the wheels of justice shift into overdrive. good evening again. welcome to another "360" special report, "self-defense or murder, the george zimmerman trial." a trial racing down the home stretch, as predicted, the defense rested today. the prosecution began its rebuttal. the schedule is set for closing arguments. the prosecution asked the judge to allow jurors to consider lesser charges. the defense objected, seeking an all or nothing choice for jurors, who could get the case by friday afternoon. defense attorney mark o'mara spoke today saying the defense has what it needs to acquit in his opinion. he joins us exclusively tonight. we'll talk with one of the martin family attorneys and our legal panel. a full night ahead.

let's get you up to date on what happened in court today. martin savidge begins our coverage. >> reporter: it's been the question dominate thing entire trial. would george zimmerman take the stand? and today judge nelson asked him directly. >> have you made a decision? >> yes, your honor. >> what is your decision, sir? >> after consulting with counsel, not to testify, your honor. >> is it your decision not to testify in this case? >> yes, your honor. >> are you making that decision freely and voluntarily? >> yes, your honor. >> reporter: and with that, the defense rested. >> with all that in mind, the defense would rest. >> reporter: much of the day was spent on a use of force consultant who testified based on his analysis that zimmerman was non-confrontational, lacking a warrior mentality, but it was a dumby that proved to be one of the strongest witnesses of the day. it began when prosecutor john guy grabbed a life-sized mannequin to show their version of events. >> do you recognize this as being a human-type figure,

right? >> yes, sir. >> okay. >> reporter: it was here the state seemed to concede trayvon martin could have been on top of george zimmerman. suggesting he was pulling away at the time he was shot. previously the prosecution argued zimmerman was on top. >> would it be consistent the 90 degrees if trayvon martin had been backing up and the defendant raised his gun? >> reporter: the demonstration brought jurors to their feet to get a better view, realizing the impact that the defense attorney mark o'mara seized the prop for his own demonstration. >> were the injuries on mr. zimmerman's back of the head consistent with someone doing this on cement? >> reporter: the defense concluded by calling two emotional witnesses. the first a young mother who described a home invasion in the same neighborhood where the shooting happened. when she had to lock herself in her infant son's room. >> i was locked in my son's bedroom, and he was shaking the doorknob trying to get in. i was sitting there with a pair

of rusty scissors and my son in one arm. >> reporter: she was not only a character witness for the defense explaining how zimmerman had counseled her after the breakin, but her testimony painted a picture of a neighborhood on alert. then came zimmerman's father who answered what has became a mantra for the defense and the prosecution. whose voice was screaming for help the night martin died? >> absolutely. it's my son, george. >> reporter: and in a move many court watchers anticipated, the prosecution asked the judge for lesser charges to be included. manslaughter, and aggravated assault. the judge will make that decision thursday. and whether stand your ground will be included in the jury instructions. closing arguments are expected tomorrow, as well. martin savidge, cnn, sanford, florida. >> a lot going on today. including the high stakes legal maneuvering and the question of lesser charges and the decision which one of our panels lost his hat on. let's bring them all in.

legal analyst and former prosecutor sunny hostin and jeffy toobin, danny savalos and mark geragos. he said he'd eat his hat if zimmerman took the stand. you do not have to eat your hat because he did not take the stand. i didn't see you putting any money on this, mark. are you as sure as you claim to be? >> i tried to put out there. i said 50-1 odds. i gave 100-1 odds. wouldn't take either of them. >> how significant, mark, do you think it was, the prosecution brought out the dummy to exhibit. they essentially seemed to change their story. they seemed to kind of acknowledge, okay, well, they came up with an alternate theory in case that the jury did in fact believe that trayvon martin was the one on top. that's not what they were arguing when they started this trial. >> no, in fact, mcdreamy, the prosecutor as my friend sunny calls him, was the one who

argued beforehand that he was on top. now mcdreamy has got trayvon on top, and the problem with this is, when you're talking about two different theories, and if they are both reasonable, they don't have to be equally reasonable, but both reasonable, and one points towards innocence, the other towards guilt, the jury is instructed they must take the one that points towards innocence and find the defendant not guilty. this to me is the prosecution conceding reasonable doubt. in fact, it almost seems as if the prosecution is doing what defense lawyers do often, which is trying to stake out a possibility, because the evidence is so heavily weighted against them. >> i want to play more of what the prosecutor was doing with this dummy, which argues to mark's point. let's watch. >> if this person, this mannequin, were carrying a firearm on their waist, where would the gun be right now in relation to me? >> it would be at your left inner thigh.

