this is piers morgan live. welcome to the viewers in the united states and around the world. the jurors say b-37 doesn't speak for them. b-37 says she's in anguish. a man that calls the trial a side show and blasts me for my interview with rachel jeantel. i'll go head-to-head with larry elder and in the wake, justice in america. who gets it and who doesn't? exhibit a, marissa alexander. she says she was trying to stand her ground to fire a shot to scare off her abusive husband. >> i believe when he said he would kill me, that's what he would do. >> she's behind bars for 20 years as george zimmerman walks free. i'll talk to her attorney.

and the outrage of this "rolling stone" cover. the man that took this picture of the boston marathon says it's a slap in the face. i want to begin with a conservative radio host that calls the zimmerman trial a side show. larry elders, the host of "the larry elder show." he's also the author of "dear father, dear son." he joins me now. welcome to you. >> thank you for having me. >> you've been talking about my interview with rachel jeantel. why? >> i was because you weren't doing her any favors by trying to convince her she's a victim the this is a young lady who didn't apply herself, a 19-year-old who is still in high school and still the same young lady, take this as an opportunity to take stock in your life. you treated her like she is a victim. 7,000 murders last year, piers, of black people committed by black people. since trayvon martin had his unfortunate death 480 blacks killed in chicago alone, 75% have been unsolved. where are the cameras? where are the shows? it's outrage us to act -- >> hold on.

>> black america should fear a non-black guy stocking a kid at night. the likelihood of a black person being killed by a non-black person is extremely remote which is why it's a big issue in the first place, piers. >> it's perfectly possible, as we've displayed on this show many times, it's justice exercised by what is happening in chicago which is an absolute national disgrace to america -- >> but you're not -- but you're not, piers. >> i am, actually. >> there are 7,000 -- >> i don't think you've watched my show. >> wait a minute -- >> i don't think you've watched my show -- >> half of the murders in this country are commented by black pult people, even though 12% of the population are black people. you throw out the old people and the young people, piers, you're talking about 3% of the population committing 50% of the murders -- >> the point i was going to make. >> it's people -- >> calm down for a moment. >> i'm quite calm. i'm bothered by how you're handling it. >> let me speak, larry.

>> it's non-sense. >> you're a liberal bleeding heart person. you think you're doing something for black people. you're not. you're making black people feel under siege. it's not true. it's outrage. >> thank you, larry. if i could get a word in, it would be great. i completely agree with everything you're saying about chicago. all right. let's get that on the table. i've been seeing this repeatedly in this show. it's a disgrace what is happening in chicago, particularly with young black teenagers killing other young black teenagers. and the president and people have to deal with it. but let's get back to the zimmerman trial. >> let's do that. >> let's get back to my interview with rachel jeantel. you tweeted would i like rachel jeantel to fly my plane. why would you say that? >> i'll tell you why you said that. because after you interviewed her you went on television the next morning and called her one smart cookie. bull. hire her as a nanny -- see how smart she is.

>> do you think she's stupid, larry? >> i think you're stupid for saying that kind of thing -- >> that wasn't my question. do you think rachel jeantel -- do you think she's stupid? >> race is not a major problem in america. the number one problem facing black people are the large number of black people born outside of wedlock. 75%. in 1960, 5% of all people were born outside in wedlock. fast forward, look at that for 45%. crime, dropouts, that's connected. the other big problem for black peel is the economy. one in two black men doesn't have a job and one of the heads of the commercial black caucus said if a white person were in the white house we would be marching because the high unemployment but talking about trayvon martin and george zimmerman the number one problem facing black america? it isn't remotely on the top ten list. >> this isn't a competition to see who can be the greatest filibuster in my show history -- >> i'm not trying to filibuster. >> let me get back to the

question i asked you and see if you can actually answer the question. >> sure. >> do you think rachel jeantel is stupid? >> i think that i would rather have a george zimmerman living my neighborhood and maybe if he was living my neighborhood we would have a few fewer ariel castros. i thought we wanted people to be proactive. >> that wasn't the question, larry. >> i know, i'm answering something different. >> could you answer my question. >> he's not a criminal. >> george zimmerman shot dead an unarmed teenager. >> he's a neighborhood watch guy. don't you want people to proactive and there was crime in that neighborhood, piers. i live in south central. >> there wasn't crime from trayvon martin in that neighborhood. >> the burglar bars are not on there because of george zimmerman. they're in there for a thug that's messing up everybody's reputation. zimmerman but the thugs in the community. this is why people profile. instead of being angry at george zimmerman but the minority and the thugs committing the crime. >> to clarify, trayvon martin wasn't committing crimes in that neighborhood, was he? >> it was an unfortunate incident. two people have preconceived

