the process. >> it was recorded on a -- just a voice recorder that they give us. >> reporter: then prosecutors played the tape. the jury listened closely. >> there's been a few times where i've seen suspicious person in the neighborhood. we call the police, non-emergency line, and these guys always get away. >> reporter: a key witness for the state, singleton told the jury zimmerman agreed to be interviewed without an attorney present. she said he didn't realize trayvon martin died from the shooting until she told him. she told defense attorneys zimmerman dropped his head to the table. >> any evidence he was angry with trayvon martin? >> no. >> that he had hatred for him? >> no. >> spite or ill will? >> no. >> that he had anything that would suggest to you some type of bad attitude towards trayvon martin? >> no.

>> rather he seemed to be effected by the fact that he realized that trayvon martin had passed? >> he seemed affected by that. >> reporter: one day after the shooting, and george zimmerman returned to this neighborhood with lead investigator chris serino to do a video reenactment. serino later conducted a more aggressive interview, challenging zimmerman on some points. for instance, in the first statement zimmerman talked about trayvon martin jumping out of bushes to ambush him. in the reenactment, he didn't mention that, but in court, serino's final analysis -- >> did you notice anything to bring to the jury's attention today that caused you that concern? >> nothing i can articulate, no, sir. >> reporter: there was also the testimony from the doctor, an fbi audio analyst for the defense who was called to the stand by prosecutors. his focus, the 911 call where you can hear screaming in the

background. while he told jurors it's not possible to determine age or analyze this tape through science, the doctor left one possibility wide open. >> if for this particular case, best approach would be voice recognition by individual who have heard him in his whole life. >> reporter: i want to go back to the courtroom here in sanford, florida, live. you see them dealing with improper opinion evidence, asking the judge to consider that. we're expecting to hear more on that in just a moment, but i do want to go back to this information from dr. nakasone. basically saying anyone who is familiar with the voice, if they get on the stand and say that is the voice of my son, that's big for the prosecution, because now the prosecution could open that to lay witnesses, could open it to trayvon martin's family to take the stand and make that

case,inity a big thing for the prosecution. >> absolutely. we're expecting maybe trayvon martin's mother will take the stand and say, yes, that's my son's voice on that 911 recording. we'll just have to see. as you said, george, detective serino expected soon on the stands. once his testimony begins, we'll take you there live. more perspective from sanford, sunny hostin and page pate and hln contributor, jason johnson. welcome to you all, once again. sunny, i want to start with you, because you seem to be the only lawyer on the planet that says the prosecution scored some points with detective serino yesterday. >> really, wow. i didn't realize that. i thought there were some other people that agreed with me. well, listen. bottom line is, this trial is by no means over. we are in the beginning of the second week of trial. only about 25 witnesses, and i

think that the evidence that came in through serino, which are the few statements that george zimmerman made, were inconsistent where it was needed for the prosecution. and that is, who was the first aggressor? he gave different stories as to why he got out of the car. did he get out of the car to find a street address, where there is only three streets, or did he get out to follow trayvon martin? he admitted finally on the tape that he was, while not following him, walking in the same direction. so i think that really advanced the ball for the prosecution in terms of the first aggressor, in terms of who started this altercation. now the other thing, carol, that i think is important to mention is, remember the sanford police department, this investigation was taken over by the state's attorney's office and the sanford police department didn't think there was enough evidence to charge george zimmerman. of course, they believed his story. that's what you got out of chris serino.

i sense in a way that we saw a little bit of pushback from the sanford police department from the investigators, because they believe that they were right, when this prosecution believed they were wrong. those are the dynamics i saw in the courtroom yesterday, so perhaps -- and because i'm in the courtroom, perhaps that's the reason i'm the only lawyer that saw it that way, because i'm able to see it in realtime. >> maybe so. page, let me ask you this, something i thought the prosecution should have hammered home more, detective serino, for all that he said that was, quote, good about george zimmerman, he wanted to charge george zimmerman with manslaughter, and that, to me, was lost somehow yesterday. >> well, it was completely lost, but it's not common for a lawyer to be able to ask a detective or law enforcement officer his opinion of the case. that's usually a question that they are not going to be able to ask. what is important, though, to get out from the officer the

things he did in response to zimmerman's interview. he continued to investigate the case, he challenged him on a few points to show that even this officer who seemed to be favorable to the defense is not 100% behind george zimmerman. >> but jason, if you're trayvon martin's family and you're sitting in the gallery and you're watching, what's going through your mind? >> probably a lot of things. there were two key pieces of information yesterday. one, george zimmerman coming out and saying, i hope this is videotaped. you don't say that if you think you did something wrong, but the other is this, you've got george zimmerman saying when he hears the 911 tape, that's not me. when he hears the screaming, that's not me screaming for help. >> he said that doesn't sound like me. but if i'm screaming in fear, which i don't do often, i might sound different. >> if his narrative is, look, i was screaming and screaming and screaming the whole time because i was terrified, i thought that was something the prosecution

should focus on. it sounds like you shot someone screaming for help. i thought there were bits of evidence from both sides. >> on that note, listen to serino's testimony about that from yesterday. >> investigator serino, in about 52 minutes when you're playing the recording, you specifically say, are you hearing yourself, and mr. zimmerman says that doesn't even sound like me. do you recall that? >> yes, sir. >> the other discrepancy, i thought, sunny, was george zimmerman said when trayvon martin confronted him that night, he said, do you have a problem with me, and george zimmerman said, no, don't have a problem. i would wonder why george zimmerman as the neighborhood watch captain would say, hey, i'm the neighborhood watch captain, what are you doing here, it's my job to check it out. why didn't george zimmerman do that? >> yeah, i mean, that's something, certainly, that was addressed yesterday. and i think, carol, you're dead

on. that's the question everyone has. if you are the neighborhood watch guy and someone does say, you know, why are you following me, the response, you think, especially if you're armed, would be, listen, i'm the neighborhood watch captain. i've never seen you around this neighborhood. what are you doing around here? but rather his response was, you know, i didn't want to confront him. i was fearful. i've got to tell you, i think practically the jury's always told not to leave your common sense at the door of the jury room, so there are going to be those jurors that say fear doesn't seem appropriate if you're getting out of your car to follow someone and you are armed. and so i think that's one of the points that the prosecution did score yesterday, because that was discussed between detective serino and george zimmerman. >> of course, this entire case against george zimmerman focuses on events in a gated neighborhood in sanford, florida. let me take you through that. it was here at the retreat at

twin lakes just a few blocks from the home trayvon martin was staying where zimmerman first spotted martin, who was walking home from a convenience store with some snacks. just down the road, zimmerman stopped at the neighborhood clubhouse and called the sanford police department's non-emergency line. one block away, george zimmerman got out of his truck. he says it was to find a street sign to give the dispatcher more information. this is where zimmerman admitted to following martin. the physical altercation between zimmerman and martin took place behind those homes. the shooting happened moments later. that's just a short synopsis of how it went down, according to george zimmerman. you can see mark o'mara, he's getting ready and is going to continue questioning this detective, page, right? he's going to keep hammering home george zimmerman was truthful, cooperative with police, et cetera, et cetera. >> absolutely.

you're usually not supposed too this. you can't ask one witness to comment on the credibility of another witness, but the prosecution, what are they going to do, object to you asking the law enforcement officer whether he thinks zimmerman was truthful or not? it's a difficult position to be in as a prosecutor, because you expect your cops to be on your team, and that's not what's been happening so far. >> in every episode of "law and order," cops are usually on the side of the prosecutor, right? >> cops are testifying to a jury and considered to be so credible, these are not normal witnesses. these are super witnesses. the jury is going to pay attention to these folks. they like to believe cops, they trust cops. whoever the cops believe, which ever story they seem to support, that's going to be incredibly effective. >> sunny hostin is listening in, she's in sanford, what are they talking about, sunny? >> yeah. what they are talking about is exactly what you guys are talk about in studio. listen, the prosecution this morning is saying, you know what, the fact the detective or

investigator serino talked about whether or not he believed george zimmerman was truthful was credible is off balance. that is not something that a witness should do. you never have a witness bolstering the credibility of another witness or giving an opinion as to the credibility of another witness, especially when it's a police officer. police officers usually just talk about the facts. they talk about the facts of the case, they certainly talk about the interviews, they talk about their perceptions, but they don't give opinions. first thing this morning, the prosecution wants to address it, the prosecution says the defense was completely wrong by eliciting that testimony, and i think, carol, that's why we were all so shocked, the legal nerds like me, i was just shocked that you have a detective on the witness stand saying, yeah, you know what, i thought he was credible. i thought he was believable. that struck a blow to this prosecution and the court is addressing that now. >> okay. so the court is addressing it.