>> right here, right. >> yes, if he was right-handed. it would be at your left inner thigh. >> underneath my leg. >> yes. >> were you aware that the defendant described to his best friend when he slid down, the defendant slid down, that trayvon martin was up around his armpits? were you aware of that? >> no, i have not heard that. >> where would the gun be now? >> now the gun would be behind your left leg. >> jeff, is it wise for the prosecution to give an alternative view? in case the jury does believe trayvon martin was on top as the evidence points to, or does this just make them seem confused? >> well, i think they have to go where the evidence takes them, and the problem for the prosecution here is that basically all the evidence in the case says that trayvon martin was on top. and if you're arguing that zimmerman was the aggressionor

and initiated this confrontation, it's tough to argue that you concede that trayvon martin is on top. it's not impossible. you can say that zimmerman threw the first punch. you can say that trayvon martin was pulling away and that's when he was shot. you can construct a scenario where zimmerman is the aggressor, even though he's on the bottom. but that's, i think, it's a tough sell. >> and sunny, that's not where the prosecution started out this trial doing. >> i think everyone is really looking at this the wrong way. first of all, not all the witnesses are saying that george zimmerman was on the bottom and trayvon martin was on the top. there are several witnesses that say they saw something else, that they saw george zimmerman on top. that's one thing. the other thing is you have to look at what the prosecution is really doing here, what they're doing is not necessarily conceding that trayvon martin was on top. they are basically pointing out that what george zimmerman says happened could not have happened. that's what we saw in the courtroom. that was a demonstration that

you saw john guy do. and i think that's very, very effective. so to say that the government is somehow conceding something i think really is misrepresenting what happened in the courtroom today. >> do you agree that that's -- >> i agree with sunny on this point. >> you do? that's shocking. >> of course i agree. that's how i know you're right. with the prosecutors, if we asked them, why are you doing this? i don't think they would say they're conceding at all. they would say what sun sesaying, look, zimmerman has a theory here, and we're refuting that particular theory. we're not offering an alternate theory. i think that's what they would tell us. but it's how we perceive it, we the jurors. we the fact-finders. so while it's equally tenable that this could be seen as an alternate they're -- >> this is what i don't understand, danny. and i get that. if they're trying to prove that this is not what happened, then why have they now gone through, i believe, the fourth witness

where they basically demonstrated with trayvon martin on top and they now come up with the theory that he's going back like this as opposed to coming forward, if that's what they're trying to do and think that's effective, save the tape. >> absolutely. what they're using is the makes no sense argument. if he's standing here and the leg is here, it makes no sense the way george zimmerman tells it. i think they're hoping the jury might go back into the jury room and shut the door and say well, george zimmerman's version isn't credible. therefore, disbelieve self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. look, it's a good bit of improv by a terrific prosecution team with what i think everyone would agree are some very difficult facts for the prosecution. they're doing a terrific job with what they have. >> the fact that the prosecution has asked for manslaughter and aggravated assault to be added to the second-degree murder charge for the jury to consider, a lot of people expected, that we talked about that on the panel, do you think that the judge is likely to al now that in?

>> i do. i think that this case certainly gives the possibility of manslaughter as a verdict. i also think it's indicative of a certain lack of confidence in the prosecution's case. if you're really confident, you want the jury to have an all-or-nothing choice, and it's the defense saying they want the all-or-nothing choice. they want murder two or acquittal, and the compromise could be very bad for george zimmerman, because as we discussed several times on this program, a compromised verdict of manslaughter could leave him in prison for many, many years. >> sunny, does having this lesser charge, does it make the closing argument for the prosecutor more difficult? because if you're kind of throwing it out for the jury to decide what the charge is, doesn't that sort of make it more difficult for you to argue strenuously one way or another? >> no, not at all. prosecutors do it every single day, day in and day out. asking for lesser includeds is proforma, it's standard, and the

judge will give them the lesser concludes. so prosecutors are used to sort of arguing in the alternative. of course they're going to argue that they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt second-degree murder. but then you argue, even if you don't believe that, he's still guilty of manslaughter or aggravated assault. they will be well versed in doing it. i've got to tell you, i think this gives the jury a cornucopia of choices here. so to suggest he's going to be acquitted given all those choices, i think -- >> i take real issue with this. i think when the defense says we don't want a lesser. after all, you're being accused of a crime. the state or the government has the burden of proof. i think when they say we're going to charge you with second degree, they should be wedded to that. i agree with you that it's proform a. i think it's outrageous that the prosecutors can charge you with one thing, force you to go to a full jury trial and then say, okay, we didn't prove that case, maybe we knew we'd never prove that case but here, jury, you can go