notions about each other. it never should have happened. it doesn't ever george zimmerman a criminal. i used to work in the d.a.'s office. it was a dog case, nobody would have filed the case. >> we disagree about that. i think it's completely wrong george zimmerman should get no punishment at all for killing an unarmed teenager. >> he's got serious punishment. he can't go anywhere. are you kidding me? he's a marked man. he'll be sued civilly. he'll never have a moment of peace. he killed somebody. morally he has to deal with that, piers. he recognizes that. he's not -- >> larry, if i may respond -- >> he recognizes what he did. >> if i may respond. >> sure. >> some people may say he's got it easy compared to trayvon martin, who he killed. as much people feel sorry not living the life he could, at least he can lead a life. >> wouldn't it be nice to have a george zimmerman in cleveland -- >> i don't want george zimmerman doing my neighborhood watch patrol, i don't. i have three teenage sons,

larry. i don't feel comfortable something someone like george zimmerman -- >> no, you live in a very wealthy area, gated community. >> potentially killing my kids as they come home from the store with a bag of skittles and a can of soda, no. >> you live in a wealthy neighborhood, plenty of security you don't have to worry about that. come down to south central sometime. see what is going on down there. they aren't worried about george zimmerman. they're not worried about mark thermen. the thug down the street coming from a single parent household and that situation is created by the left-wing people like you that feel sorry for people and want government to take care of them. you think government is the way to prosperity. go to an indian reservation some time and see how they're living. >> larry, i do feel sorry for people. let me get back to rachel jeantel -- >> you're thinking of the wrong things to do, i feel sorry for you. oh, this person's a bigot. this person shouldn't have cross-examined you the way he d. all you're doing is creating a victim. you're telling rachel jeantel

she shouldn't have to work hard or work on her diction or improve her grammar, wave the flag of victimhood and it will be okay. it's an outrage and you're part of this parade. >> thank you. how many languages do you speak? >> i don't speak ebonics as well as rachel, if that's what you mean. >> no, how many languages do you speak? >> the relevance is what? >> you don't think she's a smart cookie. she speaks three languages fluently. how many do you speak? >> oh, you want to bring it back to rachel. >> that is why i booked you larry. >> how you treated black people like children to whom the truth cannot be told. rachel jeantel needs to get her act together. if my mother were alive she would say how dare she speak like that? >> do you know her educational background, larry? >> i know how she presented herself on the jury. >> larry do you know her educational background? >> people evaluate you based on the way you express yourself. >> do you know her educational background?

this young 19-year-old black woman that you are viserating for her lack of intelligence. why don't you have any idea of her background? >> why don't you hire her as a co-host? >> why don't you -- >> i know -- >> why are e with talking about this -- let's talk about something -- >> i talked you to talk about rachel jeantel. >> let's talk about -- >> larry, larry. >> you are implying that it is. it is not. as we speak there is a guy in prison, somebody in an suv with his fiancee killed a hispanic who cut in front of him. >> larry. >> he wasn't arrested right away. the family wasn't agitated. the guy may not have been arrested. where are the cameras? you have some white guy do something to a black person and want to march on washington. you ought to be ashamed of yourself. >> thank you. if i could bring you up to speed on rachel jeantel, this woman

you think is so stupid. >> i didn't say stupid, you did. >> we checked this with her lawyer today, before i interviewed. this is why i booked you of course even though you're trying to pretend this is the last thing you want to talk about, this is why i booked you. rachel jeantel young in school had a lot of time off of school fell behind because of illness. that was why she wasn't able to go to school. she was a b grade high school until her great friend trayvon martin was shot dead by george zimmerman. >> did she sound to you -- >> wait a minute -- >> did she sound like somebody you would want to hire? >> her grades slipped to 2 something because of the stress that she suffered understandably from the death of her friend, trayvon. she's now been offered a chance by tom joiner and people from his foundation to go to college. she wants to get those grades back up and ever something of herself. why would you -- >> i think that's wonderful, piers.

