means. i think you could interpret it three different ways. and it's what we do, but it does not necessarily tell us anything. except that, clearly, manslaughter is in the mind of at least one or some of the jurors. >> again, we don't want to speculate here but that is the reason you were a prosecutor. you know, you've been through this process numerous times. as an attorney you've been through this process as well but this at least tells you in some instance where the jurors are in this process. just a short time ago we got notice there was movement in the courtroom that attorneys on both sides were making their way to the courtroom. the attorneys came in as well as george zimmerman. the defendant here and seated themselves in the courtroom. the jurors not in the courtroom yet. the judge came in, walked in, judge nelson saying the jurors have a question regarding manslaughter.

jurors not in yet. where does that put us, sunny hostin? >> when you look at the research and stats about jury deliberations what they usually do is go through the jury instructions page by page by page. they go in order, chronological order. they also go through the verdict form in chronological order. if you are going through the jury instructions in chronological order as i have been doing, in order to get to manslaughter, you've got to get past second-degree murder and you've also got to get past quite frankly justifiable homicide. so one interpretation from the stats and the way jurors generally do things is they are past second-degree murder but would be past justifiable homicide and are to know manslaughter. >> okay. so if you are, as we are at this moment where the jury has sent a note, right, that's what they do saying hey, listen, we have a question about manslaughter, if you are the prosecution, what are you thinking? >> you're hoping that they're

really moving toward manslaughter. and the defense is hoping they're hung up on the issue of legally justifiable. that is the debate, that's going to be the issue. it sounds like there are really debates going on with the jurors. this is a very, very big question. it's not a procedural question. this is the essence of what most of us have thought the jurors were going to think about if there is going to be a conviction and that is manslaughter. they've clearly honed in on that. either it is going to be manslaughter as they want to make sure that's what it is or it's manslaughter versus an acquittal. that seems to be the indication. >> i can tell you having been a prosecutor and tried cases with lesser included, when you try cases and really believe in your top count you're upset. that they may have moved past second-degree murder and are on to manslaughter. while many would consider that a win for the government if they got this manslaughter conviction

i can tell you these seasoned prosecutors seem to believe deeply in their case and may be a bit disappointed this jury has passed second-degree murder. >> i think if they get a manslaughter conviction they should be over joyed. they took a very challenging case and did a terrific job if they are able to pull off a manslaughter. they should be over joyed with that. >> i want to get my prosecutors in here because they know what they're talking about. holly hughes, prosecutor, what do you think if you are the prosecution here? >> i agree with sunny a hundred percent. i think they've gotten past the second-degree murder charge, which is a little disappointing because if you listen to the content of what was argued in the final rebuttal close for the state, neither he nor bernie dela rionda talked about manslaughter. almost as if they didn't want to admit to the jury it could be a possibility. they focused and wanted the

second-degree conviction. the fact the jury has moved past it and is now considering the manslaughter charge i'm with sunny. if i were a prosecutor i'd be a little broken hearted right now. >> paul cowan? >> i have to, although i am also a former homicide prosecutor, i got to side with mark on this one. i think you can't read too much into the question. yes. they could be having a fight. two could be saying this is a murder case and four saying it's a manslaughter case. and they're saying, well, let's have the judge explain manslaughter. then they go back out and they have another debate about that. and then they turn to the self-defense issue. so it is really very hard to read these tea leaves. certainly sunny and holly's analysis is totally logical. by the way, i've seen that analysis be accurate in many cases as well. but i've also been surprised, often. i think it's premature based on one question for the jury to

really make any sort of meaningful prognostication about what's happening in the case. obviously, progress, substantial progress is being made by this jury because when they start asking questions, they've narrowed the issues. they're getting focused. they're going to try to make a decision. but i think concluding that it's manslaughter or murder or that all is lost to the defense is premature. >> all right. stand by, everyone. you're in the cnn newsroom. i'm don lemon live in sanford, florida where we are awaiting to hear from the judge. the jury has a question about manslaughter. let's listen in. okay. apparently the judge said the court is in recess for 30 minutes. in recess for 30 minutes. here we are at this juncture, just a short time ago, all the lawyers, george zimmerman, there you see him now, exiting the courtroom with his defense team and you see also the court watchers and the reporters who

are in there. everyone exiting the courtroom. they entered just a short time ago. and all of the attorneys now exiting. the judge came in and said the jury had a question about manslaughter. a question about manslaughter. so far today, they have been deliberating for nine hours. they deliberated about three and a half hours yesterday. it has been quite sometime. here's what they do every day. everyone exits. they give it a bit of a wait and then george zimmerman and the family and everyone else exits once they clear the hallway. right? >> that's right. they do it each and every day. so i am joined by the legal minz to try to figure out what is going on. right now the zimmerman jury is in the 13th hour of deliberations. the six female jurors c contemplating george zimmerman's fate. they are taking their time to reach a verdict. the case has sparked really passionate debate on race in america, gun laws. people across the nation have some very strong opinions here.

