. There are different way to commit manslaughter in Florida. This one is the voluntary act. Basically an intentional act. He intended to take out his gun, fire it. Someone died as a result of it. It doesn`t require any ill will or hatred.
GRACE: You know what`s interesting about this, out to you, Mike Galanos, joining me also at the courthouse.
Mike, the thing about voluntary manslaughter, very often it`s called a heat of passion killing. And a textbook example, as always, they use this all the time in law school, Mike, when husband comes home, finds wife in bed with another man and shoots, the whole kit and caboodle. It`s not a premeditated thought, they have a worked out a plan to commit murder. It`s a spur of the moment, boom, it`s done.
That`s a typical voluntary manslaughter, or as the law reads, Mike Galanos, when you are doing an act in an illegal manner. What he did, he was carrying a gun, which is legal, but then he acted in an illegal manner. It`s also very often equated with hand-to-hand mutual combat. When a fight breaks out at a bar and somebody gets killed, very often you`ll see that`s not murder one or murders two. That`s voluntary, Mike Galanos.
MIKE GALANOS, HLN ANCHOR: Nancy, with what you said in that wonderful education that I just received with your answer there, I remember Mark O`Mara right out of the gate in his closing talk about his fear of a compromised verdict. That was right after he put his hand on George Zimmerman`s shoulder and throughout. Really tried to lay it out to this jury in his closing that this was self-defense.
And my -- my question for you, Nancy, and probably for our viewers, if it`s not self defense, is this manslaughter, period? Is it that simple?
GRACE: You know, Matt Zarrell, also we`re waiting, in just a few moments the jury is going to be handing back to the judge. All the lawyers are poised in the courtroom. Everybody is milling around waiting to hear what it is the jury wants to know. But this is what I know. I`m not in that jury deliberation room, Matt Zarrell, but I know by this question, murder two is off the table. That`s one thing Zimmerman doesn`t have to worry about. But he better start worrying about voluntary manslaughter. So what happens at 8:15, Matt Zarrell?
MATT ZARRELL, NANCY GRACE STAFFER, COVERING STORY: Well, Nancy, what now is the attorneys are waiting because they sent back a note saying they want a more specific response about what they are referring to. What clarification they need. Hopefully we will get a response from the jury. If not, Nancy, they will keep deliberating and maybe they do not need any clarification.
GRACE: Everybody, you are seeing the courtroom right now. Everyone is waiting for the jury to return. This is what we know. The jury is digging in. They`ve had supper brought into the jury deliberation room. They want to deliberate into the night.
We are expecting a verdict tonight. At 8:15 they are coming out with a question. Their specific question on voluntary manslaughter. Does this mean a conviction on voluntary is about to be handed down? We are live at the Sanford courthouse.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DON WEST, ZIMMERMAN DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Knock, knock. Who`s there?
RACHEL JEANTEL, TRAYVON MARTIN`S FRIEND: I had told you. Are you listening?
O`MARA: So, George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin.
JEANTEL: Are you listening?
WEST: George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who?
JEANTEL: No. I`m leaving today.
WEST: What`s that?
JEANTEL: I`m leaving today.
DR. SHIPING BAO, SEMINOLE COUNTY ASSISTANT MEDICAL EXAMINER: I do not have any memory of the day of autopsy.
WEST: All right. Good. You`re on the jury.
BAO: I do not remember anything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: Welcome back, everybody. We are live in Sanford, Florida. I want to go straight out to Daryl Parks, the attorney for Trayvon Martin`s family, and get your reaction of what is going down in the courtroom at this hour?
DARYL PARKS, MARTIN FAMILY CO-COUNSEL: Well, Nancy, we`re getting -- we`re getting to the -- to the point now where this jury has asked a question concerning manslaughter. The judge has answered that question. They have had dinner. And I really believe we`re about to make a decision.
Nancy, I have to tell you, I`m of the opinion that self-defense is off the table. And they are probably still trying to decide between manslaughter and second-degree murder. That`s my take on it. But I think we`re going to get a verdict today. I`m very confident of that.
GRACE: Out to Frank Taaffe, friend and rep for George Zimmerman. Response, Taaffe?