>> why would you be so scathing about rachel jeantel, and so patronizing, to a young woman whose clearly been through an appalling ordeal and when i interviewed i found to be a smart cookie like i said. i found her to be fun, warm, engaging, street smart, and clearly, from her educational background, clearly someone nowhere near as stupid as you like to think. >> once again, i never used the word stupid. you did. she was the most important witness in a murder trial. she was standing between george zimmerman and 30 years in jail and for you to act as if she was abused by don west whose job was to ever sure his client didn't go to jail is outrageous. for education, i applaud mr. joiner. he's done a lot of work and i recommend we do something about the 50% dropout rate and president obama opposes allowing parents to use vouchers to get their kids out of bad government schools and get to a better school to get to a middle class. that's what we should talk about here instead of a situation like george zimmerman going to somebody he thinks is suspicious

and they have an exchange that leads to an unfortunate death as if that's some sort of indictment of america. and black people should act over their shoulders and think a white guy will jump out of a bush and get them. outrageous. hard work wins. get an education. don't pay attention to negative people and stay focussed and you'll be okay in america. that's why most of the people want to come do america, that's why you want to come here, piers. >> thank you, larry. when we come back stand your ground in the wake of the zimmerman trial. the woman serving 20 years behind bars for not shooting anybody. i'll talk to her attorney. ever. neutrogena® healthy skin liquid makeup. 98% of women saw improvement in their skin. neutrogena® cosmetics. high fructose corn syrup from yoplait original and light, we were like, "sure. no problem!" and you were like, "thanks, but what about thick & creamy and whips!"

and we were like, "done and done! now it's out of everything yoplait makes." and you were all, "yum!" and we're like, "is it just us, or has this been a really good conversation?" and you were like, "i would talk, but my mouth is full of yogurt." yoplait. it is so good! but my mouth is full of yogurt." [ male announcer ] this could be the summer she jumps into the deep end... ...he gets on that roller coaster... and you finally take that long weekend. it could also be the summer you get your identity stolen. last year, 12.6 million identities were stolen. that's why you need the proactive protection of lifelock. if you're planning a summer vacation, you'd better include plans to protect your identity. because while you're busy having fun and not thinking about identity theft, you become an easy target. [ male announcer ] every time you buy a plane ticket, pay for dinner, or pull out your credit card for a souvenir,

you give thieves a chance to steal your identity. and that could cost you the money in your bank accounts, your ability to get credit, even the equity in your home. you have to protect yourself, and lifelock offers the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. lifelock's member notification service is on the job 24/7. when you receive a text, e-mail, or phone alert from their "not me" system, you can respond instantly if you suspect fraud to help stop identity theft before the damage is done. and lifelock stands behind their protection with the power of their $1 million service guarantee. last summer lifelock protected over 2 million people, and this year they can do it for you. ♪ or go online and get 60 days of lifelock protection risk free. that's two full months of proactive protection to help keep your identity safe this summer. order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands.

a $29 value free. ♪ or go online to lifelock.com/plansafe. use promo code plansafe, to get your free shredder and get 60 days of lifelock protection risk free.

this isn't my life i'm fighting for. this is my life and it's my life and it's not entertainment. it is my life. >> i want to turn to stand your ground, two florida towns, two people firing weapons at unarmed subjects and claiming self-defense, two very different results. george zimmerman, not guilty. she fired a shot to scare off her husband who she claims threatened to kill her. she was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and the jury came back in 12 minutes. joining me now is her attorney. on the face of it, the disparity between what happened to your client and what happened to george zimmerman is enormous. >> it's extremely frustrating when you see a case that gets the media attention that george zimmerman, trayvon martin case

did and then to watch the outcome, to watch the trial basically in front of us and at the end of the day the jury comes back and finds him not guilty. he serves no time in jail, and then you think back just a few months prior to that you have a lady defending herself against an abusive husband who has a history of abuse against her, beaten her several times, put her in the hospital. kicked her pregnant causes premature birth and kicks her nine days after delivery in the bathroom. she's able to get out of the bathroom. she fires one shot and he says he's going to kill her again when they're two feet away from each other in the kitchen. and she gets 20 years? it's a frustrating situation. >> did she fire the shot to try to kill him? >> no, i think the facts in the case are clear. when he said that he was going

to kill her, he was two feet away from her in a small, enclosed area. she fired one shot. she was two feet away. if she wanted to kill him, she could have shot him like george zimmerman did. she did the humane thing to fire a shot to get him to leave her alone. that shot was high and wide from him. it went through the wall. did not hurt anyone in the house, and he left her alone. if she had not done that, she may not be here today serving her 20 year sentence. she would be underground. >> marissa, as she rejected a plea bargain deal three years in prison opting to take a case to the jurors. did she actually claim stand your ground as defense or self-defense? >> well, that's kind of a difficult question. stand your ground is a defense you bring before you would actually go to a jury. it's an immunity individuals are granted in the state of florida if they have a reasonable fear they are in imminent danger.