it all comes down really to the six women to decide whether george zimmerman should go to prison for the shooting death of 17-year-old trayvon martin or walk away a free man. here are the options as they contemplate that question about manslaughter. they can find him guilty of second-degree murder. they can find him guilty of manslaughter. or a lesser charge. they can find him guilty or they can acquit him. and -- or not guilty i should say. or they could acquit him. and the fourth option, jurors cannot agree and then it's a hung jury and it's a mistrial. we are also getting startling developments, too, involving trayvon martin's cell phone. we'll get to that a little bit later. the new information i want to stick with this now. can we take that down and come back live? i want to stick with the new information. the jury has a question now about manslaughter and i have some folks around me here, i have mark, holly hughes in

atlanta, sunny hostin here. i also have paul callan, and george howell who has been covering this trial. before i get to as my colleague nancy grace would say unleash the lawyers, i'm going to the reporter who has been covering this. let's go to george howell. take us inside that courtroom. you have been sitting there. when something like this happens, you've been in that courtroom. take us inside the courtroom. what happens now? >> well, don, look. from being in the courtroom, from watching these jurors, they paid very close attention to all of the displays. they listened very closely to what the attorneys had to say. now they're looking at the wording trying to figure out what is manslaughter. i want to read you the instructions. these are the instructions that the judge gave to the jurors before they left to start deliberations. this is what they're considering. if you find george zimmerman committed manslaughter and you find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the manslaughter george zimmerman carried, displayed,

used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm you should check the appropriate box on the verdict form. which is manslaughter. those are the words they're looking into. that the basic instruction of manslaughter as it is explained here in the state of florida. so now we see that they're trying to get some clarification on it. here's the other thing, don. this jury, they do not know the punishment for manslaughter. we know it could be a minimum of ten years up to 30 years. it is described as a lesser charge. is it possible the jury could say we're not going for second-degree murder. we'll go for the lesser charge of manslaughter, a little less severe. not necessarily in the state of florida. 30 years behind bars, minimum of ten and no parole in the state of florida. >> all right. george howell, thank you very much. george, thank you. martin savidge inside the courthouse. what do you know? martin is on the phone.

>> reporter: well, it was the attorneys and everyone else that was called into the courtroom. it was a question of course from the jury. but the question is pretty significant and that is they want clarification, i guess a stronger definition of what exactly manslaughter means at least from a legal definition. and that probably means a lot. i mean, i don't want to jump to any suppositions at this point. but it would seem that the jury is now focused on that particular aspect. of course, we know inside the courtroom there were the attorneys for both sides and of course the prosecution and for the defense george zimmerman was there with his family. we do not see trayvon martin's parents there but we certainly saw their legal team was there. you know, much of that took place up at the bench with the discussion with the prosecution and defense attorneys talking to judge nelson. as you know, from being in that courtroom, don, when those conversations occur, they actually put a white noise

through the speaker system in the court so the rest of us in there cannot over hear that conversation. it was pretty serious as the attorneys want to be sure both sides kind of get a good definition for that jury. that's probably why the judge said, all right. give it 30 minutes and then we'll meet again. so it's significant but, you know, i'm not a legal expert so i don't want to read too much into it. if they're focusing on manslaughter it may say a lot. >> yeah. good not to speculate. but i have to ask you. did the jury ever enter the courtroom? >> no. we did not. we didn't see them. this was a matter done with the jury still out in the deliberation room. we have not seen them at all. all we know and the way this process works is when they have a question they notify a bailiff outside the room where they're gathered and the bailiff will then notify the judge and the judge comes in and essentially notifies everyone in the court at the same time.

it is done very much in public view, but the jury is not present. >> marty, we saw the family. george zimmerman's family. we did not see the martin family. we saw obviously the attorneys for both sides here. take us inside the courtroom. who else was there? >> well, of course, all the media seating was packed because we've been hanging around this courtroom, this courthouse all day waiting for some development and this is the first key development. it's looking like a fairly significant one. public seating is pretty much empty because it just isn't available for people at this particular time. then you had the attorneys seated as they normally are at the front of the courtroom, judge nelson up on the bench there. it was of course noticeably abent that you didn't have the jury. not surprising. that is just the way it is going right now. it was quiet and it was nervous. you could tell that all the attorneys are very nervous,

because this is a crucial question. this is a key time. many have been watching and knowing how much time has gone by here and they're sort of -- there is sort of a sense this jury has to be coming to some sort of decision. or some realization they're not. again, this question of manslaughter, it would seem they're coalescing on something. >> very well put. this is a significant development. martin savidge our reporter covering this from the very beginning. he is inside the courtroom and was there for this jury question. stand by. we'll get back to you as well as all of our experts here. i'm don lemon live in sanford, florida. significant development to tell you about in the george zimmerman trial. the jury has a significant question. they want to know about manslaughter. they want some clarification. we'll have a very short break. they will be back in court very shortly and we'll take you back live inside the courtroom.

