podium in a controversial tax vote. we can see it broadcast on live television. there is an alternative to dc, i guess. >> good for them. all right. thanks for watching. >> is that it. are you sure? >> good bye. america live starts right now. >> fox news alert on a land mark ruling in the supreme court today. they strike down a key portion of america's most significant voting laws. welcome to america live. i am megyn kelly. this is big. this case sparked protest this year. it centers around a provision that nine states in the mainly the south needed permission from the federal government before they change the voting laws. opponents say that rule was outdated and arguing they were

punished for sins of the past when racial discrimination was ram pant. in the high court today in the decision that divided conservative and liberals agreed and said it needed to go. it is one of the most important pieces of civil right. the question is where we stand today. civil rights leaders called the decision devastating and attorney general holder had this to say. >> like many others, i am deeply disappointed with the court's decision in this matter. this decision represents a setback for voting rights and has the potential to negatively affect millions of americans in the country. >> with me now is judge napolitano. judge, in terms that folks can

understand explain what the high court did today. >> the high court starts with a proposition that the states retained for themselves the power to regulate the election it is not a power they gave away to the federal government when it was formed. the high court recognizes that many states particularly in the south abused that authority by making it difficult and in some cases impossible for people of color to vote. >> back in the day discrimination was everywhere and accepted, they would say okay, blacks can vote and they have to pass a little test before they vote and they create a ridiculous test that deprived black voters of the constitutional rights hence the voting right act that said you can't do that. you mess with it, you have to get approval first from the federal government and that worked over the decades to equal things out. >> the statute created the

preassumption that any regulation enacted by the south or many counties in many of the states in the south, that had a negative impact on the ability of people of color to vote was presumed unconstitutional and therefore, it could not become the law until it was approved by bureaucrats and the justice department. the supreme court said nice things that that procedure actually worked. it worked so well according to the court the procedure is not necessary anymore. the conditions that caused congress to create the procedure were eradicated by the procedure and now, where we don't have the ram pant discrimination and the absurd questions put to black people to prevent them from voting tis not necessary for the government officials in the south to get the approval of the people in the justice department first. they can enact the laws and if someone is offended by it they

can challenge it. >> the high court was not going to take away someone's right to sue if a state or local municipalitty behaves badly. you did do the ridiculous test and bring that lawsuit. this is all about whether the feds have control over the state and local governments before it gets started. and now, to speak to your example, the high court spoke specifically of alabama. in alabama like they said it was 69 percent and black, 19 percent. and so there was a problem. today, well, they went to 2004 and 74 percent white and 74 percent black and we had chief justice john roberts saying why would we be subjecting alabama to preclearance from eric holder when it wants to change the voter laws.

>> there is an interesting quirky aspects. each state is sovereignty, and the court really struggles when the congress enacts legislation that doesn't apply to all 50 states and to everybody in the country and only when a state really, really misbehaves and make its so obvious they can't be trusted with the authority they retained under the constitution can the congress single them out for specific regalways. >> i want to ask you this. already negative reaction from erebbing holder and president obama had a negative and the justice ginsberg called it you boruous by the majority. and some think it is a major set back. and your take on those reaction. >> it would have been a major set back if it was invalidated

in 1965 when it was enacted. but no one is seriously complaining today. at least i haven't heard it. you and i watch for these things and part of our job, megyn. no one is complaining that there is a systemic effort on the governments in the south to keep people of color from voting. we may be unhappy for the loss of the symbol and the reality anybody who wants to vote can vote. >> they can't say you never required preclearance. you need to make a showing as to why the state has to meet your requirements. you have to take a modern-day look at each person and state. and congress is loathe to do that. it is a politically charged issue. >> you can't rely on data that is 60 years old. >> judge, good to see you. another big story from the high

court. this time a case involving a three-year-old little girl. we told you about the case a long time ago. a stunning ruling today in this case. this little girl was adopted by a south carolina couple and the adoptive father cut her umbilical. the biological father wanted to give her up and the mother gave her up. when he found out she was adopted by another family he came forward and saying i want her. the adoptive parents said too late. he found a provision in the law that allowed him to reclaim the child. he had native american blood. a very small portion but nevertheless he has some. there are federal rules that prevent native american children to prevent being taken away from the families.

that dates back to the time white people took away the native american children and we were judging that that is not in their best intchlt this was not the situation, this was a father who gave up custody and never had it. and suddenly reverses and changes his mind. in the battle that the adoptive parents had to lost and he took her and never let her have contact with the adoptive parents again. in a stunning ruling, the high court today gave the child to the adoptive parents. they threw out the decision that gave the biological father custody of this baby. and now there is a question of where she will go and will these

adoptive parents get the custody now that his father/daughter question has been questioned and we'll have a full discussion of this coming up in a bit. >> new development in the irs's targeting of conservative groups. he claimed that there is no intentional wrongdoing and liberal groups were also targeted. gop law makers say it is not entirely true. doug? >> good afternoon, megyn, the irs report reveals that targeting of conservative groups was longer. and targeted proisrael groups. here is the deputy commissioner danny werethl speak yesterday.

>> fact gathering is underway and we have not found evidence of intentional wrongdoing by kidnap in the irs or involvement by anyone outside of the irs. >> groups using the word progressive was singled out. but the house finds otherwise. it released documents that shed tea party groups seeking tax exempt were put through a special screening and progressive groups were not. >> who did they pick and why? they picked people critizing the president. it is no accident they picked tea party groups that gave obama a hard time on many fronts particularly obama care. >> the chairman issa said the finding of no evidence of intentional wrongdoing is premature. committees will continue their

investigation and the irs announced the targeted groups can certify itself. they have changed the status. 60 percent of the activity must be over social welfare. targeted groups are skeptical of what this means, megyn? >> thank you, doug. day two of the george zimmerman trial. a star witness could take the stand soon. up next, why her testimony will likely face a tough challenge. plus, the ladies of the view joining fans and foes of paula deen as they face the reaction of paula deen. but as she is dropped by several big brands, we'll debate if this fits her alleged crime. update on a couple who had their

sixth baby ripped from their arms. remember the couple after they had the nerve to seek a medical opinion. remember the cops shed up and took her? .

