all right. so i'll open my mic and say hello to you. i am brooke baldwin as we are watching and waiting as we have bins been continuing this live coverage of the george zimmerman trial. let me roll back and explain to you what you have seen or if you're just joining us. what they're doing is they've just come back from this lunch recess. for the last ten minutes or so they have been showing inside this courtroom the shawn hannity interview. this interview happened the 18th of july which hasn't even been a year since then in which mark o'meara, his defense attorney, and george zimmerman sat and

gave this explanatory back and forth with hannity. now we're waiting. we watched the doors open to see who then awe then at this cates the tape that we just saw. so we're going to learn together and i'm going to stop talking here in a minute. carry hackett joining me in studio. mike brooks, hln law enforcement analyst. been watching in the weeds this trial as we all have. so we wait. it's interesting in this trial in particular where we don't know. a lot of times we get witness lists. we don't hear. why? >> well, there is a prospective witness list but we don't have a witness list of everyone who will come on and what order they're coming on. it varies from state to state. florida, you have to tell the other side who you may offer as a witness but not when and exactly who. >> okay. let's listen. >> district 4. we have three counties, duval, claire and nassau. >> are you the chief medical examiner in your district?

>> yes, i am. >> how long have you been a medical examiner in total? >> 32 years. >> are you also a licensed physician and surgeon? >> yes. >> how long have you been so licensed in the state of florida? >> since 1981. >> can you summarize for the members of the jury please your educational and professional background. >> yes, i got my degree in medicine in 1971. after which i went to london. i spent a year and a half doing pathology at two hospitals, one saint heliers hospital in south london and the other saint andrews hospital in east london after which i came to the u.s. and i did residency five years totally. two years doing clinical pathology at berk shield medical center, pittsfield, massachusetts. two years doing anatomic pathology at albany medical center in albany, new york. i am board certified in anatomic, clinical and forensic pathology. i then spent a year in tucson,

arizona, where i did medical examiner work. sorry. i was medical examiner for a year. one year as medical examiner. after which i went to miami where i was an associate medical examiner for a total of 19 years. i then took a chief position in district 5 where i was there for three years. i went to the university of missouri in columbia where i was associate professor for two years and then came to jackson hole where i've been here for seven years. >> just briefly what are your duties as a medical examiner? >> in the state of florida we're required to investigate sudden, unexpect unexpected, unnatural death and to sign the death certificate. >> what is meant by the 2er78 pathology. >> pathology is the study of disease in the human body. >> what is meant by forensic pathology. >> in forensic pathology what it comes under the umbrella that --

where the sudden, unexpected unnatural death cases come under the forensic pathologist. >> and have you ever been qualified as an expert in the courts of the state of florida in the field of forensic pathology? >> yes. >> approximately how many times. >> hundreds of times. >> do you also have experience examining injuries to living people? >> yes. >> and explain what that experience is. >> okay. so when i was in miami where i was an associate medical examiner had the opportunity to work there at the rape treatment center for 18 years where i saw several thousand living patients, examination and treatment of these victims. >> and what types of injuries would you see when examining those victims? >> some of the patients that came were also physically assaulted so there were injuries that come under the category of blunt force trauma. there were patients that were stabbed so that sharp force injury. some of the patients were strangled but did not die so we

saw this gamut of cases in living patients. >> and what are blunt force injuries? >> so blunt force, the term is to distinguish it from sharp force, meaning that the instrument that's being used, for example a bat would qualify as a blunt weapon. a stick, if i was to bump myself as i came in here on the corner of this table, i would suffer blunt injury if it was severe enough to cause injury. whereas, sharp force is injury that is caused by sharp weapon, a knife, a bottle that is broken and then the sharp edge used to inflict trauma. this is the difference between sharp force and blunt force trauma. >> within blunt force trauma are there different types of blunt force trauma? >> yes. >> and what are those? >> so the first part of it, let's look at pro dwregs of

severity. a bruise. we're talking about a small bruise. it is where the skin is intact and the blood vessels under the skin are injured and they bleed under the skin and get what you know as a bruise. the skin is intact. then you have a scrape where the skin is compromised and it's, you know, for example, a rug burn would qualify as an abrasion. then you have the lass ser ragtss where not only the skin is torn but the underlying tissue is also torn exposed to the outside and depending on the severity of the laceration you will get varying degrees of bleeding and trauma. >> all right. are bruises also known or referred to in your field as contusions? >> yes. >> and then scrapes is the same as a laceration? >> abrasion. >> i'm sorry, then laceration. >> laceration is a tearing of tissue. >> all right.

have you ever been qualified in the courts of the state of florida as an expert in the area of conducting rape examinations and all the manner of injuries associated with rape victims? >> yes. >> again, approximately how many times? >> hundreds of times. >> during your tenure as a medical examiner in miami, did you also examine other categories of sets of living victims? >> yes. >> explain what you mean by that. >> so, for example, somebody alleging police brutality, the medical examiner, we just were housed directly across a very large hospital in miami, jackson memorial hospital, so the police would ask if we could go and examine to see if the allegations were actually borne out by the trauma. we would go across the street, photograph and put o out a report and those also come under consultation. especially child abuse cases especially if the clinical people thought the child was

going to die, they would ask us to take the photographs and do the interpretations. we basically practiced forensic medicine, not really forensic pathology where you're only looking at dead people. >> your honor, at this time i would tender the doctor as an expert in pathology and the area of forensic pathology. >> i don't think that's necessary under the current case law in this state. >> she'll be able to testify in those areas. >> thank you, your honor. were you asked to examine some evidence in the state of florida versus george zimmerman? >> yes. >> specifically what were you provided in regards to that case? >> so i was given a whole series of things that i asked for the -- whatever is available because i'd like to do the consult having as much as possible in the database before i formulated an opinion. so what i received was a reenactment of the incident

involving the fatal shooting. this was recorded on the 27th of february, 2012. i got a set of 36 photographs taken of mr. zimmerman documenting the clothing, the injuries, the medical records from the altima family practice clinic and of course there were two records from this clinic. one was on the 27th of february and the other one was on the ninth of march, 2012. i got a dvd labeled sanford pd lobby and others. it showed the vehicle going to the police department and mr. zimmerman being taken by the police into the department to be booked. a dvd labeled medical examiner report and photographs, and this included the medical examiner report, the body diagrams, the autopsy photographs, 26 autopsy photographs were taken, the

toxicology report and then a report that states two individuals were involved in a physical altercation in the yard and one of them fired a handgun and the decedent fell to the ground. and the other items in the same folder were the medical examiner autopsy report, the toxicology report. so this is what i received. >> did you also receive two photographs of the defendant at the scene the night of the event? >> yes. >> and when you said reenactment, when you referred to the reenactment, was that an interview where he conducted a walk through and led investigators through the scene and explained to them what happened? >> yes. >> after reviewing all of those items in terms of severity, how would you classify the injuries to the defendant's head? >> they were not life threatening. they were very insignificant. they did not require any sutures

to be applied to mr. zimmerman so as i would refer to them, insignificant injuries. >> did you observe any lacerations to the back of the defendant's head? >> yes. >> how many? >> two. >> and were those lacerations depicted in the photographs that you reviewed? >> yes. they were -- there was bleeding so i was not able to look at them after they were cleaned because subsequently when he went to the altmont clinic they were covered by band aids. >> and were you also provided the records from the altima family springs clinic describing the injuries as they were viewed by physician's assistant the next morning? >> yes. >> all right. you were, would you assist me with the lights? dr. rou, let me show you first state's 79. was that one of the photographs from the scene that you were provided? >> yes. >> and state's 76, was this a