i have low testosterone. there, i said it.

see, i knew testosterone could affect sex drive, but not energy or even my mood. that's when i talked with my doctor. he gave me some blood tests... showed it was low t. that's it. it was a number. [ male announcer ] today, men with low t have androgel 1.62% testosterone gel. the #1 prescribed topical testosterone replacement therapy increases testosterone when used daily. women and children should avoid contact with application sites. discontinue androgel and call your doctor if you see unexpected signs of early puberty in a child, or signs in a woman, which may include changes in body hair or a large increase in acne, possibly due to accidental exposure. men with breast cancer or who have or might have prostate cancer, and women who are or may become pregnant or are breast-feeding, should not use androgel. serious side effects include worsening of an enlarged prostate, possible increased risk of prostate cancer, lower sperm count, swelling of ankles, feet, or body, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing during sleep, and blood clots in the legs.

tell your doctor about your medical conditions and medications, especially insulin, corticosteroids, or medicines to decrease blood clotting. in a clinical study, over 80% of treated men had their t levels restored to normal. talk to your doctor about all your symptoms. get the blood tests. change your number. turn it up. androgel 1.62%. get the blood tests. change your number. turn it up. a meal like thiso save on fast from walmartd dinners. costs less that $3.50 per serving. and if a family of four like yours switches out fast food dinner just once a week you can save over $690 a year. unbelievable. it's believable. save on a kraft dinner backed by the low price guarantee. walmart

don lemon live here in sanford, florida looking at live pictures now of the county courthouse where there has been a major development just a short time ago. this is earlier. inside the courthouse, we saw george zimmerman and all the attorneys enter the courthouse because there was a question by jurors concerning manslaughter. they need a clarification on manslaughter. that's according to judge nelson. martin savidge was inside the courthouse and said the attorneys appeared to be very serious. we could see that by looking at them whenever there was a shot up on the scene. everyone is in the courtroom including george zimmerman's family, trayvon martin's family not there but all of the court watchers and attorneys inside. are they considering

manslaughter at this point? they certainly do have a question about it. as our martin savidge said this is a significant, serious question, and it is a significant development. i'm going to our legal experts. we have a number of them. sunny hostin is next to me, our legal analyst. mark is here with me in sanford, florida as well, former attorney, also former prosecutor faith jenkins. prosecutor holly hughes, brian, paul callan a cnn legal analyst. who else do we have? a number of folks here to talk about all of these developments. what does manslaughter mean? what does he face and what do they have to prove for manslaughter? >> you know, he faces up to 30 years in prison and many people out here, florida lawyers are telling me that means probably about 10 to 13 years if you look at the guidelines. to prove manslaughter and this is what the judge instructed

them, they have to prove trayvon martin is dead. of course they did that. they also have to prove george zimmerman intentionally committed an act that caused the death of trayvon martin. you look at that, it's pretty simple. i'm curious as to what the jury needs clarification on because that does appear to be pretty simplistic. and it is what manslaughter is. it takes out the intent piece that was a big part of the trial, that depraved mind. it takes it off the table and they only have to prove those two elements. >> i knew i was forgetting someone. jeffrey toobin who is cnn's legal analyst, this is a major development. what do you make of it? >> well, the jury is paying closer attention. this is obviously a very key issue in the case. i think it's important to say that jury instructions are very confusing. they are written in legalese. normal people have a hard time

understanding them. it is not at all a surprise that jurors are asking for clarification of what these concepts mean. this is a fairly common question from juries. please explain the nature of a crime. i think all of us who followed the trial suspected manslaughter might well be a possible resolution of the case and, clearly, it is something the jury is considering. >> i should point out that the judge said there would be a 30-minute recess. he did that about ten minutes ago, and in a couple minutes we should see the judge coming back in and we should get more clarification about exactly how they're going to proceed from here. these are the pictures of him coming back into court earlier. mr. paul callan i haven't spoken to you since we had this particular issue. you heard what jeffrey said. jury instructions can be difficult for laymen to understand but this is an

important development here. >> yes. it is a very important development. i was looking at the charge that was given to the jury initially. a lot of times when this question is asked all the judge does is read the legal charge back to the jury and send the jury back out because the judge is very much afraid that if she changes the wording a little bit it could get turned over by an appellate court. they have to be very precise in giving the law to the jury. by the way, the charges, i was looking them over. with respect to manslaughter, are pretty vague. it's just about unlawfully taking a human life without proper justification. so i understand why this jury is saying now, we need more detail about that. what precisely do you mean by, you know, unlawfully or taking a human life without justification? it's a pretty vague charge that has been given to the jury.

