disproved beyond a reasonable doubt the self-defense. all right. right now we're going to turn this over to rick. we'll see you at 9:00 tonight. come back. a fox news alert, as you've just heard from judge janine, we've learned the court has reconvened in the george zimmerman murder trial where a verdict could come later on tonight. maybe at any moment. welcome to a brand new hour inside america's news headquarters. >> both sides of this case awaiting anxiously. to find out whether the former neighborhood watch volunteer abili abilitied in self-defense. we go to our new york newsroom where greg jarrett is standing

by. we heard judge janine reporting that the judge is answering a question on manslaughter. >> sure. >> what do you aes that mean? >> they may have already looked at second degree murder and decided that he is not guilty of second degree murder, so you move then to the lower offense. they have to go through the necessary elements of that, they may want a clarification on it. now, the other alternative is, that they just couldn't decide yet on second degree murder and somebody said let's compare it to manslaughter and have a discussion on which is more appropriate. i can define them quite simply for you. second degree murder under florida law is a killing that's

done with ill will, hatred or spite. it indicates an indifference to human life. now, remember prosecutors had said that is reflective, the evidence of that is reflected in the defendant's telephone call to the nonemergency dispatcher in which he used profanity and disparaging remarks to describe generally people like trayvon martin who had been committing burglaries. compare that to manslaughter which is a very easy murder of proof for the prosecution. it is the intentional killing of another, in this case, trayvon martin. mere negligence is not enough. intentional killing. here is the most important part for the defense. self-defense is a complete defense and it excuses both murder and manslaughter.

it negates them entirely. even if the jurors get a clarification here from the judge on manslaughter. they still have to move forward and consider what reasonable doubt is, and i'll read you specifically the jury instruction on reasonable doubt, if the defendant reasonably believed it was necessary to fire the weapon to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself. this doesn't mean that something immediately is going to happen here. but the judge is certainly going to talk with the lawyers about how they should go about explaining or clarifying for the jurors the question that they've written down and handed to the court. >> so greg then, that means the jurors will come back in to the courtroom and they will get the instructions from the judge? how does that work. >> it depends on what at the bench conference the lawyers and the judge agree to. both council may have a

agreement on just how the question should be answered, and i have literally seen and been involved in bench conferences like this where i say no i don't agree to that clarification, it should be this clarification, and it can go on and on and on. in the end, the judge is going to have to do something, either clarify or i've seen judges say, go back, reread the jury instructions ladies and gentlemen of the jury, and you have to -- it's clear, you have to decide for yourselves, there's going to be no clarification, it's totally in the discretion of the judge after she considers the arguments going on right now, with council at the bench. so we'll just have to wait and see. if the judge decides on a particular clarification, the language, the word, the words to use, then generally speaking the jurors are brought back into the courtroom and the judge will literally read both the question they have for the clarification, and her answer to that.

>> and greg, stay with us, of course. we're going to get more information regarding that very question you just referenced. >> okay. >> that's right. and phil keating is reporting live from outside seminole county justice center in sanford, florida. phil, you have the actual question that the jurors have posed. >> this is the 27 page jury instruction that judge debra nelson compiled and handed out to the six jurors as they enter the deliberations room yesterday. prior to that happening. the attorneys on both sides came to an agreement with exactly how this was written. and here's what it refers to as far as the crime of manslaughter. it says and i'm going to quote directly. to prove the crime of manslaughter the state must prove trayvon martin is dead and here's the key, number two, george zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of trayvon

martin. can you see that trial for the past three weeks. and you can see how jurors might actually say if george zimmerman instigated what happened by thinking trayvon mart season on drugs or up to no good. following him through the neighborhood, calling the police and perhaps continuing to follow him, you can see how maybe a juror could find the evidence they have and the testimony that they have, that could fit in to a qualifier for manslaughter. others may disagree with that, and that may be the issue in the deliberations room. it could be just the six women -- some of them are finding that maybe this is applicable. others may think that the threshold has not been met to where manslaughter would be applicable. it's certainly an interesting clarification. this is only the second question that has come out of the deliberations room, in 11 and a half hours of deliberating. the first question was really