photograph from the scene you were provided? >> yes. >> let me show you state's 57. were you also provided that photograph? >> yes. >> your honor, may i approach the witness? >> yes, you may. >> dr. rou, let me give you this pointe e pointer. press that button. if you would explain to the jury where the lacerations were that you referred to in the family clinic report. >> okay. so we have one small injury right there and one injury right there. where the blood is streaming from. so these were the two lacerations. >> all right. in the altimont family clinic report, were you also provided with the american urmts of each of those lacerations? >> zble and are either of those lacerations life threatening? >> no. >> why not? >> because they were so minor

that the individual who examined and treated mr. zimmerman told him that the sutures were not required so she put a band aid on each of them and that was the extent of the treatment. >> all right. are there also some contusions or a contusion on the back of the defendant's head? >> yes. >> and can you show the members of the jury where that is in the photograph? >> right there. >> and is that a live threatening injury? >> no. the reason i asked for everything was i then looked at the entire case file and when he walked from the police car to the police department to be booked he was not incapacitated in any way. he was very alert and walking in pace with the officers. >> are the injuries that you observed to the back of the

defendant's head consistent with having made contact with the back of the concrete surface? >> yes. >> so why do you say that? >> i've looked at the other areas that were photographed and they have sort of a pattern that were punctate that mean little areas that came into contact with a rough surface so looking at the concrete area, again, the reenactment that i was given, it's consistent with his head having come into contact with that rough surface. >> and are the injuries on the back of the defendant's head consistent with one strike against a concrete surface? >> yes. >> and why do you say that? >> because if you -- if you hit the head one time, it is consistent with having gotten those two injuries that one time because it's an area that is protruding, because the head is a round surface and so that one

impact could result in the two lacerations that you see. >> and are the injuries that you observed to the back of the defendant's head consistent with his head having been slammed repeatedly into a concrete surface? >> okay. so i'm going to give you my -- what i think of the dictionary definition of slammed is. there are two definitions from two dictionaries. >> let me object, your honor. if she's going to define a word from a dictionary, that would be hearsay. >> please approach. >> let me sneak a quick break in. you're hearing the chief medical examiner talk about the lacerations which perhaps the state will say, hey, this is inconsistent with what george zimmerman was saying. quick break. back after this.

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?

the chief medical examiner here on the stand testifying that based upon george zimmerman's injuries, it did not appear that his head was repeatedly slammed against the concrete. >> on the bridge of the nose right there. >> it's a very small little punctate at the tip of the nose. >> can you circle that with your laser if you would? >> yes. right there. >> okay. >> and right there. >> and are any injuries in this photograph life threatening? >> no. >> why not? >> he has no loss of consciousness whatsoever. you know, he didn't have to go to the hospital. he went to a clinic. >> were there any contusions or abrasions that you noted november this photograph? >> yes. >> all right. can you, again, just show us where those are? >> yes. right there and right there. >> how would you clarify or classify the severity of the contusions or abrasions to his

face? >> very small. >> could all of the injuries that you observed in that photograph have come from a single punch or a single blow? >> yes. >> and why do you say that? >> okay. so if you look at the distribution of where the injury is, and let's say that i'm the one giving the blow. if i was to punch myself right about here, you would get the injury on the nose and on the -- few contusions on the forehead. so one blow would be able to inflict these injuries. >> are the injuries that you observed to the defense based consistent with the defendant having been beaten a dozen times or more in the face? >> you know, if he was beaten repeatedly but with no resulting trauma on the face then, yes, but if the force is such that you get trauma, then it's only

one time. >> did you observe contusions to both sides of the defendant's head. >> on the sides. yes. yes. >> yes. let me show you state's 75. was that a photograph you were provided? >> yes. >> and can you circle an area of contusion that you observed in state's 75? >> so one has to disregard this dried blood because it is coming from the laceration on the back of the head that i had demonstrated earlier, so we are looking at the contusion here, and they're very, very fine punctate abrasions that you need to have a closeup photograph to really see them. >> and, again, explain to the jury or define for the jury what's a punctate abrasion? >> that's a little spec or a little spot. >> all right. are any injuries depicted in state's 75 life threatening? >> no. >> and in terms of severity, how would you classify the contusions or abrasionness this

photograph? >> they are very small injuries. >> could all of the injuries exhibited in state's 75 come from a single blow? >> yes. one impact against concrete, yes. >> let me show you state's 73. is that also a photograph you were provided? >> yes. >> and what injuries are depicted in state's 73? >> okay. so here again you have to disregard the dried blood that's coming from the laceration to the back of the head and so you can see very, very faint again punctate, small abrasions. >> are any of those abrasions life tlhreatening? >> no. >> and how would you classify the abrasions depicted in state's 73? >> very insignificant. >> could those abrasions depicted in that photograph have come from a single blow? >> single impact, yes.

>> all right. and why do you say that? >> because the surface area of the head, a bang, on the concrete, i could get all those injuries from one impact. >> you also mentioned that you viewed video clips of the defendant getting out of a police car and walking through the police station that evening. what did his appearance in that video demonstrate to you regarding his injuries? >> he was not incapacitated in any way. he walked on his own power and he was also conversing with the police officers during this reenactment. >> all right. thank you, doctor. judge, that's all i have. >> okay. thank you. cross? >> yes, thank you, your honor. good afternoon, ma'am. >> good afternoon. >> you got your appointment to your present position because ms. cory, the prosecutor in this case appointed you, correct?

>> correct. >> okay. so she's sort of your boss? >> not really, no. >> but it was because of her, i mean, she appointed you to this position, right? >> she -- she actually sent my name up to the governor so if you want to call that an appointment, well then so be it. >> well, why don't be we do this. i'm going to repeated read a letter to you. pursuant to section 406.15, i here by appoint -- >> i'm going to object to this. >> i'll approach and let her review it maybe. i just have it electronically. >> it's okay. i can explain. >> let me ask the questions. >> zblok is what i'm looking at a letter signed by ms. cory where she says that she appoints you to that position? yes or no. >> that was the interim position. i can't say yes or no because i have to explain to you. >> i'll tell you what. i'll walk you through it. >> one at a time. >> i'll walk you through it. >> okay. okay. >> that was a yes. she appointed you to the interim position? >> yes. >> and you had another position as a medical examiner in the state of florida, too, correct? >> yes.

