well, the supreme court done issuing rulings for the term and no more thunder for them at least for a year or so. >> they are on vacation. >> america live starts right now. >> fox news alert. new details on the two new rulings from the u.s. supreme court on the issue of same- sex marriage. welcome to america live. i am megyn kelly. if decisions that went as expected after the oral arguments were occurring. the justice issued two different opinions. first striking down the key defense of merge act ruling that married, gay and les jardin couples in the 12 states that allow gay marriage have the right to federal benefits just like any other couple. and by deciding not to rule on the merits of california's proposition eight.

they cited a legal technicalitty that let them get out. and the supreme court paved the way for same- sex marriages to resume in california. shannon start with this. some gay rights proponents hoped that the supreme court would issue a ruling that declared that gay marriage is a federal constitutional right and must be allowed in all 50 states in the union, did they go that far? >> they didn't and didn't get close. what we are talking about the defense of marriage act, there was one key provision at issue in this case. it deals with states and folks that are legally married in their state, same- sex couple or traditional couple get the same benefits and there would be tax laws and how couples are considered when they file for their taxes. striking down one portion of

doma, all the court did, was to say if you live in a state, you are a same- sex couple and you are married there, the federal government for purposes of benefits can't see you any different than a traditionally married couple. >> what kind of benefit at the federal level will gay couples get? >> at issue was the state taxes. edith win sor. she and her partner lived together in new york and couldn't get married at the time. they went to canada and got married. new york did not recognize the marriage. her partner died and she was left with a tax bill that was more than $365,000. and so when you look at tax law and other benefits that would be there for traditional couples, they would be there for same- sex couples if theiritate recognizes the marriage. >> it was immigration laws and

tax laws and that didn't benefit gay and lesbian couples. we want to ask you about this. right now 12 states recognize gay marriage and think it will be 13 soon. let's say it is 12 today. you are a gay couple and you move to texas, which does not recognize the gay marriage. does texas have to recognize your gay marriage? >> they do not under the rulings today. there is a different section of doma that deal with states dealing with other state's marriages. it was not litigated here. i wouldn't be surprised if it was challenged at some point. it was not at issue in the case today. >> and so the bottom line, if you are married, if you are a gay person married in one of the 12 states that allowed gay marriage you got the green light to federal benefits that you

didn't have and in california pursuant to the second ruling, you would be able to get married if you are gay or lesbian. >> that's what it looks like, the justices did not get to the merits of the case and made no pronouncement in the under lying issue of gay marriage in california. prosedureally, the right parties were here. and you remember the challenge started and the governor and the attorney general and register of records were named in the case and they refused to defend it. and so it was left with no defenders. and they wanted to step in the role and be able to defend it. they brought it all the way to the court court and the court said you are not the right parties and the chief justice writing the majority opinion and

we it was passed as a law and we'll not do it today. it vacated the ninth circuit opinion and leaving the lower district court's opinion in place. that opinion truck down proposition eight. >> good to see you. the interesting thing voters in california banned it by 52%. got challenged in court and they lost. the trial court said you can't do that. and then the governor and the state of california refused to defend prop eight. they felt differently than the 52 percent of california and now what the supreme court said is, you know like it or not, you as a governor and you as a state body can overrule the will of the people passed early if you don't like what they decided by not defending the law.

we'll not recognize the standing of any group other than the state to come in and defend that law. and so now, it gives the governor of any state a super veto on the will of the people as in this case where they say we don't like the law and we'll not defend it. and the supreme court said if you don't, the law will fail. you need someone withstanding to come in the court and defend a law like. this it is a interesting legal result not only gay marriage but other laws in other states where administrations change and governors feel differently. gay marriage supporters said the high court should rule in their failure because the general public is more supportive of same- sex marriage. fox news shed that they are evenly split.

56 percent favor and 57 percent oppose it. it is quite a ways from ten years ago. but is it enough to the opinion to legalization of same- sex marriage in all 50 states. coming up, we'll be joined by tony perkins of the family research council and rippard who is a gay rights advocate about the land mark rulings. there is a lot of celebration from supporters of same- sex marriage. and no representation of those who opposed this positioning and did not want to so this. we'll have both sides here for you next hour. >> we also have fox news polls released last night. we are seeing evidence that the recent political controversies in the country, the scandal obbria may be damaging the president's reputation in a way

we never saw before. shortly after the inauguration 68 percent of the american people had a favorable opinion of president obama. no matter what happen they like the guy and like our president. year and half the number slid to 52 percent. and april of this year, half of the voters had a good opinion of the president and liked him. that number for the first time in the fox news poll has fallen at 47 percent. and that is the lowest we have seen in the fox news polls. the drop is sharper when you look at job performance rating in the key voting block of independents. slide from 67 percent who approved of his performance to 31 percent today. chris is our editor and host of power play on fox news live. and that reversal in the

likeability. we know. but the point sthe majority of the american people liked himmine if they don't like his policies and now it is changing. >> he is more popular than his policy and job performance. and many people said in the past, he's not good at being president but he seems like a nice guy and seems honest and he seems like a family guy, okay. and that gave him broad latitude to do things that were not popular and not pay the political price for. it you could enact a massively disliked huge suite of regulations and taxes on people's health insurance and still get reelecteds something about the value of being likeable. and the poll that you point out with the 40 or 47 percent, this is the first negative rating that he's had in his career. not just since he was president but before when he was running

for president and a nobody, he is in a negative four rating now. he's never negative before and this is the first time and what is happening is this. when the federal government gets caught abusing its power and the white house won't be straight about it, and they will not say things definitively and take bold action people get fed up. >> and this is a scannalobra. >> i love that. >> we watched that about librace. >> appropriate. >> and in any event it is having an effort. the bipartisan number, 73 percent want congress to continue to investigate the irs's targeting of conservative groups and 71 percent wants the investigation on benghazi and nsa is doing to us.

and investigating what the doj are doing to journalism. these are real scandals and they are looking to congress to hold someone accountable. >> and the truth is, the president cannot outrun these things. he keeps trying. we are going to talk about shutting down coal plants. and i want to talk about immigration. i want to talk about anything and everything, but the plague that is on the scandalobra that is on he decides to get serious. look at the irs, it is time for the president to act like his career depends on it. it does and get serious. >> liberals are blasting the supreme court ruling and striking down part of the voting rights act.

many suggesting that it undoes decades of civil right's work and they are calling it devastating and racist and one person to go so far. a minnesota state law maker to call justice clarence thomas our only african-american justice an uncle thomas. and then that state law maker tried to reverse that accusation and saying i didn't know what that meant. i am 0 if i offended anybody. we'll look at what the decision means. >> an emotional testimony in the george zimmerman murder trial bringing some in the court room to tears. and chaos in the texas state capitol as there are extreme measures to head off tighter abortion rules in the lone star state. what happened there and what will happen next.