jason and i are normal people. we might be members of the jury, right, but once the cat's out of the bag, the cat's out of the bag. >> you can't make people forget what they just saw. what i thought was fascinating, the questions serino and the other officer asked during the taped investigation. they seemed less convinced a year ago than today. as a juror, i would be wondering what happened between that interview and now. >> sunny, you wanted to add something. about the jury. like if the judge comes back to the jury and says, oh, just discount all that stuff that detective said, i mean, how do you make the jury actually do that? >> yeah. you know, i think you're absolutely right. you can't unring the bell. and it's something that surprised me yesterday when the note that the examination ended on was, yeah, i believed he was truthful. this is something, i think, that the prosecution should have addressed yesterday, especially

because they addressed opinion, improper opinion evidence, early on before the trial in limine before the trial. perhaps it was good lawyering to slip it in at the end of the day and end his examination on that note. once something like that comes out, even if the judge takes the extraordinary measure to tell the jury you are to disregard everything detective serino said other than what's in the videotape, that's the kind of remedy i think would be appropriate in a case like this, you can't unring the bell. the jury's already heard he believed him. >> as we await detective serino to enter the courtroom and to take the stand, we're going to take a break. we'll be back with much more in the newsroom.

we know it's your videoconference of the day. hi! hi, buddy! that's why the free wifi and hot breakfast are something to smile about. book a great getaway now and feel the hamptonality

all right. you're looking at live pictures out of sanford, florida. lawyers are still arguing whether to allow certain portions of detective serino's testimony to remain on the record so the jury can consider them. we do expect detective serino to take the stand any time now, the detective that initially questioned george zimmerman right after the incident happened with trayvon martin. i want to talk a little about other witnesses who may take the stand today, one a forensic scientist who conducted the autopsy on trayvon martin. some interesting things might come out about that autopsy and the number one thing was the size of trayvon martin, because george zimmerman said he was afraid of trayvon martin. he looked big and menacing, right? but actually he's a 17-year-old kid. he's 5'11", he weighs 158 pounds. then, of course, they'll move on to the cause of death. the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the left-hand side of the chest.

the bullet went through trayvon martin's heart and into his lung. the other interesting thing about this autopsy is the lack of extensive injuries on trayvon martin's hands. he just had a little tiny abrasion on the ring finger of his left hand. prosecutors are going to -- actually, let's ask sunny hostin. prosecutors are going to argue, how could he have been beating george zimmerman within an inch of his life if he has a tiny abrasion on one knuckle on his left hand? >> yeah, i mean, that is really important evidence for the prosecution. not only did he have one very small abrasion on his left hand, he was right handed, so that's why i've been cautioning everyone that, you know, we are just in the middle of this case. we haven't heard from the medical examiner about stipling, which shows how close the gunshot was and how close the shooter was to the victim. we haven't heard about this abrasion, we haven't heard about

whether or not trayvon martin died instantaneously. so there is information that still needs to come in to support the prosecution's theory of the case as to whether or not this struggle happened the way george zimmerman said it happened. in the csi day we're in, jury wants to hear that, they want to hear the forensics. they want to hear how that evidence fits in with george zimmerman's versions of events. >> the other thing george zimmerman said, and you mention the chest wound and stippling, george zimmerman said trayvon martin continued to talk after he was being shot. page, in your experience, is that possible for someone who's been shot through the heart and into the lung? >> not in that location. certainly possible for someone to say something, get out a word or two, a moan, a cry, but not to state a full sentence like that, especially given the location of the wound. i think that's very surprising. >> all right.

let's dip back into the courtroom and listen to some of the lawyer's arguments. >> my problem was, and i explained this to them, the witness wasn't available to reschedule. he was having to be at the airport in the morning to fly out and he was going to be, essentially, unavailable. so i proceeded to at least preserve the direct testimony on videotape and a transcript, both of which have been provided to counsel. the witness indicated there would be sporadic availability for video testimony, he's traveling through the new mexico desert on a hike and is occasionally reachable by cell phone, sometimes he can find enough service to call. yesterday i managed to reach him via that method, and mr. west informed me last night they were not going to be stipulating or agreeing the perpetuated testimony could or should be admitted and, therefore, they wanted the witness, if he was

going to testify, to have to do so by video link or some other such. he is not available to do that today for sure, because he is in transit across a couple different states and given the environment. he may, once he arrives tonight, be able to locate a place to be available tomorrow morning, even though he's a couple time zones away, but he can't guarantee me that. he believes that would be likely. so i wanted to, number one, bring that to the court's attention. number two, hear how the defense propose we handle that situation or issue if there's an objection to what's potentially playing that videotape and get that out of the way for now before we get to that this afternoon when we call the witness. >> response? >> i'm not quite sure what the proposal is. i think it's to play the video of mr. pleasant's direct testimony and then not afford the defense an opportunity for

cross-examination. i don't know if that's it. that, of course, is completely unacceptable. if mr. manti seeks to offer the witness's testimony through skype, then he should offer the direct and then we can cross as appropriate. we also need an opportunity, though, to speak to mr. pleasants prior to him taking the stand by whatever method that he does. the motion to perpetuate, as the court's aware, is a last-minute motion during the course of the trial when the state realized mr. pleasants wasn't available. we don't fault them for the effort that they made. we didn't become aware of the significance, frankly, if any, of this witness's testimony as well as some time after the trial started when we began to realize why he was being offered in connection with mr. zimmerman's coursework. i think mr. pleasants may have taught an online course at the

seminole state college. in any event, the issue last tuesday was a scheduling complication. i don't dispute that the deposition was set some time after court on tuesday and that at some point may have known that. there were no reminders or any conversation during the day, and then at the end of the day, when mr. manti had set up the video deposition with mr. pleasants here and contacted me by phone to say where are you, at that point we had already left the courthouse, but more importantly, mr. zimmerman had already been escorted off the property. a motion to perpetuate testimony either requires the accused presence or a specific waiver. we are unable to accomplish either of those at that moment. i apologize to mr. manti, and

here we are today. as the court's aware, we have been working full days and then some, and, of course, there's lots of work to do at night and on the weekends. with this witness's unavailability, i think we should target when he is available, give us a chance to talk with him, and schedule his testimony by skype if he's otherwise allowed to testify. we have no objection to that. we have no objection that the court place him under oath as opposed to him being in the presence of a notary, wherever it is where he testifies. and we have no objection if at some point when he testifies, it's out of order. >> okay. response? >> i guess my response to that is twofold. we're discussing waiver. the state's position is we had the argument on monday. the court was pretty clear in its ruling. i think we were all pretty clear on the reason that we had to do it was because the witness was

leaving before we would actually have the opportunity to start trial and present his testimony, and that's the reason it was set when it was. so from the state's position, number one, for whatever reason the defendant and his counsel didn't show up, we think that should constitute a waiver of the right to presence. simply not coming isn't really -- isn't really a reason to bar the direct testimony. my proposal, my counterproposal, is that we play the direct, and there was one exhibit that he identifies during the direct and i intended to introduce, play the testimony of the direct, introduce it, and if counsel wishes to cross, then hopefully he would be available tomorrow, but i can't, obviously, i can't guarantee that, given the locations and places. and that's the reason we move to perpetuate in the first place. and if they want to cross at that time, that's fine.

i'm not attempting to deprive them of the opportunity to completely -- >> well, there's a lot of different scenarios that could play out here, and if we could find out -- if you could find out some time today what his availability would be tomorrow, let me table this argument until this afternoon. >> yes, your honor, thank you. >> thank you. is there anything else? let's get officer serino in here, please. and shelley, can you cue up to that last question and answer? all right, just to give you an idea what the argument was about, they are talking about george zimmerman's professor, his criminal justice professor who was supposed to testify today. well, apparently that witness got caught up somehow, couldn't appear in court, so they were arguing about whether to admit his testimony later and so forth. as you can see, detective serino has now entered the courtroom. he's about to take the stand and

take the oath and continue his testimony about questioning george zimmerman about the killing of trayvon martin. let's listen. >> one question and answer, yes. >> all right, we're going to take a quick break. we'll be back with more. the great outdoors... ...and a great deal. thanks to dad. nope eeeeh... oh, guys let's leave the deals to hotels.com. ooh that one! nice. got it!