convict him of something else. >> there's evidence to support everything. >> there's a bait and switch. i don't think that's fair. i don't think that's justice. just because it happens all the time doesn't mean it's right. >> jeff, this is essentially the government of the united states or the state of florida going after somebody saying that they've committed second-degree murder but then also saying maybe we're wrong about that, but it could be manslaughter as well, to argue mark's point. >> no, i don't think there's anything unfair about that. it's not a different crime than they were charged with. it is a lesser included offense. it is evidence that the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt a crime that the defendant committed. this is not a game about which side can prove what. this is trying to determine whether someone -- >> yes, it is. >> -- someone committed a very serious crime. >> wait, wait, wait. yes, it is. >> let me finish. >> let jeff finish.

finish your point. >> if the jury can conclude that he committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, whether it's manslaughter or murder two, then he should be sentenced accordingly because that's what the criminal justice system is supposed to determine. >> mark? >> whether people committed a crime. >> okay. understand here, they put you on trial for second-degree murder. you're the one who is being accused of the crime and the government has the burden of proof. what i'm saying is i think it's fundamentally unfair for them to make you go all the way through the trial and then realize, hey, we couldn't prove what we made you do, and by the way, your bail may have been $1 million as opposed to $60,000 which it would have been for manslaughter which by the way take a look at bail schedule, that's what happens, and now we've got to the end of this case and we screwed up so, therefore, we want you to be convicted of a lesser crime. i think it's -- >> it's not about screwing up. >> clearly they screwed up because they didn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt

or ethically a prosecutor is supposed to only bring charges if they believe they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. that is the ethical duty of a prosecutor. what i'm saying is if they don't believe it, which obviously they don't because they want a lesser, that's unethical. >> how -- it's not obvious, mark, that they don't believe that they have proven second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. >> put their money where their mouth is. >> the law provides for lesser included offenses. >> and that should only be -- >> the common criticism of lesser concludes is this, there's no disincentive, no governor, nothing really to prevent a prosecutor from overcharging, and they have nothing but benefits from t.overcharging serves their purposes. it's strategically beneficial because part one is you can ask for lesser included offenses. if you hit someone with a charge in the stratosphere, they are going to come around and can bargain with them, either on the

bargaining stand. >> or they may end up pleading. >> mark, final thought and then we have to move on. >> you force people to plead because if they are facing something that's got a life with it and they have to take or they are exposed to life and want to take something less, they may end up pleading of something they are not guilty of. that's the problem with this system. >> let me know if you're following this on twitter. is it fair for the state to be able to go for the lesser charges as well? so much ground to cover. let's take a quick break. i want to talk about the judge, debra nelson, and how she's running a tight ship. we'll show you some of the exchanges that she's had, particularly with the defense in this case. we'll right back. that's why i do what i do. [ male announcer ] it's red lobster's just $14.99. start your feast with a choice of soup, then salad, plus biscuits! next, choose one of nine amazing entrees like new coconut and citrus grilled shrimp or linguini with shrimp and scallops. then finish with dessert.

your four course seafood feast, just $14.99. [ mortazavi ] everything needs to be picture perfect. i'm reza, culinary manager. and i sea food differently. these chevys are moving fast. i'll take that malibu. yeah excuse me, the equinox in atlantis blue is mine! i was here first, it's mine. i called about that one, it's mine. mine! mine. it's mine. it's mine. mine. mine. mine. mine. it's mine! no it's not, it's mine! better get going, it's chevy model year-end event. [ male announcer ] the chevy model year-end event.

the 13s are going fast, time to get yours. current chevy truck owners can trade up to this chevy silverado all-star edition with a total value of $9,000. "that starts with one of the world's most advancedy," distribution systems," "and one of the most efficient trucking networks," "with safe, experienced drivers." "we work directly with manufacturers," "eliminating costly markups," "and buy directly from local farmers in every region of the country." "when you see our low prices, remember the wheels turning behind the scenes, delivering for millions of americans, everyday. "dedication: that's the real walmart"

welcome back. when judge debra nelson got the trial last summer, "the miami herald" profile describes her as a no nonsense judge that keeps the attorneys on their toes. here's a small sample just from today as defense attorney don west tried and failed to have the last word. >> have you made a decision, sir, as to whether or not you want to testify in this case? >> your honor, i object to that. >> overruled. have you made a decision to whether or not you want to testify in this case? >> i on the to that question. i think -- >> overruled. the court is entitled to infire of mr. zimmerman's determination as to whether or not he wants to testify. >> on mr. zimmerman's behalf -- >> i am asking your client questions. please, mr. west. >> i object to the court inquiring of mr. zimmerman as to his decision about whether or not to testify. >> your objection is overruled! >> let's go back to our panel.