. and start a team today.

register at alz.org

>> more dramatic fallout on the supreme court ruleoth voting rights act. many on the left are outraged by the court's decision that we will get into a minute. is that outrage justified. >> i am deeply disappointed with the court's decision in this matter. the silver rights has been dealt a severe blow. >> it is a dark day for the supreme court. >> my voice was joined by the millions of americans that are frustrated. >> this is a setback for voting rights. >> this will negatively affect

millions of americans in the country. >> it is the decision that was made. >> confederate. >> joining me is a contributing editor of the review. andy, a confederate decision. you would think that racism was given the stamp of approval by the supreme court. what actually happen? >> the supreme court recognized that the institutional systemic race- based discrimination and disenfranchisement of voters that was the impous for the voting acts right of 1965 has long ago passed in the dust bin of history and this particular provision at the time it was enacted was recognized by the court and congress that enacted it as being a dubious constitutionitty. >> and what it said. if you are a state with a long history of discrimination in

1965. they used require literacy of blacks and character tests, you can't change your voting rights laws unless you get clearance from the department of justice. and that was necessary at the time. it was no question because of what happen in places like mississippi and so on. we are 40 plus years after that now. and there is a question of whether it is still necessary. the high court said it is not blanket and all of united states have to go to doj first. >> the people have forgotten the way they did it was constitutionally problematic and a bed rock assumption of states that entered the union and the sovereignty would be respected. and in order to remedy the profound evil, those two things were put on hold and once it was remied, the idea we were going

to go back to square one. >> the actual normal in the country which is the state's rights and the feds not interferring with state's rights. which is why they said five years and that's what they thought it would take. you do the math better than i do. >> no, i don't. there is a reason we did that instead of medicine. >> let me ask you what we are seeing on the left. there is how you believe that the left is race obsessed and they need to perpetuate the narrative and that this is the right trying to ignore the rights. >> you would have to be progress to hate this kind of progress. and the people who seem to hate it are the movement progressive and race hucksteres. it is a moment that the supreme court took to recognize the achievement of american society

in overcoming the form of institutional racism and instead of celebrating it, the people who depend on the demagoguery are screaming bloody murder. >> in mississippi in 1965 it was less than 70 percent for whites and in mississippi it was 76 percent which is higher than the white registration rate and why the supreme court said it doesn't make sense to carte blanch to put it and miss with the voting act. >> and what the court recognizes and the rest of us recognizes if we put the noise from the left on the side. what does it say about the american people. the left is saying if this law is not on the bocks, people in those states and other states want to have literacy test. how crazy is that?

>> there are other remedies. you can sue. and this is not taking away the remedies. and we'll get to minnesota rep ryan winkler. and this is racism and one uncle thomas and saying if that was offensive, i didn't know what uncle thomas meant. >> so what did it mean? what did he think it meant. he went to harvard. >> he was a history major. >> does did he not go to literature. >> justice thomas turned his back on american rights. >> i meant he was a racist and not a racist. i am glad he clarified. >> it is unbelievable how justice thomas gets every time he issues a decision that the left think is not fair.

>> and the immigration bill tomorrow. and senators have yet to read the bill. ram paul details the surprises he found in the bill. stay with us.

>> a new twist in the case of an emt who decide not to help a dying pregnant woman because she was on the coffee bravenlth trace has the details. >> we know that melissa jackson will not be prosecuted at all. and in fact begin a chance would you change what you did she said no i would do it all over again. she was walking to a coffee shop and one of the employees had a severe asthma attack. jackson called an ambulance and

refused to help the woman and wouldn't go back to so what kind of medical care. the woman was six months pregnant and ended up do iing. and jackson was charged with the flag down rule and requires emt's to treat someone if they are flagged down. the chief of the new york medical service supported her being prosecuted and yesterday he flip flopped, telling prosecutors that the flag down rule doesn't apply to dispatchers. ine though they are fully trained emt's. they are not a signed to an ambulance and they don't have to help somebody. prosecutors are baffled and forced to drop the prosecution and listen to melissa jackson as she left court yesterday. >> i apology for what exactly. i had no type of equipment to render the care.

i work behind a computer. >> do you sleep well at night in >> yes, i do. i always have. i did everything that i was able to do. >> apparently she slopes very well. the woman's mom died. she has no conscience and she is in the wrong profession to begin with. >> and melissa jackson's by friend who had coffee with her, he also was a trained emt on duty in uniform and refused to help. the reason he was not brought in the case shortly after that incident he was shot and killed in an unrelated incident. two emt's and refused to help a dying woman. >> wow, wow, trace, thank you. chaos in the texas state capitol last night as law makers tried to tighten the abortion

restriction. up next what happen last night and what the fallout would be. >> the new evident in the george zimmerman murder trial and sparking debate. they tried to keep it out and the judge ruled against them today. calling 911, relvapt? it is getting you up to speed with what happened to the trial. couple of interesting witnesses took the stand. ...the immune system... [ ding! ] ...heart health... [ ding! ] ...and muscles. [ ding! ] that can only be ensure complete! [ female announcer ] the four-in-one nutrition of ensure complete. a simple choice to help u eat right. [ major nutrition ] nutrition in charge. a simple choice to help u eat right. but i see a world bursting with opportunity,ople nervous.

with ideas, with ambition. i'm thinking about china, brazil, india. the world's a big place. i want to be a part of it. ishares international etfs. emerging markets and single countries. find out why nine out of ten large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.