former prosecutor faith jenkins if you were part of the defense how would you be feeling? i think i would be nervous because with this question about manslaughter that means at least one of these jurors is considering that as a possible alternative in this case. you can't make the presumption this question applies to all six of the jurors but at least one of them in looking at the facts is considering manslaughter as a possible conclusion for this case. i might be a little nervous if i'm a defense attorney at this point. >> you know, i think that sunny said it correctly. it's really out of your hands if you are an attorney right now. all you can do is just sort of sit back and wait to see what the judge says after this. >> all the lawyers are going through the same thing. reading tea leaves trying to figure out exactly what is going on inside that jury room. you get a question like this. my natural inclination, my

feeling when i see this is they've gone through second-degree murder, they're past that on to manslaughter. but it could be one juror who's causing a problem or has a lot of questions and they want the question to get to the judge. i've had situations before where a question comes out that i think i'm ruined on. my case is down the tubes. then i find out later from the jury after they come back that was just one person with one question. we had to get that question answered to get through it and continue our deliberations. it could be that. i think the real problem here is you can't really reinstruct the jury. paul said it right. these instructions are the foundational bed robak rock of if something goes wrong. my guess is she'll tell the jury to go back and read the instructions again. she may give some words of encouragement to them. i suspect she is trying to review the law and see what's there. i think it is awful difficult to read a lot into this.

we can read something into it but not a lot. >> all right. stand by everyone. i'll tell our viewers at home we are awaiting the jury to come back in, the judge, the attorneys, george zimmerman, the family to come back into the courtroom. the jury has a question about manslaughter. the judge ordered a recess a short time ago but they should be coming back at any moment. we'll take a quick break. you won't miss any of it. live from the courthouse in sanford, florida for the george zimmerman trial moments away. we've been bringing people together. today, we'd like people to come together on something that concerns all of us. obesity. and as the nation's leading beverage company, we can play an important role. that includes continually providing more options. giving people easy ways to help make informed choices. and offering portion controlled versions of our most popular drinks. it also means working with our industry to voluntarily change what's offered in schools.

but beating obesity will take continued action by all of us, based on one simple common sense fact... all calories count. and if you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, you'll gain weight. that goes for coca-cola, and everything else with calories. finding a solution will take all of us. but at coca-cola, we know when people come together, good things happen. to learn more, visit coke.com/comingtogether

don lemon live in sanford, florida looking at the seminole county courthouse. these are live pictures. we just got word a short time ago the jury had a question as it comes to manslaughter. everyone convened into the courtroom. they spoke with the judge for a bit. then the judge said we'll take a recess for about 30 minutes. that happened 15 or 20 minutes ago. this is a sig capital development in this particular case. according to some of our experts here they say it means they may be beyond second-degree murder here. it shows you where they might be in deliberating this trial and the fate of george zimmerman. joining me is jeff gold, a

former prosecutor. paul callan, cnn legal analyst. brian is a former prosecutor as well, holly hughes as well. mark will join me shortly. so will sunny hostin. then also jennifer friedman, faith jenkins excuse me joins me and then jeffrey toobin who is our legal analyst joins me on the phone. jeff, as we await the jury, the judge at least, the attorneys, george zimmerman to come back into court, where do you think this puts us? what does it all mean? >> well, the judge has a tough decision right now. the safe choice is simply to repeat what she said before about the definition of manslaughter. that would certainly not create a problem on appeal if george zimmerman is convicted. however, if she wants to help the jury she has to try to translate the jury instructions

from legalese into english. that becomes a perilous endeavor because appeals courts take jixz particularly at this stage of the case very seriously. i think the judge is going to have to walk the line between simply repeating herself and trying to help the jury in a way that might lead them to reach a verdict soon. >> okay. i said our reporter would join us shortly and that is martin savidge who has been covering the trial from the very beginning and was present when they convened a short time ago and when the judge said that they will take a short recess and then come back in. marty, what's happening now? martin savidge? >> i'm with you. >> martin, you're live now. take us inside the courtroom. we're waiting. it is probably what, ten more

minutes we have to wait? ten, 15 minutes? >> yeah. we're just outside of courtroom 5-d and we're anticipating it is about five more minutes. i haven't seen attorneys and family members going in so right now you can imagine the difficulty and the finesse they are probably working on each side trying to craft that answer for the jurors because it will be crucial. >> marty, i am going to -- it is a bit tough to hear you. you can jump in any time. marty, stand by. if you have to go in go back in. holly hughes, let's talk about proving manslaughter if we can put up the definition here. let's talk about what you have to prove when it comes to manslaughter and the possibility