>> fox news alert on the george zimmerman murder trial after the explosive first day of opening statements, prosecutors are pushing the court to let them present calls made by george zimmerman made in the months and years before he shot trayvon martin. calls to 911. the defense calls them irrelevant and prosecutors said it shows the state of mine. they are trying to paint him as

a vigilante that has an ax to grinned. there is passionate enthusiastic desire to be a neighborhood watch captain. and the police department sniper who was a trainer a couple of years ago, not sure how that relates to mr. zimmerman and he took the stand a second going. a contentious argument before the court began dealing with race and prosecutors try to argue. and that isangry and frustrated watch captains and frustrated by the previous nine len calls they made about the suspicious neighborhoods. >> and they have nothing and now they are trying to present

a stealth argument that we want you to believe he's bad because he was so good in the past he must be angry. >> no one is calling this evident. in fact, what is relevant about it is the fact that you can see he has again on prior occasions called the report suspicious people and knows how to do that and knows what not to do and the frustration bills. >> and we know that the prosecutors put on the stand the sergeant with the sanford police department and the first responding officer to the scene. they have gone back with the neighborhood watch activist training and what they were advised to do and not do, and to call police. and now they are getting back to the night in the shooting in question. >> for more now they are joined by judge fahar. and jourthoughts on the argument they are having about the nine len and previous calls to 911 by

mr. zimmerman. >> i tend to agree with the defense on this one, megyn. the prosecution is calling the police on numerous occasions and they want to try to present to the jury an argument that his frustration was mounting until it finally exploded. and the problem is that there is no evident and it is speculation on their part and what it looks like, they are trying to back door the evidence in this case. that is not allowed under florida law. and they have 50 or 60 calls to the police by george zimmerman and 17 of them by suspicious people and introduced all of them where he called about a black male and it begs the question of are you doing this so the jury is blackmail, blackmail. and so if that is the reason, i don't know why they don't come out and claim he is a racist.

they will need that evil intent and spite in order to make a second-degree murder claim. >> i don't know how bad that would be for george zimmerman, judge. if i am zimmerman's lawyers and say yeah, he called all of those times and he never got in a confrontation with anybody and he never pulled a gun on anybody. what changed on the night in question. this is the defenses theory. trayvon martin itched for a confrontation and things went back. >> you are right about. that that is the flip side to the coin. if they come in. the defense will say never before he had a confrontation let alone a shooting of these people. and the prosecution wants to build or sell that argument of a building frustration and i don't think they have going to sell it with. and the witnesses, they called to talk about the procedures for neighborhood watch.

and the first one thought so highly of joefrj zimmerman that she tried to convince him to enter into the citizens on patrol and a lower level police type of position where they are patrolling cars and they felt he was not a risk at all. and acknowledged they tell him to call on occasions and see what they see suspicious places and walking in houses as trayvon was. >> this woman, wendy, she talked about how it was a dangerous neighborhood and they had many instances where mothers hid in the house in daytime and she had a small child and somebody entered the house and she backed occupy cross examination mr. zimmerman's suggestion that they had trouble in the neighborhood before. but she offered the testimony on direct examination that is damaging to mr. zimmerman.

let's listen to the sound bytes. >> what do you tell volunteers about following someone who is involved in criminal behavior. >> we tell them not to do. that that is the job of law enforcement. >> and what about confronting someone that they might be involved in criminal. >> let the police department do the job. >> yes, that is exactly true and that is the police they are giving to neighborhood watch volunteers and even if he went beyond the instruction that is not a violation of the law. we can follow and approach and say what are you doing in the neighborhood. it may be dangerous for us to do that. but it is not stalking under the florida law. the prosecution didn't score a lot of points but gave the defense an opportunity to score points in return. >> the many problems in the

neighborhood was compelling piece of testimony. >> good to see you. >> likewise. >> the california couple that had a sick baby ripped from their arms after the parents asked for a second period opinion. wait until you hear the update in the baby sammy case. when you experience something great,ou want to share it. with everyone. that's why more customers recommend verizon, america's largest 4g lte network. as well as they could because they don't take it with food. switch to citracal maximum plus d. it's the only calcium supplement that can be taken with or without food. my doctor recommends citracal maximum. it's all about absorption.

>> just moments ago, the couple that had a sick baby literally taken from their arms after they had the nerve to seek a second medical opinion. baby sammy was in the hospital and they saw a nurse that gave them the wrong medication. they decideed to take him out and bring him to another hospital and then the first hospital made a complaint that led the cops to she up along with child protective service and grab the baby.

the poor mother was like what and the father, too. they had their firearms out and the whole thing gets resolved after the next hospital said they are good parents and get out of their parents and the judge rowels that the parents have to be monitor by the division of child and family services which was taking the baby in the first place. so what happened in the court today. trace is live in l.a.? >> you can see the lawyer for the family is speaking right now and the family is standing next to him. we'll she it to you. the big deal is child protective services minutes ago has now dismissed all of the claims that means that the family will no longer have to be overseen by cps at all. that is a huge reversal for a government agency as you said megyn ripped the child out of the mother's arms just two months ago. it was a pretrial hearing and

that's it. the case is close and the family have sammy back and there is no more. to she you how big of a reversal this is. look at what happened two months ago. play this. and the worker went on to say that the mom was not acting rationally. the parents got sammy back and cps was coming in and demeaning and asked if they do are using drugs and abusing the baby. sammy by the way, has had the heart surgery and both holes were repaired and he's doing

well today and the mom is now pregnant with her second child. but the biggest victory for them today. they get samy and cps goes away. cps is being investigated by the state. that video sparked a furor. they expect the odditition by the state and changes to come because of what you are looking at right there. and believe me, a lot of people said they did the same thing to us and they got away. we didn't have a video camera. >> the parent said everyone is getting sued. i am suing everyone. and that part do we have that, our viewers are so incensed when you hear. parents out there know. these parents did nothing wrong. they saw a nurse try to give the sick baby the wrong medication and felt we were mistreated. they took him out and took him to the other hospital.

the first hospital is not cops over. the second hospital said they are good parents and after that they shed up to take the baby forcefully from the parents and the mother is very calm like what is going on and then she said where are you taking him and they say we'll tell you later, because you are not rational now. my head is going to explode and now justice is done in the case it sounds. >> and state law makers here, megyn, cps is under investigation and they will be audited and this will result in wholesale changes. >> the indignity of them saying can you have him back but you have to check in with the division of child and family services so we monitor you as parents. the only ones acting back was you and not us. >> thank you for the update. ladies of the view joining the fierce debate over paula deen.

one after the other sponsors have fallen out after she admitted in a deposition that she used the n- word among other things and up next, we'll look at whether the punishment fits the crime. a mother beaten and thrown down the stairs in front of her children, the story behind the dramatic and disturbing footage. look what mommy is having. mommy's having a french fry. yes she is, yes she is. [ bop ] [ male announcer ] could've had a v8. 100% vegetable juice, with three of your daily vegetable servings in every little bottle.