>> fox news alert. we just got word that there is a 2 o'clock p.m. arraignment for aaron hernandez arrested in his home in massachusetts in connection with a murder investigation. it is more than a week since the body of a semi- pro football player odin lloyd who was associated with mr. hernandez was discovered in an industrial park near mr. hernandez's house. he was released shortly after his arrest. we'll be live in boston for that arraignment in the top of the hour. >> the chaos of the texas state capitol over abortion. democrats and protestors went to extremes to head off tighter abortion rules in the lone star state. what a spectacle. windy davis a state senator started a filibuster of

a measure that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks and tighten the restrictions on abortion clinics. she did not sit down. and republicans said she violated the filibuster rules three times and claimed they were allowed to move forward with a vote and claimed they got it done and about to do it and shutting her down when loud protest and stalling tactics broke out among those who are in support of the filibuster. it came to a head before midnight and the lieutenant governor was supposed to sign the bill they claimed they passed despite the filibuster and said i couldn't do it in the chaos and a citizens filibuster. and that is basically what happened. so what happens now. joining me now for a fair and balanced debate. monica crowley and kristin powers. it is a discussion of trying to

understand what took place in the texas capitol last night. they wanted to restrict abortions to just -- i don't mean to say just 20 week system halfway there. to 20 weeks and right now, most of the state say 24 weeks or after. it is a four week moving it back forward and tighten the restrictions on the clinics, why was planned parent hood crowd so up set. >> they oppose it in every state. pacifically what texas is what happened in pennsylvania after the gosnell tragedy in terms of not so much in moving the date but all of the stuff of making them in amulatory service centers and in the gosnell case they found independent investigation found that probably one of the women who died wouldn't have died had they had met some of the requirements in the facilities.

and so planned parent hood oppose this across the country. >> they claim monica it is like 42 a borgsz clippics in the state of texas and have to be licensed as amulatory surgery centers it would reduce them to five. >> this is a standard argument. pro abortion lobby try to go to the fact that women have to flee to ti juna. and it is ridiculous. it is reasonable from the 20 week mark to upgrading the facilities and demanding that doctors have hospital privileges in a 30 mile radduous. this is in direct response to the horrors of the gosnell case. the national journal shows that 48 percent of the american approve of the bans and what is interesting in the numbers megyn

and kirsten, women want the bans and they approve of it more than men do and young people. they want the bans. >> this is likely to lead to more attempts to late term abortions? there is an artecle that points out the burden on the five clinics if they are left at five to provide service was will be extreme and women will be underserved and the suggestion is, you have to drive hundred of miles and you don't do it because you got to work and take care of existing kids and time goes on, you get past the 20 week mark and you need an abortion, this is the argument that you get from the planned parent hood. >> and i don't honestly follow their reason. >> they are making it harder for them to get abortions. >> you mean by closing the

clinics. the claims are exaggerated and i don't think that many would close. and i have to say they are not meeting health standards then there is a problem. they should meet basic health standards and you want them to be safe. and the other problem is, the idea that you have to be a person who thinks it is okay to abort a 20 week old healthy fetus. it is severely deformed or abnormalitties that you can abort it. we are talking about healthy babies. i don't think most americans can get on that line. >> and the argument about saying you are making it more difficult. within a 20- week time frame, you ought to be able to make that decision. >> by 20 weeks you should be able to make that decision.

>> 20 weeks is a problem for those objecting. they have said it is a harm to women and women have a right to choose and even the president ofa, they said something interesting is happening in texas tonight. i have it in front of me. something special is happening in austin tonight. that is a post on president obama's official twitter account. basically coming out and saying it is special to try to shut down an attempt to make it unlawful to abort a 21 week old fetus. he's going out there. >> i personally think it is sick. i really do. there is nothing, this is not, most americans don't think it is okay to abort a healthy fetus at 20 weeks. people have had a lot of time to get an abortion. and you are asking them to stay pregnant for less time they are already pregnant to give birth

to the child. i am not down playing there there are hard things and bad situations, we are talking about a human life here and most americans agree about that. >> tt's the other thing requiring the surgery centers that would protect the women if something goes wrong and some point you have to wonder what happens to a 22 week old fetus that is born alive and can the center handle that and if you don't have a mother or doctor concerned about that, is that an appropriate place for the state to say we are interested in protecting the baby's rights. >> in response to gosnell. the pennsylvania state boards and state- run agencies that we are supposed to oversee abortion clinics did not do their jobs. it is a reasonable bill. for the president of the united states to intervene in a state matter on this issue. i agree with christen, it is so

out of line and for him to use that adjective special. when president obama was a state senator in illinois voted to support this infanticide. and it shows where he is coming from. >> hard- hitting analysis of the carbon plan and one of the extensive reorganizations of the u.s. economy since the 1930s. it will kill tens of thousands of jobs and send our energy cost higher than we have seen. >> we are tracking the courtroom arguments in the george zimmerman murder trial. eyewitnesss are describing what they heard the night of the shooting and wait until you hear what the woman who called 911 had to say and should the had to say and should the testimony have been this is be. begins with arthritis pain...

and a choice. take up to 6 tylenol in a day or just 2 aleve for all day relief. all aboard. ♪ ♪ now you can give yourself a kick in the rear! v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies. need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle.

>> we are tracking new developments on day three of the george zimmerman murder trial. several eyewitnesss taking a stand each describing in detail. and describing what they saw with trayvon martin. and judge alex joins me now. we heard in particular from one witness that took the stand and claimed that when she heard

yelling. and that is a 911 call in the background. she was convinced it was called the boy. this is what she said on examination. >> pressing 911, i say two yells for help. >> could be identify whether it was the dominant louder voice or higher pitch one. >> i truly believe in my opinion the second yell for help was like a yelp. i really felt it was the boy's voice. and after hearing him yell for help i was staring down and i saw one person on top of each other and from my window pop, pop, pop. >> and you know, i don't know what a gun sounds like it was a three popping noise.

>> that was jane, who called 911. >> first start with her testifying. it was her conclusion that it was trayvon shouting for help. >> there is a problem with. that that is beneficial for the prosecution but hurts the defense that she identified it as trayvon. the objection was overruled by the judge. she was not a expert witness and for her to say it sounded likine a boy's voice and it was the boy's voice. and the only one that is qualified is 17-year-old trayvon martin. >> who cares what she thinks whether it was trayvon or zimmerman. why isn't that up to the jury. >> that's absolutely right. if she was an expert she could render an opinion and that is the answer. if she anyhow trayvon, she could

say i know his voice and that was trayvon's voice and that would be permissible. she is in no different position from the jury. they can decide if that was high pitched because they are screaming and in fear or if it is higher pitched because of trayvon's voice. >> she went on to say three popping noise and suggesting three gun shots and there was only one. and that is a point we will hear from the defense in closing arguments i imagine. >> they played her 911 tape and she said i heard a bang or a pop. there she goes. they are going to rehabilitate her and she stood by the pop, pop, pop. and we know there is no echo. you only hear one sound and one shot. it is not a matter of it reverberating. >> the defense cross examined her on the testimony of i thought it was a boy's voice and

here's part of that. >> i thought it was a man's loud aggressive voice and the other voice sounded like a higher pitched lighter voice from a smaller man. but it sounded like a boyto me. >> or a man who had a higher voice? >> sounded like a boyto me. >> your thoughts on that. >> sheehy penned her down and said you are a teacher and you know students going through puberty you have students that have deeper and hus keyer voices and the best after repeatedly questioning her was i guess so. and he also was able to elicit that she went on anderson coopers she and basically said that she thought it was trayvon's voice and i expect in closing that she committed herself to the story in the furor of the days when there was

rioting and all of those problems and she has no reason to know know whose voice it s. >> today is the first day is the only day that they got a head of the curve. everybody should be feeling they are hitting homeruns and they turned a lot of prosecution became defense witness or severely impeached and today this witness and a second witness that scored points for the prosecution in saying that the larger guy was on top. but then admitted that she made that conclusion when on the news she saw the picture of trayvon in a football uniform and there was a neighbor that identified as she was closer and he said that zimmerman was on the bottom and trayvon was on top.