FRANK TAAFFE, GOOD FRIEND OF GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: Nancy, no, I concur with you. Murder two is out because the government spent most of their time trying to prove the fact of the -- there you are. OK. Sorry. I concur with you. I believe that the government spent most of the time trying to say how bad George was. That he racially profiled. I mean, that was the bulk of their -- of their entire prosecution.
And here we are looking at manslaughter. It kind of took them off guard. And the good thing is, I feel a good thing, is that it`s voluntary. I would think that they -- in the lesser that they would include involuntary, which is culpable negligence, and they didn`t go there. So here`s the deal. The state have yet to ever disprove self-defense in murder two, and guess what? That transcends into the lesser charge of manslaughter.
So I still feel very comfortable that right now it`s 5-1 for acquittal and there`s one holdout right now.
GRACE: You know, number one, I need an interpreter to figure out what it is you just said. I asked you for a response, and you just went off -- I don`t even know what you`re saying except now, Taaffe, you apparently claim that you know the breakdown --
TAAFFE: I said I concur with you.
GRACE: -- of the vote in the jury room.
TAAFFE: I concur.
GRACE: You said you think it`s 5-1, 5-1.
TAAFFE: Right now. 5-1.
GRACE: How did you come up with 5-1? Why?
TAAFFE: I firmly believe it`s 5-1 for acquittal. And there`s one holdout. Murder two --
GRACE: Repeat.
TAAFFE: -- which you know --
GRACE: Repeat. Why? Why do you think there`s one hold out?
TAAFFE: You know -- I expect it. Nancy, listen, you know that the government spent the bulk of the prosecution on trying to say how depraved George was, they kept bringing up the F bombs and everything else.
GRACE: Taaffe, answer me. Answer.
TAAFFE: I just did.
GRACE: Why --
TAAFFE: I just did.
GRACE: Where are you getting 5-1? You`re just making it up. So it`s not one shred of evidence to suggest that there`s even been a vote yet.
TAAFFE: I know it`s 5-1.
GRACE: How?
TAAFFE: Let`s just say murder two -- if murder two is off the play, guess what`s right behind coming off the plate? Manslaughter. They saw --
GRACE: You know what?
TAAFFE: If self-defense, if self-defense was in murder two, they`re going to roll into --
GRACE: Why don`t you pull out your Ouija board, Taaffe, and tell me what`s going to happen? Because you`re not telling me where you`re getting this zany 5-1 thing. I think you`ve got a Ouija board down your pants. Are you going to pull that out?
TAAFFE: Hey, you know --
GRACE: Yes, no? Five, four, one --
TAAFFE: In 1969 --
GRACE: What?
TAAFFE: 1969 Joe Namath said we`re going to win Super Bowl.
GRACE: Dear lord in heaven.
TAAFFE: And we`re going to win this.
GRACE: Did I just hear you say 1969? All right. OK. Back to you, Mr. Parks. Now Taaffe says he`s got the actual vote. 5-1. You`re in the courtroom. You`re with the family. Has anybody got a breakdown like that or is Taaffe just like making that up?
PARKS: Well, Frank Taaffe is just being himself and he`s making it up obviously. No one knows what they are doing. And no one knows where the jury is right now. However, I think almost everyone realizes that we are very close to getting a decision. And I strongly believe that they are leading toward a conviction in this case.
A conviction is what the Martin has prayed for in this case because up until this point, Nancy, George Zimmerman has not expressed any type of remorse for what he did to Trayvon Martin. And so we are very prayerful that the law will find him guilty and that he will be judged guilty.
GRACE: You know, that`s very interesting. That`s very interesting, Mr. Parks.
Mr. Taaffe, why is it, even if Zimmerman were telling the truth, has he never once expressed remorse for killing a boy?
TAAFFE: Au contraire, he did. Last year at the bond hearing he went up and he apologized. He said he was sorry to the Martin family. Can we roll that tape? Is that somewhere? Can we someone bring that up? And let`s go back and review that. OK?
GRACE: Actually, I remember that. I remember that. I remember that. Mr. Parks, do you recall that? I do.
TAAFFE: Wow.
PARKS: I recall that. Let me say this. It was the most halfhearted apology ever given by anyone. And it wasn`t sincere. It wasn`t received as sincere by this family. And so I don`t believe he really meant it, to be honest with you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. VINCENT DI MAIO, M.D., FORMER CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER, BEXAR COUNTY, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: The medical evidence, the gunshot wound, is consistent with his opinion, with his statement. It`s consistent with somebody leaning over. Consistent with Mr. Zimmerman`s account.