we brought that before a judge, a claim she was in fear for her life, the same thing george zimmerman argued. the standard is lower in that kind of case but the judge said -- denied the motion imputing a duty of her to run out of another door that's not in the statute. she's in her home, her own castle she has to duty to retreat. we took the case to trial after that. >> in the trial it was self-defense because you failed in the attempt to have stand your ground as defense? >> correct. in trial you bring the same self-defense claim, different wording but you bring basically the same claim. >> a disturbing case. thank you for joining me. i want to go, now, to one of the country's top lawyers, alan dershowitz. alan, i mean, on the face of it, this is a total fast isn't it? >> there is tremendous differences in rates, of conviction, appellet reversal, rates on release of parole

determined by race. race of the victim often determines the extent of sentence. for years we didn't have the death penalty for killing a black person, only for killing a white person. so, race permeates the system. now it's getting better because we're conscious of this. it's far better than it was 20 or 30 years ago. but it's not anywhere near where it should be. >> i want to play you a clip. this is from juror b-37 who talked of course at length to anderson cooper. this is particularly about the struggle the jury had over what they were facing in terms of the law. >> there was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something, and after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law and reading it over and over again, we decided there's -- there's

just no way -- other place to go because of the heat of the moment and stand your ground. he had a right to defend himself. if he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or have body harm, he had a right. >> what i was confused by there and want to clear this up, why would she refer to stand your ground, given that was not the defense that was put up? >> because that's been on television and in the mind of many people in florida. stand your ground was not part of the george zimmerman case. but she was absolutely right that no matter how much you might feel morally that george zimmerman should pay some consequence, there was no basis in law for convicting him. if the jury had a reasonable doubt about who started the encounter and we don't know who started it, who shouted help me, help me, who was on top and who was on bottom, the evidence seemed to support zimmerman was on bottom and head was banged against the pavement. as oliver wendell holmes once said, you can't expect

rationality and you can't expect calculations when somebody has his head banged on the pavement. doubts have to be resolved in the favor of a person claiming self-defense. >> why in that case does marissa alexander who has already been abused by her husband, he's threatening to kill her and coming towards her and she fires a warning shot, why is she not able to use stand your ground? it would seem absolutely perfect example of what that law is intended for. >> not only that. she should have been able to use it, but even without stand your ground, she should have been able to claim self-defense. that case sounds like a terrible miscarriage of justice. and i would expect in light of the zimmerman verdict, i think their chances of getting that conviction reversed have actually increased. >> right. >> so maybe there is some benefit that she will accrue from the publicity according to

this case. she should not be in jail based on the account at least that i've heard of the fact in that case. >> stay with me. we'll take a short break. when i come back, i want to get into what goes through jurors heads when they are deliberating. i'll ask a jury from the last high-profile case, the jodi arias murder trial.

the state of arizona versus jodi ann arias, verdict count one. we the jury duly impanelled and sworn find the defendant as to count one, first-degree murder, guilty. >> the most explosive watched

murder trial before the zimmerman case was the jodi arias trial. she was convicted of murdering her ex-boyfriend. she could face the death penalty when the sentencing phase begins in september. marry lu was one of the jurors that found her guilty, she joins me now. and back with us is attorney alan dershowitz. mary, you've been where these jurors have been in the zimmerman trial. you've been in the pressure environment of a high-profile case. what is it like in that room deliberating when perhaps you don't all agree to start with with what the verdict should be? >> it's intent. there is a lot of give and take. there is a lot of not argument per se everyone firmly believes what they believe when they get in there and it's a collaborative process to figure out what the case ends up as. >> eventually, you agreed she was guilty of murder but couldn't reach a unanimous verdict whether she should have the death penalty.