sunny, is this the kind of thing that happens in court all the time? >> it really does. i mean, you get some you get judges that do like you. and it's a high pressure situation. they are duking it out in the courtroom. they're working really long hours. it's very, very stressful. and so i think these kinds of exchanges happen. i will tell you, i think the judge maybe went a little too far when she walked out when don west was speaking. but it was late at night, and she's got to keep control of her courtroom, which certainly is what she's doing. if she didn't do it, they would run all over here. i mean, they're very aggressive attorneys, much like all the men on this panel. and she's got to be able to take control. >> unlike poor, timid sunny. that poor little wallflower sunny. >> it's true. if you've ever been in a nice guy judge courtroom, it's nice to be in front of a judge that's very civil. however, those are the courtrooms that tend to take an

extra three hours to get through their list. so there's something to be said for an efficient judge, and she's absolutely this. there are judges terrific to be around, but i better not make any afternoon appointments if i have a listing there in the morning. >> jeff, do you agree with that? >> the key fact about this case is the jury is sequestered. these are ordinary citizens stuck in a hotel room where they can't see their family, can't communicate with anyone, and this judge does not want them in effect in prison for any longer than they have to. that's why she sat on weekends. that's why she sat until 10:00 last night. i mean, that's excellent judging as far as i'm concerned. also by the way she made two very good rules today. she kept out this ridiculous high-tech cartoon that the defense wanted to play as evidence, and she kept out trayvon martin's text messages which suggested some sort of improper behave yonnior on his part which i thought was completely irrelevant.

>> her point on the text messages was you couldn't prove one way or another who sent the text even if it was trayvon martin's phone. someone could have been using her phone. mark, you agree, though, that -- do you agree that this ruling by the judge to not allow what jeff calls as high-tech cartoon into the trial as opposed to -- it's going to be allowed into the closing arguments by the defense, but not into the trial, so it can't actually be cross-examined. >> well, i think that's the proper ruling. i said last night i thought she was going to let it into the closing. frankly, he's better off having it in the closing, he being mark o'mara. because then you're not going to have the person that made this thing up have to concede point after point after point where this doesn't fit with the prougs's theory. you get to put that animated feature, if you will, on in the closing argument.

it's going to be played, uncross-examined and the jury will watch it. i think it's a wonderful way to break up a closing argument which may sometimes go on too long. >> this is an example of zealous advocacy. mark o'mara earlier in his interview with you, you could hear it in his voice, i don't think he ever thought it would come in as substantive evidence, but, again, that is the adversarial process. he shoots for the moon, and he gets somewhere in the middle which is where he wanted. if he had gotten it in as substantive evidence, good for him. we saw that with the thc. that was admitted, they didn't even use it. but mark o'mara said we want to be the ones to decide whether or not to introduce evidence. that's our decision to make. again, zealous advocacy. he got it in, fought for it to get it and ultimately made a decision that we're not going to use it. >> let's remember something, though, about the cartoon. the prosecution did not object to the defense using it in closing arguments as a demonstrative aid.

that the tells me as a former prosecutor that they think that that aid is good for them as well so i'm convinced that in rebuttal, when john mcdreamy guy gets in front of that jiri, he is going to use that cartoon to the state's advantage. let's save the tape, mark, because that's what's going to happen. >> we don't use tape anymore, do we? >> i don't know. aren't we digitized? >> it's on my ipod. >> save it. >> sunny, how do you think -- how do you think the state will use that to their benefit? >> one example that was glaring to me when we saw little snippets of it in the courtroom, the cartoon basically has trayvon martin approaching george zimmerman and slugging at him, with his left hand. all the testimony is that trayvon martin is right-handed. right there that is a significant, significant inconsistency that doesn't make sense. we all know that we have

dominant hands. i can't imagine that's going to be lost on the jury. that's just one tiny example. i'm certain that that's why the government wants to use it. >> you know what's amazing, sunny. >> yes, mark geragos. >> you use the rhetoric of calling it a cartoon. it's not -- >> it is a cartoon. >> it's an avatar cartoon. >> the cartoon makes it a pejorative and you use the language that way. i think it couldn't be better for the defense to put it up there and say this is one reasonable possibility of what happened. by the way, if there's a reasonable possibility that this is the way that it happened, you must find the defendant not guilty. >> it's going to be shredded by the prosecution. it's going to be shredded. >> we've got to leave it there. just for the record, i think it was jeff toobin who first used the term cartoon. just for the record. >> we'll pick up the conversation shortly. coming up next, i'll talk to defense attorney mark o'mara

about why his client did not testify and why he wants the jury to consider the maximum charge against him, nothing else. and also you'll hear the martin family attorney, darrell parks and his take on the trial. we'll be right back. probably the car. cause as you get older you start breaking down. i love my car. i want to take care of it. i have a bad wheel - i must say. my car is running quite well. keep your car healthy with the works. $29.95 or less after $10 mail-in rebate at your participating ford dealer. so you gotta take care of yourself? yes you do. you gotta take care of your baby? oh yeah!