oh my gosh this is so cool... awesome! perfect! yep, and no angry bears. the perfect place is on sale now. up to 40% off. only at hotels.com

all right. the judge is now talking to the jury, as you know, the jury is sequestered, so the judge is asking the jury if they watched any television, talked to anyone about the case, used electronic

devices. i assume the jury is saying no to each and every question. detective chris serino is expected to take the stand, he was the lead investigator in the case against george zimmerman. he initially wanted to file manslaughter charges against zimmerman, but he was overruled by a special prosecutor who filed murder charges against zimmerman. let's go back to the courtroom and listen. >> my instruction to you is that is an improper comment by a witness as to the truth and voracity of another witness and you are to disregard the question and the answer. thank you very much. mr. o'mara, you may proceed. >> good morning, officer, how are you? >> fine, thank you. >> yesterday before break we were talking about the -- we agreed to use the term challenge interview, correct? >> yes, sir. >> some of what you challenged

him with in the context of that interview. i want to back up a little bit. i mentioned yesterday as an example that one technique that law enforcement officers are trained to use is what i call a command voice. of course, you're familiar with that, right? >> yes, sir. >> that's when you basically had to take control of a situation and you say it in a stern voice, almost a yelling voice, because what you want to do is let everyone know you're the person in charge, correct? >> yes, sir. >> in that context, you're not actually yelling at the person like you're angry with them, are you? >> no. >> it's a technique to gain control of a situation. correct? >> yes, sir. >> similar in the challenge interview, it's not as though in this context you're actually angry with mr. zimmerman, correct? >> no, anger is not a part of it, no. >> it's just a technique or a tactic that you use to try and undermine his confidence in his own story so that you can see if he breaks, correct?

>> yes, sir. >> that's the purpose of it, correct? >> yes. >> so that when you challenge him -- an example, you said to him, you sound kind of frustrated on the phone conversation. everyone's going to hear these things, you know, what was your purpose in that? >> which phone conversation? on which phone conversation? >> i presume, having read the entirety of your interview, that you're talking about how he sounded on the non-emergency call. >> okay. >> was that in an attempt to sort of, again, undermine his confidence in himself so that you might get some movement in his story? >> not necessarily. i mean, it could have been. i'm not quite certain what my comment might have been and what tone i might have used. >> would you defer for the jury's consideration rather than me just going over or repeating

it in sort of bare words? >> yes, sir, yeah. >> you agree your purpose was to challenge mr. zimmerman? >> it could have been, yes, sir. >> try to undermine his confidence in himself, such that he might tell you more or change his story in some way, which would then give you an opening, correct? >> i would classify more trying to extract truth if he's hiding it, yes, sir. >> sure. and did you extract any truth or anything, any change in his story through this technique? >> no, sir, i did not. >> he was, in fact, consistent throughout, correct? >> yes, he was. >> he was also consistent with both all of his prior statements, correct? >> to my knowledge, yes. >> as the chief investigating officer, you had availability of those prior statements, correct? >> yes. >> there were some changes. i think you said yesterday there were certainly some expansions and even some minor inconsisten inconsistencies, right? >> yeah, there was some, yeah, there was some variations of accounts. >> nothing that you considered significant. >> nothing major, no.

>>ot was lying to you? >> objection, your honor. improper argument. >> sustained. >> any inconsistencies you deem to be significant? >> no. >> with some help, i'm going to play for you a portion of the tape that you heard yesterday. i understand that it's -- i'm going to play it. if you can't hear it, i'll play it a second time. i believe this is a part to focus you on the investigation where you are playing for mr. zimmerman the 911 call, which has the screams in the background, to put it in context. i'm going to try to get the volume correct here. i may need a couple tries. sorry.

182. >> is it a male or female? >> it is a male. >> you don't know why? >> i don't know why they are yelling "help." >> did you hear mr. zimmerman? >> i'd have to hear it again. >> sure. >> keep it low, your honor, until ke get back to that point. >> got to open your mind, okay, if there's anything that needs to be changed -- >> your honor, i ask you play at the same level.

>> can't do this anymore. >> 911, do you need police or medical? >> hear that voice in the background? >> someone screaming. >> 911, do you need police or medical? >> maybe both, i'm not sure. >> hearing screaming. >> in the transcript, and i think it was pointed out on two occasions yesterday that there was a suggestion that mr. zimmerman said "doesn't even sound like me." do you remember that? >> yes, sir. >> is it your opinion -- your opinion, did you interpret that, that mr. zimmerman was denying that it was him or just that it simply didn't sound like him? >> your honor, i'm going to

object to this about what the defendant was thinking based on what he said. >> sustained. >> did that change the direction of your interrogation of him, that statement that he said, doesn't even sound like me, did that change the direction of your interrogation of him at all? >> no, it did not. >> did that cause you any concern whatsoever? >> no, it did not. >> if i might just have a moment, your honor. i want to make sure that i get the -- >> we're going to take a quick break. we'll be back. ♪

[ male announcer ] a family that vacations together, sunscreens together. find a hilton everywhere you want to go with rates as low as $109 per night. book now at hilton.com/getaway.

... you thought wrong. seize the summer with up to 50% off hotels at travelocity.

all right. we're heading back to the courtroom. zimmerman's lead defense attorney is asking detective serino about comments he made during the investigation that george zimmerman's wounds appeared minor. let's listen. >> and you saw him on the 27th after midnight, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and then he went to work the next day and then saw you for the 27th in the afternoon for the recreation of the recreation video, correct? >> yes, sir. >> then he came back to talk with you, again, voluntarily, on the 29th, correct? >> that's correct. >> and did you talk with him after that? >> yes, we had conversations. >> and that was over the phone? >> yes, sir. >> did you talk to him again in person? >> not that i can recall.

>> when you spoke to him on the phone, that was in order to, again, sort of forward your investigation of both the crime and the defenses to it, correct? >> i believe he contacted me, but, yes, the ultimate goal would have been to forward the investigation. >> and all of his -- in all of his communications with you, even after the 29th, he was cooperative? >> yes, he was. >> answered any questions you had from him? >> yes. >> did whatever you wanted him to do? >> yes, he did. >> you have done even more than just take the interviews of my client as part of your investigation in this case, correct? >> yes, sir, from other aspects of the investigation, yes. >> met with other witnesses? >> yes. >> you met with tracy martin, correct? >> yes, i did. >> at your office? >> yes, there and at his

residence also -- the residence, yes. >> why did you meet with him at your office? >> objection, beyond the scope of direct and calls for hearsay, too. >> actually -- >> let me take one at a time. it was not covered in direct. it's not hearsay, the question and the answer that it would elicit. i have to sustain on wasn't covered -- >> my response? >> yes, you may. >> i would offer leeway for the chief investigating officer in the case to ask him what else that he has done in doing exactly his duties. >> you could do that in your case. >> so i will call him as my witness. >> if you choose to do so. >> then i will do that. thank you, your honor. and i need to get this back to the clerk. if i can just have a minute. >> redirect?

>> do know how to use a laptop on occasion. thank you very much. >> good morning, sir. >> good morning, sir. >> i'm going to ask you to the opinion of anybody or to guilt or anything, understand it's improper and i can't ask you that. >> yes, sir. >> my question is -- >> let me object, your honor, as to that non-question of this witness. a comment under the previous ruling, which is inappropriate. >> sustained. >> my question is, mr. o'mara, ask you questions about anger and disdain, do you remember that, ill will, hatred, all that

stuff? >> yes, sir. >> do you remember him asking you questions regarding that? >> to some extent, yes, sir. >> specifically asked you about your interview with the defendant, you had reviewed it, and also investigator singleton's interview and asked if you found anger, spite, ill will, do you recall questions regarding that? >> somewhat, yes. >> i want to play something for you, sir. if i can figure out how to do this. okay. okay. first play from the non-emergency call the defendant made. >> they always get away. >> is that something you would use in reference to somebody that you're going to invite over

for dinner, would you call them these -- does that seem like, to you, a -- >> no, sir, it's not. >> he goes straight in -- >> okay, which entrance is that that he's heading towards? >> the back entrance. >> did you hear that last comment the defendant stated? is -- are you saying are you to

testify when you were cross-examined that those two, these -- trayvon martin for dinner that night? >> excuse me, your honor, that would be speculation. >> sustained. >> are you saying that those words were uttered by a defendant in reference to wanting to meet the victim? >> excuse me, your honor, that would be speculation. >> i'll be glad to rephrase it. does that not indicate ill will, hatred, and spite against somebody else, sir? >> no, it does not. >> in your opinion, calling somebody a --

>> punks. >> are you following him? >> yeah. >> okay, we don't need you to do that. >> okay. >> all right, sir, what is your name? >> sir, you were asked by mr. o'mara on behalf of the defendant in terms of whether it was evidence he followed him or not, do you recall being asked that? >> yes, sir. >> in fact, to use mr. o'mara's words, charged the defendant about that. do you recall that, about whether the defendant was following him, or not. do you recall that? >> yes. >> did you hear the word from the non-emergency operator if he was following or not? >> yes. >> did the operator not tell not to do that?