how did you vote in that? >> i voted for the death penalty. >> were you frustrated more of your colleagues didn't? >> yes, there was definitely an element of frustration. >> what did you think of the zimmerman trial? i know you weren't a juror there. you weren't following it as closely as they were, but from what you've seen and heard, what was your view of it? >> in my opinion, the verdict ended up -- this is really difficult because i wasn't there. what i did see, i don't think the state of florida proved their case. >> alan, this is what it comes down to. the other thing it comes down fascinating with the interview anderson cooper did with the juror was the fact they didn't know enough about trayvon martin. they heard the testimony what a great guy george zimmerman was. they hardly heard anything about trayvon martin. you could argue we heard more about him in a positive way from

my interview with rachel jeantel than we heard in court. that is a failure of the prosecution, isn't it? >> well, there are rules that limit testimony to relevance. and after all, trayvon martin was not on trial. people have difficulty understanding that. trayvon martin was killed, should not have been killed but he was not on trial. zimmerman's actions and conduct and what zimmerman believed trayvon martin was doing to him and the threat he posed. the jury system is the great protection against political correctness, against government oppression, against political pressures being put on people. but it often evers mistakes but we say better guilty go free than one innocent be confined. we acknowledge there will be mistakes. but we say, if there is going to be a mistake it darn well better be in favor of acquitting george zimmerman, guilty or not, rather than convicting the woman in the segment before if she's, in fact, not guilty.

we err always on the side of benefiting the defendant. people don't like it when the result is not what they desire. and they love it when the result is consistent with their own wishes. >> do you feel, alan, the real issue going forward because we've got the verdict and i respect the jury's decision and it's a very difficult job and it's hard to argue against their conclusion that the prosecution didn't meet the criteria for the charges that were put forward. but do you think the real issue as eric holder suggested is stand your ground, which is a map here, how many states in america, there is 22 i think. it's like a vast spread across the country -- >> look at all the green there. all the green there is where stand your ground applies. that is a huge percentage of the american population who -- >> and -- >> what is happening is these gangsters in particular, these gang members are using stand your ground to justify just

killing each other. they are saying i was in imminent fear of my life. i killed him. and they are walking free. this is wild west nonsense. >> i agree with you. it encourages gang killing. given a choice between macho, protecting your territory or ground and retreating and there by saving a human life, you don't have to retreat. you can preserve your macho. to give you the most extreme case and i argued this in florida against the law. if you're driving your ferrara that gets from 0 to 60 in a second and somebody comes up to you with a knife and waves it at you and you can easily put your foot on the gas and escape. you don't have to do that. you can take out your uzi and shoot him dead. that makes no sense at all. at the very least, stand your ground laws have to be modified to limit themselves to a person's home, to situations if you try to run away you're risking your life, running into

traffic or something like that. but if you have the option of leaving without risking your life, clearly that option ought to be taken instead of taking the life of somebody. even if that person is guilty or could be killed if you have the option of not killing him, that's the the option the law should encourage. >> marilou, let me come back to you. two issues that were different in your situation to the zimmerman jurors, there were 12 of you. there were six of them. and secondly, you were not sequestered. you were allowed to go home each night. do you think either of those things were beneficial to what you went through compared to zimmerman jurors or perhaps, not so beneficial. >> definitely the lack of sequestration we would have lost jurors. i would have been able to not sit on the jury. >> in terms of the -- the -- i

mean jodi arias said that was unfair on her because potentially you could read and hear stuff that could put a negative thought in your mind. >> we were, however, we were given instruction by the court to stay away from news, to stay away from articles, not to discuss the case with anyone, not even each other. and -- >> fascinating talking to you -- >> 12 people -- >> alan, sorry. >> thank you. there ought to be 12 people on juries because that increases the racially diverse jury as well. >> you got six female jurors and five are white. it seems an imbalance to put it mildly. marilou, and alan, thank you very much. the storm of outrage over this magazine cover. is it really offensive? i'll talk to one man that says it's a slap in the face to boston.