>> that was with the fifth district? >> yes. >> but you were not reappointed to that position by the governor, did you? >> i did not seek reappointment. it was tabled. i did not seek reappointment. >> and that was because of some of the problems that existed in your administration in that office, was it not? >> correct. >> okay. yet you got the job with ms. cory's office or actually in the same district where she prosecutes, correct? >> she's the state -- yes. yes. >> how much of your work is on behalf of the state attorney's office in that district? >> the medical examiner does not work for the state attorney. we are separate. most of the time we are called by the state however -- >> got to pull away for two minutes. back after this. >> i would be here for you just like i -- ♪ nothing says, "i'm happy to see you too,"

like a milk-bone biscuit. ♪ say it with milk-bone.

mike brooks. why are we hearing from a woman chief medical examiner who never actually physically examined george zimmerman? >> that's a great question. all she has seen have been pictures. mark o'meara, she's trying to say she was biased because she works and was a pointed by angela cory. >> angela cory was brought in from jacksonville. quickly to you. we noticed that because here she was with the state saying so insignificant, minor injuries based upon the photographs but then it was the zing that mark o'meara was trying to take out of that testimony by saying what? >> that's right. he's saying she's prejudiced, buy aiase biased, a tainted witness and the state is essentially paying her. >> dr. rau, let's let her continue. >> is it any more consistent or less consistent than the fact that there was one shot? >> i'm sorry, i didn't get that. >> i'm sorry. you said earlier that those injuries could be consistent

with one shot. >> correct. >> and now i think you may have said it could be consistent with two shots? >> if -- if the way it's depicted like you depicted, yes. >> you don't -- just so we're clear, you don't know how mr. zimmerman was hit by mr. martin, correct? >> correct. >> so you're saying it's consistent with one potentially, yes? >> yes. >> it also is consistent with two, yes. >> the way it was portrayed, zble which you don't know? >> correct. >> could you just say is it consistent with two as well? >> it could be. >> and it could be consistent with one. >> yes. >> okay. and it actually could be consistent with another couple of hits with a palm or as you said another couple of hits with a fist that didn't leave visible injuries. >> yes. >> so you're certainly not telling this jury that trayvon martin only hit mr. zimmerman in the head kwun time. >> i'm telling you what the injuries are and what utsz' consistent with. >> okay. did you notice in those pictures the cuts on mr. martin's knuckle

on his left hand, both on the ring finger and a slight one on the pinky? >> okay. those are not cuts, those are abrasions because cut suggests sharp force injury and they are actually where the skin has rubbed off on trayvon martin's hand. >> correct. >> that was a yes, you did notice snem. >> yes. >> okay. >> are those consistent with striking somebody? >> yes. >> so we have some injuries, the only injuries, as a matter of fact, besides the gunshot wound, two injuries on his knuckles, correct? >> correct. >> curious since you had a chance to look at the autopsy, were there any other injuries on trayvon martin at all? >> no. >> any bruising injury. >> no. >> any laceration injuries? >> no. >> any punctate jirinjuries? >> no. >> so you know trayvon's martin or head was not in contact with

cement, correct? >> well, i didn't see any injuries. you can have a contact but the doctor is not seeing trauma that's visible. >> as mr. zimmerman could have, correct? >> correct. >> a dozen of them even, right? >> sorry? >> a dozen of them even, correct? >> a dozen what? >> other impacts. let's get more specific. we've now talked about the potential of two -- you would even admit -- let me ask you this. is there a possibility that with a swat or a hit or a fingernail or something that even this abrasion on his nose could have been a third? >> anything is possible. >> well, you're here as an expert. >> yes. >> so i want you to give us your opinion. is that possible based upon your level of knowledge? >> okay. so i will ask this. i know i'm not supposed to ask you questions but -- >> go ahead. >> -- so then the next issue will be that each of the

punctate marks on his head could have been caused by, you know, a fingernail scratch. that would be the next question posed and you're looking at the preponderance of the evidence and the opinion rendered thereby so, you know, we can continue this. >> let's move on. let's move on. >> yes. >> but we'll spend a moment on the nose. so you saw on mr. zimmerman's right side there was a protrusion to his nose, correct? >> what does that mean? i don't know. >> i'm using the word protrusion. there was the first photograph, let's see if we can take a look at this. do you see you have -- we both have one. you have a pointer, correct? >> yes, i do. >> do you see that spot right

there? >> that's the abrasion, yes. >> no, right below. that little swelling spot right there, do you see that? >> i don't see a spot. i see swelling. yes. yes. >> swelling. that swelling to an uninitiated view, looks like there's a bone over there, doesn't it? but we know it's not, is that correct? >> there is a bone, yes. >> but the swelling is not movement of bone, is it? or is it. >> i don't follow that. >> let me just ask you to explain, what is that swelling on the right side of the nose from. >> so that's trauma injury. >> okay. and what happens is the body reacts to it by rushing lymph fluid to it and all of this stuff trying take care of the site of injury, right? >> that reseds pretty quickly, doesn't it? >> it depends on the extent of trauma, yes. >> in this case you acknowledge the trauma and swelling there, right? >> yes. >> you notice in the pictures after it the swelling has

receded, yes? >> it depends on the severity. the swelling rapidly declined. >> and you know that there was blood coming out of the nose as he was standing up, correct? >> correct. >> where do you think that that was bleeding from? >> from inside his nose. >> where was that go if he was laying on his back? >> where would what go? i'm sorry. >> the blood. >> it depends. if you are alive, it would go back into your throat and you would cough it out. >> or swallow it? >> i don't know. >> i mean, it's going back down your throat, isn't it? have to take a quick break. on the other side we'll continue to hear from the chief medical examiner, more on the injuries not just of george zimmerman but trayvon martin as we're learning about how he was injured and based upon the photos and what this woman knows. quick break. back after this.

let me get you back to sanford, florida. i'll tell you, analysis from our

legal experts is fascinating. put your prosecutor hat on for me. sunny, first to you. you hear this chief medical examiner. she's testifying specifically on the injuries of george zimmerman. you hear mark os'mara trying to debunk what she said earlier. how successful is she as a state witness here? >> i think she's okay. she's not the medical examiner that conducted the autopsy on trayvon martin. she was only asked to testify as to the extent of george zimmerman's injuries. i think everyone has agreed that his injuries were just insignificant, they weren't that significant. we're talking about two very, very small lacerations, bruises? >> why do we care? >> it's important to note whether or not he really had a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm and that would allow him to use self-defense with this type of force.

>> okay. >> he shot trayvon martin. >> darren to you, everything you've heard so far here, both in the questioning from the state and also here during cross from this particular chief medical examiner who never did examine zimmerman or see trayvon martin. what do you think has within said that the juror's ears are piqued. >> if the force is deadly force, when this turns from a fist fight into a gun fight, the legal justification has to be that zimmerman feared death or grievous bodily injury, and if his injuries, if zimmerman's injuries are insignificant, then the prosecution can make a compelling argument that there is no legal justification even if trayvon martin is getting the better of him in the fight.

that's what's really going on here. >> we will take you back to that testimony in just two minutes.

back to the cross examination of dr. valerie rau. still on the stand. she is the chief medical examiner here talking injuries. >> there was something there, we would be able to see it really well. and we -- you know, i have to strain to look and to see what you are suggesting so i don't -- i can't answer that question. >> i just want to be clear because the jury will have not even these photographs but they will have much better photograph to view and to study, but as i do that i want to point out to you to see if we can focus you. is it your testimony that this -- this coloring here, this darkening in this way is a natural occurrence on his skull and not evidence of a bruising? yes or no? >> i don't see a bruise there but i did see -- i also have

very good photographs which you can see clearer. there are very fine punctate abrasions. >> let's speak a moment for what you do see then, the punctate bruising. >> not bruising, punctate abrasions. >> is that the abrasions you see over here? >> again, the photograph is so poor that, you know, i have to look at my own photographs. >> let's take a moment. >> okay. >> can i have some lights, your honor. i'm going to leave these out but let's coordinate with the doctor the photograph you did look at. may i approach the witness? >> yes, you may. okay, as they are pausing and looking at some information on the stand, mike brooks, let me bring you back in. the issue here is the defense -- his claim was self-defense, right? >> right. >> so if he has all of these -- if he has light wounds, then it goes to the point why would he need to use lethal force --