WEST: Consistent with having been punched in the nose?
DI MAIO: Yes, sir. Physical evidence is consistent -- consistent with his account.
WEST: Consistent with the forensic evidence that you found at the time of the shot?
DI MAIO: Yes, sir. Consistent with his account, Mr. Zimmerman`s account. That`s right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: Welcome back. We are live in Sanford and taking your calls. Stunning twist in the courtroom in the last hour. As we go to air the jury sends out a question, wanting an explanation into voluntary manslaughter. Clearly murder two, the top charge by the state, is off the table.
Back out to you, Daryl Parks. How is the family? How Trayvon Martin`s parents reacting to the fact that the top charge is clearly being rejected by the jury?
PARKS: Nancy, they remain very, very encouraged because the one thing that as we interpret that we believe that we are going to get a conviction. They have never said that hey, look, we have to have second-degree murder. They have always -- only wanted that the murderer of their son come to court, and that we have a jury trial and it looks like we`re going to get a conviction.
And so they are extremely encouraged by that. The other part of it is this, Nancy. In this situation, there is no one going to be happy in the outcome of this case. Trayvon will not be back. George Zimmerman is going to prison.
GRACE: So, Mr. Parks, I tell you what I think made a difference? When that 911 tape first came out. And get ready, get ready. This is graphic language. When it first came out that Zimmerman had said "fucking coon" on the phone call, I mean, to me, that was open and shut that that showed ill will and hatred. Open and shut.
I mean, there wasn`t even a question. Now that they revised it and said he`s saying these punks get away with it. They always get away with it, I`m wondering if that reinterpretation of what he said made a difference as to a jury finding ill will in Mr. Zimmerman`s heart?
What do you think, Mr. Parks?
PARKS: Well, I think it was a compromise. You know, as I`ve sat here over the several weeks and watched this jury. It became very obvious that they were probably splitting down the middle. And so as they worked through it, I believe they probably came to a compromise or are coming to a compromise.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARTIN: That was Trayvon`s voice.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 911. Do you need police, fire, and medical?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Maybe both.
MARTIN: I never said no, that wasn`t my son`s voice.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does he look hurt to you?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can`t see him. I don`t want to go out there. I don`t know what`s going on. So -- they`re sending.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think he`s yelling help?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
MARTIN: I was listening to my son`s last cry for help. I was listening to his life being taken.
NELSON: We have a jury question. Question reads as follows. May we please have clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter? The court cannot engage in general discussions, but may be able to address a specific question regarding clarification of the instructions regarding manslaughter. If you have a specific question, please submit it. Is that acceptable to you, sir?
G. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, your honor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: Welcome back, everybody. We are live and sticking with it. The jury is still there in the jury deliberation room.
Straight out to Beth Karas. Beth, what do you know?
KARAS: I haven`t done a lot of reporting on this or commenting. But I can tell you that I have been following all of the divisiveness and how people are so opinionated and they are strong about it and it`s pretty evenly divided. That alone reeks of reasonable doubt, Nancy. No one knows for sure what happened. Maybe a crime happened.
GRACE: I`m hearing in my ear -- hold on, Beth. I`m hearing in my ear right now that the jury is through with dinner. They ate in the jury deliberation room. They never left. They kept deliberating. And they are staying. They are digging in at this hour. The jury is cooped up in the deliberations room. They`re insisting that they continue to deliberate.
To Jonathan Beaton, WDBO, joining me at the courthouse. Beaton, what do you know?
BEATON: Well, Nancy, what I know is just from the past. This jury has been incredibly hard working. Several times Judge Nelson has asked them, do you want to take a recess, do you want to recess for the evening? And they`re saying no, we want to push on, we want to press on and get through this. And I think they`re probably thinking and feeling the same things right now.
GRACE: Unleash the lawyers, joining me, Mike Gottlieb from Plantation, Florida, Bradford Cohen, also joining me for the Florida jurisdiction.
Out to you, Bradford Cohen. What`s happening?
BRADFORD COHEN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think you`re absolutely right. That second-degree is definitely off the table. I`ve practiced long enough to not read too deeply into questions that come from juries. There certainly is a divisiveness over the manslaughter charge. Obviously because they want some clarification. But you don`t know which way it`s going. It could be going guilty. It could be going not guilty.