more of a request yesterday, the inventory list of all of the evidence. and today, not a peep out of that deliberations room from 9:00 a.m. until right now, 5:55, when court convened. george zimmerman's in the courtroom, judge nelson on the bench. and the prosecutors and defense attorneys are all in there. we were wondering if the jury was going to announce they were done for the fight or take a dinner break and deliberate into saturday night. it's entirely up to them whether they want to deliberate tomorrow. tomorrow is sunday. a couple of these jurors are pretty religious and attend church services weekly. if those jurors find they don't want to skip their church services. then perhaps deliberations will be delayed for half a day or maybe the full day. the court is also making preparations to perhaps bring a

pastor over to the hotel where the sequestered jurors have been staying for the past three weeks. the defense really did not want manslaughter to be included as the lesser offense, the lesser charge. they wanted this jury to chose either second degree murder or not guilty. prosecutors prevailed yesterday, thursday morning in court. and that is when judge nelson allowed manslaughter. the prosecutors also tried to get third degree felony murder in there, and the judge did not allow that. so second degree murder or manslaughter or a total acquittal, and clearly indications here is that there may be some disagreement amongst the six women in the jury room. manslaughter is a less are charge than manslaughter. second degree murder is 25 years to life. manslaughter felony with the

enhancer of having a gun involved, that could still be 15 to 20 years in a florida state prison for george zimmerman if this jury convicts him of manslaughter. >> we'll do a little reporting and see what you can find out. the judge calling for a 30 minute recess, we're not sure what they're taking the recess for, if they're going to decide how to answer this question that's been posed by the jury. i want to go back to greg jarrett for a second. you mentioned it in talking to ourselves, the question of intent. did zimmerman intend to kill trayvon martin. i would just ask you how someone who sticks a gun in someone's chest and pulls the trigger doesn't have the intention of killing that person. >> well, here's where jurors may be confused. and it actually happens quite frequently in other jurisdictions that have a similar law for manslaughter. they may be confused here and

want clarification as to whether it is the intent by zimmerman to kill martin or as i read the jury instruction in the statute, the intent to commit an act which results in the death of trayvon martin. now, that may seem like a very fine point. but it may be confusing the jurors. the judge should say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it's the latter. the intent to commit an act which would be to pull the gun and pull the trigger and not necessarily the intent to kill. he may be, for example, some of these jurors are saying, well, wait a minute, remember the testimony from the edetective who said that zimmerman was shocked that he killed trayvon martin. there may have been a discussion in the jury room where someone's saying, he didn't intend to kill

martin, he just intended to harm him. it's the latter which is the jury instruction. >> this all comes under the manslaughter charge. and talk to us about -- i would imagine this very confusion that you highlighted for us is probably -- i would imagine the reason why defense didn't want manslaughter as an option? >> right. they really didn't want manslaughter as an option, because the burden of proof of the prosecution is so much easier. as we were talking before, for second degree murder, have you to prove something more. you have to prove ill will and spite and hatred and so forth. jurors, there was only circumstantial evidence of that, and so these jurors may have decided, you know, they're just -- it's not there, that ill will or they may have said let's pause on that, and go to the lesser included and consider that, now it appears they're hung up on the manslaughter.

