good evening, everyone. jurors in the zimmerman trial have a lot to sleep on tonight or perhaps a lot to keep them awake. closing arguments. the prosecutor seeking to make trayvon martin almost a living presence in their eyes as he led them through the state's theory of his killing. a frightened teenager, he said, pursued and killed by a wannabe court. we'll focus on closing arguments tomorrow for the defense, and the impact of judge debra nelson's ruling allowing jurors to consider a lesser charge. of course, the best legal panel around. we begin by catching you up by

another big day in court. here's martin savidge. >> reporter: unlike his opening, the state's closing began with more reverent tones. almost like a eulogy. >> a teenager is dead. he is dead through no fault of his own. he is dead because another man made assumptions. >> reporter: the prosecutor condensed the state's case into two hours, emphasizing its claim that george zimmerman actively profiled trayvon martin. >> he profiled him as a criminal. he assumed certain things. that trayvon martin was up to no good. and that is what led to his death. >> reporter: the state contends zimmerman is a wannabe cop and self-appointed neighborhood watch captain who had grown frustrated by a series of break-ins by criminals who always managed to get away. his narrative paused just once

for a recess and interrupted at another point for an objection. the defense attorney mark o'hara said the state was wrongfully interpreting the law. the state often returned to its tactic of using zimmerman's own words against him. >> he does not want to admit at all that he's following him or chasing him or profiling him. >> reporter: while the jury sat impasse savely for much of the delivery, zimmerman's parents in court for the first time as spectators since the trial started. looked at times incredulous, as the state concluded for the day a rare reaction from george zimmerman himself. >> the man who is guilty of second degree murder. thank you. >> reporter: earlier the court heard arguments on lesser charges that could be presented to the jury. it was no surprise the state asked for the lesser charge of manslaughter, but the defense was stunned when the prosecution wanted to add third degree felony murder, arguing that it

was among other things child abuse. >> the felony in this case alleged is child abuse. obviously, the information alleges that the defendant shot and killed the victim, that the victim was under the age of 18, and child abuse must be according to the third degree felony murder instruction defined. >> reporter: the defense attorney don west was outraged. >> oh, my god. just when i thought this case couldn't get anymore bizarre. >> reporter: the debate brought more testy ex-changes between west and judge debra nelson. >> i understand. i've already ruled and you ha have -- you continually disagree with this court every time i make a ruling. >> reporter: in the end, the judge ruled third degree felony murder would not be an option for the jury. >> i just don't think that the intentional part of that is there for the child abuse charge and that's not alleged in the information that way.

and i just don't think that the evidence supports that. >> reporter: the pressure now on mark o'hara to close out the defense's case friday before it heads to the jury. martin savidge, cnn, sanford, florida. >> a lot to talk about tonight between the fight over the lesser charges. judge nelson once again tangling with attorneys and the prosecutor rewriting a line from martin luther king's i have a dream speech trying to redeem rachel jeantel. sunny hostin sunny hostin and jeffrey toobin join me and danny savalos with mark geragos. we'll talk about the mlk reference later in the conversation. mark, let me start with you. the lesser charges, defense attorney don west very upset, outraged about the prosecution's move to move this lesser charge of third degree felony murder, a child abuse charge resulting in

death. did he are a right to be upset? >> yes, i think he does. i think it was frankly outray jouls and he's been upset all along. i don't know that it was a good idea to channel that anger towards her honor. but ultimately the manslaughter was going to be given. we had that argument yesterday about the propriety of lesser includeds, and the judge did what sthe law calls on her to d. >> you can say what you want about this case. it has nothing to do with child abuse. i thought, again, the judge was exactly right in her rulings, that she said manslaughter is an appropriate lesser included offense, but this third degree murd we are child abuse was not. she fought with the defense attorney, but he won that key ruling. >> sunny, i know you've been