ntin their skin. neutrogena® cosmetics. i was having trouble getting out of bed in the i was having trouble morning because my back hurt so bad. the sleep number bed conforms to you. i wake up in the morning with no back pain. i can adjust it if i need to...if my back's a little more sore. and by the time i get up in the morning, i feel great! if you have back pain, toss and turn at night or wake up tired with no energy, the sleep number bed could be your solution. the sleep number bed's secret is it's air chambers which provide ideal support and put you in control of the firmness. and the bed is perfect for couples because each side adjusts independently to their unique sleep number. here's what clinical research has found: 93% of participants experienced back-pain relief 90% reported reduced aches and pains 87% fell asleep faster and enjoyed more deep sleep. for study summaries, call this number now.

we'll include a free dvd and brochure about the sleep number bed including prices, and models plus a free $50 savings card. and how about this? steel springs can cause uncomfortable pressure points. but the sleep number bed contours to your body. imagine how good you'll feel when your muscles relax and you fall into a deep sleep! i'm not just a back surgeon, i'm also a back patient. i sleep on the sleep number bed myself and i highly recommend it to all of my patients. need another reason to call? the sleep number bed costs about the same as an innerspring but lasts twice as long. so if you want to sleep better or find relief for your bad back, call now. call the number on your screen for your free information kit with dvd, brochure and price list. call right now and you'll also receive a $50 savings card just for inquiring about the sleep number bed. ask about our risk-free 100-night in-home trial.

call now for your free information kit and a free $50 savings card. call now! announcer: announcer: you're on the right track to save big during sleep train's triple choice sale. for a limited time, you can choose to save hundreds on beautyrest and posturepedic mattress sets. or choose $300 in free gifts with sleep train's most popular tempur-pedic mattresses. you can even choose 48 months interest-free financing on the new tempur-choice with head-to-toe customization. the triple choice sale ends soon at sleep train! ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪

the outcry over the "rolling stone" cover photo of dzhokhar tsarnaev. many are calling it a slap in the face to boston, the victims of the terror attack. walgreens, cvs and two other chains are refusing to sell the issue. but does the glamorize the terrorist are tell a story. i have a guest that took pictures of that awful day. you're not happy about this. tell me why.

>> i just think it's a -- like you said earlier, a slap in the face to boston for all the things that wove tried to do as a city and victims recovering and feeling finally feeling good about themselves, and then to see his picture on the rolling stone cover is sort of like, you though, it's going back. it's, you know, here is the poster boy for terrorism. he's on the cover. everything that the victims have been through, you know, the families are still trying to recover and help each other. you know, people are still trying to walk on their new legs. and to have to see that picture on the cover, i find it repulsive. >> what is the difference really between, say, "the new york times" or "the new york post" putting that same picture and "rolling stone" choosing to do it now with a much longer lead-in with these issues? >> i think "rolling stone" is a different publication. you know, teenagers might look at that photo in the cover and think he's -- he's a rock star. he looks like he's a rock star

if you didn't know he was a terrorist. you would look and say there he is long-haired kid might be in a band. but i think the difference is, you know, "the boston globe," "new york times," you know, we did a story on him and talked about his court appearance and all the harm he's done to people and we've covered the news event. we're not taking it lightly. we're covering it as a news event. >> i don't think anybody is taking it lightly. they call him the bomber. this is from the editor, this is why they choose that image. >> part of what the story is about is what an incredibly normal kid he seemed like to those who knew him best, fellow students and teachers there. we were trying to draw a contrast between the person everyone thought they knew and the person he became.

>> see, you're a photographer, a photo journalist. some of your images were pretty graphic, pretty gruesome in many ways but told the story better than many words could do. i read the "rolling stone" article from start to finish. i thought it was a powerful priest of journalism. and the picture if you read the article was appropriate. it told the story of how this ordinary americanized kid at college had gone through this extraordinary radicalization and become this appalling bomber, and that image was the appropriate image, if you read the piece. >> i -- you know, i didn't read the piece to be honest with you. i saw the photo and there is something about that photo upsetting to me. i see that in the light on me being at the finish of the boston marathon and seeing the victims that suffered. i don't know if there was a necessity to put his picture on

the cover. i mean, there could have been some other use for his photo or some other graphic they could have used. but to ever him look like he's an appealing teenage boy or, you know, a rock star, i just think that sends the wrong message. i think of celeste who lost both her legs and i photographed her walking for the first time. to me that's a cover photo. that's what we'll put on the cover of "the globe." you write and we do cover dzhokhar tsarnaev and he appeared in court last week. i think that cover photo of him was inappropriate. >> great respect for you and your work and opinion on this. it's a very divisive issue of "rolling stone." and opinion is strong-on both sides. thank you for joining me. >> thank you. did "rolling stone" cross a line? i want -- i want to bring in my guest.