>> fox news alert. on day two of the george zimmerman murder trial. after an explosive first day in court, we are now hearing for the police officer who was first on the scene on the night that trayvon martin was killed. prosecutors are asking the he what he did to save teenage martin. we'll get the sound cued up and take up the argument in the special kelly's court just a head. celebrity chef paula deen is in danger of losing several lucrative business relationships. news surfaced that she admitted in a deposition that she used the n word three decades ago among other questionable behavior. several companies including the food network. and qvc are reportedly doing the same. but there is a question of

whether the punishment fit the crime. that is the question on the view yesterday. >> her body of work negated when a flaw was exposed. >> noatologyia for that way of life. i think you can't in 20 authority 13. >> and really. it is the sensitivity of a toilet seat. >> she's getting in trouble for the insensitivity. i don't care if they are paula deen or rapper it is wrong. boom. and the food network had to do. it i don't care how great paula deen is. they had to do it because it sends the wrong message. >> david web is on sirius xm and leslie marshal who is a syndicated radio talk she host. and now people are coming out on all sides and she has united glenn beck and bill ma hr who

said enough for the word policing especially for member who didn't make these comments publicly and made them years and years and years ago. she admitted to 1986. although there are other instances where she is down playing the use of the n word as a joke as opposed to a serious matter. your thoughts. >> let's face it. and keeping to cancelling paula deen, they are eaten by black people in the resturants and she said the n word 30 years ago and uses whether in an offhand way and we are going to draw equivalency to a rapper who uses it 29 times. we have a problem here when we start word policing everything that people does and proclaim free speech in the performance. she said something stupid and it is not the focus on the case.

and they are focusoth word and one of my concern is when ray huckster is involved in this with the rainbow coalition and jesse jackson they are going out and bringing all of the other things. it is driving the racist narrative. instead of just dealing with the issue. >> he's something who used a derogatory term to refer to jews in the past and a l sharpton made controversial in the past and he is behind paul dean, saying she was a long time ago and apologized for it. this is not like well, bill ma her and said them in a microphone and she said it years and years ago, and in private and then the reason we know she said it she admitted to it and she could have lied and she told the truth and now losing everything? . >> well, i know that i am

a white chick, i think you noticed. that >> we thank you for. that white and yello today. >> yeah, yeah, yeah. >> my neighbor who moved from south carolina to a suburb called me an n lover and asked my mother what it meant and took soap and wash today out and my mom said tell paula don't she still has the soap. the problem is the allegation of use of separate bath rom for african-american versus white and the southern planation and the way things used to be and the n word and blaming it on her southern upbringing. i find the word offensive and clearly told by my african-american friends it is okay for the black people to use it to one another but offensive when it comes from a white person. it is the intention. i think when you are a public personality you have cameras on

you and you are responsible. >> but 1986 was prepublic life for paula deen. she was a private person at the time. not that that make its okay. and she apologized and not standing by it was all fine. i want to be careful and i don't want to conflat the allegation in a questionable civil lawsuit against her by a white employee who allege she and her brother are racist like the separate bathrooms with what paula deen acknowledged herself is true. they denied those allegation. but she did admit the n- word and wanted plantation style wedding or event and that is problematic? >> is it really problematic? >> i decide to have a wedding where i am going to have all black servers that is affirmative action or thome wedding. she made a comment as alleged and they said no.

it is a bad idea. that alone shows that she is concerned about whether it is perceived racist or not. and by the way, if you have a black rapper from brooklyn new york or in the south and i travelled and lived in the south who use the n word. we have to get past being the world police. we either have the first amendment or we do not. it is i pock chr-- >> she's getting a lot of power and had a lot and becoming a target. >> take it away because of a word 30 years. that is inequal application. >> she's losing a lot. she lost her food network and could lose qvc and sears, they are all reviewing. how much should she lose for all of this?

. >> i am not a celebrity and if i said it on radio and television, i would be gone no question. >> what if you it said 30 years ago. and i am very 0 for doing that? >> you know what, if i were at her level, people have a choice, people that. her and people who carried her networks and have her on and sell her products and the people who buy them. people have a choice. she made a lot of money off all types of people from diversification and all colors and to me an apology is only good when somebody is not only remorseful and changes their behavior and can that mind set or heart be changed? i don't know. >> why don't we apply different standards to celebrities. what if you said it 30 years ago. you are a public figure and maybe not a paula deen. why is she more responsible for

a word than you or me? she's not. does the punishment fit the crime in this case. it doesn't. it doesn't fit an utterance 30 years ago. we have a pervasive use by all ethnicitty and both genders of the for word and offensive uses and artistic use. >> it does seem like a different standard and maybe there should be and i will leave it to the viewers to decide. you use it and a person of color. >> are there women offended of use of that and other rappers. >> yeah, the n word seems to be a loined in a lot of different places and slurs for many reasons. panel, thank you both. >> coming up. michael haftings reportedly died in a fiery car crash. we'll be joined by one of

michael's friend about why he has questions of whether it is a accident or whether our government is behind this. >> and the future of the girl scouts may be in jeopardy as we learn they are facing financial trouble and wait until you hear why.

>> fox news alert. president obama choosing to go

to lay out a controversial new plan for the environment. this is off page from what americans are focused on now. it is global warming. people who believe in global warming and warning about its affect and manmade causes and may not have the evidence they told the american people they have. and so we'll hear what the president has to say. we'll have a response by both sides. >> it is like carbon dioxide that burning fossil fuels releases those gases in the air. that was not news, but in late 1950, the national weather service measured the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and with the worries that rising levels might disrupt the fragile balance that makes our planet

hospitable. and what they found. year after year, is that the level of carbon pollution in our atmosphere increased dra mateccally. that is science. accumulated and reviewed over decades and tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have found. 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years. last year temperatures in some areas of the ocean roached record highs... and ice in theartic was smallest size on record and faster than most models predicted it would. these are facts. we know that no single weather event is caused solely by

climate change, droughts and fires and floods, they go back to a ncient times. all weather is affected by a warming planet. and the fact that sea level in new york, new york harbor are now a foot higher than a century ago, that didn't cause hurricane sandy but it contributed to the destruction that left large parts of the mightiest city dark and under water. potential impacts go beyond rising sea level. 1212 was the warmest year in our history. midwest farms were parched by the worst drought by the dust bowl and drenched by the wettest