>> deadly force, right, to defend himself. that's what it comes down to, self-defense. at the time that he shot trayvon, was he in fear of his life at that moment. you know, then as will is there a possibility that trayvon could have gotten his gun had he gone unconscious? these are all things the jury has to consider but, still, it seems that the injuries were relatively minor. >> that's what the chief medical examiner keeps saying. quick break. back after this. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide.

i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral. see why millions of people have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. don't wait. call now.

let me just bring you back and get some analysis before we listen again to this chief medical examiner here. she is physically looking at some of the photographs from george zimmerman, from his head. she talked two lacerations, one contusion. again, she's saying not serious injuries, not entirely significant. carrie, to you, why would the state bring this witness to the stand to testify. you gave me two reasons. >> right. i think it's certainly a twofold reason for putting her on the stand. one is to discredit george zimmerman and to show that, in fact, his story about being slammed -- multiple times on th concrete? >> exactly. that he should not have been in fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. that's an interesting question. we don't know what zimmerman was

thinking and what was going on and whether he had that reasonable fear. >> how can we darren, know, about his perception. not perceiving that he could be killed but perceiving that he could be seriously injured is what is sort of the litmus test in florida. how can the jurors know that? >> well, number one, if he does choose to take the witness stand, as he has absolute right to do, then we'll know it from his own mouth. otherwise, we have to look at the surrounding facts and draw a reasonable inference from those facts and the absence of injury could be something that would be helpful for the prosecution although what's interesting is this would seem to fly in the face of the actual eye witness testimony, specifically john good who's talking about the man on top who we believe to be trayvon martin. raining down blows. >> exactly. >> right. sunny, as we're looking at these photographs here again of a

bloodied knows and back of the head here george zimmerman, have you to think and assume that we're going down this path where we also -- i say we, the court, the jurors will be seeing pictures of trayvon martin of a body of a 17-year-old and, again, i am reminded not just of the jurors sitting in that courtroom but of sabrina martin who has to see the body of their child. >> i'm sure that that's coming. i'm sure the medical examiner will tell the victim's family what's coming up so they can prepare themselves for being in the courtroom or making the decision not to be in the courtroom. sabrina fulton and tracy martin at different times in the courtroom have left because they felt some of the testimony was too graphic for them. i suspect they know when that's coming.

>> i've heard also when you're coming into the courtroom, there is a certain number of seats for the public. you can't have any major facial expressions, no eye rolls. just as a heads up, obviously i think the roles are loser for the parents. that's how serious this is. the ramifications this is murder two. quick break. back to the testimony in two minutes.

and, again, we're back to this testimony from the chief medical examiner. they are continuing to discuss and parse through these photographs of george zim ner man's head. let's listen in.

>> you've got the bruise which, you know, if you want to say, wow, this is a swelling but there is no bruising there and if the swelling was so severe that you're looking at on the left side, then we would have a significant bruise and we don't see that. whereas, that's a small bruise but you can see the swelling. so you can't -- you can't separate one from the other so it's together. >> look at number 70, which we've talked about already, and tell the jury which bruise you believe that swelling is connected to. >> i think it's that one because -- >> you think -- i just want to be clear. you're thinking to the one that is behind the ear. you pointed to the one that is two inches or so behind the line of the ear? >> i think because that's such a distorted photograph. because we are able to see very well the right side so why are we looking at a photograph of

the left side and trying to draw that conclusion? i think that is extremely unscientific. >> and i apologize for that. >> it's not your fault. >> i care about one thing. it is your testimony here today that the swelling that's on the 69 on the right side of the midline of the scalp, that is the bruising that is the same bruising as exists with what you've identified now as a bruising behind the ear line on state's 70, correct? >> it could be. it could be. but like i said, it's very difficult for me to, you know, give an opinion on the photograph which is so distorted. >> got it. could it be a completely separate bruise? >> which one? >> this one. the one on 69. >> well, if it was, why are we not able to see it from the right side? >> let's take a look at 71 then and see what you see on that photograph. >> okay. so this is, again, the punctate

abrasions that i talked about. that is the bruise that we are -- we have to overlap. >> and let me show you just at the very top of the crown of the head there, almost out of the top of the picture, is that not the bruise that we see -- or the swelling that we see on 69? >> you know, i find it difficult when half the photograph is cut to give an opinion. i would like to see what the injury is before i tell you that that's the injury. so why are we looking at distortion and half photographs when we have the full side to be able to look at and to render an opinion? >> well, i certainly only want to do and have you give us as good an opinion as you can. do you have a photograph that better shows the injuries that we've now seen by looking at 69 and be shows the swelling that seems apparent? >> no, i have the same but i

have -- they are the same photographs but they're different. >> i'm asking you as you're here today to tell me what picture you have of the right side of his scalp that shows or doesn't show the swelling that was apparent in state's exhibit 69. >> okay. so i have the same photographs you have except mine was, like i said, copies. so this is the photograph that you are describing? >> i'm trying to find one that's in evidence. if i might have a moment, your honor. >> yes, you may.

>> let me ask you to compare, if you would, the picture you were just showing with state's exhibit -- you identified it as 70. >> do you have that? >> i'm looking. >> no, i don't. >> thank you. >> so the least number of

contacts between scalp and cement were three, correct? >> correct. >> and as many as how many? >> that's some -- that's a scenario that you posed so you would know how many. >> well, if you were to look at this from a medical perspective and try to come up with not the minimum number but the maximum number, give us your opinion. >> three. >> that's the minimum, correct? >> correct. >> my question is, tell us in your professional opinion how many it could have been as a maximum. >> i don't know. >> why not? >> because you were presenting the scenario about various, you know, possibilities so you have to tell me and i will tell you yes or no. >> well, as i -- as i said to you, there could be a possibility that those two

bruises were two different ones, correct? >> on the head, yes. >> two bruises on the right head of the skull -- scalp. >> correct. >> i want you to include that. we want you to include the possibility that you two lacerations could be two different hits, correct? >> correct. >> so i want you to include that. what other -- and we talked about the nose and the forehead being two separate ones, correct? >> quick break. i promise we'll be right back. more on the science of all of these injuries, the swellings, the cuts. what does this mean? back after this. [ male announcer ] this store knows how to handle a saturday crowd.

♪ [ male announcer ] the parking lot helps by letting us know who's coming. the carts keep everyone on the right track. the power tools introduce themselves. all the bits and bulbs keep themselves stocked. and the doors even handle the checkout so we can work on that thing that's stuck in the thing. [ female announcer ] today, cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everyone goes home happy. cracked. it's embarrassing. [ male announcer ] relief starts now. gold bond foot cream moisturizes and soothes, for soft, sandal-ready feet. gold bond foot cream.

hour. we know you're watching as we're covering gavel to gavel coverage. dr. valerie rau o is speaking specifically about george zimmerman's injuries. this is getting very specific. take a look. >> possible. >> okay. we see two of the bruises, right? they could be separate, right? >> possible. >> then we see the punctate abrasions. that could be another one, right? >> it's possible. >> then we see the swelling that you say may be connected with one of the bruises but that could be separate, correct? >> i don't think so because underlying the bruise you have the swelling. it's so -- it's -- it's so impossible to get a bruise and the swelling and say, well, that

was two different sites. now the swelling is separate from the bruise, yes, but they are one injury. >> presuming that the bruising on state's exhibit 69 and 70, that the bruising that we see matches up in the jury's mind with that point of swelling, correct? >> correct. >> you're making it -- >> okay. >> in your opinion -- >> well, you can see it. >> okay. and the jury will of course make that determination, right? >> correct. >> then there could be -- how many maximum times could the back of the head have been hit on the cement. >> you said two is possible. >> three or four? >> with no injuries, yes.