most journalists are on side with rolling stone but everyone in boston is furious. a lot of other people not in the media are furious. they see it as glamorization of a terrorist. >> if you look at the picture, he looks like he could be fronting a band. the idea of being on the cover of "rolling stone," confers the notion of being a rock star. part of this is what is your expectation. "time" magazine had on hitler numerous times and osama bin laden. it's a hard news publication. you expect that. >> they always have celebrities and "rolling stone" had charles manson on their cover and others. it's not always rock stars. what is the difference between "time" magazine doing it when they do celebrities and serious issues and "rolling stone"? >> i don't think "rolling stone" is on the other side of the spectrum. it's not glamour magazine. "rolling stone" does serious stories.

i think of them being the publication that published the piece of general mcchrystal that cost him his job. this is a publication that once tries to capture the popular culture and at the same time does serious journalism about serious things. >> you read the piece, right? >> i read most of it. >> to me as i say, when you read it, the image is less offensive. you get why they chose this image. he was a normal, good looking guy, into society, college, friendly, lots of people liked him and then boom, suddenly he goes from that in a matter of a year and a half to two years radicalized, fundamentalist terrorist, wreaking mayhem. >> this picture, although it has the word monster as the final word on the cover, signaling what the story is about, is evolution of that point, to be the bomber authorities accused him of being. nonetheless, he doesn't look

like a monster at all. and to perceive someone that is so vie verse from what they expect, that's disturbing. if there was a picture of a reached tortured soul, people would say that's who he was. >> that wouldn't necessarily be as inspirational to try to get people to read this piece. that's what i would say as a former editor myself. you want people to read the article and it's an important piece of journalism and explains how he got radicalized. it may help people to spot that warning sign. and i get why they did it. and i think it was powerful. but i also understand why people in boston feel offended. >> well, there is no question they did this knowingly. they wanted to have a provocative cover and get people to read the piece and wanted people to buy the magazine. these are tough times in the publishing business. nonetheless, they can't be entirely surprised.

i personally have no problem with this cover. but they can't be surprised that people are invoked, particularly at the home of this in boston where people feel so immediately or personally as a trama. >> i think we would all share that view. >> thank you. forgive or forget, should my next guest get a second chance from new york voters? eliot spitzer steps into the arena next. huh...anybody? julie! hey...guess what day it is?? ah come on, i know you can hear me. mike mike mike mike mike... what day is it mike? ha ha ha ha ha ha! leslie, guess what today is? it's hump day. whoot whoot! ronny, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? i'd say happier than a camel on wednesday. hump day!!! yay!! get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

hd [ laughing ] ...is the crackle of the campfire. it can be a million years old... cool. ...or a few weeks young. ♪ [ laughs ] away beckons from orion's belt. away...is a place that's closer than you think. find your away. for a dealer and the rv that's right for you, visit gorving.com.

eliot spitzer's sex scandal cost him his job as new york's governor. many thought it would destroy his legal career but he's back as new york city's comptroller. he's leading the race but can he really pull off a victory? eliot spitzer is in the chair tonight or maybe the arena. his new book is "protecting capitalism." great to see you. >> great to be back on this side of the table. >> rough at the same time -- >> you're still here. >> i'm still here. but you're back here. a win-win all around. let me talk to you about the zimmerman case, because you've been right in the thick of big legal issues like this. what do you think of the whole stand your ground debate that's raging right now? >> it's a good debate. and i'm not a fan of the stand your ground laws. they create almost an incentive to use force when you don't need

to. eric holder said we have a doctrine of self-defense. we don't need a statute that says stand your ground even when you can retreat. there's been lot of study whether these laws reduce crime. the best studies indicate they do not. and in fact, they encourage violence when we want to discourage it. >> when you have prosecuted zimmerman under second-degree murder or manslaughter or not at all? >> look, i think -- i've heard your segments with allen dershowitz. an old friend and colleague. i was one of his students. i have great respect for him. but i begin with a premise here, justice was not served. an innocent young man was walking where he had every right to be and was shot and killed. and something is wrong when there's no judicial response to that. having said, that we need to