favorable toward the prosecution throughout this. did you think that was a bridge too far for them? >> yeah, that was a stretch. i think it was a surprise to everyone. i was in the courtroom when they announced it, and you could hear the lawyers in the courtroom sort of gasp. i was among those. i think the judge made the right ruling. the government tried for it, they tried for ag assault at one point, but the case law didn't support them and the facts of this case don't support felony murder child abuse. and i think the judge got it right. >> danny, how do you think the prosecution did in their closing? >> overall, look, the prosecution has said from the beginning is doing very well with some difficult facts. i think they did a good job bringing emotion in and they did something i thought was very interesting. they're making this case subtly about george zimmerman's character. by that, he says outright, this case began months ago when george zimmerman was frustrated

about people breaking into places in the neighborhood. historically, the general rule is you don't introduce character evidence, people's prior acts or behavior to prove action and conformity with what they did on a particular night. but this was a brilliant way of back dooring in character evidence, which is relatively benign. he started a neighborhood watch. >> jeff, you can look at this either way. you can look at george zimmerman wanting to start a neighborhood watch as a good thing for a citizen to do. or if you think he's a racist or a profiler, you can look at it that way. sltz i thought that was the most effective part of the opening statement where he set the stage and said this guy was out to get, and he almost -- you could tell the implication, he's out

to get black people, although he never said that. he said profiling, but he did say about what or by what. the problem with his summation, which to me is the problem with the prosecution's case is it never answered the question, what happened? how did this death unfold? >> whereas we know the defense is going to have this video and a very clear interpretation, what they say happened. >> exactly. it's not even the defense's burden to prove what happened. it's really the prosecution's burden. and this issue of who took the first swing, how were the shots fired, that is a gap in the prosecution's case that this summation didn't fill. >> mark, there was a moment i want to play where the prosecutor pulled out george zimmerman's gun for the jurors. let's watch. >> he's got this gun and this holster and you'll see in a few minutes, maybe more than a few

minutes, one of the things that he does, he demonstrates to the police where he had the gun. and it wasn't right here in the front. it was towards the back and it was hidden and he'll demonstrate to the police out there where it was. look at the gun. look at the size of this gun. how did the victim see that in the darkness? where was it? it wasn't outside. it was tucked in behind. >> sunny, do you think that's one of the -- do you think that was one of the weakest parts of george zimmerman's defense, that trayvon martin went for his gun, that's what he told police? >> well, absolutely. i think the weakest part is all the different versions of what happened that night. and i've got to disagree with jeff. i think the prosecution has answered the question as to what

happened that night. what's before the jury is that george zimmerman chased, profiled trayvon martin as a criminal and shot him. you know, they have dispelled, i think, george zimmerman's version of events. you can't believe what he says because there's so many inconsistencies. he exaggerated so much. so you're left with the forensics which show that trayvon martin was shot and killed by george zimmerman. i've got to tell you, i thought the closing was masterful. i thought it was brilliant. they really changed the narrative. the focus was on trayvon martin's death and george zimmerman's actions on that night. i was looking at the jury and they were captivating. >> the second half of his summation was devoted almost entirely to zimmerman's various statements and pointing out what he said was the contradictions and lies. i thought that was frankly somewhat confusing and in too

much time on that issue. not enough reconstructing what actually happened. yes, there are inconsistencies, but i think mark o'hara is going to talk about what happens when you repeat stories a lot. i'm sure sunny disagrees with me, but i didn't see inconsistencies that looked like devious lies. >> mark, the police have testified that they didn't see glaring inconsistencies that pointed to lies. they saw the regular inconsistencies when somebody has repeated their story multiple times. >> that's exact think what they testified to. it's interesting that it would be characterized as a masterful change of the narrative is what i think sunny called it. what it struck me was that old saw if you've got the law, pound the law, if you've got the facts, found the facts. if you have neither, pound the table. this guy sat and yelled and yelled and yelled and i don't