welcome back. long before the trial, mark o'mara was fighting for george zimmerman in the court of public opinion. today he kept george zimmerman off the stand. as we've been reporting and debating and second guessing, he pushed for an all or nothing second degree murder charge, no lesser offenses. we'll see if the judge, what she agrees to do tomorrow. also today in court, he wrestled with that dummy that the prosecutor brought in. it was a which go day to mark

o'mara. i spoke to him just a short time ago. mark, there seemed to be a bit of confusion earlier in the afternoon when the judge asked mr. zimmerman whether he would testify or not. he said he needed more time to decide. what finally made him decide not to? i assume for most of this trial, you've known he's not going to testify. >> actually, that's not true. he was really considering testifying. he really wanted to talk to his jury and tell him what he did, why he did it and what he was facing when he made that decision to fire the shot. i think the confusion was more of semantics than substance, though. whenever that decision is made, it's always with consultation of counsel, and george wanted to include that information. so that was confusion. >> what finally convinced him not to do it? i assume your advice was not to do it. >> yeah. the way i look at it, i have to convince myself if the state has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt before i would consider putting any defendant on the stand, any client, and i just don't think that they have

presented it so there was no reason to put him on the stand, realizing he's already given five or six or seven statements that the jury can now consider. >> the state has asked for manslaughter and aggravated assault be included in the charges in addition to second-degree murder. a lot of analysts expected that to happen. why do you feel that's legally inappropriate? >> well, i don't think that the facts of the case support a manslaughter charge. i think the facts of this case support nothing but self-defense. if the jury doesn't buy self-defense and thinks he act in the ill will, spite and hatred, they should convict him of second-degree murder. i don't think they're going to. if that's the theory of the state's case, manslaughter is not appropriate. doesn't fit the facts of this case, and i don't want this jury to have what they think is a compromised verdict. they should look at the facts, look at the law, apply it and acquit it. >> what a lot of people watching

this don't realize is aggravated assault carries the potential of life in prison. correct? >> potentially. certainly the manslaughter charge is very serious, as well. >> the judge said you could not produce your 3-d re-enactment of the night trayvon martin died as evidence. you can use it in your closing statement. is that the best case scenario, you get to get that in the juror's mind. the prosecution doesn't get to attack it on cross-examination. >> perfect answer, because yes, that's true. i don't believe that the animation needed to be in evidence for me to get it before the jury. i would have liked to have had it there, but i know the state's concern and understand the court's rule, and as long as it's there for me to show the jury what probably happened that night, i'm okay with it. >> you said you didn't introduce the thc levels found in trayvon martin's blood because the levels were so minimal. you've known though how low the levels were all along. why did you fight so hard to have it admitted? >> i think that should have been our decision rather than the court's decision.

i think when we have relevant and add missable evidence, that it should be allowed in and then we make the decision as part of our strategy whether or not we submit it. i don't think the court should preempt up and in the end she didn't. we make the decision, keeping in mind the substance of the evidence itself, how it may have persuaded the jury and also keeping in mind the sensitivities that we have had throughout this trial and pre-trial concerning central artery -- trayvon martin's family and the sensitivities of what they're going through right now. so the decision was made. it wasn't going to be probative enough for us to have to deal with the concerns surrounding it. >> how surprised were you that the judge didn't allow some of those text messages in? >> well, i respect the court's ruling. i was surprised because i think we laid a proper evidentiary foundation for it to come in. it is relevant, particularly when the statute says it is. they have information concerning

george zimmerman's abilities and i think they should have had evidence of trayvon martin's sensibilities or abilities physically. we respect the judge's ruling. we'll move forward from here. >> i want to play a little bit for our viewers from yesterday. it happened late in the evening in that marathon session where co-counsel don west was saying the state has lied at times and been slow to give over evidence. and, in fact, not given over some evidence. let's play that. >> it's simply unfair for mr. zimmerman not to be able to put on his defense because of the state's tactics. it was a strategy, because they had it in january, and kept it from us. made us spend 10, 20, 100 hours digging it out. playing games with us. lying to this court, and now it's our fault? >> a, how extensive -- if you agree with the co-counsel that the state has lied, how extensive do you think the lies are? and are there other points of contention with how the state handled if case?