spring on record. western wildfires scorched an area larger than the state of maryland of the just last week, a heatwave in alaska shot temperatures in the 90s. and we know that the cause of these events is measured in lost lives, and livelihoods and lost homes and lost businesses and hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency services. in fact, those who are already feeling the affects of climate change don't have time to deny. it they are busy dealing with it. fire fights are braving longer, wildfires seasons, and states and federal governments have to figure out how to budget for. that and i had to sit down with a meeting with the department of interior and agriculture and the

rest of my team just to figure out how we are going to pay for more and more expensive fire season. farmers see crops wilted one year and washed away the next and higher food prices get passed on to you the american consumer... communities worry about what smaller snow packs mean for tourism and families in the bottom of the mountain wonder what it means for the drinking water. americans across the country are paying the price of inaction in insurance premiums and state and local taxes and the costs of rebuilding in the disaster relief. and so the question is not whether we need to act. the overwhelming judgment of science, of chemistry and physics, and millions of measurements, has put that to

rest. 97 percent of science including by the way some who originally disputed the data, now put that to rest and they acknowledged, the planet is warming. >> that is not the full story, we are going to stream the remainder of the president's remarks on fox.com. and chris is a senior fellow in the competitive enterprise institute and author of thed ho he joins me by phone. the president talked about no question that the planet is warming and we have had 12 warmest years. that is not the full story as evidence in the new york times recently? >> right, that was, it is alarmism what al gore did and

rivalled anything since he left. there is no warming since the second year of the clinton- gore term. the president see moves on. move on to the moral posturing after what he is announcing according to anyone if there is a real consensous. this is confused from less dignified than the presidency deserves. >> he wants top new rules to cut carbon pollution. the wants to establish carbon pollution standards for new and existing power plants. already folks have come out and said, this is going to be the war on coal that he promised as candidate obama. >> right. remember, when he was running for office and caught on video trying to wow the "san francisco chronicle" editorial board saying he would bankrupt anybody who tried to start a new coal

fired power plant. that plan's been under way and the plan is to bankrupt those who already built them and provide the largest source of our electricity. at a time when people are rightly concerned about jobs he's promoting probably the most aggressive anti-jobs agenda one could imagine. it's hard to conceive of a sillier move. again, what he's announcing today is an instruction to epa and nothing more. it has no more legal binding effect than a note passed in study hall. it still reflects what he wants to do, which is truly alarming, far more alarming than the stories he bawas spinning earli. >> why is he doing this now? there was an article in "the economist" that talks about global warming has slowed. the rate has been lower than the preceding 20 years and they're talking about how the planet has heated far less than the climate scienti scientists had predicted and it

is in danger now, in danger of making them look like scientists who cried wolf. so question the timing, and your thoughts on it, for the president coming out and doing this now? >> you may have answered the question, because thanks to observations, observations, looking out the window and comparing reality to these computer model projections you have to remember, yes, it's grown to a multi-billion dollar business largely, thanks to the u.s. taxpayer, their computer model projections and your computer model can project whatever you design it to project all said continued warming and none accounted for the past 15 years. observations are causing that eddifice to collapse. maybe that has something to do with it. it wasn't the greatest threat. it would have made an appearance during the presidential campaign to be sure. the word on the street among people who talk about these things is this is a rather clumsy hand fisted effort to give a sock to the green movement because he plans to approve the keystone xl pipeline

which is a no-brainer. >> that's expected to be part of the remarks we will hear later today. this is said to be a legacy project for him. that begs the question whether it's one the country needs right now. chris horner, thank you for your reaction. >> thanks. >> follow me on twitter. what do you think of it the reports and the rate of global warming has slowed beyond what was projected? we have new video coming in from a horrific home invasion when a man bursts into a woman's home and starts beating her in front of her frightened toler. plus what led to this awful attack. the high court rules in the case of a little girl ripped from her father because she had one drop of native-american blood.

fox news alert on the george zimmerman murder trial as we hear a compelling account from the first officer on the scene. welcome to "america live," everyone. i'm megyn kelly, hour two up now. for the first time we're hearing from one of the first officers on the scene that rainy night wen george zimmerman killed trayvon martin. following yesterday's dramatic opening statements we wait to hear from the judge whether the jury will hear the phone calls from a neighbor to report what he believed to be suspicious behavior by various people.

trace gallagher has been watching the trial minute by minute. >> what's fascinating a lot of this stuff you're about to hear we have not heard before. one of the first officers on scene was one of the first to testify as well as right now on the stand, one of the first investigators, the crime scene investigators on scene as they're trying to lay out the positioning of trayvon martin and whether there was any crime scene information. listen to this testimony. >> how was tray cvon martin's by positioned when you arrived. >> his head was generally toward the north and hands northeaunde his body, sir. >> as we look at state's exhibit 1, is it correct as far as north and south? would north be to the top and south and east and west? >> yes, sir. >> state's exhibit 5.

does that give a -- obviously there's a flash in there but does that give a general idea of the lighting conditions out there when you arrived? >> yes, sir. >> state's exhibit 77, do you recognize that? >> yes, sir, i do. >> is that a fair and accurate depiction of the way trayvon martin's body was positioned when you approached it? >> yes, sir, it is. >> did you see any movement from trayvon martin's body as you approached him? >> no, sir, i did not. >> did you hear any sounds coming from trayvon martin when you approached him? >> no, sir, i did not. >> did you attempt to see if trayvon martin was still alive? >> yes, sir. >> how did you do that? >> i attempted to get his pulse. >> where did you attempt to get his pulse from? >> on his neck. >> have you had training in that? >> yes, sir i have. >> did you detect a pulse on trayvon martin? >> no, sir, i did not. >> did you or officer move

trayvon martin's body when you failed to get a pulse? >> yes, sir. >> how did you do that? >> with the assistance of the officer, i moved trayvon martin to his back. generally from i would describe it west to east or maybe easier to say i rolled himton his left shoulder and on to his back. >> as we're looking at state's 77, you would have rolled him from left to right? >> yes, sir, from the left side of the screen towards the right side of the screen. >> yes, sir. after you rolled his body over on to his back, did you again try to get a pulse? >> yes, sir, i did. >> how did you do that? >> same carotid area? >> were you able to get a pulse? >> no, sir, i was not. >> what did you do next? >> i breathed for mr. martin or tried to. >> in a cpr technique? >> yes, sir. >> do you have training for cpr? >> yes, sir i do. >> what were you i tempt attemp?