>> did you notice that? >> the contusion, the contusion. >> below. >> could that have been a separate injury? >> it's possible. >> well, if the head was hit so that just the crown hit the cement one time, let's say his head just snapped back and it hit here, that could have caused one of the lacerations, correct? >> yes, but it's so close to each other. you know, that's the proximity that really kind of makes it possible. >> okay. i appreciate that. so if the head was tilted one way and then smacked back so that this was the crowning point, that would be one laceration injury, correct? >> it's possible. >> and then if the head was this way, another laceration injury, correct? >> it's possible. >> and then if i was able to resist one of the toss backs of crown liar and that back eep the bruising that you just

identified could have occurred, right? >> it's unusual because you know you're talking about a flat surface so the head will have to be contorted to be able to give you all those injuries from different impacts. >> change it now. it's not the cement, okay? change it that it's here. ching it that was hit, the bruise at the bottom wasn't flat, that it was at the side, would that cause the bruise bruising down here. >> side of what? >> side of the cement. you know it was a cement sidewalk, correct? >> yes. >> you know they were at the very edge of it? >> yes. >> you know there was an edge of cement? >> it's possible. >> i'm sorry? >> the injury is possible like you are suggesting. >> well, here is the cement and we've been talking and discussing all of the injuries on the flat surface, right? >> correct. >> so let's introduce now that

there could have been some injuries here. >> your honor, object to that. that's not in evidence. >> hypothetical with an expert. overruled. >> it's -- it's possible. >> okay. so the possibility is that the head being hit against the cement could easily -- the two lacerations above may not have ever impacted again when the bottom bruising occurred, right? >> that's possible. >> okay. zpl you talked about life threatening injuries, correct? >> correct. >> did they suggest to you this had anything do with life threatening injuries. >> i'm sorry, i didn't get that?

>> did the state's attorney's office when they prepped you for your testimony suggest to you that life threatening injuries was an element of anything having to do with this case? >> no. >> okay. you understand that the extent of injuries are not significant in this case, do you not? >> i'm sorry. i didn't get that. >> okay. you understand that the extent of any injuries that mr. zimmerman incurred in this attack have nothing to do with the case itself, correct? >> i'm going to object to that. that's calling for a legal conclusion. >> rephrase the question please. >> i will. >> were you prepared for the examination to identify whether or not you could testify that there were life threatening injuries or not? >> no.

>> okay. >> none of these injuries that you identified as they turned out were, in fact, life threatening, were they? >> correct. >> what about the next injury. >> the what injury. >> the next injury. >> i'm sorry, i didn't get that. >> could the injury that he didn't have to survive, could that have been life threatening? >> object to that. that's calling for speculation. >> sustained. >> if i might just have a moment, your honor. all right. so perhaps we're waiting for a little redirect from the state. in the meantime, carrie, mike, darren, sunny all sitting by to talk about what we're seeing. the people who are watching so closely with us. if yosh a a juror as we're chatting watching along. if you're a juror listening to the minutia of the swelling of the laceration and confusions,

are you falling asleep or taking copious notes? >> it depends on the juror. mike brooks was saying this is so interesting to me and as a lawyer i think it's less interesting to me. i don't think it's very interesting. >> state's back up. let's listen. >> absolutely not. >> all right. >> you were shown some photographs by defense counsel. were you provided with all of those photographs prior to trial on the disk that you referred to? >> yes. >> in fact, i think you referred to 36 photographs of the defendant? >> yes. >> did that also include photographs of his hands? >> yes. >> you would expect someone who was undergoing a severe attack to try to defend themselves? >> object, your honor. outside of scope and also speculation. >> sustained on both grounds. >> you were asked about a scenario where the defendant may have hit his head on the edge of

concrete when you watched the defendant's walk through or re-creation. did he describe his head getting hit on the edge of concrete? >> no. >> judge, thank you. that's all i have. >> thank you. may dr. rao be excused. >> she may be. >> thank you very much. you may be excused. call the next witness please. >> the next witness isn't available. can counsel and i approach briefly? >> yes. >> all right. the next witness is not available at the moment. let's chat here. sunny hostin, you have listened to the testimony and the cross, the quick redirect. where do you think, talking about the jurors moments ago, where do you think the jury stands on all this science? >> you know, jurors actually i

think do like mes. i think that they like the forensics given the sort of csi effect our society is going through. she was a witness that really wouldn't deviate much from her testimony on direct which is these are insignificant injuries. could have been -- it's consistent with one hit slamming to the ground, perhaps a few more. and so any way you sort of look at that, even with the cross, i think it's clear that it's sort of rebutting what george zimmerman said which was that his head was repeatedly hit to the ground. he was hit in the face, i don't know, 25 times, however many times he's testified to or been deposed several times. i think ultimately in something like this, the jury is going to go back into the jury room and look at the pictures and decide whether they think the injuries are significant because that's what we're asking them to do. we're asking them to not leave their common sense at the jury room door but take it back with them, look at all the evidence and make the determination themselves.

i don't know if this advanced the ball for the prosecution. >> if you go back and look at the testimony of the lead investigator, chris serino, he thought the injuries were minor. he also said that he thought there were no major inconsistencies in his story. so, okay, what are the injuries here? as dr. rao said, so minor as she said a number of times, then you heard the chief investigator thought that they weren't that big and much to it at all. if you take that testimony together, then you go back, was george zimmerman in fear of his life? that's the main question. >> his mindset whether or not he would have taken the gun and used deadly force. as you point out, carrie and darren, in the state of florida it's not whether or not you think there is imminent danger as far as death, what's the legal phraseology? what is it? >> reasonable fear of serious bodily injury. >> reasonable fear of serious bodily injury. thank you, defense attorney. right, darren? >> yeah.

absolutely. but it's interesting as we watch the medical examiner witness. sometimes the importance of a witness is not that they show up for some big moment while they're on the stand. sometimes it's just so one side or the other can elicit some nugget of information that they can later get mileage from in their closing argument when there's that battle for the hearts and minds of the jurors or sometimes it's to elicit something from a witness that's either going to support or contradict something we heard from another witness and mike talked a little bit about that. that may be another reason why this witness could be so important in the overall at that point pe-- tapestry. >> pointing out inconsistencies -- coming up, in case you're keeping score, there's now a 15-minute recess. we're going to take a quick break. when we come back, if you have not been paying as close attention as the rest of us have, i know many of you have in

this incredibly important trial in sanford, florida, we'll go back and visit the witnesses today. we'll hear from detective serino. we'll hear from self-described george zimmerman's best friend wrote a whole book about this deal. will that book come back to haunt george zimmerman. we'll play his testimony, what the state might be trying to prove about an inconsistency in that book next. ews on everything from home repair to healthcare written by people just like you. with angie's list, i save time, money, and i avoid frustration. you'll find great companies and great angie's list discounts. you want to be sure the money you're about to spend is money well spent. before you have any work done on your home... go to angie's list. go to angie's list. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust. you stole my line.