the jury will be left with a mixed bag of eyewitnesss. that is generally good for the defense. >> you raise a good point. right now we are hearing the prosecution's case and they prosecution's case and the prosecution is landing all the blows and defense trying to minimize it and present their size of the case. they have no burden, judge, even if they're going for straight self-defense, it's still the state's burden to prove george zimmerman committed this crime yard. >> absolutely. we're on their side of the case and it should be seeming stronger as time goes on and how strong we don't know. the judge dealt another blow to the defense allowing in the prior 911 calls. i think that's a mistake, i don't know it's reversible error, it's character evidence and pry or bad acts. she saw it differently and she's letting it in. >> you and atalked about that and we will play some tapes in

kelly's court and debate that with our legal panel. good to see you. >> you, too. up next, paula deen with tearful reaction to the racial remarks.

after years of buying all the doescy dos i can handle, the girl scouts somehow find theirselves in deep financial trouble. i've done my part. trace gallagher, what happened? >> i've done my part as well. the math is simple. membership way down and revenues way done and most troubling of all the girl scouts pension fund is $347 million in the hole. now, the girl scouts of america are considering selling off their camp properties to help

pay for the pensions. now, iowa congressman bruce braley wants the house ways and means committee to take a look at this saying i've heard from i iowans are concerned that generous early retirement packages for key employees are potentially diverting significant resources from serving families. i'm worried american girl scouts are selling cookies to fund pension plans instead of camping. the girl scouts are saying, look, we're doing whatever is necessary to pay the bills and keep up in this different changing environment quoting change can be unsettling. it's not surprising some would prefer us to remain static, doing so would be a disservice to girls who need us now more than ever. you have to consider over the past ten years, the girl scouts have changed their uniforms, their handbooks, the merit badges, even the logos on the boxes of cookies have changed.

now, there is some word that congress may make them take the pledge to keep their pensions under control so that the girl scouts can remain open. it's been 100 years, megyn and they have never been in worse shape. >> make new friends but keep the old ♪ thank you, john! do you know, trace, how it ends? >> i have daughters, of course. i can't sing it with the eloquence you just sang it with. >> you could. thank you, trace. >> yeah. coming up the senate expected to vote on the big immigration bill as early as tomorrow. senator rand paul is here live on the fact many are admitting they haven't even read it. don't go away. hoo-hoo hoo. sir... i'll get it together i promise... heeheehee. jimmy: ronny, how happy are folks who save

hundreds of dollars switching to geico? ronny:i'd say happier than the pillsbury doughboy on his way to a baking convention. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

fox news alert. two major u.s. supreme court decisions on the issue of same sex marriage today and some very different views already of what those decisions mean for this country. brand new hour here of "america live." welcome, everyone. i'm megyn kelly. first, the high court striking down a key part of the federal defense of marriage act. now, gay and lesbian couples living in states that recognize their marriages will be eligible for the same federal benefits from the tax code to immigration benefits as straight couples. second, the high court declining to rule on the merits of california same sex marriage ban, known as prop 8. that ruling effectively opens

the door again for gay marriage in the nation's largest state. joining me now with perspective, richard, a special former assistant to president bill clinton and marriage equality advocate and tony perkins, the president of the family research council. richard, let me ask you to put in perspective what you believe happened this morning and how significant it is. >> i think it's enormously significant the federal marriage of law enacted almost 17 years ago was struck down by the court really in an important decision which basically says in this country we cannot treat people differently based upon sexual orientation. i think it was a landmark decision, the ramifications of which will not be immediately known but this case is going to be used for years to come as precedent in any situation where a law tries to treat gay people differently. number one. number two, even though the

court did not rule on the merits of proposition 8, the fact that the net effect of its ruling is to return same sex marriage to its most populous state, most important state and biggest state, i think will be huge. what these two decisions taken together means is the gay rights movement, same sex marriage rights movement would appear unstoppable at this moment. >> most important state, california? i take offense as a new yorker. i will move on because we have more important issues to get to. tony, your reaction? >> well, i agree in part that the ramifications will not be seen immediately. i take kind of different angle when we look at california because ted olson did not go to the supreme court to see them punt on this issue. what he went to the court to do was to impose a redefinition of natural marriage on the entire country. he failed to do that. you still have 37 states that will have, once this is works

its way out in california, you'll still have 37 states that have either in their constitution or statutes, definition of marriage asman and woman. i don't think time is on the side of those who want to redefine marriage. those ramifications, the loss of religious freedom where you have bakers and florists and photographers forced to participate in same sex marriages, when the american public begins to see that, the loss of parental rights as their children are taught values inconsistent with what they're taught at home and see churches and organizations lose their tax exemption, i think americans will pause and say this is not what i gave a nod of affirmation to. >> richard. >> i think mr. perkins is talking from an old playbook. everybody looking at this knows the only thing that will be affected is civil marriage, the right of any citizen to go to city hall and to get a marriage license. no church or regulation

denomination is going to be forced to do anything, especially with respect to marriage, and that, you know, the country is moving forward in a cultural sense, with the acceptance of gay people. i think the most important message from the court's majority opinion in the doma case today is discrimination against gay and lesbian americans is over. you can no longer enact a law in this country that targets gays and lesbians and the court will not find it constitutional. >> what of that, tony? >> not true. >> some are already pointing to the descent by justice scalia who did not want to see this defense of marriage act invalidated on his part and he is saying the majorities opinion suggest they are willing in a future case to declare gay marriage a constitutional right which would lead to its legalization in all 50 states. >> that's if it gets to the court. he, 10 years ago, actually

signaled overturning in the lawrence v texas case that would lead to same sex marriage even though the others denied it. you certainly have to pay attention to what scalia is saying here. in reality, that was not what the court decided today. the idea states -- it's very clear from the opinion states can still decide to determine marriage is the union of a man and a woman. that in no way was invalidated. >> that's very clear. in the states where gay marriage is not allowed, it's not allowed tomorrow and not allowed the next day unless they change their laws. the supreme court didn't interfere with this. can you speak to this, whether you believe the majority opinion has now telegraphed the next gay marriage case that comes up that asks the high court to declare gay marriage is a constitutional fundamental right that cannot be denied by any state? >> in read through the opinion, i think reading the opinion, focusing most heavily on kennedy's statements, it is

uncertain, because, in part, he says states have a right to define marriage. he clearly says the federal government does not have a right to what it did with doma. there's wording he uses that does make it certainly open to interpretation, that a majority would overturn the other aspects of doma, not just the part pertaining to the federal government but that that pertains to the states as well. >> you know, mr. perkins may wish it to be true but the fact remains that justice scalia in his very angry dissent disagrees with mr. perkins and says what the majority opinion does today is pave the way for the end of any law which discriminates against someone in this country based upon sexual orientation. while it is true that no state, other than california, is directly affected by the ruling today, what the court is signaling today is that it will no longer permit states to treat people differently, based upon sexual orientation.