>> i was doing breaths. >> the focus was the phone calls george zimmerman made prior to the shooting of trayvon martin in the months before to the sanford police department. there were a number of phone calls and the prosecution says it shows he was overzealous and profiling people way before trayvon martin. the defense saying no, those phone calls were of a concerned neighborhood watch person. >> and the person who runs the neighborhood watch program for the sanford police department and what she tells neighborhood watch captains. >> what do you tell volunteers about following somebody they might be believed involved in following criminal behavior? >> we say, don't do that. that's the job of law enforcement. >> what do you tell neighborhood watch participants about confronting someone that might be involved in criminal behavior? >> not to confront. let the police department do their job. >> remember, zimmerman claims he did not confront nor did he

follow trayvon martin. also, she did point out that burglaries were a major concern inside that sub division. >> trace, thank you. i want to tell viewers yesterday, we played your sound bite of the prosecution talking to the jury and his opening statement saying george zimmerman told lies in this case, one of the lies was he told us after the shooting he got on top of trayvon martin and took his arms and spread them out. and now today, you see him trying to prove that by putting the cop on the stand by saying when he got there, trayvon martin was not on his back with his arms spread out, he was on his front. and the officer had to roll him over to do cpr. that's the building blocks of where the prosecution is going or to take it up in full in today's kelly's court. there are questions multiplying today about the mysterious death of award winning journalist, michael hastings, best known for a

"rolling stone" article that led to the investigation of afghanistan commander stanley mcchrystal. last week, hastings was killed in a high speed crash. immediately his friends started raising questions whether this was an accident as police quickly ruled. yesterday, hours before his death, hastings sent a cryptic e-mail to friends and associates saying the feds were investigating him and he was on to a big story. sergeant joe biggs is one of the friends who received that chilling e-mail and he joins us live. sergeant, thank you for being here and thank you for your service. you knew michael hastings. i know this raised alarm bells for you when you heard that he was killed. why do you question whether this was truly an accident? >> the fact -- the way that i've -- that other times we've spoken before and this e-mail i got, it was just very panicked and it didn't seem like something normally we would talk

about. i just felt a gut feeling, something didn't feel right. >> but the police say it's an accident. they looked into it, said, look, he was driving fast. it was 4:30 in the morning, it was dark, lost control of the car, went through a red light, hit a tree. >> his friends and family that know him, everyone says he drives like a grandma. that right there doesn't seem like something that he would be doing. he had a lot of friends and family that cared about him. he had a good life to live. there's no way he would be acting erratic like that and driving that out of control. >> what do you think is going on here? we talked about this a couple of times just because it's getting so much attention on the internet and people who are close to mr. hastings are still raising questions, questions about the l.a. pd and their conclusions this was an accident. what is the alternate theory, he was murdered, intentionally targeted by someone? >> i don't know that. i just know that from the

e-mails the hours later dying, it's just not a coincidence like that. things don't add up. there's a lot of questions that need to be answered. i was contacted by e-mail mercedes today, asked if it is normal for their cars to blow up to that extent, if the engines fly out on a normal basis. these are the real questions we need to ask. >> what of the -- obviously, he was investigating a couple of high profile cases, looking into, he said, jill kelley, who was connected with the whole david petraeus and general clark -- go ahead. >> that's been -- his wife today said that that's definitely not true that he was investigating into jill kelley. >> michael hastings wife says he was not investigating that? >> yes. >> okay. what was he investigating, as far as you know, that would have caused any consternation whatsoever by someone? >> cia. but from what he said or his last -- one of the things he said was it was going to be the

biggest story yet. >> you know how people are going to react to this? they're going to say -- the tinfoil hat people will say the government killed this journalist by taking over his car, doing something to his car and the other people will say there are people that will say, that's nuts. your thoughts. >> i can understand both viewpoints. like i said, he's not someone that would be driving around erratically in the middle of the night. that just wasn't how he was. that just leaves a lot of questions and a lot of digging to be brought up and answered. i'm not going to speculate and say, i think anything, because that will just make me look crazy. >> no one wants that. we just want answers. it's interesting because former counter-terrorism official richard clack spoke to the "huffington post" saying, look, it is possible for intelligence agencies to seize control of a car remotely. that's what he claims, and to do

what they want to it. he went on to say, reportedly, my rule has always been ah don't knock-down a conspiracy theory until you can prove it wrong. in any event, sergeant, thank you for being here. >> yes, ma'am, thank you. as prosecutors try to paint george zimmerman as a man looking for trouble on the night he fatally shot trayvon martin, we'll look at arguments on both side and play you what we just witnessed back and forth in the courtroom. plus the future of the girl scouts as we get reports the 100-year-old organization is in serious financial trouble. is the cookie selling giant about to crumble? we'll tell you what's causing the problem. you will not believe it. up next, a stunning update on the effort to reunite a young girl with the only family shad months. she was ripped from the arms of her adoptive parents at that age and given back to her biological father in a very controversial decision that was not based on

her best interests but based on the fact that her father had some very small percentage of native-american blood, the high court, in a stunning ruling today, putting this case to rest. we'll tell you what happened next. >> we were told that she was not an indian child and so we didn't think that it was going to make a difference. this is in her best interests. >> we're her family. this is her home. okay, team! after age 40, we can start losing muscle --

8% every 10 years. wow. wow. but you can help fight muscle loss with exercise and ensure muscle health. i've got revigor. what's revigor? it's the amino acid metabolite, hmb to help rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time. [ female announcer ] ensure muscle health has revigor and protein to help protect, preserve, and promote muscle health. keeps you from getting soft. [ major nutrition ] ensure. nutrition in charge!

bombshell decision from the u.s. supreme court today affecting the life of a 3-year-old girl. we brought you this case prior. little veronica was given up for adoption by her biological mother. her biological father originally agreed, saying during the pregnancy he did not want to have custody of this child. she was born and four months past the adoptive couple cut the

umbilical cord and took custody of her. four months into the custody of her, the biological father objected and he won, he won his court challenge based on the fact he has some native-american blood in him and this child, after 27 months of only living with the adoptive parents, was taken from them and given to the biological dad. she's been with him the better part of almost two years now. the first two years with the adoptive parents, next two with the biological father. the supreme court today sided with the adoptive parents! sending the case back to the lower court, and we'll take it from there. joining me now to discuss it. fox's legal analyst and doug burns, criminal defense attorney and prosecutor. >> wow! big decision making. the court found the indian child welfare act which is what the dad was relying on to get custody back of his biological kid did not apply.