understand how this was masterful. if anything, it was comical in a bizarre way. yes, there is a dead 17-year-old, and everybody regrets that. that's a tragedy. but at the same time, this to me was an abomination. i didn't understand what they thought was being accomplished. sunny says the jury was captivated. okay, the jury was captivated. maybe they were captivated by what is this guy on. i don't understand why he's yelling at us. >> danny, do you think it was effective? >> there were a lot of theatrics. he's maximizing what he has. a good example is the skittles and the iced tea. it's not an element of any crime. they should. have anything to do with the case. but the prosecutor uses these because we think of skittles as a child-like thing to eat and the fruity iced tea. i guarantee if trayvon martin had been buying a pack of smokes and motor oil, it doesn't capture the child-like

imagination. but the prosecutor takes that and instead of it being a nonissue he shows it to the jurors. this is what this child was buying. like i said, i think he's doing a terrific job with to have facts and that's an example of the style points he gets for using something that's irrelevant and turning it into a plus. >> we have to take a break. we'll have more from our panel. a lot more about the closing arguments, including the way the prosecutor tried to boost one of the witnesses, rachel jeantel in the eyes of the jury. and we'll look ahead to mark o'hara's closing arguments tomorrow. you can follow me on twitter. later, 911 recordings just now coming to light after that korean jumbo jet crashed in san francisco. >> i was just in a plane crash and there was a lot of people that need help. we have people who weren't found and they're burned really badly. we're trying to keep her alive.

welcome back. we're talking about what the prosecution was trying to achieve in closing arguments today. tonight, we're trying to play as many of the highlights from today as we can so you can decide for yourself. here's a moment that caught

everyone's ear, the prosecutor caulking about rachel jeantel and channeling martin luther king jr. >> i had a dream that she would be judged on the content of her testimony. on the content of her testimony. just because she's got a colorful personality, just because she referred to me as a baldheaded dude, that doesn't mean her statements aren't accurate. >> back with the panel. sunny hostin, jeffrey toobin, danny savalos and mark geragos. danny, you're shaking your head. >> i don't agree with this, i don't agree with the injection of -- look, you can listen to rachel jeantel and conclude she's not a credible witness. it doesn't mean we need to start talking about race relations in america. you can conclude that someone is either credible or not. and when you put rachel jeantel against the parade of witnesses that george zimmerman called, it's not about race.

it's about credentials. people who just came across as more credible witnesses. so it's risky to point at her and say, oh, ignore all her problems and believe her just outright. >> is she really that important? obviously she was a colorful witness. >> very important. >> how so, how so, sunny? >> i think she's very important, because she was the person that was on the phone with trayvon martin when the confrontation happened. she is the person that said trayvon martin was afraid. he believed that george zimmerman was creepy, was following him, and that george zimmerman confronted him by saying what are you doing around here when trayvon martin asked why are you following me? george zimmerman didn't say i'm the neighborhood watch guy or anything like that. then she says she heard some sort of bump and she heard trayvon martin say get off, get off. that's very important testimony. and danny, you were one of the people who said she wasn't relatable. i don't know what you meant by that, but i took that to mean

that somehow because of the way she spoke -- >> i'll tell you what i meant -- >> she was not relatable. >> i meant she said she couldn't read cursive. people will have -- >> that makes someone not relatable? that's ridiculous. >> when you assess the credibility of a witness, you look at what you can relate to in them. i picked one item -- >> half the children in america who grew up on computers can't read cursive. >> this is a murder trial. >> i want to help the wall flower mark geragos get in here. >> i was going to say, can i focus on one thing, and i don't understand this. first of all, let's put aside for a second that the prosecution is injekting race. more fundamentally, that isn't the law. you get a jury instruction, take a look at the jury instruction. a witness's attitude in giving testimony is absolutely

irrelevant. i mean, is relevant. where mark o'hara or don west wasn't objecting and asking for a curative instruction is beyond me, because what he told that jury is not the state of the law. that is not what the jury instruction needs. you can look at her attitude and demeanor and if you feel there's a problem with that, you take that testimony with a grain of salt. >> can you discount her testimony because she can't read cursive? >> no, no! that has nothing -- but if she says -- did i argue that? i don't think i did, sunny. i'm not danny. they should have objected at the time that that is not the law. because it clearly is not what the jury is going to get in a jury instruction. >> you have all argued at one time or another that a defense -- that a person on the stand was relatable. sunny, you've argued for trayvon