i think that is the unavoidable conclusion and also ruled that the federal government has to recognize same sex marriages performed in states where it is already legal. >> that's right. go ahead, tony. >> there's still room in this opinion for the federal government as we're looking through this for federal purposes only as it pertains to immigration or maybe in the military to define marriage as between a man and woman. this is far from settled. >> that is not true. president obama has already issued a statement since the ruling which said very clearly. >> i believe everything he says. >> that he is going to act swiftly and promptly to implement this decision with respect to federal regulations these marriages will be recognized. mr. perkins, you are correct th that -- >> congress -- >> you are correct no state was ordered today to recognize same sex marriages other than california, which this is biggest state. you are incorrect when you suggest there is still room for the federal government to treat same sex couples differently.

there is no longer any room for that. >> i'll give you the last word, tony. >> yes, there is. there are members of congress looking into that today. this is far from over. >> that is the essence of the decision. the essence of the decision is exactly the opposite of what you sai said. >> you've both been forceful advocates for your respective sides and i respect that. thank you both. fox news alert now, we're awaiting the arraignment of aaron hernandez in massachusetts. all these reports last week he had been arrested, well, you can see for yourself what happened to mr. hernandez last night. the nfl player was taken from his home in handcuffs, put in the back of a marked police car. it happened a week after a boston semi-pro football player was found dead in an industrial park about a mile away from mr. hernandez's house in north attleborough. it was after he had spent the night partying with aaron hernandez and others.

molly is live outside the courthouse in attleborough. molly. >> reporter: hi. we're just getting word aaron hernandez has arrived here at the courthouse. unclear if he has been brought inside. the massachusetts state police just sent out a tweet they were bringing him here and another tweet just came out from the massachusetts state police. this gives us an idea what to be expected. hernandez will be brought before the court. official charges will be read. charge or charges will be read, a bail argument will be heard and a next date will be set. that doesn't give us any insight into if he will be kept in custody after this. we'll have to see what happens in court. if so, we're not sure where he would be taken or held if he is kept in custody. following this arraignment today, the district attorney, the bristol county district attorney, samuel suter, is expected to meet with the press and he'll also be issuing a statement and may shed light where they are in this investigation being the lead agency. the other big news today regarding this case, ne-new

england patriots aaron hernandez playing for as a tight end, have released him. he is no longer a new england patriot. they released a statement saying a young man was murdered last week and we extend our sympathies to the family and friends who mourn his loss. words cannot express the disappointment. we feel knowing one of our players was arrested as a result of this investigation, we realize that law enforcement investigations into this matter are ongoing. we support their efforts and respect the process at this time. we believe this transaction is simply the right thing to do, that transaction, of course, being to put aaron hernandez off of this team. we're keeping an eye on the court activities expected to get started any moment now. >> thank you. a hard hitting analysis of the president's new climbs action plan calls it quote one of the most extensive reorganizations of the u.s. economy since the 1930s. we'll debate what that means for our economy and our electric bills next. plus, paula deen breaking

down in tears in her first national interview since apologizing for making some racist remarks. she admits to having made them back in the '80s. trace will look at what was said and whether things went too far. a judge's decision to allow new evidence in the george zimmerman murder trial is sparking a debate over whether his past calls to police are relevant to this case and if so, how? how? kelly's court debates that decision and who is likely to benefit in the end. >> what's going on there, george? >> i'm with the neighborhood watch. we had some burglaries and vandalisms lately. this gentleman was walking in the neighborhood, i've seen before, on trash days, going around picking up trash. i don't know what his deal is. >> is he white, black or hispanic? >> black.

today, for the sake of our children and the health and

safety of all americans, i'm directing the environmental protection agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants. [ applause ] >> for both new and existing. hold on to that. president obama there at gon georgetown university yesterday what was said the most extensive reconstruction of the economy since the 1930s. he wants to reduce gas emissions by 13%. joining me now, "washington post" columnist and speechwriter for president george w. bush and juan williams, fox analyst. he wants new efficiency standards for trucks and new subsidies for wind farms and

going after existing not just future coal plants but existing coal plants, which is rather significant, mark. >> yeah. welcome to al gore's first term. the president's top science advisor just said yesterday the president is waging war on coal. why didn't the president tell us about his plans for a war on coal last year when he was campaigning in coal producing swing states like ohio and pennsylvania and virginia. he didn't tell us because he wouldn't be president today if he had done so, if he campaigned on this plan. this is the exact wrong priority for america at this time. we just learned this morning the commerce department adjusted down our first quarter economic growth from 2.4%, paltry to 1.8%. we're experiencing 1.8% economic growth and the president's response is to set a goal for reduce i reduciing carbon emissions? why not set a goal for getting our economic growth rate up to 3 or 4% or getting jobs for 20

million americans who are out of work or can't find work or getting back to full employment before the eight years of his term in office are over? this will have the opposite effects. kill jobs, raise electric rates and devastate the american economy and exactly the wrong priority. >> juan, the journal points out the epa cracked down on future coal plants and took criticism 15 said, look, this won't apply existing coal plants that affect our electric bills and so on and there you heard the president say he is taking it to another level and critics like mark say it will affect us all on our electric bill. >> the argument is flawed. we all breathe air and all want to be able to breathe. i spent some time in china and let me tell you, it's an issue. the broader context is we need to do something about pollution, greenhouse gases that affect global warming all the rest. in terms of what mark said, think about the politics for a second. as he said, last year the epa