But obviously there is someone or -- a couple of people holding out that want clarification. The thing that makes me nervous is, is if there is self-defense and they`re buying self-defense, why do they need clarification on the manslaughter charge?
GRACE: OK. What about it, Mike?
MIKE GOTTLIEB, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think, you know, to say why do they need some clarification of the manslaughter charge. As far as I`m concerned, you`re all presuming that you have a united jury as a opposed to a jury that`s completely divided and five people are trying to convince one or four, trying to convince two.
Any situation is equally possible. I`ve tried enough cases to know that you cannot assume what`s going on in the jury room. And I think that there`s too many assumptions being made and none of us know what`s going on behind those closed doors. I think that it`s a dangerous game to assume and that you shouldn`t do that.
GRACE: OK. Mr. Gottlieb, number one, I`m pretty sure that we can read the tea leaves and figure out that murder two is off the table. And so both of you --
GOTTLIEB: Well, I agree with you. Nancy, I agree with you. But you`re still making an assumption.
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: Especially you, Bradford Cohen. What assumption is that, sir?
GOTTLIEB: You`re making an assumption. Listen, it`s equally plausible that five people, five jurors --
GRACE: Answer the question.
GOTTLIEB: I am. I am answering your question. You`re assuming that murder two is off the table. I happen to agree with you. But at the same point in time, you could have five jurors that are voting for murder two, and one who is holding out for manslaughter, and they`re trying to convince that juror that manslaughter is not correct. So that`s an assumption that you`re making.
COHEN: I don`t think so.
GRACE: You`re right.
GOTTLIEB: You don`t know that murder two --
COHEN: I think murder two is completely off the table.
GRACE: You`re right. OK. OK.
GOTTLIEB: I agree murder two is off the table but it`s still an assumption.
GRACE: Hurting ear, hurting ear. This is why people hate lawyers, OK, because they talk too much. I agree with you. You, Gottlieb, you Cohen. Boom. To say that you can`t decipher even to a small extent where a jury is headed by reading the questions, no. I think the jury questions are like big billboards They tell you where they`re going.
I agree with you on this, Cohen. I do think murder two is off the table.
COHEN: Yes.
GRACE: There`s no doubt in my mind.
Everybody, this is what we`re talking about. As we go to air tonight, for those of you that want to know, the jury is done with dinner. They`re back to deliberating. They`re digging in. They don`t want to go home. What does it mean? It means they could be reaching a verdict in the next few moments.
This is what has brought us to the moment. Just as we go to air, the jury turns the courtroom on its ear saying they want to know more about voluntary manslaughter. Let me remind you that none of the attorneys dwelt on voluntary manslaughter in the closing arguments. They all acted like it didn`t even exist. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise.
The laugh is on you, lawyers, because that is what the jury apparently is focusing on right now. Let`s go into the courtroom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NELSON: Please be seated. We`re on the record. Case number 12CF10838A. We have a jury question. Question reads as follows. May we please have clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter?
Does counsel want to come up here and view it and propose a response?
O`MARA: May we approach?
NELSON: You may re-approach. You may.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: Believe it or not, it`s just like this when you practice law. You turn the whole courtroom upside down to find a piece of paper. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NELSON: Your counsel in the state is as follows. The court has not engaged in general discussion but may be able to address a specific question regarding clarification of the instructions regarding manslaughter. If you have a specific question, please submit it. Is that acceptable to you, sir?
G. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, your honor.
NELSON: Acceptable to the state?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, your honor.
NELSON: Acceptable to counsel for the defense?
O`MARA: Yes, your honor.
NELSON: Thank you. I`ll rewrite it so it`s one handwriting instead of two and we`ll have you review it. You may be seated.
O`MARA: At that point do you intend to bring them into the courtroom or present it by a written note?
NELSON: I was just going to give it in writing to them so they can --
O`MARA: Acceptable to us, your honor.
NELSON: Right. That way they can re-read it over and over again instead of me just reading it once.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O`MARA: Maybe the fact that the prosecutor attorney`s office decided to charge him, he must have done something wrong.