that george zimmerman faces, the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another without lawful justification and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder. what does that mean? >> right. basically, someone has to be dead, which the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt. you know, there is, unfortunately, a dead young man here. what george zimmerman did in causing that death, no mystery. he admitted he is responsible for causing the death. statements he made, i pulled out my gun. i shot him. what the jury needs to decide is was it justifiable. which means do they believe the self-defense claim advanced by the defense team here? it is very simple because you don't need the criminal intent you need with second degree where you are looking for a depraved mind. you just have to intend the act that resulted in death. so if you intended to pull the trigger and it is pretty clear

from zimmerman's statements, yes. i pulled out my gun. i shot him. what i did was a deliberate act. the jury now needs to decide whether self-defense is a viable defense to that. bear in mind, in florida, don, they're also going to look at was this with a weapon or a firearm? and that changes the sentencing guidelines because the sentencing guidelines will run ten to 30 and that could be if it was just regular manslaughter that could be probated but when they say it was done with a gun, which is very clear, this offense was committed with a gun, it changes it from that possibility of probation. the judge is going to have to give at least a ten-year prison sentence. that is what we call a mandatory minimum. if they find yes this was manslaughter with a weapon or a firearm. >> okay. holly, stand by. back to jeffrey toobin, looking on the screen this is a maximum sentence, 30 years in prison.

holly talked a bit about what the sentence would be as well. the jurors don't know this, jeffrey toobin. >> don, i didn't quite hear that. can you ask again? >> the jurors are not made aware of the sentencing guidelines for manslaughter before they deliberate. >> no, they are, in fact, not aware of anything regarding sentencing. this is something that varies a lot by state. texas juries do sentencing themselves. but florida is like most states where jurors have absolutely nothing to do with sentencing. their decisions of course have enormous implications and they may think manslaughter has a substantially lower sentence than second-degree murder if they think that they're wrong. but certainly my guess is they have no idea what sentences go with any of these crimes.

>> okay. everybody pause. we're getting to a break. at any moment now, at any moment, we heard from our martin savidge. they expect less than five minutes. we'll be back in plenty of time. if the judge comes back we'll bring it to you live. a significant development. the jury has a serious question here. we'll take you live inside the courtroom for the george zimmerman trial in just moments.

all right. breaking news here on cnn. there you see george zimmerman walking back into the courtroom. these are live pictures. just a short time ago the jury sent a note to the judge saying they had a question regarding manslaughter. they needed some clarification. they needed some clarification regarding manslaughter. everyone convened in the courtroom including of course all the attorneys, george zimmerman, his family. all the reporters and the prosecution as well. the judge came in and said the

jury had a question concerning manslaughter. they needed clarification. everyone approached the bench. the attorneys at least. and after about five, ten minutes or so at the bench they chatted there. the judge said that she would take a recess for about 30 minutes and present the information and try to figure out exactly what the jury needed and then they would convene. so it appears that they are in the process of doing that now. i am joined by jeff bolt who is a former prosecutor, by paul callan who is our legal analyst. by jeffrey toobin who is our legal analyst here. holly hughes is a former prosecutor as well and these are live pictures, again, of them coming into the courtroom. faith jenkins is a former prosecutor as well. there you have everyone in this courthouse now. to brian, a moment like this for an attorney, what are you doing? what are you thinking? >> you're nervous. it's pretty electric.

you wonder what's going to happen. you've poured months into this trial. you've been in trial for days and days. you are on the edge of your chair. i tell you, i hate waiting on jury more than anything else in practicing law. you want to see what the judge is going to do. your every little move from this moment on makes differences. it can make a huge difference on appeal. it can make a difference what the jury gets, what information they get, if there are further instructions. if you even agree to further instructions. your heart is racing. your blood pressure is up. you just want to see what is going to happen next. >> holly, take us inside the mind of a prosecutor. >> well, right now they are just on pins and needles. they are a little bit nervous the second degree is probably off the table. i know everybody says you can't speculate on what they're doing but common sense tells us since the top charge was second degree

they have probably already gone through that and decided either it doesn't apply or maybe there are one or two jurors who think maybe it is manslaughter and they're looking for a little clarification. if i'm a prosecutor i am a little nervous. i thought i gave a great closing, impassioned plea to the jury to do the right thing and bring back justice and here we are 13 hours later looking for clarification on the lesser included charge. so you've got to be thinking, what is going on in the mind of that jury? this a last ditch effort for them to return any kind of conviction? >> is there a ray of hope, maybe an odd term, for anyone, for any side in this prosecution or the defense? >> in this jury question? the thing is you know what the division is among the jurors. there could be jurors who have made up their mind about second degree and others who want manslaughter so they're asking for clarification on the