>> i've complained to you a couple of times about the discovery process. this is a case where i filed not one, but six motions for sanctions against the state for discovery violations. in 30 years of practice, i've never filed a sanction violation request with the court. this particular case, what frustrated mr. west so much is we now know with the evidence from the whistleblower from the state's attorney's office that they had evidence of these reports that were generated in the third week of january 2013. we didn't receive the information until june 4. that type of discovery violation is significant, and it negatively impacted our way to get prepared for the trial. i can understand with and agree with mr. west's frustration. we should not have to try this case by ambush. >> the closing arguments start tomorrow. you give yours on friday. for you, what's the most important thing you need to convey to the jury? have you already mapped out your closing argument? >> the most important point i think is to make sure that this jury looks at this case and

decides whether or not george acted in self-defense. i think there's overwhelming evidence that he did act in self-defense. there's very little evidence that he didn't. if the jury listens to the instructions given by the court, looks at the evidence and compares the two, not to do anything else, don't give us more than what we deserve with the facts and the law, they're going to conclude that george acted in self-defense. my fear is because of some bias or sympathy they may get from the state's closing arguments where they try to bring up the expletives the way they geled them or george yelled them and sort of mentioned the loss of a 17-year-old, then the jury may consider a compromised verdict. we don't want a compromised verdict. we don't want a jury pardon. we want a verdict based upon the facts in the law and that's an acquittal. >> have you written it out already, or is that something that you do in the final hours? >> i don't write it out. i know what i want to say.

i'm not good at writing things out. hopefully, i'll be able to communicate verbally what i want to say. >> thank you for joining us. >> sure. >> i would definitely need to write it out. for the last week, trayvon martin's family has watched the state of florida speak for them and their deceased son. same goes for their lawyers. they have had to watch them try a case that they are so connected to. earlier tonight, i spoke with martin family attorney darrell park. appreciate you joining us. what is your reaction to george zimmerman's decision not to testify? >> well, i think george realized that had he taken the stand, he would have had to face a very tough cross-examination. but also he has sat there and saw the many different statements he's given presented in this case. >> is the martin family disappointed they won't get to hear zimmerman cross-examined in an open court, or is it a relief they don't have to go through that hearing it? >> i don't think either way on that one, anderson.

they believe that had he taken the stand, he would have said the same things he said before. however, i think he made a decision based on the fact that he would be cross-examined on the many inconsistencies he said in the course of this case. >> the state, as you know, asked for manslaughter and aggravated assault to be included in the charges read to the jury in addition to the second-degree murder. does the martin family, do you have an opinion on that? do you have an opinion on that? if he was convicted of a lesser charge, he could still do just about the same amount of time because of the mandatory gun sentencing. >> all along, they've all just wanted whatever the law required in this situation in terms of his punishment. so they have not pushed for one or the other. as you point out, the criminal punishment will be about the same at the end of the day in terms of it being something that goes between 25 and life. >> so they're not so focused whether it's second-degree murder or a manslaughter charge? >> no. you have to remember this has been an emotional time.

as you heard from the father, tracy martin on the stand, he and the mother are just traumatized. i can tell you the last two days have been you have to because now the whole endurance of all of this is wearing on them. so they just want to see him punished and to pay his debt for taking trayvon's life. they are still just in a point of disbelief of having lost their son. >> i don't know if you talked to tracy martin about his own testimony about how he felt it went. you know, there were two police officers on the stand that testified that he initially said he couldn't identify his son's voice. tracy martin on the stand said cat core gli that that's not the case, that now i've listened to it, i am sure. how did you feel he did on the stand? >> let's think about what we heard. we heard tracy martin say that he backed away, we heard detective serino back away. what he said under his breath tracy martin murmured something

and he interpreted that as a no. the fact that he said he interpreted makes it clear that it was somewhat unclear. and he said that singleton was not there. so there's issues there in terms of what he said. most importantly though we must remember he had heard a series of 911 calls, and at the end he heard a gunshot. that was the final thing that took his son's life. in terms of whose voice it was, that was not his focus. his focus was on the gunshot, and that gunshot is the climax of that tape, not the voice that you hear. >> mark o'mara says he's convinced the state has not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt of second-degree murder. are you convinced the state has proved second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt? >> i think they either have it or are very close. i think that's why the law allows the lesser included offenses. at this point all we want is justice. so we believe we're close to getting that justice. >> darryl parks, appreciate your time tonight. thank you. >> thank you. a few moments ago, you heard

mark o'mara say a lesser charge is not appropriate. we've been debating the issue allno night. the question is, does his reason for posing it make any legal sense? i'll talk to the panel about his justification, next. [ thunder crashes ] [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them.