announced new regulations that basically put a hold on building new carbon producing power plants. the voters knew. don't forget, mitt romney was in one of obama's ads in front of a power plant saying we need to shut this down because this kills americans. i think that broader concerns about health are also part of the discussion and yet might drive some electric rates, i think president obama has even said that you imagine this industry has to retrofit to make sure that they can limit the carbon emissions they put out. >> mark, it's tough to argue with, we all need to breathe. >> this has nothing to do with clean air, to do with carbon issues. juan is confusing the two. the air is cleaner than it has been in years. this isn't about clean air, about americans having jobs and feeding their families. more than three-quarters of americans are living paycheck to paycheck. they can't afford higher

electric rates, juan. american business, particularly american manufacturing struggling at an economy growing 1.8% can't afford higher electric rates. the president in 2007 said under my plan electric rates will skyrocket. why in a good economy would we make electric rates skyrocket, but in an economy where we're growing at 1.8% we're going to make electric rates skyrocket? if this is so popular, why didn't he campaign on it? you can say people knew. no one knew about this and no one knew it would be his plan. if it's so popular, why doesn't he put it through congress and let congress have a say on it instead of imposing it by executive fiat? >> because you have democrats from coal producing states so you have a coal industry that would punish them for the larger perspective. i think the president is responsible for us as americans overall so you need that broader view. if you leave this to politics, the politics of it are go ahead, pollute, do what you -- do

whatever you can, as long as you're making money, producing jobs, fine. as i said earlier we all have to breathe clean air. >> what about that? the accusation, mark, he's doing it by fiat. he couldn't get it done by congress and now going to do it through the epa whether people want it or not. >> no. that's exactly right. the president when he came into office had a filibuster proof in the senate and both houses of congress and he couldn't pass it. couldn't pass it when democrats could overcome both houses of congress and impose a filibuster. this doesn't have popular support and didn't campaign on it during the last election and say he would do this. he's trying to do this by twisting the clean air act into contortions. this is what the "new york times" said about the clean air act. it's twisting it in ways that were never intended for a law that was written decades ago. he is doing something that has no popular support. >> quickly, juan. >> let me shay this quickly to you. there are no new taxes here

because congress would have to impose any taxes. what the president is laying out is a vision for getting people to use alternative energy sources. because they can't use electricity doesn't mean they shut down. remember, nuclear energy now produces, i think, close to half of america's energy, alternative energy. that likely would ramp up. you're looking at alternatives, you're looking at a vision. i think that's what a president should be doing at a time you can see it's having adverse effects on our climate and our health. look at the allergies our kids are suffering these days. >> it would be a tax on everyone. >> thank you. good debate. an emotional scene on national television this morning as paula deen winds up in tears during her first big interview since admitting that she made some racially charged remarks years ago. stay with us.

paula deen in tears this morning on the "today" show. the celebrity chef defending herself on charges of racism. it was a thing to watch. trace gallagher live in our newsroom. trace. >> it was indeed a thing to watch and tearful and lengthy for television standards. 12 1/2 minutes. paula deen kind of brushed off matt lauer's first question by going to this statement. >> no matter who you choose to go to bed at night with, no matter what church you go to pray, i believe everyone should be treated equal. that's the way i was raised and that's the way i live my life. >> remember, last week she blew off the "today" show and issued her own online apology. this is it and was very badly edited. an hour after she gave that

apology, the food network fired her. the whole ordeal began when during a deposition, paula deen admitted using the "n" word 26 years ago and said she probably used it more but this morning she backed off that statement. liste listen. >> it's just not -- it's just not a part of -- it's just not a part of who we are. >> yeah. so she said she never said it again. then, paula deen started getting emotional. she took a bible quote and kind of made it her own. liste listen. >> if there's any out there that has never said something that they wished they could take b k back, if you're out there, please pick up that stone and throw it so hard at my head that it kills me. >> laur also asked her if she came on the "today" show to stop

the financial bleeding that's been happening to her. a couple companies dropped her aside from the food network. apparently this didn't help. now we learned caesars palace has severed their ties and will no longer have paula deen's restaurants in ceasars casinos and paula deen's empire continues to crumble because of all this. >> reduced to rubble. thank you. the senate could vote on a sweeping reform well in bill in the next 24 hours but we learned many of those yet to decide on this sweeping legislation have yet to read it. senator rand paul joins us live about what he found when he went through the bill. next, the george zimmerman judge has ruled the jury can hear the calls george zimmerman made to 911 leading up to the case.

this is not something the defense wanted the jury to hear and they just did. >> i was just calling because we had a lot of break-ins in our neighborhood recently and i'm on the neighborhood watch. there's two suspicious characters at the gate of my neighborhood. i've never seen them before. i have no idea what they're doing, they're just hanging out, loitering. hey kevin...still eating chalk for heartburn? yeah... try new alka seltzer fruit chews. they work fast on heartburn and taste awesome. these are good. told ya! i'm feeling better already. [ male announcer ] new alka seltzer fruits chews. enjoy the relief!

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 supplement 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. back now to the breaking news

from the top of the hour. this is a live camera inside the courtroom in attleborough, massachusetts. player aaron hernandez about to be arraigned and we will learn what they are at the arraignment. questioned about a dead body a week ago near his home and we learned that is owdiodin. and they are now calling that a murder. we will update you. we could just be hours from a vote of the sweeping bill that could change the nation's immigration policies. a bill a number of senators admit they have not even bothered to read. in the last 72 hours we're se g seeing eye opening items you may not be aware of. $1.5 billion for a temporary jobs program for low income

youth. financial aid for alaska seafood processors and 100 million dollars to promote the u.s. as a travel destination. and the list goes on. joining me now, republican senator rand paul and also money to help resorts hiring ski and snowboard instructors. this is what is foremost in the mind of the american people. the senate is on it. your thoughts. >> you apparently didn't understand it. din didn't you hear nancy pelosi? she said you can find out about them after we pass them. that is an insult to american taxpayers we rush through so rapidly nobody can tell with center what's in a bill. we also find in the bill we're still working our way through it there's going to be an incentive to hire undocumented workers opposed to american citizens because you won't have to pay them for obama-care. they don't get obama-care so it will be cheaper to hire an undocumented worker than it is

to be to hire an american citizen. that will be the law. the $1.5 billion earmarked for some youth program or jobs program is equal to what we will spend on the fence but the new amendment also has a veto power so the president can veto the fence if he thinks the border is secure which apparently the president already think this border is secure. there's a lot of problems in this bill. >> still a lot of controversial items. as you tick them off, that becomes apparent. the question i have for you, senator, why the fire drill? why does this have to get done before the july fourth recess, in harry reid's view and why so imperative we have this vote tomorrow before people even have a chance to read it? >> also, why is it such a hurry we can't have amendments to the bill. i have an amendment to guarantee if you are an undocumented worker you don't get welfare, the state have to check to see if you're a documented or undocumented worker before you apply for welfare, when you apply for welfare. i have a similar amendment for