martin's mom that as a mother, she's relatable to everybody on the jury, because they are moms. isn't relatability something -- >> i didn't say someone is not relatable because she can't read cursive. i think that's code for these women -- >> it's code to you, sunny. >> someone like, you know, rachel jeantel. i understood her very well. >> i just want to play this -- >> sunny, you have been bringing your own stuff to the table in this case and you know it. >> that's not true. >> let's move on. you can talk about this later. i want to play the moment that danny talked about playing -- bringing out the skittles and the drink, an effective moment the prosecutor used. i want to play that. >> trayvon martin, he was there

legally. he hadn't broke in or sneaked in or trespassed. he was there legally. he bought skittles and some kind of watermelon or iced tea or whatever it's called. that was his crime. >> mark, do you find it effective in closing arguments to use props and things like that, to use the gun, et cetera? >> yeah, i think it is effective when you use props. i don't think it's effective to be yelling the whole time. i think that if you modulate, it's a lot more effective. and i think at a certain point it looks like, as i said before, that there's something wrong with your case if you have to scream at the jury the entire time. >> i think that's an overstatement. >> emotion is good at some point. >> but that part of the summation was so effective because it brought us back to why this case got national election. what kind of a count try do we live in that a 17-year-old boy can't go to the corner and by candy and soda and come home for the nba all-star game without

being killed? and that's a troubling aspect. >> i think it is very interesting, easy to lose sight of that essential fact in all of this. in all the talk about what the jury is thinking and how mark o'hara did and the back and forth on it, the essential core issue here is the death of this young man for no reason. there is no -- >> what we're going to hear tomorrow is the issue of self-defense, so maybe there was a reason. and that's the guiding conflict in this case. >> as you pointed out, we don't know, and still after all this trial, there is no definitive way of saying exactly what occurred. >> and i followed this trial closely. sunny thinks it's clear, but i don't know what happened here. and i think that's bad for the prosecution. >> you may remember from the casey anthony trial, that was one of the things the jurors said in interviews afterwards. they just said the prosecution couldn't tell us exactly what

happened. now, does that mean that's the way the law is supposed to be applied? maybe not. but jurors focus on that. if they can't come up with a narrative, and i respect sunny believes they've proved that, but if you weigh the narratives fair or not, george zimmerman's narrative is much clearer what happened, and i don't think they're conceding anything. but they are offering alternatives or counters to the idea of who was on top of whom. i think they're not quite as clear as george zimmerman. after all, one is still alive, one's not. >> the dummy that came in the other day made its second appearance in the courtroom today. prosecutors suggested the way zimmerman was pinned down made it unlikely he could reach his gun. take a look at this demonstration. >> i might as well do what everybody else has done.

if you see what he is saying now, he's saying that armpits. how does he get the gun out? armpits. how does he get the gun out? the truth does not lie. >> sunny, to mark's point, it does sound like he's yelling a lot. did you find that off-putting at all? >> what's interesting, i was in the courtroom, and i did not feel like the entire closing argument was yelling. and i was right there. there were parts that he was passionate. there were parts that he certainly was trying to drive the point home. he raised his voice. but i didn't see the women on

the jury recoil. >> so in the courtroom it didn't feel like that? >> not at all. what i bring to this case is the fact that i'm a former prosecutor, have been in many courtrooms. i'm a woman. i'm a mother. i'm a latina. i'm african-american. i'm part white. and i bring the same stuff into the jury room to this case that this jury brings. and i can tell you with bringing all of that, and that perspective, i think the prosecution was masterful today. >> everyone, stick around. it's the defense's turn tomorrow. our panel will weigh in on how mark o'hara and his team have done throughout the trial and what they're going to be looking for in the closing arguments. i spoke to mark last night on the program. he gave us some insight how he prepares for a closing argument like this. we're going to look at the judge debra nelson laying down the law. tonight we're taking a closer look how she's presided over this trial.