but this keeps it going. ♪ [ male announcer ] new gold bond powder spray. cool, dry, no mess. stay cool with gold bond. so once again the court in the george zimmerman trial taking a 15-minute recess. there has been this revealing

testimony here this morning from zimmerman's best friend who saw him the night trayvon martin was shot. want you to listen how this man by the name of mark osterman describes george zimmerman's dmeenor. >> he had a stoned lounned look face. >> when you say stunned. >> wide eyed. kind of a little bit detached perhaps from -- maybe not realizing he had just gone through a traumatic event. >> how would you describe it? >> very difficult to describe it. >> important to remember he is not jusz george zimmerman's friend. he wrote the book, defending our friend, the most hated man in america. it could hurt the friend and the defense. he wrote, somehow i broke his grip on the gun where the guy grabbed it between the rear site and the hammer.

the recriation of the crime as he walked out there. this is george zimmerman saying that trayvon march continually reached for his gun which was holstered but didn't actually lay a finger on it. huge distinction from the book and the guy you're looking at here, george zimmerman himself. >> defendant is claiming that the victim grabbed the gun, grabbed the -- >> that was my understanding, that he grabbed the gun. that would have been the only place that was available to grab. >> and then he said he -- the defendant managed to get the gun in his hand and raised it towards trayvon martin's chest and pulled the trigger, correct? >> unfortunately, yes. >> so let's bring in our team of legal experts. this is a sign zimmerman was

dishonest about what happened that night or was he misquoted by our best friend? we'll talk to our experts. there's also this exchange that got the state hot under the collar. here he is for day two. he was the lead detective here in this investigation, chris serino, saying george zimmerman was telling the truth about what happened that night. >> i believe his words were, thank god. i was hoping somebody would videotape it. >> the fact that george zimmerman said, thank god, i hope somebody did videotape the event or the whole event, his statement, what did that indicate to you? >> either he was telling the truth or he was a complete pathological liar. >> is there anything else in this case where you got the insight that he might be a pathological liar? >> no. >> so if we were to take pathological liar off the table as a possibility just for the purposes of this next question, do you think he was telling the

truth? >> yes. >> so that specific exchange happened in court. it has since been struck from the record here. there was a hearing can jurors strike it from their minds? the jurors go home and they have an entire evening to digest it. the last thing you've heard. let me bring in darren kavinoky. also with me, sunny hostin and former federal prosecutor. carrie hackett and mike brooks, hln law enforcement analyst. let's go back to mark osster man, darren and sunny. i want to begin with you two. let's chew on what mark osster man said, specifically the issue that the state is hoping to seize upon because, again, this guy talked to his buddy and

accord being to george zimmerman which is in this book which he wrote four months later and the defense said, this wasn't corroborated. this is the first time that we heard this, that trayvon martin grabbed zimmerman's gun. this is totally contradictory, sunny hostin, to what george zimmerman told police over and over. >> yeah, that's right. bottom line is that his best friend, george zimmerman's best friend, mr. osster man, did him no favors. he was a terrific witness for the government. he started out his testimony by saying, brooke, he was the one who encouraged george zimmerman to get a gun. >> get a gun. >> even went over what type of gun he should get. that i'm sure didn't go jury. then on top of it he writes a

book which is more like a pamphlet. he describes something completely different to his best friend from what he described to police and others. i've got to tell you, what the prosecution is doing is textbook prosecutorial strategy. they are gathering all of george zimmerman's statements in front of the jury and then they're going to overlay them, each and every inconsistency. this will show, he's all over the place. >> mike brooks is shaking his head. >> you know, sunny, absolutely. i can't understand why that his attorney, who went with him, would have him interviewed by shawn hannity. that's another -- something thaels they can go back on, sunny and darren. it's just -- i thought it was really a bad move business had i attorney. this book, this guy, why write a book until the whole case is adjudicated? why did you do this? was it to help raise money for

his defense fund? there's a possibility. >> here's the other question though, hang on, darren, let me ask you this. on the shawn hannity interview, this was his key played in court, shawn hannity, host of fox news channel. he does this whole interview. july 18th last year. they played bits and pieces of this interview in the courtroom. then like crickets we move onto the chief medical examiner and i'm wondering, are they going to chew on that? why not, darren? >> right. right. right. of course, it seems like felony stupid that a defense team would allow him to do that in the first place. this was wrong from so many reasons and then for the prosecution to not take the opportunity at this point and as you point out, brook, to run with it and drive the points home, that was a big gap as well. there's one other thing and we were just looking at that tape of zimmerman's interview with police where he's showing on his shirt how trayvon was reaching

for the gun and he gave that statement then that he had forgotten that he had the gun on him until he felt trayvon's hands reaching for it. i've talked to mike brooks about this at length and i've talked to lots of people that carry guns at length. no one, no one is buying for a second that somebody forgets where their gun is. as a matter of fact, i don't think there's any way that zimmerman gets out of his car without knowing he's got the gun because he's got no idea who he's going after. that gun makes him feel powerful. that gun makes him feel invincible and no one should be buying for a second that he didn't know that he had that gun on him. >> on that point, guys, we have to take a quick break. i hear you. i know you want to jump in. carrie, i promise you you get first at bat after the break. stay with me. ♪

chances are, you're not made of money, so don't overpay for boat insurance. geico, see how much you could save. just by talking to a helmet. it grabbed the patient's record before we even picked him up. it found out the doctor we needed was at st. anne's. wiggle your toes. [ driver ] and it got his okay on treatment from miles away.

it even pulled strings with the stoplights. my ambulance talks with smoke alarms and pilots and stadiums. but, of course, it's a good listener too. [ female announcer ] today cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everything works like never before.

want to take you to a sorry that's breaking. the throngs of folks that are in the heart of the soul of the revolution some two years ago. now it's a revolution of a different kind. senior international correspondent ben wiederman who's there. they're furious with president morsi and another deadline tomorrow night. >> that's right. that deadline is going to run out. the military says if the muslim brotherhood leadership of the country, president muhammad morsi, and the opposition do not keep to some agreement on how to run this country, the military has a long-term roadmap to deal with this country's many, many problems. and what we're hearing from the president is that they're not at all happy about this ultimatum.

they say they were not consulted beforehand. they're worried that it's too vague and it could lead to increased tension. certainly on that point they do seem to be correct. we have a massive demonstration here in tahrir square. people coming from all over cairo. there's another demonstration in front of the palace, which is egypt's equivalent of the white house. then in other parts of cairo there are demonstrations for president muhammad morsi and the muslim brotherhood. they are the ones who elected him democratically a year ago. he should fulfill his term. the problem is, there are small clashes breaking out in various parts of cairo. we're hearing there are some casualties, some fatalities already. the worry is what is now a series of relatively peaceful demonstrations can turn violent. brooke. >> i see what i believe are

fireworks behind you. ben wedeman in cairo. we'll stay on that story. the deadline tonight. you see the protesters. if morsi does not step down tonight, they're marching on his presidential palace. if you want more, go to cnn.com. meanwhile, we'll take you back to the george zimmerman trial. got to get a quick break in. we'll talk about the momentum as they move along and call another witness and also carrie's point on whether or not this lead detective, if he lost some of his sting at the end of his questioning. back after this. e ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance pla

insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral to see a specialist. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel -- and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp,

an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands a year in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now -- and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is. we're keeping one eye on you and one on the jury. detective serino, do you feel