>> in so many words, yes. >> okay. in your interviews in review of investigator singleton's interviews -- sure. sorry. in your interview and review of singleton's interviews, did the defendant, in your interviews of him, did he ever say he was excited? you want me to rephrase -- i'll be glad to rephrase it. i apologize. in your interview, and also your review of investigator singleton's interview of the defendant, which you've had an opportunity to do, correct? >> yes, sir. >> mr. o'mara asked you about those, and did the defendant ever indicate that he was happy that there were burglaries being committed at the retreat of twin lakes? >> no, he did not. >> did he ever say he was

excited his neighborhood was getting burglarized? >> no, he did not. >> in fact, didn't he say this, sir -- >> is this the correct one? 1950 true view circle. you tell me the story. you tell me what happened that night. okay? >> just that night? >> whatever led up to this. anything you want to tell me about what happened and why it ended up what it ended up to, this boy got shot. >> the neighborhood has had a lot of crimes. my wife saw our neighbors get broken into, and she got scared. >> you're talking about the residence or vehicles?

>> residence. so i decided to start a neighborhood watch program in my neighborhood. >> okay, what is the name of the neighborhood? >> retreat at twin lakes. >> now, investigator -- sorry, singleton asked the defendant what led up to this in terms of the shooting, correct? >> yes. >> and that's how you replay, correct? >> yes, sir, it is. >> neighborhood watch, okay. >> sergeant parks, officer buchanan, and i am the coordinator. and there's been a few times where i've seen suspicious person in the neighborhood. we call the police, the non-emergency line, and these >> what made them suspicious?

>> do you recall hearing that in terms of investigator singleton asking him, the defendant, about what was going on and he's stating, as he stated there, that they always get away? >> yes, sir. >> did you follow that? >> yes. >> didn't she say that to the nonemergency operator also, but he used more colorful language? [ muted ] within minutes of the actual shooting, weren't they? >> yes, they were. >> i called before and police had come out, but these guys know the neighborhood very well and cut in between buildings. >> you're saying these guys. who are these guys? >> the people committing the burglaries. >> so you've seen more than one person looking suspicious and

doing these burglaries? >> yes, ma'am. >> now, investigator singleton had him clarify when the defendant in that interview on the 26th stated these guys, you had him clarify or describe what he meant, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and the defendant said the people committing these burglaries, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and then to the nonemergency operator earlier that evening, when he spotted trayvon martin, he made reference to using -- [ muted ] when mr. o'mara asked you about profiling, isn't it accurate that he was profiling trayvon martin as a criminal? he assumed that he was a criminal that night? >> objection, your honor, that would call for speculation.

>> sustained as to speculation. >> do you recall mr. o'mara asking you about whether he was profiling the defendant -- i'm sorry, trayvon martin? >> yes. >> if somebody were to believe that another person is a criminal, could that be a form of profiling? >> object, your honor, that would be either speculation or irrelevant. >> overruled. >> if i were to believe that you're a criminal and i followed you and did something, wouldn't that be profiling you? >> object, based upon improper opinion testimony unless we're opening that door. >> he can testify if he knows in his experience as a law enforcement officer. >> as long as we're going to his opinions. >> let me make sure it is clear. if i were to believe that somebody was committing a crime, could that not be profiling that person -- >> object, your honor, leading. >> overruled as to leading. >> do you understand my question, sir?

>> yes, i do. it could be construed as such, yes. construed as such, yes. >> your review the evidence there, was there any indication that trayvon martin, trayvon benjamin martin, the young man i think 20 days past, had just turned 17, was committing a crime that evening, sir? >> no, sir. >> was there any evidence that that young man was armed? >> no, sir. >> you were asked by mr. o'mara several times, and i think he made reference to your last interview being a challenged interview, i think. i don't know if you completely dpra agreed with him on that or just agreed to use his terminology on that. did you agree that that was a challenging interview? >> i wouldn't quite classify it

as that. however, it could be viewed as a challenging interview, based on his view of it. >> his being mr. o'mara's? >> yes. >> let's assume for purposes -- let's call it a challenging interview, but you know what i'm referencing to, your last interview with the defendant on february 29th. >> yes, sir. >> and mr. o'mara asked you whether there was inconsistencies or not. >> yes, sir. >> okay. and i want to play certain parts where i believe you at least questioned about whether he had said something inaccurate or said something different. >> yes, sir. >> and i want to ask you about these, if i could. >> yeah, we got them on the way. just let me know if there's anything else. [ muted ]

>> these assholes. [ muted ] >> do you recall playing that recording for the defendant and asking him about that? do you recall questioning him about that? >> i -- yes, sir, i pointed it out to him. >> and he made reference to when he made -- [ muted ] >> told me not to follow them. and i wasn't following them, i was just -- >> so basically you were off -- >> right. i was on the other side. >> you were questioning him, pointing out an inconsistency,

were you not, that the defendant was claiming he was not following him and you were telling him that's following him, correct? do you recall saying that? >> yes, sir. >> running, getting out of my car to make sure i don't lose sight of this guy. that's what it sounds like. are you following him? that's what it sounds like you're doing. that's why he asked you the question. it souned to the dispatcher like you were running and that's why he asked you that question, are you following him, and your answer is yes, okay. but then you get to the other side and you're concerned about this guy when you've already been chasing him. he's telling you to go back to your car and you want to pretend -- or not pretend, that you're concerned about having a

flashlight to go back where you just ran. do you know what i'm saying? >> do you recall you and investigator singleton questioning you about that. >> yes, sir. >> about there could possibly be an inconsistency about what the evidence showed? >> i think he was using his words to clarify. >> and by the way, while we're at this point, mr. o'mara asked you about videotaping. do you recall that you had questioned the defendant about videotaping and you showed him the victim's camera that was at the scene near where his body was. do you recall that? >> yes, sir. >> and you stated, i believe, on direct and cross examination that you were bluffing him. you were telling him that the victim had potentially videotaped the whole thing? >> at that point that was a bluff. >> correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you knew that not to be true, correct? >> at that point, yes. >> and my point is, and the defendant made a comment like,

oh, i hope to god that it was videotaped. do you recall that? >> yes, sir, i do. >> mr. o'mara asked you about stores and other places that have videotapes out there, correct? >> yes. >> now, the defendant, i believe you've already testified, was head of the neighborhood watch, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and had lived in that neighborhood for a while, correct? >> yes, sir. >> so he would have been aware whether there was videotaping or not in any of those buildings, correct? >> i would assume so, yes. >> and i know you weren't there when it happened. but you would agree that the interaction between a defendant and the victim in this case, the defendant was aware of whether the victim, before he got shot, took out the video and videotaped the defendant, correct? >> objection, your honor. i would object, that would be speculati speculation. >> sustained. >> was there any evidence that the victim before he got shot said hold on, before you shoot me, let me take out my camera and take a picture of you as you're shooting me. >> no, there was none. >> was there any evidence that

the victim, as the defendant was following him, said hold on, i'm going to take a photograph of you so there will be a record before you shoot me that you're following me? >> object, your honor, that was asked and answered. >> overruled. >> was there any evidence that the victim, as the defendant was following him, said hold on, stop right there, let me take a photograph of you or let me videotape you before you shoot me -- or before you follow me and then shoot me? >> no, sir. >> and so when mr. o'mara asked you about whether the defendant knew that or not, he would have known that, correct? >> i would assume so, yes, sir. >> so he basically knew you were bluffing is what i'm getting at? >> objection, your honor. that would be speculation. >> sustained. >> let me play another recording for you, if i could, sir. >> you were concerned about having a flashlight to move back where you just ran? >> it sounds like you're --

>> you brought a flashlight with you? >> yes, ma'am. >> you wanted to go see him? >> you wanted to catch the bad guy? [ muted ] we are in a whole different area right here. this is where -- >> you were questioning him about what he had said, about evidence, correct? >> yes, sir. >> is that what you were doing there? >> yes, sir. >> do you recall at what point the suffocation happened? prior to you shooting him he was on you, correct? >> yes. >> and you shot him at point blank range. he was on top of you, right? >> yes, sir.