teaching tools for success, and fostering creativity. these programs are empowering people to lead positive change, and helping them discover how great a little balance can feel. through initiatives like these, our goal is to inspire more than three million people to rediscover the joy of being active this summer. see the difference all of us can make, together. i'm gonna have to ask you to power down your little word game. i think your friends will understand. oh...no, it's actually my geico app...see? ...i just uh paid my bill. did you really? from the plane? yeah, i can manage my policy, get roadside assistance, pretty much access geico 24/7. sounds a little too good to be true sir. i'll believe that when pigs fly. ok, did she seriously just say that? geico. just a click away with our free mobile app.

checking out of the hilton shouldn't be a pity party. your next trip is calling. saying, "deb, find a view for two at a conrad." or "make room for more at an embassy suites, deb." or "deb, lead a victory dance at a hampton." so chin up, love, and never stop vacationing. book during the great getaway for great rates at our ten top hotel brands. travel is calling you to hiltongreatgetaways.com.

even critics can see that george zimmerman's defense team has turned in a strong performance. but it didn't start that way. take a look. >> knock knock. who's there? george zimmerman. george zimmerman who? all right, good. you're on the jury. nothing? that's funny. >> remember that is how it all began for the defense. clearly they're not going to be telling knock knock jokes in their closing statements tomorrow. mark o'hara is going to be doing the close. our panel is here. sunny hostin, jeffrey toobin,

mark geragos. mark, what is the most important thing he has to convey to the jury tomorrow? he's going to be using that animation. >> right. he's going to use the re-creation and the animation, but i don't think you're going to see him yelling at the jury. i don't think you're going to see him getting into or play on emotion. what he's going to try to do is try to emphasize this is what the facts are. this is the law. and in you follow the law and do what you're supposed to do, you will find mr. zimmerman not guilty. and i think he's going to passionately, at least for a large part of this, go through what is it to have reasonable doubt. i think he's going to detail exactly what the facts show and i think he's going to do what i was saying, the definition of reasonable doubt. if there's two reasonable interpretations, one that points towards guilt, the other that

points towards innocence, you must find him not guilty. and in this case, i think that's what he's going to do. >> he has one very specific assignment. he's got to show that self-defense is a defense both to murder and to manslaughter. he's got a big problem with this manslaughter. the jury might want to compromise and convict him of manslaughter. that would be a disaster for george zimmerman. he's got to make the argument that self-defense is an absolute defense to both charges and try to persuade the jury not to compromise. >> it's interesting when you compare mark o'hara's style to the prosecutor today. o'mara, and you've been in the court more than anybody, how does his style play in that courtroom? on television, he seems very methodical, very calm, and he's been able to score some real points with prosecution witnesses. >> i think it plays very well,

especially when you compare him to don west. the judge likes him. the jury likes him. he's a very likable lawyer. he's got a really great demeanor. his voice is soothing. and i think he comes across as sort of proffesorial. i expect his summation to be very good, and i'm interested in seeing how he incorporates the animation into his presentation. he did say, anderson, that he isn't going to write out his summation, because he sort of breathes this case, has been living this case and will just speak from the heart. this is a tough case with a lot of elements to sort of speak from the heart. so i'm interested in seeing how that comes across to the jury. >> that's that animation, because it's clearly all from zimmermgeorge zimmerman's persp.