it was meant to pass for was to make sure child welfare services don't come and pluck kids off the reservation. >> which is what they were doing. it wasn't applicable, because the father had custody when the mother got pregnant. the mother said look, you can either pay child support or give up your rights to the child. the father didn't want either of those and abandoned the child. >> this is an old law on the books meant to preserve native-american families because dcsf white families thought they new better and were interfering with those families and breaking them up many moons ago. >> yes. >> but this man was not somebody who the court felt should benefit from that law. >> what happened was indian families were octobering saying child services agencies were coming in and unfairly taking children out because of poor economic circumstances. >> arguing it's in the best interests of the child. >> and specifically saying you don't understand our culture and

what seems to you poor economic circumstances isn't. the law has a high standard higher than normal to take a kid away. >> they didn't look at the best interests of the child. baby veronica was taken away even if it was in her best interest to stay with the couple. >> the supreme court ultimately stepped-in, 5-4, not along straight ideological lines. justice briar joined with justice alito. >> justice briar abandoned the liberal block and scalia the conservative block. it was 5-4, most conservatives plus briar. >> on the other side, descent saying this little baby was with the biological parent all these months and has bonded and now you pluck her up again and send her back to the adoptive parents? >> i said this yesterday, with all due respect i know these cases can be difficult. why didn't the biological father

let the parents see her once he got her. he didn't even let her see one time. the trauma this poor girl probably went through from month 27 to now 4 in september and yet so he did that. he did it. and yet now she's only been with him. >> right. >> now, what's going to happen? >> it's been remanded to the south carolina court. a check-off. she will go back to the adoptive parents. exactly, she hasn't been with those adoptive parents for all this time from the time of 27 months to being 4 in september. it's very rarely do you see a supreme court decision that has such an amazing impact on one human being. >> that little girl. it will affect other kids, too, because we said yesterd yesterday -- before i get to that point, is it in the lower court's power, doug, to order that this time around, whatever you think of the biological father, she be allowed to see him to some extent? at least during the transition period, to make it's easier for her, to order a psychologist and

be appointed to oversee her care? >> that's a great point. the reason that's a great point because with this back and forth and back and forth, somebody in the court system should say, wait a minute, let's say not withstanding who formally has custody there is some ability to interact meaningfully with the child. >> can't the lower court do that? >> the lower court can -- this will be in family court. went all the way to the supreme court and now back in family court. >> on that front because we care about baby veronica and care about her story, this will affect other children as well. what the adoptive parents had been arguing, if you say, supreme court, this can happen, it effectively will kill every future adoption by a couple of a baby that has even one drop of native-american blood because that person's parents can step in. >> always go back the statute, even if you had the kid for

years and years. >> who would knowingly go to that pain. >> we have to think about the adoptive parents, that's the point, they wouldn't. check cherokee box, no, we will get another kid. >> that winds up hurting native-american children whose parents really do want to give them up and hurts their parents. >> the mother clearly did from day one. >> she let them cut the umbilical cord and had them in the hospital room with her. >> he's saying i didn't consent and took me four months to give notice. >> in his defense, he was a service member. does he claim he didn't know she was born? how does the explain the four month delay. >> apparently there was a day the kid was being formally adopted. he knew when the child was born. >> knew when the due date was. >> but did not get notice of the petition to adopt until four months late >> where did he think the kid went? >> they claim there was a text

message saying i'm giving up my parental rights. >> that carried the day. the justice said this person never had custody but impliedly between the lines he never evinced an interest having this child. he put it well earlier. you can't take this law really beyond what it was intended to do. >> the child welfare law was not intended to give a father a bye just because he says, oh, now, i want my kid back after she's gone for 27 months. >> in this wake of this case, a lot of people have been questioning that statute by itself saying it's antiquated and congress needs to update this. >> it creates an unrealistic standard for custody. >> you have to think about children, can't be having native-american children not get adopted because parents are too terrified. hopefully this case will help get that ball in action. what an up dadate on the verdic today. and we're questioning the president's ability to make

things happen as he's losing battles here and overseas. and a home invasion on camera, this is troubling, a man bursts into a woman's home an starts beating her right in front of her frightened toler, right after this break. hey, look! a shooting star! make a wish! i wish we could lie here forever. i wish this test drive was over, so we could head back to the dealership. [ male announcer ] it's practically yours. test drive! [ male announcer ] but we still need your signature. volkswagen sign then dre is back. and it's never been easier to get a jetta. that's the power of german engineering. get $0 down, $0 due at signing, $0 deposit, and $0 first month's payment on any new volkswagen. visit vwdealer.com today.

back and beat her more. at one point, he threw her down the basement stairs. now, you need to get a look at this guy. that's the most important thing, described as 5'11", 210, 220 pounds with apparently some salt and pepper hair. this man, that's the best look at him right there, police want to know if anybody recognizes him at all. the woman, the victim suffered severe head injuries. a concussion as well as many stitches. her kids were never hurt during this whole thing. not only was her young daughter frozen on the couch, you see right there, but she had one more infant daughter upstairs.

they were not affected at all. the mom says she went through this whole ordeal without screaming because she was afraid if she screamed her young daughter would scream and the suspect would go after the young daughter. horrifying video. it came from the nanny cam, meg gwy -- megyn, that was on the fireplace, which is why it's so crystal clear. >> horrible. when did this happen? >> friday morning in new jersey, a tree lined street. it really is like this norman rockwell i rockwellian neighborhood. the woman said all the doors were locked, back door was bolted. this guy kicked down this wood frame door and came in. friday morning it happened. they're getting this tape out as quickly as they can because they're afraid the guy might strike again. >> right. that poor scene that poor child witnessing that happening to her

mother. two incredibly painful moments happening before your eye, the physical and emotional pain of the mother and you can imagine the emotional pain of the child watching this happen to the mother and the mother having the sense not to scream because she wanted to protect her other children. let's hope they find him. trace, thank you. wow. okay. let's move on. a growing debate today over whether president obama can command any respect onto the global stage after he continually gets snubbed and ignored. why is this happening? plus a new push today by the prosecution, trying to establish that george zimmerman was a man looking for trouble on the night he fatally shot trayvon martin and suggesting that he is a liar. ahead in kelly's court, we'll take a look at the argument being made moments ago. >> it's to show that something happened that changed his mind, that caused him to refer to the [ bleep ] always getting away,a

punk, that caused him to do -- get out of the car and follow him. that's what makes it relevant.