>> and nobody came out to help you that night. i can't pinpoint where you were smothered. that's the problem i'm having. nobody is saying they saw him smothering you. they saw him on top of you but they didn't see the smothering part. >> it doesn't sound like there's a hesitation in the screaming, it sounds like it's continuous. we don't hear it stop. >> do you recall you and investigator singleton challenge, to use mr. o'mara's words, challenging him about whether he was being smothered or not? >> yes, sir. >> if i can have a moment, your honor.

>> do you recall watching on direct and then on cross examination, i believe it was on direct, i apologize, being asked questions about the videotaping, the reenactment? >> yes, sir. >> that occurred on the 27th. do you recall that, when you took him back out to the scene? do you recall that? >> yes, sir. >> you were present for that, is that correct? >> yes, i was. >> and do you recall at some point the defendant walking -- as he's walking, he's walking the route where he claimed he went. do you recall that? >> yes, sir. >> and do you recall him at some

point saying that he went to look for an address and there were no addresses to the left because those were the back of the buildings. do you recall that? >> yes, sir. >> and i'm going to try to key to this point specifically, but do you recall -- >> i think i told the operator -- >> i'm sorry. >> he said are you following -- >> for a street sign. >> right. >> so i got out of my car and i started walking. >> go ahead. i was still on the phone with nonemergency, and i started walking. >> okay. >> this way. because i didn't see a street sign here, but i knew if i went

straight through, that that's true view circle and i could give him an address. he said just give me an address of the house that you're in front of, and there's no address because this is the back of the houses. >> do you recall that testimony, sir? >> yes, sir, i do. >> sir, do you recall -- >> i don't know an address. they asked me where he went, what direction, and i said i don't know. then i thought to get out -- >> right there on that corner, do you recall that? >> yes, sir. >> i want to show you a photograph of the front of miss lauer's residence. isn't there a numerical address right there in the front of her house? >> yes, there is.

>> isn't her address 1211, sir? >> yes, sir. >> stay right there on that photograph. so the defendant in that reenactment, when he's pointing at all the back of these houses, where he's claiming he doesn't have an address, there's an address right there staring at him, isn't that true, sir? >> yes, there is. >> that would be leading. this is still redirect. >> i'll be glad to rephrase the question. >> thank you. >> when the defendant points to this side and saying there's no address because it's the back of the house, right to the right, what is there? is there a house with an address? record state's .

exhibit 33. let me show you state's exhibit number 1, and i'm going to put a closeup of part of that. for the record, state's exhibit number 1 is an aerial photograph of the retreat at twin lakes, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and as you pointed out when you were, used mr. o'mara's words, challenging the defendant in that interview, you pointed out there was only three actual streets in the whole neighborhood, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and this street the defendant claims he does not know is twin tree lane which is the main entrance that you come in and out of that retreat at twin lakes. and right here that i'm pointing to is miss lauer's address, correct? >> yes, sir. >> so the defendant in that interview claims that he did not know this street and didn't happen to see the address here, but specifically did not know

this street, correct? >> yes, correct. >> okay. thank you, your honor. do you recall also on cross examination defense counsel asking you about inconsistencies or consistencies, correct? >> correct. >> do you recall the defendant in the interview that he gave me and investigator singleton stating that after he had shot trayvon martin, trayvon martin said, oh, or something, put his hands up, correct? do you recall that? >> yes, sir. >> and do you recall that he then stated that trayvon martin somehow fell on the ground face first. do you recall that?

>> yes, sir. >> and do you recall the defendant stating that he put his arms out, correct? >> correct. >> do you recall him saying that? >> yes, sir. >> now, sir -- >> if i may approach, your honor. do you recall, sir, that one of the first -- in fact the first person that actually came out before the officer was a person named manalo? >> yes, jonathan. >> >> we've got to take a break. we'll be right back.

uh-oguess what day it is!is?? huh...anybody? julie! hey...guess what day it is?? ah come on, i know you can hear me. mike mike mike mike mike... what day is it mike? ha ha ha ha ha ha! leslie, guess what today is? it's hump day. whoot whoot! ronny, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? i'd say happier than a camel on wednesday. hump day!!! yay!! get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. we know it's your videoconference of the day. hi! hi, buddy! that's why the free wifi and hot breakfast are something to smile about. book a great getaway now and feel the hamptonality

fascinating part of the trial,serino is being questioned by the prosecution about inconsistencies. he's specifically talking about exaggerations that he felt george zimmerman was making during his interview. in particular, the extent of his injuries that zimmerman says he suffered the night he killed trayvon martin. let's listen. >> do you, at the point -- at that point, and even further, had you gotten any results back from fdle regarding the analysis done of the clothing or anything else regarding that, sir? >> no, sir, i had not. >> had you gotten the medical examiner's report or examination in terms of final findings regarding that? >> no, sir, i had not. >> had you got any results regarding possible dna? >> no, sir. >> had you gotten any results in terms of ballistics, the firearms, the trajectory, the stippling, whatever evidence regarding that? >> no, sir. >> had you spoken to a girl or

lady that was speaking to the victim on the phone at the time or right before the time that this murder happened? >> no, sir. >> had you analyzed the phone records and the conversations between the victim, trayvon martin, and this lady that he was speaking to? her name is rachel jeantel. >> no, sir. >> had you seen the 7-eleven video? >> no, sir, i had not. >> you also did, obviously, reports in this case, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and in some of those reports did you in some way write down some inconsistencies, what you felt were inconsistencies based on the statements that the defendant had given you? >> concerns of mine about his statements, yes, sir.

>> you mentioned at some point -- or you were asked about the size of the individuals, correct, mr. martin and the defendant, correct? >> the f is cal siphysical size? >> yes, the victim. i apologize, did you describe the victim as a skinny kid or something to that effect? >> yes, sir, i did. >> would you classify the defendant, when you came into contact, as a skinny kid? >> would i classify the defendant as skinny? >> yeah, as a skinny kid? >> no, sir. >> would it be fair to say the bottom line, sir, is after february 29th and after a later date, the investigation was turned over to somebody else, is that correct? >> as of what date, sir? >> after that interview, at a later date in march, the investigation was turned over to another agency?

>> yes, sir. >> so mr. o'mara asked you about phone calls that you had, telephone conversations with the defendant. do you recall that? >> yes, sir. >> okay. was your intent to eventually, if you could, attempt to interview the defendant again and challenge him, i guess to use mr. o'mara's words? >> absolutely, yes, sir. >> if i could have a moment, your honor. >> yes, you may. >> i don't have any further questions. >> thank you. any recross? >> yes, your honor. i'll go through some of the areas that de la rionda talked about. i'm give a blanket apology about using some curse words, but when they exist in the case, they exist in the courtroom. so, mr. de la rionda was wondering -- [ mutd ]

would you agree that if you were talking to somebody -- [ muted ] >> i have used it. yes. >> okay. and sometimes it's just used as just a slang term, would you agree? >> yes, sir. >> mr. de la rionda said -- [ muted ] >> okay. he didn't say it with the screeching voice that mr. de la rionda did, did he? >> no -- [ muted ] >> the way he said it, not the way mr. de la rionda just said it, let's put that aside for a minute and speak more importantly about -- [ muted ] as to the way he said it. >> no, sir.