i spoke to mark o'hara last night on the program. and i just want to play some of what he talked about. i found it surprises that he pointed out that he doesn't prewrite or write out his final thoughts. let's listen. >> the most important point is to make sure this jury looks at this case and decides whether or not george acted in self-defense. there's overwhelming evidence that he did act in self-defense. 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'll conclude that george acted in self-defense. my fear is because of some bils or sympathy they may get from the state's closing arguments where they try to bring up the expletives the way george yelled them and they sort of mention the loss of a 17-year-old, that the jury may consider a

compromised verdict. we don't want that. just like we don't want a jury pardon. we want a verdict based upon the facts and the law. >> danny, you say the defense should not waste time responding to the prosecution's argument. >> there are two different schools of thought. you have a defense that's pretty solid and the prosecution may be on weaker ground and you're better off sticking to your own case. the prosecution can lay a trap for you. if you spend your time responding to their argument, there's the idea that you're giving it more credibility. a good idea might be the mma expert. some critics say why call an mma guy? all you're doing as a defense is making people think more about mixed martial arts. that to the defense should believe a red herring. so mark o'hara is so poll i believed, he's such a pro. i don't think he's changing up what he's doing too much based on the prosecution. they have enough good facts and good law that he can stick to

what he knows. he doesn't need to write anything around. i still use plenty of yellow note pads, but when you get to his level, you don't have to write anything down. >> how does it work when you have two counsels? does don west give his points what he wants in the closing? >> the way it often works is one lawyer handles the legal issues. don west dealt with the issues ant the charge. the prosecution is dividing things up in a common way when there's more than one prosecutor. one prosecutor will give the opening summation, and the other the rebuttal summation. that's fairly standard. slsz a lot more to talk about. judge debra nelson has kept attorneys on their toes throughout the style. we'll look at where she came from. and also new photos released from the asiana airlines plane that crash landed in san francisco and the dramatic 911 calls from passengers moments after it happened.

in miami, coca-cola is coming together with latino leaders

to support hispanicize, and the adelante movement. teaching tools for success, and fostering creativity. these programs are empowering people to lead positive change, and helping them discover how great a little balance can feel. through initiatives like these, our goal is to inspire more than three million people to rediscover the joy of being active this summer. see the difference all of us can make, together.

throughout the zimmerman trial, judge debra nelson has been tough and shown herself a no nonsense judge who repeatedly called out the attorneys. tonight, we'll take a closer look at how judge nelson lays down the law. randi kaye reports. >> reporter: judge debra nelson hardly notices the cameras in the courtroom. she's too busy putting the attorneys in their place. >> i would like to make a speaking objection. >> you can't make an objection to your own question. let's stop in right now. i have told counsel before first of all, no one talks over the other. please don't go off focus here. >> no, no. >> don't no, no me either. >> reporter: her style may be a turnoff to some, but to cnn

legal analysts, it's a breath of fresh air. >> this case could have easily unraveled. this case could have easily imploded. the judge is going to have no part of it. she's going to let everybody know who is in charge and it's going to be her. >> reporter: judge nelson wasn't originally chosen to hear this case. she replaced another judge who the defense claimed had a bias against zimmerman. she's been serving on the bench in florida's 18th judicial circuit since 1999. before that, she practiced law in orlando. she earned her law degree from the south texas college of law. judge nelson tends to agree more with the state, which is not uncommon for a judge. something that was on display again today, as she clashed with defense attorney don west over jury instructions. >> i am not giving that instruction. and you can -- >> by not instructing the law of this jury properly on the law -- >> you continually disagree with this court every time i make a ruling.

if i have made a mistake in this case, you will appeal. this is my ruling on this issue. >> reporter: but it was this moment after a hearing late into the night that will forever be cemented in trial watcher's minds. >> i am not physically able to keep up this pace. it's 10:00 at night. we started this morning. we've had full days every day. weekends, depositions at night. >> reporter: she simply decided it was time to go. she may not be warm and fuzzy, but judge debra nelson is always on her game. >> when there's a difficult argument, she says i'm going to study it. that night she did and came to court prepared. >> reporter: prepared and ready to rule as she thought the law dictated. randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> joining me once again, sunny hostin, mark geragos, jeffrey toobin and danny savalos.