[ male announcer ] eligible for medicare? that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans,

they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about. and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. there's a range of plans to choose from, too. and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. call today. remember, medicare supplemt insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay --

expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you'll be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and you never need referrals. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions, and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. fox news alert. moments ago a top u.s. senator issuing an angry challenge to the white house to do something about the fact the u.s. seems unable to capture the man responsible for leaking secrets from the nsa. both russia and china have now refused u.s. demands to hand

over leaker, edward snowden. senator lindsey graham a republican fired off remarks in the last hour saying quote putin is an autocratic dictator. they're defying us in the world and we need to push back. i've had it with them. the presidency is the most p powerful force in the world. use that force and stand up to putin. last night, charles kraut hammer suggested the president is no longer effective as our commander in chief. >> the fact that people don't like the united states is not new. what's new is that these non-likers have no respect for the united states, as jason indicates, nobody worries or cares about what obama says because it carries no weight. remember how the president said, we're going to hold accountable those who killed our ambassador in libya, we're going to hold accountable the authorities in syria who have killed so many of their own people. he's talked 100 times about

holding x or y or z accountable. nobody's held accountable and everyone knows that. >> joining me now for fair and balanced, alan combs, folk news contributor, fox news employee. sorry about that, alan. there you see it. you can see senator graham is very upset. by the way, he said, i expect us to do something. i expect us to do something about it. let me give it to you, first, alan, to respond to those two conservatives. >> these are people not particularly fans of obama to begin with. as far as we know, we don't know there are not back channel communications going on between the united states and russia. for us to jump in at this point to accuse the president of not doing enough or bad mouth putin does not help the situation. if diplomacy indeed is still in play, i think it's inappropriate for somebody to be bad mouthing the russian leader at a time it's very sensitive. >> is it still in play? china already let him go after

we said, don't do that and russia has apparently said no. >> why would we assume it isn't in play? >> because the reports say no, we're not giving him back to you. >> that's what they say publicly. we all know what they say publicly and behind the scenes to apiece thepease their base ie same. >> they said we won't let them go? >> they won't? >> they said, no. >> we don't have control over everything putin does. >> i know. that's the problem. >> why should we? russia has some legitimate issues with the united states, including the way adopt yees we treated, have- >> they handled it. they cut off the adoptions. that is a different question about whether they need to respect and/or fear us more in order to comply with the direct demands of an american president, supposed to be an ally. >> it's not about fear.

>> you're either respected, you're feared or liked. barack obama is none of the above. barack obama doesn't know how to use the tools of the presidency. he's proven that again and again. the chinese and russians, vladimir putin don't respect barack obama, they don't fear barack obama or the united states. barack obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform the united states. nobody ever asked him into what. he's transformed us into a paper tiger. the clothes have no em pore rer. he's turned the bully pulpit into the wussy pulpit. everybody knows it around the world. not just the chinese and vladimir putin, we have ecuador lining up to take a shot at us, jam their thumb in our eye, venezuela and cuba, you can take cuba off the list. we have tire rants and thugs and pin pot dictators big and small lining up to take shots at the united states because barack

obama leads from behind. barack obama's threats are empty, barack obama is not the leader of the free world, he's just the leader of the democrat party and has an agenda here. >> it's very easy to sit here if you never liked the president to begin with, you didn't and charles cladidn't particularly e him. but to call putin names, doesn't help anything and the situation is an evolving situation. i don't think it helps anybody to have rhetoric at this point. >> i know you say it's still evolving. >> mr. snowden, as far as we know is still alive, still evolving. the reports today said vladimir putin said russia will not extradite him to the united states. the foreign minister said our demands to have imextradited are unacceptable. it doesn't sound like our efforts are not working so far. >> they did help us with the boston bombing situation. it's complicated. it's a complicated relationship.

that doesn't mean we always get everything we want nor does it mean not getting everything we want mean the president is ineffective. you want to call him names, fine. that doesn't help the situation. >> i didn't call him names. >> he did. >> let me jump in, if i could, the russians helped us with the boston bombing and well ahead. barack obama's leadership and administration's recklessness and hapless neness even though y were waving red flags in our faces. >> wait. >> that would be like me saying about 9/11 happening. that's absurd. >> you brought it up. >> okay. i'm reasserting control. let's not get too far afield on the boston bombing. i want to talk about whether this particular episode, we saw yesterday president obama saying we are speaking with the russians and hopeful this will resolve and jay carney with very

strong language for the chinese feeling they had not responded to our direct demands, told us we can't stop him from leaving because your paperwork wasn't right. before we knew it he was on a flight. the question is whether they have disrespected our president, d disrespected the united states of america and if so, why, chris? >> again, because president obama -- i'm sorry to say, i'm an american. i was raised in the reagan era when i first became politically aware. peace through strength is not just a bumper sticker. it actually applies. there are bad people in the world. they aren't all in the united states as democrats and barack obama apparently so often thi s thinks. there are bad people out there eager to take shots at the united states. when the united states appears weak, the united states is going to get hit. this is deliberately going out of their way, chinese, russians, ecuadorians who insult us when

they feel they're free to take shots at us. >> what would you like barack obama to do, mr. plant? what would you like him to do? >> it's little late. the horse has left the barn. you want him to declare war? >> you lead with determination. >> do you want him to declare war? >> of course not. >> what do you want him to do. >> what he should do now, it's a question of how we found ourselves in this position. it is a good question about how would another president have gotten himself into a different place, chris? are we so sure ronald reagan who was tough would have got an different result from president putin on this? >> of course. president obama met recently with the chinese leader in california and vladimir putin at the g8 and neither of these meetings went well, even according to the white house report. it's clear, if president reagan was in the meetings with them they would know this was a

formidable force, the united states is not something you mess with. obviously the impression they came away with is the united states is something you can mess with and you can get away without consequence otherwise they would not be behaving. >> we can't control the behavior of every country. you want to talk about other countries messing with us, 9/11 when bush was president or what happened -- this is not about one person, this is about complicated relationships with other countries that require diplomacy, not a bunch of bloviating from people who don't know what might be going on behind the scenes we can't address. >> we don't know what's happening behind the scenes but in front of the scenes, it doesn't look good. thank you. >> you bet. up next, new developments in the george zimmerman trial. we've been monitoring it minute by minute for you. the state calling some of the first people on the scene on that morning of february 12 after george zimmerman shot trayvon martin. could their early testimony make a lasting impression on the jury about whether george zimmerman

lied, as the prosecution alleges, about what happened moments after that gun went off. special kelly's court next. anyone have occasional constipation,

diarrhea, gas, bloating? yes! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap each day helps defend against these digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. live the regular life. phillips'.