GUY: And who is responsible for this state not being able to ask Trayvon Martin to step forward, so I could put my hand on his shoulder. I would love to do that. Trayvon Martin is not, was not, will never be a piece of cardboard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: Welcome back, everybody. We are live. The jury is in the deliberation room right now. They`re still deliberating at this hour. It`s nearly 9:00 at night. Let`s take a look at the courthouse. Let`s take a look live at the courthouse. The courthouse in Sanford, Florida, where that -- there you see. Look at the top. That`s where it`s all going down. That jury is still deliberating at the top of this courthouse. The lights are on. Everybody is busy.
Justice is unfolding at this hour on a Saturday night in the Sanford courthouse. The jury had their meal in the deliberations room. They ate. They sent their dishes back out. And they haven`t gone home.
Let`s go to the panel, first of all. Out to Susan Constantine, jury consultant, body language expert. She`s been in the courtroom from the get-go.
You`ve been watching the jury, Susan. What do you think?
SUSAN CONSTANTINE, JURY CONSULTANT/BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT: Well, I think that we`ve got two jurors, E-40 and B-29, are the two that I noted. As I shared on your show last night, Nancy, that I felt that there was a division in this verdict. And one of the things I`d like to bring to you is in B-29 was the one juror that consistently asked for clarification throughout voir dire . So not only did she ask for clarification, she asked for clarification on top of clarification.
So I would assume that this is one of the jurors that`s probably going back and asking this question about the difference of what is manslaughter. Please define this. Because she was always asking to define certain terms of terminologies in voir dire.
GRACE: You know, according to Frank Taaffe -- now as I learned very well trying cases, you must consider the source. Taaffe insists that he has reason to believe that right now there`s a split in the jury deliberations room of 5-1. He won`t tell me why. He won`t tell me what he knows. But I can tell you this, when I tried cases, when you`re there in the courtroom and you`re hearing what`s going on. Maybe you can figure it out. Like Susan Constantine looked at the jury.
She looked at the jury. She could see that one woman always wanted clarification on everything. Very often, and I know the two lawyers are disagreeing with me tonight. But very often you can watch the jury and you can figure out what`s going on.
But let`s get off the jury for a moment. Out to Mike Galanos, HLN host.
Mike, you observed Zimmerman`s wife, very upset in the courtroom. What did you observe?
GALANOS: She seemed to be the most emotional, Nancy. And once that question came from the jury, there was a look of concern. Not only from Shellie Zimmerman, George Zimmerman`s wife, but if looks could speak, the look that George Zimmerman`s mom gave her son. His father looked down. But back to Shellie Zimmerman, she walked out at one point, arm in arm with her mother-in-law. And then when they went back in the court most recently she seemed to have emotions on her face. I thought I saw a handkerchief in her hand as well and someone was caressing her back, that reassuring look.
So it`s very difficult on her because let`s face it. If things don`t go his way, her husband could be going away anywhere from 10 years to life, Nancy.
GRACE: Out to Dr. Bethany Marshall, psychoanalyst, author of "Dealbreakers." Bethany, I`d like to hear your take.
BETHANY MARSHALL, PSYCHOANALYST, AUTHOR OF "DEALBREAKERS": Well, I can see why the Zimmermans are concerned because what this tells me the fact that murder two is off the table and now we have voluntary manslaughter. There is at least one woman on that jury who does not want to see George Zimmerman walk out of that jail tonight.
Remember Casey Anthony, Nancy? Do you remember when she was acquitted and she walked out of that courtroom? Do you remember how we all felt? The shock, the surprise. I would imagine there`s at least one woman on that jury who feels the state did not prove its case. However, she could not live with herself if this man went free.
And in terms of voluntary manslaughter, Nancy, you know, from a legal perspective, I suppose someone can kill somebody else without premeditation. But from a psychological perspective, we always believe that homicide is contemplated at least at an unconscious level, if not a conscious level for some period of time.
So it`s conceivable that even though it appears that it was in the blink of an eye or in a moment that he was homicidally predisposed before he went on watch that night.
GRACE: Well, I mean, you`ve got to question why he went out with a gun with live ammo loaded. Had it with him. Why?
To Captain Alexis Carter, a special guest joining us tonight. This is Zimmerman`s former college professor at Seminole State. He testified at the trial. He was a military JAG prosecutor.
Captain, thank you for being with us.