mark, the judge runs a tight ship. what do you make of her style? >> look, what most people don't understand is in the last 20, 30 years, there's been a swing, a pend lum swing in the types of people that get appointed to be judge. the overwhelming majority are ex-prosecutors. so they come to the bench with that perspective. having said that, there's something i think endearing about this kind of rough style. i think she's a great judge in the sense that she keeps everybody on board. the only thing i would ask about her, and what i think i really like about her, is she's an equal opportunity kerr mujen. she gets in the prosecution and the defense's face. that's all i ever ask. i know she has issues with don west, and i don't know if there's a history there. but a lot of times i just respect the judge, who i don't

mind if they get in my face as long as they do it with the prosecution. and i think she's handled this case as well as anybody could have. >> does it ever pay to argue with the judge? >> sometimes. most judges will listen to you. some of these legal arguments could go either way. but what i have liked about what she's done is she's always been aware that there is a sequestered jury. these jurors in a hotel away from their families. they want to get back. that's why she's kept this trial moving along. that's why she was sitting at 10:00 at night so she wouldn't have to use the trial day, use the juror's time to deal with legal arguments. that is something that is hard to do for judges and she's done great at it. >> there's a theory about life, with referees. if you argue with a referee about a bad call, maybe later on he'll cut you a break. i don't know if that's true with judges, but i have so much sympathy with don west when he

felt he had to object to the judge asking questions. we've all had judges ask questions and think that's devastating my case. but it's a tough thing to do. >> danny, i've had cases where i've objected to the judge's questions and they've sustained the objection. so there's an upside and a downside. >> sunny, she certainly seems to be very conscious of wanting to move this case along. >> yeah, and i think jeffle is right on this. it's because the jury is sequestered and she's almost their lawyer. she wants to make sure that they are comfortable, but that they're not kept waiting and waiting while they're away from their families. i've got to tell you, the reason that this case has moved so quickly is because of this judge. another judge perhaps we would believe here for weeks and weeks and weeks. so i think she was certainly the right judge for this case. and she's really just done a

terrific job of keeping everyone in line. >> at this point, does nibble see any reasons for appeal or grounds for appeal if there is a conviction? >> absolutely. >> what? >> there are many grounds for appeal in this case. >> name one. >> what? >> name one? i can give you a plethora of them. constitution discovery. i'll start with the prosecution's late breaking discovery. the constantly dumping upon the defense of discovery that should have been given before. >> no murder conviction is going to be overturned because of late discovery. >> jeff, aren't you in washington? >> the defense is saying that the prosecution has lied, that they've been incredibly recalcitrant in giving up evidence. do you buy that? >> i've seen many criminal trials where there are a lot of fights about discovery. as long as the defense gets it

eventually, no conviction is ever going to be overturned. if it turns out that there is exculpatory evidence -- >> are you kidding me? >> can i finish, mark? if it turns out that there was evidence withheld, that's ground for overturning. >> we've got to leave it there, mark clearly disagrees. stick around, everybody. sunny, thank you, jeff, danny and mark. passengers aboard the asiana airlines jet that crashed in san francisco desperately pled with 911 operators for help. we've got the calls. we'll play them for you ahead. and why massachusetts investigators say they're close to clearing the killer in the last boston strangler case. [ male announcer ] oh, dan, checking out of the doubletree isn't the end.

your next trip is calling you. saying, "dan, schedule a 5 o'clock meeting at a hilton garden inn." or "dan"... hey, dad. ..."explore your family tree at a homewood suites." [ family ] hi, dan. or "put your feet in the sand at a waldorf astoria." never stop vacationing, dan. book during the great getaway for great rates at our ten top hotel brands. travel is calling you to hiltongreatgetaways.com.