like some of the zing was lost. it was diminished a little bit. i think jurors do find police officers, detectives, they do find their testimony to be very persuasive. it was helpful to the defense that detective serino did find zimmerman to be truthful. that's going to go a long way to have a police officer, detective, somebody who's been through all of this training give an opinion as to the truthfulness of this person despite the fact that the judge told the jury to disregard it. >> he was asked if he was telling the truth or if he was a pathological liar. he said, no. tell us what's happening right now. >> i think what's happening right now, they're talking about one of the teachers that george

zimmerman had when he was talking about the criminal justice class. they were talking about george zimmerman's course of studies and maybe some reports that he had done for his school work and dealing with how much did he know? how much role was he trying to play as a neighborhood watch coordinator saying he wanted to catch these people. they were banging on him for using the word, referring to trayvon martin, as a suspect in his written statement. is that because of the classes he took? >> didn't he want to be a police officer? >> right. that's why they called him a wanna be cop. that was the opening statement to the prosecution. he referred to him as a wanna be cop. he was taking courses in criminal justice. you had the volunteer coordinator from the sanford police department help him organize the neighborhood watch group.

she asked him to be involved in the cop program, citizens on patrol, which would have gotten him closer and endeared him more with law enforcement but he refused. >> thank you. this is a little bit of the back and forth. this is happening right now. >> guys, jump in my ear as soon as you start seeing a witness. let's go back to detective serino. a couple of points he made this morning. let me just play for you the sound bite where he was questioned, a lot of this is whether or not he was following trayvon martin, right? so he's being questioned about the legalty of following them. >> you were skeg hquestioning h whether he was following him.

>> yes, sir. >> mr. zimmerman said? >> words along -- >> he said, yes, right? he said, wait a minute, were you following him? in the interview -- which was yes, right? >> in one of the interviews. >> he acknowledged to you that he was following him at one point, correct? >> yes, sir. >> anything wrong with following somebody like that? >> that -- >> let me ask it this way. anything illegal. >> i'm sorry, i'll let him answer that one. >> repeat it please. >> anything -- did you think that there was anything wrong with him following him to see where he was going? >> legally speaking, no. >> okay. matter of fact, it was -- and you heard the nonemergency call, right? >> yes, sir. >> okay. 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. >> right? >> yes.

>> does that indicate that he wants him to keep an eye on him? >> yes, sir. >> and you said following him is not legally improper, correct? >> it's not illegal, no. >> even approaching somebody is not illegal, is it? >> that's open for interpretation. >> tell me what crime you believe would occur if i were to walk up to you on street and say, hi. >> in that manner, none whatsoever. >> how about, what are you doing here? >> none whatsoever. >> how about, get the hell out of here? >> none whatsoever. >> how about, i don't like the way you're dressed? i don't like the fact that you have gray on, get out of my face? >> that could be construed as confrontati confrontational. >> sure. but is that a crime? >> not illegal.

no, sir. >> darren kavinoky, what was the point of that? what he was he trying to get out of him? >> well, it's where exactly you draw the line between something that is just innocent conduct of preserving the safety and sanctity of the neighborhood versus where it becomes this tracking somebody, which is, of course, the prosecution's theory of the case, that zimmerman was actually a predator that was hunting down trayvon and so what o'mara is trying to do is take the wind out of the sails and candidly he did a very effective job in my view. you raised the point earlier, brooke, which i think is a great one, that is that the way that this detective finished on the stand yesterday even though those remarks may have been stricken today, you can't unring that bell and once that's heard by the jurors, once that's out there, it's not going to be

erased from their brain and that, i think, is one of the most important things to come out of this witness and lawyers know that and they play on that all the time. don't ask questions that are objectionable. >> i'm glad we're coming back to this one. i'm trying to think. if i were sitting in this courtroom, if i were a juror and i heard something so significant, so stinging that it elicited this visceral reaction in me, okay, never mind, forget you heard that, go home, have dinner, we'll see you in the morning, you've got to be kidding me? right, ryan smith? >> yeah, why wait. they've got it in their heads now. it's one thing to say, hey, you no he what, disregard that. it's coming in the back of your mind. you're saying, wait, this is a guy in the position of authority. he's the guy who works for the state. he's saying he's truthful. what does that do to the self-defense claim. for a lot of people it makes it say, wait, there's got to be some credence to that self-defense claim. i think that's a tough break for

the prosecution. >> again, just a quick reminder to you as we're marinading over some of what happened during the day. there is a hearing going on trying to determine whether some of this evidence can be introduced, whether he was familiar with the stand your ground law. he told shawn hannity. based on his schooling, here's the judge reading through the legalese trying to find out what's okay while they're speaking about the jury, they're out of the room. quick break. when we come back we'll take you back to more testimony from the lead detective, detective serino. if this guy is going to be charged and convicted of murder in the second degree, they have stay are to prove spite, hate, depraved mind. some of this testimony speaks to that. whether it works or doesn't, this is huge. that's next.

just a quick reminder as we eavesdrop. here's mark o'mara. they're back and forth with the judge. they're waiting for the next witness to take the stand. we don't know who it will be. this is a guessing game for us. we'll roll with it as soon as we see someone take to the stand. in the meantime, i want to play a little bit more of the testimony this morning from

detective chris serino, lead investigator. he was the one who took george zimmerman out to the crime scene that next day for that reenactment without a lawyer, mind you. pay attention to the language he's talking when george zimmerman using and the way in which he used these words. here you go. >> did you hear that last comment, the defendant stated, the [ bleep ] punks? >> yes, sir. >> okay. >> is the word [ bleep ] punks something you would refer to, something good about people when you reference snem. >> no, sir, it's not. >> in your opinion calling somebody, reference them as, pardon my language, [ bleep ] punks. >> that is ill will and spite. >> it is? >> yes. >> mr. dell a ri on da said to you, i think he said [ bleep ], didn't he? >> that sounds a beings promate. >> did you hear my client say

that [ bleep ] on the tape? we can play it again. >> i heard him say it. >> okay. he didn't say it with the screeching voice that he did, o, sir. >> he just sort of said [ bleep ], right? >> yes, sir. >> did he -- the way he said it, not the way mr. delarionda said, let's speak more the way my client said [ bleep ]. did that give you any cause for concern as for the way he said it? >> no, sir. >> didn't show any ill will, hatred or spite when he satisfied [ bleep ] always get away, did it? >> if i may, not towards the individual. it seemed more like a generalization. >> i know. it's a lot of bleeping. there's a reason for this. we're cnn. there's a reason why we're talking about this colorful language and also the tone that was used on behalf of george zimmerman which is the point mark o'mara was trying to make.

the language and the way he's using these words, why does that matter? >> it's a nuance which is part of the second degree murder. the prosecution is trying to bring out this idea that george zimmerman had this hatred, ill will and spite. they're trying to make the point of us he's using these words with hatred and ang grer. then you heard detective serino mention it there on the cross. what he's trying to do is soften it. if you soften t inma he's just commenting on the situation. it becomes a little bit of a nuanced argument. here's the problem i have. when you talk about having hatred, ill will, spite, any time you have anger, hatred, ill will to somebody, you don't always have to necessarily scream, yell, be excited. i know a lot of people that say, i don't like that guy, and they've got a look in their eye. you know they don't like that guy.