>> didn't show any ill will or -- [ muted ] >> it seemed like more of a generalization. >> sure, right. and of course he was generalizing a little bit, correct? because you know from your investigation that he was a bit frustrated that his neighborhood was being asailed by burglars, right? you knew that? >> yes. >> you knew that -- as a matter of fact, you investigated and found out that a person, emmanuel burgess, was arrested two weeks before this event, a young black male, for having burglarized several homes in the neighborhood, right? >> yes, sir. >> late teens, tall, thin, just been arrested, right? >> yes, sir. >> sentenced to five years in prison for having burglarized both in retreat view circle and outside, but still in your jurisdiction, right? >> i wasn't involved in that, but yes, sir. >> but you found that out in looking into everything you were looking into to find out what was going on in the neighborhood. not only had emmanuel burgess been arrested two weeks before

for burglarizing, but there were a lot of other burglaries in that same neighborhood, right? >> yes, sir. >> were you concerned that he was concerned about that? did that cause you any concern that somebody who involved themselves in protecting the community, being on neighborhood watch, would be concerned about a bunch of burglaries in the neighborhood? >> him being concerned, if i may -- >> sure. >> -- is one thing. as far as my personal feelings towards his actions the night of is a little bit different. >> sure, and we'll get to that in just a moment. >> okay. >> but talking specifically to the issue -- [ muted ] not necessarily a derogatory way, correct? just as sort of a slang term. >> being more towards derogatory, sir. >> so ever if guys walk into the

squad room -- [ muted ] >> i see what you're saying. but it could be viewed that way. >> okay. [ muted ] >> don't suggest that that evidence is any hatred or ill will on his behalf, do you? >> as i interpret that, that was said with the infliction as a sense of urgency. as if something was happening bad. >> right. because he was just running away, correct? >> yes. >> and then -- [ muted ] when mr. zimmerman --

[ muted ] mr. de la rionda just recounted it to you? >> no, sir. >> do you know why mr. de la rionda yelled it at you? >> to stress a point, to emphasize. >> right. but you heard it on tape, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and how was it said on tape? >> it was said more as a as a matter of factually -- matter of factly as far as -- [ muted ] >> correct? >> yes. >> frustration based upon the fact that other people in the neighborhood who have burglarized the place seemed to get away on occasion, right? >> yes. >> and in that sense, you said that there was no evidence that trayvon martin was doing anything wrong, correct? >> none whatsoever. >> you don't know that, though,

correct? >> no, i do not. >> you know that whatever he may have been planning just wasn't completed, correct? >> i wouldn't know. i wouldn't know. there was no evidence to suggest that at all. >> as a matter of fact, there was a type of a tool found in the area where trayvon martin may have been hiding, wasn't there? >> approximately five, six days after the investigation at the scene, yes. >> right. when you went back, you looked in the bushes and you found, what was it? >> it was a piece of an awning belonging to -- i believe it was a piece of a window -- piece of hardware basically. looked like a slim jim. >> slim jim. and what's a slim jim? >> a slim jim is a device used to jimmy locks on vehicles primarily. >> to break into a vehicle? >> yes, sir. >> and that was found a few days after this event? >> yes, sir. >> not particularly tied to this

event by you, but it was there, wasn't it? >> yes, it was. >> in the bushes just off of one of the residences, correct? >> in the bushes behind jonathan man mannalo's residence. >> so, would you suggest that the focus beyond how mr. zimmerman -- [ muted ] >> i can't speak for mr. guys, but mr. de la rionda's was different. >> now, he also asked you that you were questioning mr. zimmerman on the fact that he was following trayvon martin, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and mr. zimmerman said? >> words along -- >> he said yes, right? he said, wait a minute, were you following him?

and in the interview his word was yes, right? >> in one of the interviews, yes. >> he acknowledged to you that he was following him at one point, correct? >> yes, sir. >> anything wrong with following somebody like that? >> that was -- >> let me ask you this way, anything illegal? >> objection. >> i'm sorry, i'll let him answer that one. >> repeat it, please. >> did you think there was anything wrong with him following him to see where he was going? >> legally speaking, no. >> as a matter of fact, it was -- and you heard the nonemergency call, right? >> yes, sir. >> and it was twice on that, that the nonemergency operator asked mr. zimmerman, tell me if he does anything else. >> yes, i believe that was said. >> all right. >> yes. >> does that indicate that he wants him to keep an eye on him? >> yes, sir.

>> you said following him is not legally improper, correct? >> that's not illegal, no. >> even approaching somebody is not illegally improper, is it? >> that's open for interpretation. >> tell me what crime you believe would occur if i were to walk up to you on the street and say hi? >> in that manner, none whatsoever. >> how about what are you doing here? [ muted ] >> i don't like the fact that you have gray on. get out of my face. >> that could be construed at confrontational, not illegal. >> true. but is that a crime? >> no, sir.

>> and when the operator who said twice "tell me if he does anything else" then says "are you following him?" what does mr. zimmerman say? >> he says yes. >> and in your investigation, is there anything at all to suggest at that time that mr. zimmerman continued to follow mr. martin? >> at which point, sir? >> at the point that the officer said -- or the 911 -- nonemergency operator said we don't need you to do that and mr. zimmerman said okay. >> i would say yes, there was. >> and what evidence would you have? >> his end location. >> i'm sorry? >> his end location. the location where the incident ultimately ended. >> okay. so the fact that -- may i approach the witness, your honor? >> you may.

>> for identification purposes i show the witness state's exhibit 139. because you know the event started where? >> the event as far as i'm concerned started off that map. >> okay. i'm talking about the physical altercation, i apologize. my understanding from -- what's your understanding as to when mr. zimmerman got to this area, what path he took? >> may i stand? >> please do. >> can you face forward? >> yes. my understanding and interpretation is he's coming this way. he walks -- okay. he walks, per his statement, all the way over here. he says he doesn't see him. he says he doesn't see him and the altercation, physical altercation started right there approximately.

>> okay. great, thank you. >> so with that as context then, do you know exactly where mr. zimmerman was when the nonemergency operator said we don't need you to do that? >> based on his statement, he was at his vehicle, which would have been, i believe, wherever he parked it. >> based on his statement he was at his vehicle? >> wherever he parked it on twin trees. >> it's your understanding of the investigation that mr. zimmerman was at his vehicle when the officer said we don't need you to do that? >> that's when he was exiting his vehicle. that's my understanding. >> okay. and then how many seconds went forward as he was walking before that conversation occurred? >> objection. assumes facts not in evidence, that he was walking. >> sustained. >> how many seconds -- you heard the tape where you can hear him

getting out of the car, correct? >> where i heard the sound of the door being opened, which i interpreted that. >> that he got out of the car? >> yes. >> and then he was going -- he was walking in some direction, because he said to the officer in response to "are you following him," he said yes, riot? >> objection as to facts not in evidence. walking and assuming a fact not in evidence. >> please rephrase your question. >> you know that he was following him because he told the nonemergency operator that he was, right? >> yes, sir. >> and you know from the conversation that mr. zimmerman indicated to the nonemergency operator that he had cut between the buildings, right? >> yes, sir. >> okay. so, if i might approach again. to be more clear about what you just testified to, he parked his car somewhere in this area, correct? >> correct. >> go ahead. >> like around here somewhere. >> right.

so he's -- >> could you face forward? >> i'd have to hear it again obviously, but somewhere very shortly thereafter leaving his car, that's when it was asked are you following him. >> okay. >> and he said yes. >> and mr. zimmerman had indicated that mr. martin had gone between the buildings, he was out of sight, correct? >> yes. >> yet you testified a moment ago that pursuant to mr. zimmerman's statement, he had gone down to true view circle, correct? >> that was his statement but as far as a visual as to when he got out of the vehicle, i don't know. i wasn't there. but he could see him at any point which way he was running. am i making myself clear? >> well, the jury can decide that. i'll try to walk you through a little bit more. my question a while ago was whether or not you had any evidence to support any contention that mr. zimmerman continued to follow trayvon martin after being told not to. do you have any evidence to support that?

>> i would answer i have information, yes, that there was -- just based on where we located trayvon and the fact that the altercation happened after his conversation. that's my interpretation. >> let me ask it this way. do you have anything to contradict mr. zimmerman's statement that he walked the rest of the way to and was coming back to his car when the interaction between him and trayvon martin occurred? >> nothing tangible, no. >> go intangible on us, then. what do you mean nothing tangible? >> in the circumstances, the totality of the whole thing that i'm looking at as i interpret it, when he says follow, walking behind and trying to find a direction, i think of that as follow. he was trying to do something in the same direction as trayvon

was going. >> he was trying to see where he was? >> as far as the word follow, as my report may indicate, it's open for interpretation. >> and as your report indicates, there's nothing to suggest that trayvon martin went -- >> all right, you're watching "newsroom." i'm carol costello. thank you so much for joining us. as you can see, george zimmerman's attorney is now questioning detective serino after a spirited series of questions by the prosecuting attorney to this witness. jason, you've been observing this and it's like a prize fight today. >> i think somehow the state woke up. maybe they saw they didn't appear to be doing much the last couple of days. i think they did a good job of demonstrating contradictions between -- basically it seemed like serino was more questioning zimmerman last year than this year so i think both sides have stepped up. this is going to be the day that the jurors are really going to start leaning one way or another.