definition or on the statute itself. when you have a question like this it is hard to tell because you don't know what the division is among the jurors. the question could apply to all six of them or it could apply to one. five jurors could already have made up their mind about second degree versus one who is holding out. that is why it is really hard to assume and presume what the jurors are thinking with this question. >> paul, everyone is arm chair quarterbacking right now. you have done this for a a number -- probably been in the same situation many times as a legal analyst on cnn and elsewhere. where do you think this puts the prosecution and the defense? >> well, it's a case that has such enormous importance and public interest and i think this was a well tried case. by the way, it's far from over. you know, i'd like to think we're coming up on a really exciting moment and something big is going to happen but this might be as exciting as watching

paint dry when the judge just reads the instructions back on manslaughter. then they can go out and start deliberating and we could be here for another two days or another hour. that is what makes this stuff exciting. you don't know what a jury is going to do. i think the point you raised a little bit earlier is the point that is the most interesting one, which is the jury here could be looking at manslaughter saying this is not murder but he took a life and we have to find him guilty of something. let's find him guilty of manslaughter. not knowing he could get 30 years in prison for manslaughter, as much time as he would spend in prison probably on the murder count. the jury does not know that. we have a system that says the jury is here to decide the facts and the judge is the one and the legislature in enacting the law determines the sentence. it is kind of a strange concept.

most people think the jury must know what he gets if convicted of manslaughter but they don't. they just decide the facts. >> as we await the judge coming back and we're hearing he is going to come back at any moment now to answer and respond to that question. so paul brings up a very good point here. six women on this jury and they may be thinking what he said and you and i -- no jeff gold. okay. put the question to you. six women on this jury. they may be thinking what you're thinking and there is a reason there are six women, most of them mothers on this particular jury. >> i think the reason is prosecutors wanted women on the jury. >> right. we don't want to profile women but that is what you do in jury selection. you pick people for certain reasons. >> you do. i think, you know, of course the law presumes everybody is equal and everybody is treated the

same. in reality, different people view different situations through life experiences and women in particular may view violence and the threat of violence in a way that is different than men. i think prosecutors in this case felt women would be especially sensitive to a 17-year-old kid being pursued by a stranger and killed and be sympathetic to that position. more maybe than a man would be and that certainly factored into their decision putting so many women on the jury. it is very unusual by the way. i've been trying cases for a lot of years, tried a lot of murder cases. i have never seen a criminal case of this seriousness with only one gender on the entire jury. it is unusual because it's a x six-person jury which is another thing very rare in a murder case. we are really witnessing something that is very, very unusual here. and these women, they're bright women, bright professional women. you look at their backgrounds. they are really an extraordinary

jury and hopefully they are evaluating the evidence carefully and they'll bring their life experience and reach the right conclusion. >> jeffrey toobin, i am coming to you next. i want to tell our viewers they should stand by because at any moment judge nelson will enter the courtroom and go toward the bench and talk about -- there she is. let's listen in. >> back on the record. who are these? all of them? okay. >> your honor, having discussed the matter with mr. o'mara i believe we have almost an agreement as to our suggestion for the next point in the process. >> okay. let me hear the almost agreement. >> i provided the court four cases i believe and there is also reference to a rule of criminal procedure 3.410 essentially as i understand the case law the rule was modified and it is now discretionary with the court to ask the jury for

further clarification of their inquiry pretty much on that level of request. there is a more recent case, hazuri vs. state where the request was for a generalized read back. the supreme court of florida held the court should have asked whicportions of the testimony the jury wanted read back. mcgirth vs. state which is a 48 southern 3rd, 2010 case, i believe, is probably the most scriptive, a florida supreme court case as well and there is a section in that that discusses the trial court in that case. the jury asked whether it could have a discussion with the court regarding t ining the jury inst and the court said it would be willing to address any specific question the jury might have but could not engage in a general discussion. i think obviously it is within the court's discretion to do that but i think it should be at this point at least the extent of any communication would be

simply ladies and gentlemen if you have a more specific question there is a possibility we can answer it or something like that. >> it sounds like an agreement. i think a couple cases and i don't know if you have all these. >> if you have some kind of agreement can you tell me what kind of response? i left the jury question in my chambers but i can write out a response on a separate sheet of paper. >> certainly. it seems like those cases including haggard, a very recent florida supreme court case about three months ago vs. state 109, 730-735 and diaz, might have been cited by the state. 57 2nd 104 is significant to the extent it references perriman, florida supreme court case of 1999, 731, 1243. it says that where there are questions of law the court can ask -- can get clarification on their confusion and then can