come to grips with another reality. proof beyond a reasonable doubt make it very difficult in a context like this where there's not overwhelming evidence to get a conviction. murder two was the wrong charge. as i understood the evidence, i think that was the wrong charge. manslaughter, if they had started with that, i always worry as a prosecutor, if you overcharge, you lose credibility. >> and if the jury rules out what you've gone for, it's harder to come down. >> you're asking them to say i've argued a and b, reject a but embrace b. but your credibility is shot, because a, which was your more powerful argument, didn't work. remember, initially there was no charge at all. this was a murky, as powerful as the emotions are because of an innocent young man shot dead, as a legal matter it was always a tough case. they overreached a bit and that probably hurt them. the other issue is the jury selection. i'm not sure it's an art, but

the jury selection in retrospect you begin to wonder in the voir dire they shouldn't have been able to tease out something about these jurors as prosecutors that indicated almost a sympathy for the defendant and certainly -- >> when you heard the juror who has spoken out about talking about george this, george that, we didn't know much about trayvon martin, but george, george. i found that very uncomfortable. >> and seemed to emotionally be relating more to the defendant. >> connected to him because he was much more from her world than she perceived trayvon martin and rachel jeantel. >> this case is troubling. it frames a debate. i would hope the president would give us a good speech on these things. >> i agree. >> he's done great things. >> let's move to your book, "protecting capitalism." this is all part of a comeback.

do you like being the comeback kid? >> i would have preferred to not >> i would have preferred to not have needed to be a comeback kid. but if it's the only alternative, sure. the genesis of the book was certainly the eight year as the attorney general. and i taught for several years at ccny and thoroughly loved it. and i thought let me try to write this sufficient down. it's an argument in defense of capitalism. there are folks who disagree with me who said no, no, you're messing with the rules of capitalism. if you understand markets correctly, you understand where you need enforcement, where self-regulation doesn't work, you need tone sure there are no conflicts of interest. the things that had infected wall street that i was saying back years before the cataclysm, i said guys, if we do not tame these problems, there's going to be an issue. >> we have record earnings again down at the banks and wall street is buzzing again. you were known as the sheriff of wall street. have they been policed properly

since the huge crash? >> well, no, there's not been sufficient accountability and i write a little about that. i'm glad the profits are back. you want capital formation, you want the banks to be healthy. we did not either succeed in insuring accountability for those. there were malefactors that should have been sanctioned. with still have too big to fail, too big to manage and the government has said too big to prosecute. so, you put those three together, it leads to a situation where bad things can happen once again. and i think -- john galbraith makes the observation that we have a very short memory when it comes to financial crises. we like to forget because it's an ugly moment.

but we forget at our own peril, because the lessons have to be internalized. >> you and anthony weiner both ahead in the polls in your relative races. what does that tell you about the american public's power of forgiveness? >> i don't read too much into polls. i would say this, the american public is a forgiving public. that is an affirmative quality in us as a people. it doesn't mean that forgiveness will be extend to me. this is a tough race, and the media can be edgy and i knew that. this is not something that escaped my attention. >> there's been a lot of speculation whether your wife is behind this, whether you're still together. do you want to clarify that? >> i'll say only this, yes, the family is behind it. and i would not have done it without the family being behind it. it's been a frenzied media moment. when i was down in union square, i was stuck in a doughnut it's called with about 100 folks

surrounding me. so, i would not have invited any member of my family into that context at this moment. but the family is behind it. beyond, that i said a lot about our personal lives. i'm running for an office, and i hope the public will give me a second chance and say those skills relate to the job you're seeking. >> that's what the polls are suggesting. great to have you back. >> thank you, sir. >> always been a fan. seeking. >> that's what the polls are suggesting. great to have you back. >> thank you, sir. >> always been a fan. good to see you again. that's all for us tonight. anderson cooper starts in just a few moments.

welcome to this "ac 360" special report, "not guilty, the zimmerman trial." tonight, we're going inside the verdict, the world now nows that george zimmerman has been found not guilty of all charges for killing trayvon martin. as you know, six jurors made that decision. this hour, my exclusive interview with one of those jurors, the first juror to speak publicly. she wants to only be known as juror b37. she reveals a lot, included what moved her, what role, if any, race played and what she would say to the parents of the young man whose killer she and five others exonerated. when you first gathered together, what was it like? did you know -- >> it was unreal, it was unreal. it was like something that -- why would they want to pick me? you know?