welcome back. big elements in the investigation of the asiana airlines crash in san francisco. a fresh and horrifying look inside the fuselage provided by investigators, the interior gutted by fire. amazing that 305 people survived. the crew aborted landing twice in the final seconds before impact. the pilot in control said he saw a flash of bright light moments before the disaster. and 911 calls made by people near the airport who witnessed the crash and by passengers themselves. the latest now from dan simon. >> reporter: two minutes after the boeing 777 crash, fire trucks race to the scene. but a newly released 911 call -- >> we were just in a plane crash and there are a bunch of people who still need help. >> reporter: passengers are heard begging for more

ambulances. >> 911 emergency. >> there's a crash at the airport. there are people injured on the tarmac. >> ma'am, we have reports of it. we're aware of the situation. >> there are no ambulances here. we've been on the ground 20 minutes. we have critical injuries. hello? >> yes. i'm still here. were you on the plane, ma'am? >> yes, i was on the plane. we've been on the ground i don't know, 20 minutes, half an hour. there are people laying on the tarmac with critical injuries. >> reporter: another caller describes a badly injured passenger. >> there is a woman out here on the street, on the runway, who is pretty much burned severely and we don't want to do. >> we have help. you said there's not enough people? >> yes. she will probably die soon if we don't get help. >> reporter: the san francisco fire department today explained

its response protocol, saying in a mass casualty event, ambulances wouldn't race to the runway. the procedure is for paramedics to triage patients and transport them to the hospital. >> it was like we were all bouncing all over the place. i just remember there being dust everywhere. i was freaking out and then it just stopped. >> reporter: by all accounts the medical response was successful, as all by two passengers survived. the families of the two girls who died visiting the scene last night. investigators had mostly finished their inspection of the aircraft and had to cut it up to haul it away. >> we' ll be cutting through the wings and cutting through the fuse imagine to remove sections of the fuselage. that work is going to begin this evening and go on until it's completed. >> reporter: the ntsb chairman said no faulty equipment has

been detected. >> dan, one of the pilots said he saw a bright flash. any explanation for what that might have been? >> reporter: this came up yesterday. that immediately led to speculation that he was temporarily blinded. today, she said she was not blinded, that this may have been a reflection from the sun. this appears to be a nonissue. >> dan simon, thanks. "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"

[ whirring ] [ dog barks ] i want to treat more dogs. ♪ our business needs more cases. [ male announcer ] where do you want to take your business? i need help selling art. [ male announcer ] from broadband to web hosting to mobile apps, small business solutions from at&t have the security you need to get you there. call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better. ♪

[ male announcer ] after pushing the limits of pushing buttons, introducing the button to end all buttons. siri, do i have any text messages? [ siri ] you have a new message from chad -- "are you wearing my scarf?" ♪ tell me a joke. two iphones walk into a bar. [ male announcer ] the chevrolet sonic. the world's first car available with siri eyes free and hands free integration through your iphone. that's american ingenuity. to find new roads.

friends of twinkies are very excited. they're back on store shelves on monday. when hostess halted production, a lot of kids and adults were saddened. but hostess has a new owner and twinkies are back. >> reporter: as american as baseball, apple pie and celebrity gossip, twinkies are returning. eight months after labor troubles made hostess crumble, new owners are heralding the sweetest comeback in the history of ever. >> i think twinkies are awesome. >> i think everybody is missing them. >> reporter: they've been around since 1930, and in less health conscious days, it seemed every child enjoyed one at least once. >> creamy filling. >> reporter: they were featured on did's days. >> what do we have?

hostess twinkies. >> reporter: today, however, many people are skeptical of sugars and fats. you're not excited that they're coming back? >> no, not really. >> reporter: so what explains the twinkie mania? maybe it's because twinkies make people think about nostalgia, not nutrition. >> it's twinkie the kid. >> twinkies remind me of being a kid. >> it's a thing people past down from generation to generation. >> reporter: twinkies fit into a rare category of foods, with overwhelming emotional appeal. >> it's often people get their first twinkies their mother puts it in their lunchbox. there's a gift aspect to it. and you might later in your life buy a twinkie, but it doesn't carry that bubldzle of love with it. >> reporter: an unopened twinkie will last for edges says urban

legend. but the new ones will make it like 45 days. but as a snack food in a firm place in americana, yeah, they might last forever. tom foreman, cnn, wap. >> that's it for us. thanks for watching. a jury that today heard impartii impassioned closing arguments from the pruce. trayvon martin was there. he was there legally. he bought skittles or iced tea or whatever it's called. that was his crime. >>