actually answer specific questions of law with a sort of straight forward quick answer. i think the step is, let's find out their clarification. >> so give me the wording of what you can agree on and what to send back to the jury. i'll go ahead and send that to them and we'll wait to see how they respond. >> i'll suggest one. >> either that or we could just work if you give us five minutes we could probably come up with a written one ourselves. >> do you have a sheet of paper? >> yes, your honor. >> okay. if you can agree to one that's great. if not i'll try to help you word it. >> great. >> did you get the state's cases? >> i do have the state's cases. i do have perriman. i do have diaz. i do have -- i don't have the one from three months ago. hagar. okay. while you're working on the wording, i will review the case.

>> okay. as they contemplate here i'm going to bring in our legal analyst sunny hostin. you hear they're talking about different case law, perriman, those sorts of things, different precedent here. so you can figure out what the hangup is here, right? >> yeah. and what the defense wants to go back to the jury and what the prosecution wants. generally in a case like this a jury asking for clarification the prosecution wants to give a lot of information. the defense not so much. the defense wants them to still struggle with it. and so i think that's a little bit of a back and forth you usually see. what is very interesting about this team is -- and every

prosecution team has sort of the legal nerd on the team that will describe things. this prosecutor that you see to the left of your screen is that guy. >> okay. let's listen. the judge is speaking. >> thank you. >> we can have the court reporter read it back because i read it. you could come up here and -- >> i remember it to be something like can we get a clarification on the instruction of manslaughter? >> you could get it specifically if you'll ask -- come up here and read what was read into the record if you would like. >> thank you, your honor. >> go ahead, sunny. continue. >> and so he is the guy on this team. >> manti that has been asked to sort of figure out the law and be that liaison with the court. >> okay. so now they're just sort of -- this is procedural what they're doing, right? right. because the judge has to get it

right. this would be a ripe area for appeal. if she sent something back to the jury that she shouldn't send back. they've asked for clarification of manslaughter. that's a pretty vague question actually. i mean, clarification of what? which word, which term? so that's what they're going through. i will tell you having been an appellate lawyer for a couple of years with the u.s. attorney's office, this, you see this on appeal, jury instructions on appeal. this judge has to be very careful and that is why she asked for the 30 some odd minutes to figure out the case law because you can't make a mistake here. it is a lot of legal wonkery if that is a term but it is very, very important. >> i'm just looking over particular notes here. this is basically what we got. i'm looking over the jury instructions. you have the same as to what they have to prove. i believe in situations like this we can't update the viewer enough because people are probably tuning in wondering what is going on. if you are, the jury has a

question regarding manslaughter in this particular case. the court convened a short time ago, probably about 45 minutes ago. or maybe an hour ago. right? about an hour ago. and the judge said, hey. they've got a question. and she gave a 30-minute recess. and then came back and now they're trying to figure out exactly how much information to give to the jury to clarify their question regarding manslaughter. >> no question about it. >> and the thinking here is that they're asking about manslaughter and that possibly they're beyond second-degree murder. we're not sure about that but you are thinking as a former prosecutor -- >> that is what it tells me. i have the jury instructions in front of me and usually jurors don't skip around. they go in chronological order. 27 pages? manslaughter is in the middle of this.

second-degree murder is first. justifiable homicide, that self-defense charge, is also part of second-degree murder. that tells me this jury may be past second-degree murder. they may be also past self-defense. why that is a problem for the defense is they made it clear, this judge made it clear that self-defense is a complete defense to both second-degree murder and manslaughter. if the jury believes self-defense why even ask for a clarification of manslaughter? because self-defense is a complete defense to it. >> say that again. >> self-defense is a complete defense to second-degree murder and manslaughter. in these jury instructions, they would have already gone through the self-defense exercise. so if they are past second-degree murder and self-defense, and now they are on to manslaughter, it is quite possible that they have already disregarded george zimmerman's claims of self-defense. and that's -- i would be concerned about that if i were

the defense team on here because that is what their whole case is about. >> if we can get back, first the definition of what manslaughter is as it pertains to the state of florida. put that up and i'll read it from there. then after that we'll talk about what they have to prove for manslaughter. because the bar is lower than it is for murder for second-degree murder. here is the definition. killing a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder. >> now, that looks very difficult. but in front of them the jury also has what the government has to prove. if that can be put up the prosecution only has to prove two things. one, trayvon martin is dead. we all know that. two, george zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of martin. there is nothing about state of mind. there is nothing about depraved mind. it's only about whether or not