session. on the docket today, dramatic testimony in the george zimmerman murder trial. we heard from one of the officers first on the scene after george zimmerman shot and killed trayvon martin. this case is about whether it was in self-defense or not. the lead prosecutor questioning

the officer how he found trayvon martin's body, the condition he found it, the position of the body on that fateful night, february of 2012. >> did you or the other officer move trayvon martin's body after you failed to get a pulse? >> yes, sir. >> how did you do that? >> with the assistance of the officer, i rolled mr. martin's body over on to his back. i would describe it as west to east or maybe it's easier to say, sir, i rolled himton his left shoulder and on to his bac back. >> as we're looking at state's 77, you would have rolled him from left to right? >> yes, sir. from the left side of the screen towards the right side of the screen. >> yes, sir. >> in his opening statement yesterday, the prosecutor told the jury george zimmerman lied about what happened that night, including his claim that he, mr. zimmerman allegedly rolled trayvon martin on to his back after he shot him and spread out

his arms after the shooting. and now they are using the picture of the descendant, trayvon martin apparently we can't show you, but if we could, you would see that theed this in evidence in a court proceeding today, that his body was facedown. the prosecution is trying to build the case that mr. zimmerman lied. joining me now to discuss it former prosecutor, defense attorney and a defense attorney monitoring this trial. welcome to all of you. do i have it about right? >> yeah, you do. what they will do is, in order to discredit the testimony he reasonably feared death or great bodily harm and this happened the way he alleged. he was attacked by trayvon instead of instigating him, they will move to discredit every single thing he says along the way, if they can. the defense will say, they said it in their opening after that stupid knock-knock joke. at some point, it was the head banging on the concrete that

could have affected his ability to communicate an effective and credible story. >> is the prosecution making its case so far? they'rethe events of the night and trying to paint george zimmerman as a liar. >> right. they know they have to do that because george zimmerman has a built-in advantage in this trial. he's the only eyewitness alive when they met on that fateful moment on that night. they know that. in order to discredit him, they have to show he's lied so many times and presented so many inconsistencies to law enforcement authorities, how can you believe he's telling the truth right now? the truth is the truth. it doesn't change. >> they are also trying to paint the picture for these jurors because they're trying to persuade them as well. one of the things they have to do putting on a murder case, show pictures of the dead body and talk about the circumstances. they had testimony from this police officer who talked about

how he tried to revive trayvon martin that apparently was upsetting to the family and showed pictures upsetting to the family. they have some of that testimony now. so bear with us. it is some what graphic. >> did the other officer assist you in performing cpr on trayvon martin? >> yes, sir. >> what was his role? >> initially, he was doing compression, sir. >> did you hear anything when you were performing cpr on trayvon martin? >> yes, sir. >> what was that? >> bubbling sounds, sir. >> what did those bubbling sounds indicate to you? >> it meant that either air was getting into or escaping from the chest in a manner that it was not supposed to, sir. >> in that context, susan, we were told that the father of trayvon got up and walked out and didn't want to hear any more of that. what was the jury's reaction? >> interesting.

they saw him walk out actually. there's boards, actual boards in front of the gallery so you can barely see the jury. what i can speak to, when i saw mr. martin walk off. mr. martin walk off. he got up,v'  his eyes were wea up and4÷ he wvejá but mrs. mart ten stayedk remainedáí4ñ composed.m)mkzk it'sãamazing the amount of strength she has. b.ñ b.ñ ve prosecution opening statement yesterday. not as much so, according to most, on the defense side. has the defense redeemed itself at all today? >> listen, they're in a deep hole from that opening statement. i mean, my own 7-year-old son stopped telling knock-knock joke as while ago. because they're lame. in a court of law in a second degree murder case they are offensive and ineffective at best. that being said, the opening statement is just what the evidence will show and the

defense has a lot they will present to this jury i think will help them create reasonable doubt. >> you know what they say, you never get a second chance to make a good impression. and you're not seeing as much of don west today. we'll take it up after the break.

testing, testing, test, test, testing, testing, test, test, test, test, test, test, test, testing

for a store near you go to benjaminmoore.com/bayarea.

>> megyn: pick it up now and whether the defense team -- how bad did they blow it yet? >> it was pretty significant. the fact they would like to get away from is the fact that trayvon was a high school student, walking home, with some snacks, and no weapon, when he was shot and killed. and so there's that emotional aspect that is going to resonate with the jurors. five of six of them are mothers -- >> megyn: before i move on, the pictures they showed in court showed that trayvon martin was

300 feet from his home, and we did see don west say in opening statement, he could have gone home. he is suggesting to the jury this was a teenager, yes, but a teenager looking for trouble. it's the length of a football field, how far from his house. >> megyn, one thing that does not lie, which is where i would start, you have significant injury to the head, a really significant nose busted, looks bad. we know those self-inflicted. the prosecution conceded it was at the hands of the victim. the question is, if trayvon was on top of him at that time, and if his head is being pounded and his face is being pounded, what reasonable person would argue they're not appropriate. it's not appropriate to then shoot the person who is harming them? >> here's the issue can't get past. >> here's what you're going to find. the evidence will show zimmerman's injuries were not as

significant as he portrayed them to by. >> but he had them. susan, i want to ask you about yesterday, your reaction in your view to the defense0s opening statement which has been so criticized. >> well, i got to tell you, i was sitting there in the overflow room when he said that, and everybody just kind of gasped. it was just complete disbelief of this unprofessionalism. it was inexcusable. there was no reason why he should have done that, and it really went dead flat, and i think you talked about first impressions? that's going to be a lasting impression and will take a long time for them to recover after that. >> i think mark o'mara will be taking the lead more.

>> megyn: thanks for watching. here's "studio b." >> the news begins anew on "studio b." tough talk from the russian president, vladimir putin. he says he will not released snowden and claims usual officials engaged in raving and rubbish. jurors in the george zimmerman trial saw a photo of trayvon martin's body on the ground today. the boy that this man killed. and one of the people to talk to the teenager before he died could take the stand today. that's with number 8, a secret up until now and a very important witness for the prosecution. if it comes out in this hour, and we believe she will. we'll have that for you. plus, digital dementia. think of