>> i'm not going to read off some things that came out of the prosecution's questions to the detective. during the time detective serino was questioning george zimmerman, he felt that zimmerman exaggerated the extent of his injuries. zimmerman said he got out of his truck that night and looked for an address and could not find one anywhere. he wasn't really following trayvon martin, he was looking for that address. but the prosecuting attorney said there was a visible address right in front of george zimmerman and he showed physical evidence that that indeed was true. he also got detective serino to admit that zimmerman could have been profiling trayvon martin. let's listen. >> let me make sure it is clear. if i were to believe that somebody was committing a crime, could that not be profiling that person? >> object, your honor, leading. >> overruled as to leading. >> do you understand my question, sir? >> yes, i did. it could be construed as such, yes. >> all right, let's go out to the former prosecuting attorney,

sunny hostin. how important was that moment, sunny? >> that was incredibly important to the prosecution but the entire redirect was incredibly important. i think we've seen a change. carol, you said to me this morning that i was the only person in the world that believed the prosecution was doing well. i challenge you on that now. i think a lot of people agree with me, that the prosecution is doing quite well. the prosecution is doing what it's supposed to do. it's been plaeg out its case piece by piece. these cases are somewhat like a puzzle. i think now the picture is becoming a bit more clear as to why the prosecution put george zimmerman's statements into evidence. these were -- this was a huge win for the prosecution today. they pointed out that george zimmerman said that he had to get out of his car to find an address. well, there was an address right in front of him. he is the neighborhood watchperson, after all.

serino also conceded that george zimmerman's behavior was consistent with profiling someone. serino also conceded that the term f'ing punk, the terms that george zimmerman was using was evidence of ill will, hatred, spite, and those are all the elements that the prosecutor has to prove, right? the prosecutor has to prove depraved mind, that he had this sort of ill will, this intent, this spite. and they also need to prove, i believe, in this case to refute self defense was george zimmerman was the first aggressor, that he followed, that he profiled, that he pursued, that he confronted. well, now detective investigator serino conceded that. i think one thing that was very nuance d and flew under the rar was that the state set up this investigator was removed from the case shortly after, you know, this interview. and so i suspect that they'll follow up with the evidence from whatever other investigator was

appointed. >> okay. we'll see. on the other hand, mark o'mara, zimmerman's lead defense attorney, certainly is not giving up. he's now questioning detective serino and i'll address this question to you, paige. he said, hey, it's not illegal to follow someone. he got the detective to admit that. it's not illegal to follow someone, it's not illegal to confront someone, it's just not. he also brought up the fact there was a series of robberies in that neighborhood and a thin young black man was arrested for committing one of those robberies and he's now been sentenced to five years in jail. >> i think it's clear that the defense will concede that george zimmerman was following trayvon martin, but so what? i see that the defense lawyer here is bringing the jury into the picture and saying, look, don't you want your neighborhood watch guy to follow someone like this, someone who he doesn't know why he's there, he doesn't know what he may be doing. i think it's good strategy and good lawyering. go ahead and concede the fact that he's following him, but that's not necessarily bad and it's not unlawful and that's what he's pointing out here. >> we have to take a break.

we'll come right back with live testimony after this. if you're seeing spots before your eyes... it's time... for aveeno® positively radiant face moisturizer. [ female announcer ] only aveeno® has an active naturals total soy formula that instantly brightens skin. and helps reduce the look of brown spots in just 4 weeks. for healthy radiant skin. try it for a month. then go ahead and try to spot a spot. aveeno® positively radiant. naturally beautiful results.

humans. even when we cross our "ts" and dot our "i's", we still run into problems. that's why liberty mutual insurance offers accident forgiveness with our auto policies. if you qualify, your rates won't go up due to your first accident. because making mistakes is only human, and so are we. we also offer new car replacement, so if you total your new car, we'll give you the money for a new one. call liberty mutual insurance at... and ask us all about our auto features, like guaranteed repairs, where if you get into an accident and use one of our certified repair shops, the repairs are guaranteed for life.

so call... to talk with an insurance expert about everything that comes standard with our base auto policy. and if you switch, you could save up to $423. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? all right. george zimmerman's attorney continues to question detective serino. he's the man who questioned george zimmerman extensively about what happened the night trayvon martin died. something that came out of testimony while we were on the break that you'll need to know, mark o'mara got detective serino to agree that concrete could be used as a weapon. you can draw many conclusions from that, right? so let's continue listening to

testimony now. >> interested in the fact that there may have been a videotape, right? >> yes, you do. >> didn't he also say that maybe without his knowing he'd hope that the homeowners association had put up another video camera somewhere in that back area? >> yes, he did. >> so he actually said to you not only do i hope that trayvon martin was somehow taping this or since he had the phone out or whatever, that somehow maybe it was on video and he said, what was his words, thank god, i hope he was videotaping it? >> words to those effect, yes. >> he even said to you maybe it's being videotaped from somewhere else. maybe the homeowners association had put up a camera going right down that dog walk that i wasn't aware of or, for that matter, any one of the dozen neighbors may have had a video camera out, correct? >> yes, sir. >> didn't he also indicate that he hoped that maybe the one person who had come out who we now know to be john goode that maybe he had videotaped it?

>> i don't know if he verbalized that, but he seemed to be very open to having something videoed. yes. he seemed to be very elated in the prospect that there was some sort of videotape. >> hoping that that would actually document what happened that night? >> yes, sir. >> another challenge that you did -- just a moment, if i might, your honor.

another challenge that you did to mr. zimmerman was concerning this question about the hands over the face, correct? >> yes, sir. >> that was a concern of yours, right? >> yes, sir. >> because he said he placed his hand over my face at one point, i really thought he was suffocating me, or words like that, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and yet on the screaming or the 911, there wasn't a great deal of muffling, would you agree? >> no, sir, there was not. >> and had there have been muffling, it would have been perfectly coordinated with what mr. zimmerman told you because then it would have shown up on the tape but in this case it didn't, correct? >> correct. >> you would agree that the

screams are from one person, correct? >> based on our interpretation, yes. >> and they were just that, scream, stop, scream, stop, scream, stop, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and i think you said that you also believed mr. zimmerman may have exaggerated as to the number of times getting hit, correct? >> yes, sir. >> mr. de la rionda brought that up as an exaggeration, right? >> possibly, yes. >> and i think we talked about it as to how it might be perceived when you're the one getting hit, correct? >> yes, sir. >> may also be that you perceive getting smothered even when somebody has their hand on your broken nose? >> possibly, yes. >> may have actually had a hand on his mouth or nose but just not enough to interfere with mr. zimmerman's continued screams for help, correct? >> correct. >> so even though you challenged him on that to try to come up with an answer, he told you i

don't know, right? >> correct. >> did he change his story at that point, realizing that now you've got him and just say, well, actually i turned over and i was screaming the other way? did he do any of that? >> no, sir, he did not. >> he just basically said i think he had his hands on my head, right? >> yes, sir. >> i think he was trying to stop me from breathing. >> yes, sir. >> and it hurt. >> yes, sir. >> and just so we're clear in that regard, would you agree that there may have been some screams muffled enough that they simply didn't show up on the tape? >> there could have been possibly. >> with that last challenge, you call it the suffocation

challenge, was there anything in that challenge of mr. zimmerman that you thought then was problematic? the way he answered it? >> no, sir. >> now let's talk about the video where mr. zimmerman seems, maybe for the second time, to not notice miss lauer's number on the right-hand side, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and as he's walking you through it, again voluntarily doingwhat you wanted him to do, right? >> yes, sir. >> he looked over and said i didn't see anything here, riot? >> yes, sir. >> and obviously had he looked to his right had he been in that spot and had he not been blocked by the tree that the jury has seen in another picture, he could have seen miss lauer's numbers, correct? >> yes, sir. >> would he have seen them if he had just started walking by and just got past miss lauer's, you

know, the front door right there? is there any number on the side of that building? >> no, sir. >> so if i might carefully approach, your honor. just so we're clear on, again, state's 139, this is miss lauer's front door here. the number is on this side? >> yes, facing the street. >> facing out this way? >> yes, sir. >> so if mr. zimmerman had gotten to this point and was looking around or doing whatever he was doing, as soon as he got to somewhere in this point he would not have a line of sight. >> i object, it's misstating what mr. zimmerman said on video as to where he was when he didn't or did see the address. >> i'll clear that up. no one could see the numbers once you get past this, correct? >> correct. >> and you do agree that mr.