voting that says if you want to vote, you have to have proof of citizenship and they need to check it. they can't just have you check a box. these would be safeguards to make sure that the vote is safe and that welfare is safe from giving it to undocumented workers. neither one of those amendments will get a vote, in all likelihood. >> they say it will pass with flying colors in the senate predicting 68 maybe more votes on it and give it the momentum it needs to pass in the house. do you dispute that? >> i disagree in the house. i think it's dead on arrival in the house. i think the house is closer to the position i am. where a lot of conservatives are. i'm for immigration reform but border security should be first and immigration reform should be dependent upon proving border security. if that happens i'm all for it. i can be for a lot that is in the bill but you have to prove to me what's in the border before we progress to immigration reform. let me switch gears to the

nsa leaker story. we set out and said china, we're very unhappy with you because we told you not to release him and you did it. russia, if you release him to anybody we want you to extradite him back to the united states. russia came out yesterday, mr. putin and said, no. then, today, the united states dialed back its rhetoric and sort of started to say, instead of making scary threats about what we're going to do to you, russia, if you don't exstry do it him back to the united states, we're kind of saying please, would you pretty please do it, please? your thoughts on it. >> i think there's a very important issue above and beyond the leaker. that's about privacy. i've made several comments i think it is important we have an expectation of privacy and that our government not be able to willy-nilly looking through billions of phone calls everyday. i think the court needs to take this up and i'm challenging it in court. how the leaker will be judge is still yet to be determined. i've advised history will treat

him better if he doesn't appear to be cozying up to countries that appear or many believe to be our enemies. i think it is important what's happens. if he's divulging information to foreign governments, history won't treat him well. >> but a different question about our relations with russia and tactics in handling this matter. >> i don't think we have any power. we don't have an extradition treaty and our relations aren't good enough either china or russia will. there's a lot of back and forth over who's hacking whom and what countries are hacking into another country's computers. my guess is there's a little bit of hacking going on, on all sides. i think that makes people less likely to turn over someone who's divulging or may have divulged information that has to do with one country hacking into another country's computers. >> let me ask you about the gay marriage rulings this morning out of the u.s. supreme court. i know you went on glenn beck's radio show and you made a

comment you will take some flak for, which he was saying, this is going to lead to the legalization of polygamy potentially and other situations and you came out and side, and i quo quote, i think this is a conundrum. if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. does it have to be humans? you want to comment on that, senator? >> i think my point that i was trying to make is that government has been involved in marriage for a while and it's been at the state level. i think if we leave it at the state level, there will be room to disagree. but it will probably be within certain parameters. like i said, i don't think it will be with multiple humans and i think it will be human and human. i didn't mean that to mean anything other than that i think the government will still probably be involved in defining marriage to a certain aspect. i don't think we're going on towards polygamy or things beyond that but i do think that our country is divided on the issue and that in some ways, the supreme court decision is

probably going to allow us to agree to disagree, some states like new york may go forward with gay marriage and have some states in the south probably won't, not even in the foreseeable future. i think we can agree to disagree. that's kind of what our founding fathers talked about when they talked about federalism that each state would be an ink baiter of its own ideas and given the freedom to have disparate laws to a certain degree. >> your thoughts on the decision from the supreme court on the voting rights act stating we're past the point now where you have to subject these nine states to the approval of eric holder and the three judge court who will tell these states whether they can change their voting laws or not. some on the left -- many on the left have called this disgraceful, jesse jackson called it confederate. i know you've been a critic in the past to some extent of this body of laws. so your thoughts on what the supreme court did yesterday on it. >> i think the 14th amendment

does allow for the federal government to be involved to make sure there are no laws and no states are preventing people from voting. there was a time in our country, an ugly past when this happened so there was every reason in the world for the federal government to be involved and justified through the 14th amendment. that being said now in the last election, afc americans voted at a higher percentage than white americans in five of the six states in question. i really think we should try to get to a time in our country where race, a person's color of their skin, is not part of the body of the law, as long as no state is discriminating we should try to have laws equal and the same for everyone, not special scrutiny, no scrutiny, but just saying if any state passes laws that have a racial bias to them, then there should be an ability for the government to investigate it. for example, i think right now, our sentencing for people for non-violent crimes with marijuana disproportionately affect black individuals and i think there is a racial bias in

our law that needs to be corrected. i'm actually working on that. i do believe the federal government has a role but looks like in vote we having been going in the right direction some time now. >> thank you, rand paul. good to see you. thank you for being here. >> thank you. up next, the judge's decision to allow new evidence in the george zimmerman murder trial is sparking debate. are mr. zimmerman's past calls to 911, as he acted as a neighborhood watchman relevant to this trial? the defense did not want the jury to hear this. the jury just did. kelly's court takes it up next.

kelly's court is back in session. whoa, what a day. as we were interviewing senator paul, a major witness took the stand in the george zimmerman murder trial. this is the person trayvon was on the phone with moments before he died. her testimony has been difficult to understand. she's been speaking very quietly. the defense objecting every other moment. kelly's court panel is standing by. we will listen as we bring in the panel. i want to remind you aaron he z hernandez of the new england patriots has just been charged with murder. >> from the back. i said -- and then seconds later he said he-from the back and then the phone just shut off. i had called back --

>> hold a second, to make sure everybody's got it. some people might be writing down notes. writing down notes. take your time. >> then the phone just shut off and then i had called back and he answered. >> okay. >> the phone shut off and i called back and he answered? >> yes. >> we're going on delay because we've been told the "n" word has been used several times and she recounted that conversation. we will do our best to keep this pg-13 for you. bear with us. this is live testimony. back to it. >> did you call him back or did he call you back? >> i called him back. >> when you called him back, were you able to again sttalkin? >> yeah. >> did mr. martin, then when you called him back, did you say something to mr. martin or did he say something to you? take your time answering.