CAPT. ALEXIS CARTER, PROFESSOR, SEMINOLE STATE: Hi. Hi, good evening. How are you doing?
GRACE: I`m good, Captain. What do you recall of the time you spent with Zimmerman?
CARTER: Like I testified earlier he was one of my better students in the class. He responded to a lot of questions. You can tell from the onset that most of the questions that he asked, when responding to hypotheticals came from a law enforcement perspective or state of mind. And you can tell that that was something that he had -- he had aspirations to accomplish.
GRACE: When you asked, what is your career goal, what did he say he wanted to be?
CARTER: You know what, I`m going to quote exactly from the e-mail that he sent me. I have it in front of me right now. And it says, "My career goal is to become U.S. -- United States marshal. I`d like to be a marshal so that I can fugitives and make sure that convicts serve their sentences. My expectations of this class is to understand what (INAUDIBLE) process is in order to carry out a lawful arrest and make certain that a criminal will not go free due to any lack of due process on my behalf.
"I am also attending the class because I always had a genuine interest in litigation and I believe one day I may want to make a transition from law enforcement to litigation. This is my first class in the realm of litigation. However, I am hoping that I will gain a clear understanding of the law but most importantly the procedures going through the litigation as I know that one day I will be applying them to my career on a daily basis. George M. Zimmerman."
GRACE: Captain Alexis Carter, a witness at trial, joining me tonight captain.
Captain, again, thank you. In your class, did you teach self-defense, Captain?
CARTER: Yes, we did.
GRACE: You taught the legal theories behind self-defense.
Captain Alexis Carter, did you also teach in your class that George Zimmerman took, the legal or practical theories behind Stand Your Ground law in Florida?
CARTER: We did. You know, because the glass obviously was given in the state of Florida, I thought it would be pertinent and practical for the students to gain perspective on how the law is applied in Florida with respect to self-defense.
GRACE: Right.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: Straight out to Jonathan Beaton, WDBO. What can you tell me about an I.T. worker within the State District Attorney`s Office that got fired?
BEATON: Nancy, this man was the so-called whistle blower we heard from several weeks ago before jury selection even began. I believe it was around the time of the Trye hearing. This is the guy that the defense brought on to the stand and he alleged that the state withheld evidence from the defense. The defense asked for sanctions to be put on the state because of that. And Judge Nelson actually tabled it at the time but we do know --
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: What evidence do they claim that was withheld? Hey, hey, hey, Jonathan. Give it to me in a nutshell.
BEATON: Yes.
GRACE: What evidence does he claim was withheld?
BEATON: He alleged they withheld some sort of evidence. I believe it was Trayvon Martin`s text messages originally. Either way it dealt with the defense taking a -- or the state taking a long time to hand over evidence.
GRACE: OK. Hold on.
BEATON: They eventually got it but that they claimed it delayed the case.
GRACE: Right. Right. Right.
Matt, Matt, Matt. What do they claim was withheld?
ZARRELL: It was the details that we talked about on the phone. The text messages and the photos were both that evidence.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: We remember American hero, Army Specialist Anthony Vargas, 27, Reading, Pennsylvania. National Defense Service medal, Global War on Terrorism Service medal, Army Commendation medal. Parents Julio and Maria, widow Luisa. Sons Nathaniel and Lucas. Daughter Olivia.
Anthony Vargas, American hero.
And now back to the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin murder two trial. We are live and taking your calls.
But out to Dr. Bill Manion, medical examiner joining me tonight out of Philadelphia.
Dr. Manion, how crucial was the testimony from the two medical examiners, Bao for the state and Dr. Di Maio for the defense?
DR. BILL MANION, M.D., MEDICAL EXAMINER, BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: Well, I think it was very important. Dr. Di Maio is a very well respected forensic pathologist. And I would agree with me that that gunshot wound was close contact. The state medical examiner Dr. Bao said it could be up to four feet. And that just doesn`t seem reliable at all. There was burning on the clothing. Gun powder. Stifling. That was a gunshot wound within inches consistent with what Dr. Di Maio said.
GRACE: Dr. Manion, I agree with you completely.
Everyone, the jury is still deliberating. Dr. Drew up next. If there is a verdict tonight, I`m digging in. I`m waiting to bring home that verdict. We want justice. Good night, friend.
END