zimmerman was trying to do the best he could to acknowledge what he was doing in the recreation, correct? >> by appearances, yes. >> he seemed to be doing everything that he could to explain to you what he was doing? >> yes, sir. >> as you were -- as he was doing this, was it a situation where you were just sort of letting him run with it or were you asking him any questions along the way? >> i believe some questions were asked for clarification. >> sure. and when he said, as he's walking with miss lauer's to the right of him and he's sort of looking this way, the car is somewhere near where he said he parked his, right? >> from what i recall, yes. >> and you had the nonemergency call already known by the time you did the re-creation, so you knew an idea of the series of events, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you knew that he had said that i've gotten out of the car

about here, right? >> yes, sir. >> and that he was walking down that road or doing something, walking, running, jogging, whatever he was doing, he was ambulating down that pathway, correct? >> yes, sir. >> that he sort of looked over and said i couldn't see any numbers and he looked to his left, correct? >> from what i recall, yes. >> did anyone ever think at that point to go, excuse me, if you back up and look over this way there's a number, why didn't you look at that number? >> if it wasn't mentioned, no. >> did you ever do that afterwards? >> no. >> did that seem in the context of what he was trying to explain had happened to him that night, that ended up with what it ended up with, that that was some type of active deception to you? >> i didn't interpret it as such, no. >> okay. it doesn't make a lot of sense in your mind that he couldn't remember the name of the sense,

correct? >> correct. >> if he said there's only three there, correct? >> correct. >> did you -- and you even questioned him about that, right? >> yes, sir. >> but did that show to you to be some active deception on his part? >> the fact that he couldn't remember the three streets could have possibly, yes. it did raise flags and concerns. >> okay. and did that lead to any concern -- i mean you addressed it in this confrontation interview, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you're okay with what he responded? >> that's all i could do is be okay with it. >> and then you were questioned about a number of things concerning the investigation, so

i want to talk to you about some of those. >> okay. >> the medical examiner's report, you had a chance to review that, correct? >> yes, i have. >> okay. and the medical examiner's report and its findings were consistent with mr. zimmerman's story, were they not? >> yes, sir. >> as far as how he shot him, correct? where he shot him? >> yes, sir. >> and the distance between the muzzle of the gun and the clothing, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and also there was a gap of a few inches between the clothing and mr. martin's chest, correct? >> yes, sir. >> evidencing that the muzzle of the gun was up against the chest -- up against the shirt, but the shirt was not up against the chest, there was a few inch difference, right? >> yes, sir. >> and didn't that support the contention that mr. martin was hanging over mr. zimmerman, his shirt coming forward when the

shot was fired? >> it did. yes. >> because had he been standing up, as i am now, the shirt would be up against the chest probably, right? >> probably, yes, sir. >> and if i lean over, my shirt is going to fall apart from my chest a few inches and that seems to be how it was, correct? >> yes, sir. >> the medical examiner's report, however, does not support a contention, an allegation that mr. zimmerman pressed that gun against trayvon martin's chest before he fired it, does it? >> not from the one i read. >> as a matter of fact, the known evidence completely contradicts that type of a suggestion, doesn't it? >> from what i understand, yes. >> so no pressing of the gun against the chest, was there? >> not based on evidence that i've read, no.

>> and you saw the 7-eleven video since, right? i think mr. de la rionda was suggesting that you didn't have it then. you've certainly seen it since? >> i don't think i viewed the video itself. i think that was brought -- >> no, but have you seen it? >> i've seen stills. still photos. >> okay. and the stills that you saw showed trayvon martin in it? >> yes, sir. >> and show him the way he appeared that night? >> yes, sir. >> so when you say that certainly in the autopsy photograph that you wanted to show mr. zimmerman, which again was part of the challenge interview, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you hit him with something sort of emotional to ground him, that he had caused the death of this person. >> it was graphic, yes, sir. >> and that's the purpose of it, right? >> yes, sir. >> but the picture of mr. martin

at 7-eleven, would you agree that that shows somebody at his height, whatever that might have been, in the shoes and the hoodie and wearing the outfit that he was wearing, that he did not look in the 7-eleven video to be the skinny kid that you showed the picture of to mr. zimmerman, correct? >> correct. >> much larger-looking individual. >> i would agree with you, yes. >> my height or so? i'm 6'2". >> yes. >> if i was wearing a hoodie and had his shoes on, correct? >> yes. >> when you talk about relative size, i think you said mr. zimmerman not today but back then wouldn't come across as a skinny kid. correct? >> correct. >> when you look at the actual height differential, there was quite a height differential,

wasn't there? >> yes, there was. >> and, transfer, a reach differential? >> yes, sir. >> you know what that means, right? >> yes, i do. >> what is that? >> the reach is measured arm to arm sideways. >> if i may have a moment, your honor. >> yes, you may. >> all right. well, while mark o'mara takes a moment, we're going to take a moment too. we'll be right back. ♪

[ male announcer ] with everyone on the go this summer, now's the perfect time to get home security for protection while you're away. and right now you can get adt security installed starting at just $49, a savings of $250. but hurry. offer ends soon. don't wait. call right now or visit adt.com. this is a fire that didn't destroy a home. this is a break-in that didn't devastate a family. this is the reason why. adt. you can't predict when bad things will happen,

but you can help protect yourself with the fast alarm response of adt, with 24/7 monitoring against burglary, fire, and high levels of carbon monoxide starting at just over $1 a day. this is the computer that didn't get stolen, keeping priceless photos and financial records safe. this is the reason why. take advantage of adt's summer savings. starting at $49 installed. hurry. offer ends july 8th. adt. always there. all right. the prosecuting attorney is again questioningdetective serino and they're talking about how big trayvon martin was because mark o'mara intimated that trayvon martin was much bigger than we knew. he said he was about his own height which is 6'2". the prosecuting attorney is up there saying essentially, no,

trayvon martin is 5'11" and 158 pounds. how could he have grown a couple of inches that night. let's listen to more testimony now. >> you would agree that an expert, or if he's qualified as an expert, a medical examiner or assistant medical examiner would be better qualified to the findings that he made versus you saying what he said? >> yes, sir. >> you would defer to the medical examiner, would you not? >> absolutely. >> mr. o'mara asked you some questions about the burglaries that were being committed out there at retreat twin lakes that you investigated or determined there was some, right? >> yes, sir. >> and that the defendant had made calls about them, right? >> yes, sir. >> and i think mr. o'mara

referred to it as a black male, right, at least one of them he referred to. did you know whether the other individuals he had called on were black males or not? >> from what i recall researching, yes. >> say it again. >> from what i recall researching then, yes, they were. >> mr. o'mara asked you a bunch of questions about the word or the language asshole -- [ muted ] somebody, referring to somebody? >> in my opinion, yes. >> asked you about the words that the defendant uttered on september -- i'm sorry, on february 26 at around 7:10 before he followed the victim. do you recall him specifically under his breath saying -- [ muted ]

now, do you read any comics? >> have i what? >> do you read any comics? >> comics? >> you know, how they have a little caption, like a little bubble because they kind of what the person is thinking? >> yes, sir. >> at the time he got out of the car and was getting out of the car, the defendant -- [ muted ] correct? >> yes, sir. >> mr. o'mara asked you a few questions about suffocating.

do you recall being asked questions about that, suffocating? >> yes, sir. >> now, the defendant claims that the victim was suffocating him, correct? >> yes, sir. >> okay. did you find any evidence of blood on the victim's hands? >> none that i'm aware of, no, sir. >> and there was evidence that the defendant was bleeding, especially on his mouth right here on his mustache right under his nose. he had some blood, correct? >> yes, sir. >> may i approach the witness, your honor? >> yes, you may. >> i'm not going to hit you. >> you can hit me. >> if i can, and i'm hitting you, correct? that's what the defendant is claiming, that i'm suffocating you and i'm not going to put my hand on your mouth.

would you have your hands like this or would you be fighting me? >> i'd be fighting you. >> did you find any blood or anything on the defendant's hands? >> no, sir. >> you were also asked about the witnesses and stuff. if i can approach again, your honor. >> yes, sir. >> state's exhibit 140, mr. o'mara showed you this. do you recall this? and he asked you in terms of assuming -- i apologize, he may have actually showed you 139. i apologize. let me take both up. 139 he asked you about assuming the defendant's story is correct in terms of where the altercation happened, et cetera. >> yes, sir. >> did you have some evidence

that possibly there was something going on behind these houses here? >> yes, sir. >> you were asked about the hoodie at the 7-eleven. i'm not aware of, but what law states that an individual can't go into a 7-eleven with a hoodie? is there some law that i missed? >> no, sir. >> if i may have a moment, your honor. and