and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk. enjoy the whole family at a homewood suites, schedule a 5 o'clock meeting at a hilton garden inn, or hit the links at a waldorf astoria. get great rates at our ten top hotel brands during the great getaway. book now at hiltongreatgetaways.com.

welcome back. before the defense rested today, a former neighbor of george zimmerman's took the stand and talked about being the target of a home invasion. this happened about six months before trayvon martin was killed. the neighbor said she discussed the break-in with zimmerman about 20 times and said he was very helpful. here she is on the stand today describing the incident. >> i saw two young african-american guys ringing my doorbell repeatedly and kept

looking up at the window. i called the police. they broke into my house. i heard some bangs downstairs. the dispatcher told me to grab any weapon i had, because i had my son in my arms. he had woken up. and just prepare to use it if i had to. the guy was -- i was locked in my son's bedroom, and he was shaking the doorknob, trying to get in. i was sitting there with a pair of rusty scissors and my son in one arm, and the police came and they ended up leaving. >> let go back now to our panel, sunny hostin, jeffrey toobin, danny savalos and mark geragos. sunny, what do you think the point of that witness was? was it simply to show that george zimmerman, in the defense's opinion, is a concerned guy who looked out for his neighbors and that there was a track record of break-ins in this neighborhood? >> you know, i have to say i was so very confused by this witness, because in my view she sort of reinforced the fact that

george zimmerman was this wannabe cop and that when he saw trayvon martin he had in his mind that trayvon martin was a criminal, was just like the african-american teens that had broken into this woman's house. and she also said that she had spoken to george zimmerman about 20 times about it. so i've got to tell you, i don't understand why the defense put this witness on. quite frankly, i don't understand why the defense put any other witnesses on after dimaio. he was a terrific witness for them. >> i want danny to respond, but i want to show a little bit more of her testimony today. >> when mr. zimmerman came to you to talk to you about having been victimized by a home invasion, did you consider that strange? >> no. >> were you appreciative of his efforts to help you out? >> very. >> tell me about that. >> we were terrified when this happened. i was just appreciative that he was offering his hand and told

me that i could spend time with his wife if i needed to go somewhere during the day because i was so afraid. >> did he bring to you a lock to help you with the sliding glass door? >> yes, he did. >> did you consider that weird or unusual or strange? >> no, i was very appreciative. >> danny, sunny said she thought it made him seem like a wannabe cop. what do you see? >> maybe, but i have to respectfully disagree with sunny here. here's a test you can take at home. it goes a little like this. anderson, if i tell you a story that men, young men are looking in the windows of your neighborhood, peering around, breaking in, there have been burglaries, if you hear that story, is your first response, well, as long as there aren't any wannabe cops in the neighborhood, or option two, is it what are we going to do about the young men breaking into houses in our neighborhood? remember this jury. you have a jury of women who are almost entirely women who are a lot probably like this witness, and their chief concern

isn't going to be, hey, man, is a wannabe cop profiling in my neighborhood, or, oh, my god, i have children, and there are people breaking into houses in my neighborhood. what do we call, call the marines. >> it is interesting, jeff. >> i have children and maybe i shouldn't let them walk around in the rain for a candy run because they get gunned down. you know, i don't understand your argument, danny, and i think that's a big concern for any mother. there are five mothers on the jury. >> i don't think these mothers are thinking that. there are burglaries in my neighborhood, what do we do now. >> jeff, do you think this made george zimmerman more likable, less likable? >> i think it's -- what's puzzling to me about this testimony is that it's at the very end of the case. these jurors already think something about george zimmerman. they have formed an opinion about him. what's so interesting about this testimony is it will reinforce whatever they already think, that he's a wannabe cop, that he's nuts, out to get black people.

or that he's a concerned citizen who works with his neighbors to try to stop crime in the neighborhood. there is nothing that makes you insane if you're a neighborhood watch person. there are lots of people in this country that do neighborhood watch work. most of them fortunately don't wind up killing innocent people on the street, but idea of working in the neighborhood does not make you like a crazy wannabe cop. >> and the last witness, george zimmerman's father testifying about the 911 call with someone yelling for help. let's just quickly play that. >> they provided me headphones and reminded me that i was still under oath and would i listen to it? i said yes, and i listened to it, and then they asked me did i recognize the voice. >> and what did you tell them? >> i told them absolutely. it's my son, george. >> is that an opinion that you still have through today?