omara is trying to do a nuanced thing saying he didn't have that. the words or the way he said it do mean something. >> i think eventually the defense will try to put it into perspective, context that zimmerman in the past as the neighborhood watch organizer has seen a lot of break-ins in this neighborhood, that he has seen it repeatedly and that it has been a pattern. he is not profiling martin but that he's trying to protect the neighborhood, not that he has the ill will and that he's doing his best to protect the neighborhood. >> this is all coming out this morning. let me take a quick break. i want to talk about this best friend of george zimmerman. we'll talk a little bit about his back story, who he is, why he's significant, a little bit about this book that he wrote and the significance of the gun used in this case and his connection to that and george zimmerman. say with me.

how will it make someone feel? will it make life better? does it deserve to exist? we spend a lot of time on a few great things. until every idea we touch enhances each life it touches. you may rarely look at it. but you'll always feel it. this is our signature. and it means everything. humans.

we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

want to give you a little background on ossterman. he's his best friend. here's a little bit more about him. this is from david mattingly. >> reporter: when george zimmerman was worried about an aggressive neighborhood dog, he bought a gun and went to his friend, david ossterman. >> once you get married, he changed his perspective in life and that he was not responsible just for himself but his wife. >> ossterman helped zimmerman weigh the prois and cons on how to choose the gun. it was easy to conceal and carry. acting on osterman's advice, zimmerman carried it everywhere. >> always. he carried it always. the one thing i did tell him the

reason for doing that, if it was on your person, it can't be anywhere else. >> reporter: it was on his person the night he encountered trayvon martin. he told osterman how he grabbed it during the fight. >> according to what he told me, when the head bashing on the concrete stopped and trayvon reached for the firearm that was at his side, grabbed ahold of it. >> reporter: osterman quoted it in a book. somehow i broke his handle on the gun. i got the gun in my hand, raised it towards the guy's chest and pulled the trigger. and this is where the problem lies for george zimmerman because comments quoted by his friend ossterman do not match what zimmerman told police. listen to what he says as he walks investigators through the crime scene. >> and he reached for it. i felt his arm going down to my

side. and i grabbed it and i grabbed my firearm and i shot him one time. >> in multiple recorded interviews zimmerman never tells police that trayvon martin ever touched his gun. dna testing seems to agree, there was no trace of trayvon mart martin's dna on the gun's grip. 'cutors list ossterman's book with zimmerman's conflicting account as potential evidence possibly to challenge zimmerman's credibility. as for his connection to the gun zimmerman was carrying, osterman says it's hard to answer the question, does he feel regret. >> he didn't have it to go out and commit a crime of hunting someone down and harming them, it was for self-protection. and i'm glad that that firearm was used to protect george. >> reporter: mark osterman could appear as a witness for the prosecution and for the defense. as far as what he has to tell them, osterman says he sees no difference in a case of

self-defense if someone is grabbing your gun or grabbing for it. david mattingly, cnn, sanford, florida. >> as we know, he testified today, darren, to you. do you want to talk about why zimmerman's friend was so sweaty? do we know why now? >> i don't know. you know, with friends like that, brooke, who needs enemies? i mean, well, first of all, as far as the sweatiness factor, maybe he just felt like he was on the hot seat and before i start getting hate tweets and so on, god for bid the guy has anything medically wrong with him. but i can just see the "saturday night live" skits. i just felt for the guy as he's mopping his brow on the witness stand. but you know what, he should be sweaty because what he is saying is just horrible for his friend. i'm sure they're friends, he didn't set out to do this. let's remember. there's an important legal ruling in all of this that

generally what people say out of court, what zimmerman told to his friend, generally that's considered to be hearsay and it's generally unreliable and doesn't come into evidence, but there's an exception to that hearsay rule called an admission. that's a word or an act that's how the prosecution is able to get these statements that zimmerman gave to his friend into evidence. it's conflicting, it looks bad for zimmerman, it affects his credibility and so it's quite understandable why he would be sweating. >> wiping the brow. right now again this hearing is under way. the jurors are out of the room because this judge is talking about what is admissible as far as evidence goes and george

zimmerman knowledge of what is law and what is not. we'll talk about that clearly after this. dad. how did you get here? i don't know. [ speaking in russian ] look, look, look... you probably want to get away as much as we do. with priceline express deals, you can get a fabulous hotel without bidding. think of the rubles you'll save. with one touch, fun in the sun. i like fun. well, that went exactly as i planned.. really? now save up to 60% during summer hotel sale.

use code "summer" on priceline's.

>> sunny hostin, former federal prosecutor, cnn legal analyst. you tell me when it comes to the stand your ground law and what

is admissible as far as what george zimmerman says he knew and what he says he didn't know coming into this night back in february of last year, remind us of this law. >> well, stand your ground law is peculiar to a um coucouple o states. what it basically does is it takes your right inside your home to protect yourself out into the street. for a long time this castle doctrine, as we used to call it, if somebody breaks in your home, you can defend yourself p. you don't have a right to run and hide and retreat. but the florida law takes it to the street. if you're not doing something that's illegal, you can defend yourself, you can stand your ground and you don't have any duty to retreat. >> nicely done, lawyer, in 60 seconds. i'm impressed. >> thank you. >> the issue now is whether or not he was aware of this because he told sean hannity of fox news one thing and apparently he's taken classes that show the

other thing. >> the issue is when he came up on trayvon martin, it all deals with george zimmerman's perception, was i in fear? the question is did he know this law, if i pull out my gun and shoot this kid, even if he's not doing anything, then i can be protected, immune from trial because of of the stand your ground law. that's what the state seems to be trying to bring up. >> to do right this very minute. quick break. back after this. 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

before i let you go, the federal government has taken over command of the deadly fire north of phoenix, arizona, the one that claimed the lives of 19

firefighters sunday. 19 firefighters, each a member of the prescott fire department's granite mountain hot shots. these are the elitist of the elite firefighters here. this is how it looks outside their home pace, a prescott fire department, a makeshift member call growing by the hour. two days later this community's loss is still sinking in. >> there aren't any real words to express the kind of sadness that we feel today. it's beyond comprehension. >> when i received the news that 19 of our brave firefighters have been taken from us, i was beside myself. >> hundreds of people jammed inside this prescott university gym, this was last night, to pay their final respects. firefighters there gathering at

the end of the ceremony offering hushed words of comfort among themselves. questions remain, though, as to how this happened. you have these 19 highly trained, highly skilled men trapped in a fiery dead end from which there was no escape. why they unaware of the storm rolling in? that dramatic surge of wind that turned this fire into this monster and crucially may have changed its direction? 14 of the fallen firefighters were still in their 20s. among them andrew ashcraft, age 29, a father of four. >> because i always would text andrew when he was out on a fire, be strong, be wise, be safe. i said, okay, god, i don't understand it but thank you that

he wasn't alone, thank you that he was -- that they were together. >> 400 ground firefighters are still out there. "the lead" with jake tapper starts now. >> i'm jake tapper. this is "the lead." you're watching live, continuous coverage of the george zimmerman, a trial that has captivated the country. they are in a recess right now. in a few minutes the recess will be over, the trial will resume and we'll take you right back to that trial. george zimmerman, as you know, faces second degree murder charges for shooting 17-year-old trayvon martin, who was unarmed. but all along zimmerman has said the shooting was in self-defense. prosecutors are trying to show zimmerman not only profiled martin, but that he followed the teen and misled police about how the fight with martin went down. the state started out today fairly strong wh