this was an intentional act. now, i will say i think where it gets a bit difficult when you look further along these jury instructions, it says that george zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act. now, perhaps the jury is tusseling and wrangling with what is negligence. because if it is just purely negligence without intent they have to find him not guilty. and that may be what is holding them up. >> okay. so then do we have the graphic that says, that gives us the four things that the jury is tasked with, those four things? >> the verdict form. >> the verdict form. >> yes. >> which is manslaughter. >> second-degree murder. >> second-degree murder, manslaughter, and which is -- but it says or a lesser charge. not guilty or hung jury/mistrial. what is it, guilty of manslaughter or a lesser charge. so can they go below manslaughter? >> no, they cannot. they have only been charged with second-degree murder, or charged

to consider second-degree murder or manslaughter. manslaughter is a lesser included of second-degree murder. >> okay. >> so they only get to look at those two things. again, jurors, don, usually go in chronological order down the verdicts. >> the proposed answer, you heard the jury's question, correct? >> yes, your honor. >> the proposed answer that has been agreed upon by both your counsel and the state is as follows -- the court cannot engage in general discussions but may be able to address a specific question regarding clarification of the instructions regarding manslaughter. if you have a specific question, please submit it. is that acceptable to you, sir? >> yes, your honor. >> acceptable to the state? >> yes, your honor. >> acceptable to counsel for the defense? >> yes, your honor. >> thank you. i'll rewrite it so it is one handwriting instead of two and we'll have you review it. you may be seated. >> at that point do you intend to bring them into the courtroom or present it by written note?

>> i was just going to give it in writing to them so they can -- >> acceptable to us, your honor. >> all right. that way they can reread it over and over again instead of me just reading it once. >> as they continue on with more procedural things there, our legal analyst jeffrey toobin joins us now. jeffrey, you heard the judge, what they have come to an agreement upon is if you have a specific question about manslaughter, please present your specific question and we will attend to that question. so now what? >> well, i think this was the very prudent, smart resolution. you could see it with the defense and prosecution agreed and we'll see what the jury does. because they may throw up their hands and say, well, we don't want to pursue this any further. or they may come back with a

more specific question about what the definition of manslaughter is. you know, the questions can be very detailed. they can ask a very common jury question is can you tell us, explain the definition of reasonable doubt. that often comes up. they can ask about one element of the crime or rather than another. but i think giving the jury the chance to be more specific is a good way to keep the trial moving but also not risk having it overturned on appeal. >> so basically, sunny hostin, as you have been saying all along jeffrey toobin has been saying the same thing all along. let's listen. >> -- may be able to address a specific question regarding clarification of the instructions regarding manslaughter. if you have a specific question, please submit. >> yes, your honor.

>> yes, your honor. >> okay. this will be given by the deputies to the jurors. just so you know, they have ordered dinner. if counsel wants to have an hour to go to dinner, you may do so. >> we may want to be on stand by for five or ten minutes in case they come right back with a question. >> okay. that's a good idea. we'll do that. let's be on stand by for about 15 minutes in case they have a response to that. the court is in recess. >> okay. here we go. you've heard judge nelson. she wants everybody to stand by for about 15 minutes she said so the deputy in the courtroom can present this to the jurors. here is what she said. that note of course, let me update you just in case you're just joining us. the jurors had a question. has a question about

manslaughter. the lawyers and the judge have come to agreement that they cannot do a general discussion about manslaughter but they can address a specific question or specific questions about manslaughter and if the jury has a question or questions about that, they need to present that to the court and then they will address those specific questions or question. and also we learned some new information. the jury has ordered dinner so they said if you want to go away for an hour and take an hour break, then you can do so. but give me 15 minutes to hear what the jury has to say. then i'll get back to you. sunny hostin? >> that is significant. the reason is they are not ready to go home. remember, yesterday at about 6:00 they were ready to throw in the towel and start fresh at 9:00 a.m. now they're saying, you know what? we've ordered dinner. we're digging in and we could then continue deliberations through the evening. and that says a lot because if they weren't close to a verdict

or if they weren't in need of further deliberation, they would go home. but they feel that they are at a point where they are not ready to give up. so they've ordered dinner and they'll continue deliberating through dinner. that is significant and gives us some insight into where they are at. i think judge nelson did a really great job in answering this question as jeff said because they weren't specific enough in their questions. >> all right. the reason i'm looking at my watch is i want to reset for our viewers. it is the top of the hour. i'm don lemon live in sanford, florida. outside the seminole county courthouse where the george zimmerman trial is going on. we've heard from the jurors after 13 and a half hours of deliberating, about nine hours of deliberating today. what we've heard from the jurors from the judge, the judge came in and said the jurors have a question regarding manslaughter. and they needed to address that question. she called for a recess of about 30 minutes to figure out exactly what was going on. they came back after 30 minut