>> he said -- i asked him where he at. he told me he at the back of his daddy fiance house, and i said, you better keep running. he said he -- >> stop a second. this lady's got to take everything down so make sure you're -- so after he said he lost him, what happened then? >> he said he was in the area of his daddy fiance house and i told him keep me on, he said, no, he'd just walk faster. [ inaudible ] so i said why? >> what happened after that? >> and then a second later, i turned off, said oh [ expletive ]. >> let me interrupt you a

second. when you say the words oh [ expletive ], pardon my language, who said that? >> trayvon. >> my apologies. just bear with us, okay, here's your warning if you have the kids in the room c this may get -- this may get more than pg-1 pg-13. >> behind me? >> yeah. >> okay. did you say anything to him at that time? >> i told him, you better run. he had told me he almost by his daddy fiance house. and then i just shut off -- told him my door connect to my door and the back door -- >> let me make sure i understand. you're not talking to mr. martin. you did what in a room in your house? >> in the bathroom. i was trying to fix my hair for school the next day. >> you were talking -- how were you able to talk and fix your

hair at the same time? >> on blue tooth. >> you were on blue tooth? >> blue tooth. >> so while you were talking to him, you had a blue tooth connection. did you tell him, hold on, i'm going to go fix my hair or you're telling the jury what you did? >> i just did it because my phone was in my pocket. >> what happened then after you went to another room, closed the door and fixing your hair? >> i just closed the door. >> i'm sorry. you closed the door. >> yeah. >> are you still talking to him at this point? >> yeah. >> tell us what happened then. >> then i said, trayvon -- then he said, why are you following me for? then i heard a man say what are you doing around here. >> then said trayvon and then said why are you following me for and then i heard a heard -- >> breathing man saying what you doing around here? >> hard breathing man saying -- >> what you doing around here. >> let me interrupt you. is what you just told us a conversation you're having with

trayvon or trayvon having with someone else? >> having with someone else. >> that's what you're hearing? >> yeah. >> then what happened? >> then trayvon was going on and >> then trayvon was going on and >> then what happened? >> i saw him get off and press -- >> let me stop you a second. you heard a sound and then you said something, what did you say? >> trayvon, trayvon, what is going? >> and what did you hear? >> i kind of heard trayvon saying get off, get off.

>> and then what did you hear? >> and then suddenly the phone shut off. >> when the phone shut off, what happened next? >> then i had called him back. >> you called trayvon martin back? >> yes. >> were you able to talk to him again? >> no. >> did he, trayvon martin, ever call you back? >> no. >> did you ever talk to trayvon martin again? >> no. >> at some point, you found out that trayvon martin had been killed, is that correct? >> yes. >> do you recall in relation to that sunday when you had a phone call with him when it was approximately that you

found out that something had happened to trayvon martin? >> it was a rumor that monday when i went to school -- >> it was a rumor? >> that sunday he passed, monday was a rumor and around school we have friends that go to his school saying that he passed, but i didn't believe it. >> let me interrupt you a second. at school people were saying something happened to him? >> yes, that he died. >> and you did not believe it? >> huh-uh. >> when did you officially find out that he was -- >> that tuesday afternoon. >> and do you recall how you found out that he died? >> cuz my friend had sent me -- a -- a text.

>> so you found out from the media or people told you? >> yes, my friends sent me a text of the article saying trayvon's name and that he died and i asked him what time that he died? i looked at my phone and my phone said 7:16 that the phone hung up. >> so you found out that trayvon martin was dead and you tried to figure out in relags to the last time -- relation to the last time you spoke to him? >> yes i tried to figure out how he died. how he died, was it just a fight the last time i talked to him when the fight broke out. >> you stated that a fight broke out. tell us what you mean by that. tell the jury what you mean by that. >> it was just a fight broke out , just a fight broke out and he was already [inaudible]

and somebody would come and help him because dash [inaudible] i thought he was there. >> you don't realize the last time you spoke to him was when he died? >> yes. >> at some po nie t did trayvon -- point did trayvon martin's dad call you up and tell you -- figure it out that you were the last person to have spoken to him on the phone? >> yes. >> now, ma'am, did you find out that trayvon martin had a wake and a funeral too? >> yes. >> dispu not go to that -- and you did not go to that, correct? >> no. >> when trayvon martin's dad called you up, did you tell him you were the last person to have talked to him?

are you all right? do you need to take a break? >> no. >> do you want some water or something? >> no. >> at some point you found out that people wanted to talk to you about this case by what you had heard? >> when his father called? >> yes. >> pretty much i didn't know what, like, if i was in this case, like, -- my friend, they said they had got the man. i said okay. >> you will have to repeat that. >> she went to the wake -- >> a friend of yours went to the wake. >> some of my friends went to the wake and they asked that [inaudible] he dead.

he did. >> why didn't you go to the wake , to the funeral? >> [inaudible]. >> i'm sorry, what? >> i i didn't want to see the body. >> you didn't want to see the body? >> no. >> you ended up speaking to trayvon martin's mother and to the parents, right? >> yes. >> did you end up lying about

not going -- why you didn't go to the wake, the funeral? >> yes. >> and why did you lie about not going to the funeral or to the wake? >> i felt guilty. >> felt guilty about what? >> that i was the last person that was -- the last person who talked to trayvon. >> can you repeat that. >> i was the last person to talk to trayvon. i didn't go to the wake in respect.

>> since that time have you heard the reporting -- the telephone recording where there are cries for help and then a shot? have you heard that on tv and stuff? >> yes. >> the cries for help, are you able to say whose voice that is or whose voices that is? >> trayvon's. some trayvon's. >> i don't have any further questions, thank you. >> thank you. cross. >> i think this is a time for a short break for everyone. >> are you okay if we take a short break? >> yes. >> incredible testimony. we have a minute left and i want to get our panel on. arthur, your reaction? >> the prosecutor did the best he could with a witness who is not the most used to public

speaking and a very difficult topic, but he made sure it was a professional direct examination. making sure the jurors heard everything. asking if she wants water and bringing out the story in a sympathetic, compassion gnat way. >> this is the state's key witness. she is the closest witness to trayvon martin's voice being in that courtroom and that's what she did today. >> quickly, two observations. she said she heard trayvon say get off, get off. that is new. i read two prior transcripts of her interviews and that was not mentioned in the earlier interview. >> she will get slaughtered on that in cross-examination right now. >> earlier, faith, she said trayvon told her a guy is getting real close to me before he said why are you following me? she did not add that detail today. already inconsistencies. >> her credibility will be a key issue in the case. no doubt about it. >> overall her demeanor, the last point, because lying on why she didn't attend the

funeral? >> the tears and that is a big pot on -- point on her being a liar. >> she will get over that. >> the prosecution brought that out on direct instead of cross-examination. >> her saying i lied because i felt guilty and i didn't go seemed effective. shepherd will have the cross-examination and here is shep. >> we will be watching that. the court as we understand is in a 15-minute recess. when that recess is up we will go back. other matters that we will be covering on a day when we have like seven lead stories. we will get to paula deen and all that happened on "the today show" this morning. aaron hernandez, the tightened for the new england patriots is now charged with murder in massachusetts, murder and five gun charges. the hearing has happened. we will have live coverage from there. and in central florida, the key witness they say, she has deviated from past statements, she has added things that were not said before