>> certainly. >> mark, george zimmerman's mother, uncle, a lot of friends all testified it was his voice earlier. why save this one to the last? >> well, because of his stature. because of his background and everything else. look, i'm not quite as puzzled as everybody else is on this panel as to why they put that woman on the stand. in fact, if i have to explain to you why they put this nice young white woman who had a breakin with a black boy and then she complained to george zimmerman, if i have to explain that to the panel, then i need to turn the channel and go over to the hysterical ladies network, because this is a no-brainer. it's clear what the defense is doing here. hello, what are we talking about? why do you think say saved her to last? jeff is completely right. they have already made up their mind. this woman was nothing more than a prop so when they go back into that jury room, they can say, yeah, but what about her?

whenever somebody may make the argument -- >> do you think that women are that unsophisticate that had they can't see past that. i hope know. >> no, i don't think that. sunny, i didn't say that. i wish you would listen to me. all i said is, when you say it's puzzling, it's hardly puzzling. you know why they did this. >> we've got to take a quick break. okay, jeff. >> the hysterical ladies network, which one is that? is that on my cable? >> hr ln. that would be hln. >> maybe that one is not in your cable package, jeff. >> i've got to start paying extra. >> stick around. we'll get the final thoughts about closing arguments starting tomorrow. we'll be right back. our functio♪ ♪ hooking up the country helping business run ♪ ♪ trains! they haul everything, safely and on time. ♪ tracks! they connect the factories built along the lines. and that means jobs, lots of people, making lots and lots of things. let's get your business rolling now, everybody sing. ♪ norfolk southern what's your function? ♪

♪ helping this big country move ahead as one ♪ ♪ norfolk southern how's that function? ♪ identity thieves. they can find your personal information and do some serious damage. like your birthday or your mother's maiden name. you need a new friend. lifelock. we scour billions of data points every day, and if we discover that any of your personal information is misused... lifelock is there. call us at 1-800-lifelock or go to lifelock.com today. lifelock is there. always go the extra mile. to treat my low testosterone, i did my research. my doctor and i went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18

or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment, axiron.

some final thoughts. sunny, prosecution begins closing arguments tomorrow afternoon. what is crucial for them to accomplish? >> i think they have to put all those puzzle pieces together, anderson, and show the picture to the jury. i think they have to hone in on the inconsistencies and show the jury that george zimmerman's version of events could not have happened. >> sunny, do you still believe they can still get a second-degree murder conviction? >> i do. i know i'm the lone wolf on this panel but i do. >> jeff toobin? >> yeah, i think the prosecution has to deal with this prosecution of who was on top. i think that's very -- that's a really hard problem for them. and the idea of what happened here. i mean, give us a complete picture of what happened when, who did what to whom in a way that's consistent with the evidence. that's a really tough assignment considering how contradictory the evidence is.

>> does it surprise you that mark o'mara says he doesn't write out his closing arguments before? >> no, it doesn't at all. i don't write out my closing arguments. i make take notes. >> that's like nik wallenda going without a net. >> no. one of the things you do is first of all, you live the case. you're into that trial, 24-7, you dream about it. you get up there. you've rehearsed it in your own mind, and when you get up there, you talk from your heart. >> i don't write mine out either. >> amazing that sunny believes it will be a second degree. mr. parks, the lawyer, said he didn't think they made second degree. >> we're totally out of time. do you think they can get a lesser charge? >> it's possible, but get your popcorn ready. closing arguments, my favorite part of trial. >> really? >> best show. >> all right. >> lawyers are weird. thanks very much, everybody, for watching this special edition.

join us again tomorrow night 8:00 for "a c360" and then at 10:00 eastern for more on the zimmerman trial. ♪ [ male announcer ] some things are designed to draw crowds. ♪ ♪ others are designed to leave them behind. ♪ the all-new 2014 lexus is. it's your move. the all-new 2014 lexus is. how can i help you? oh, you're real? you know i'm real! at discover, we're always here to talk. good, 'cause i don't have time for machines. some companies just don't appreciate the power of conversation! you know, i like you! i like you too! at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card and talk to a real person.

to allow jurors to consider lesser charges. the defense objected, seeking an all or nothing choice for jurors, who could get the case by friday afternoon. mark o'mara spoke today, saying the jury has what it needs to acquit in his opinion. he joins us exclusively tonight. we'll talk with one of the martin family attorneys and our legal panel. let's get you up to date. martin savidge begins our coverage. >> reporter: it's been the question dominate thing entire trial. would george zimmerman take the stand? and today judge nelson asked him directly. >> have you made a decision?