there's one other possibility. the manslaughter does have a caveat which basically says mere negligence is not enough for manslaughter. if somebody is failed in their duty of due care to other people, that's what negligence is. that's not enough to convict the defendant on manslaughter. and so they may say, well, wait a minute, your honor, could you better explain to us what negligence really means? the jury instruction does have an explanation for it. each of us, i'm quoting here, this is the explanation for negligence. each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others if there's a violation of that duty without any conscious intention to harm. that violation is in addition, and that's not enough for manslaughter. those are the two ways it seems to me these jurors could be

confused and con flicked. >> speaking of that, let me jump in here, we have a sound bite from the judge on clarifications. >> we have a jury question. question reads as follows. may we please have clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter. counsel want to come up here and view it and propose a response? >> there it is, they're just trying to understand -- it is very confusing. >> and that's vague and ambiguous, season the it? what do you mean, which necessary element? because there are three necessary elements for manslaughter, which are you talking about. >> if i'm the defense attorney, and maybe if i'm the prosecutor, i was a defense attorney, not a prosecutor. i would say to the judge, i want more specific information about the clarification they need before we answer that question, otherwise, your honor, we're just guessing what it is they really need. prosecutors on the other hand

may say, you know what, your honor, you should just say to the jurors, the explanation is there, it's abundantly clear, read it over again. who knows -- >> but greg, you and i have been watching this closely, based on some of the contentious exchanges between the defense and the judge, i bet your first guess of what might happen is probably what will happen. >> it's a great point arthel. there's been some rather clear animosity between don west and the judge nelson in this case about. >> stand by, as you know, the jury -- court recessed for about 15 minutes, that happened about 10 minutes ago, we're standing by to see what happens when they go into the courtroom, if there's going to be an extended bench conference. we'll bring it to you. we'll need your legal expertise. >> jurors have heard heated exchanges and emotional testimony. now, of course, they're deliberating, and we understand

they have a question about manslaughter. jennif jennifer bonnjean is a defense attorney. do you believe this juror comes back with a manslaughter conviction? what do you make of this question, and how do you think this factors into their ultimate verdict? >> i said today i thoughted jury was going to be out for a little longer because they were going to be hung up on the manslaughter conviction. whether they go not guilty or guilty. this manslaughter instruction is the worst manslaughter instruction i have ever seen in my entire life. >> in what way? >> well, for one thing, it's confusing, whether you're talking about a criminal act or whether you're talking about an intent to commit -- an intent to kill trayvon martin or an intent to commit the act that resulted in death. it's the intent to commit an act. what it doesn't clarify is what

the mental state is necessary. they say it has to be something more than mere negligence. it doesn't tell the jury what mental state. is it recklessness, is it something slightly greater than negligence? so the jury could be sitting there going what mental state do they have to prove to establish manslaughter. >> hold on one second. we have the actual definition that was contained in the jury instructions that the jury has with them now. these are jury instructions that were agreed to by both the prosecution and the defense and the court. the judge also going along with this according to the instructions, an intentional act that caused the death of martin. a merely negligent act is not manslaughter. >> exactly. but it doesn't say what is manslaughter. is it recklessness? what is it. they're not specifying what the actual mental state has to be. all they're saying is it can't

be mere negligence. >> which side benefitings then with this vague language, does it benefit the state or the defense? >> if the jury's confused, it's going to benefit the defense. i think the prosecution will come back and say we want this jury to understand that they can convict on a reckless state of mind. we want more specifics as to -- and to clarify that it's not the intent to commit the death of trayvon martin, but the intent to commit the act. as opposed to an accident. the intent to pull the trigger as opposed to, you know, he accidentally did it, that's the distinction that they're going to want this jury to understand. because at the end of the day, the manslaughter is -- it's not that hard to prove given the evidence. i think the state wins on manslaughter. i said it all along, and i continue to stand by that prediction. >> greg, you want to chime in on

this? >> greg jarrett, are you there? >> yes, i would agree with everything that jennifer has said. and i would add one more thing. i would venture to say that the judge is going to ask the jurors to clarify the request for clarification, because otherwise, as i mentioned before, the judge and the lawyers are just guessing at what it is they need. they need to clarify it in a way that jennifer has just pointed out. and i make one other point here, it would kind of appear to me that the jurors are going in order of the 27 pages of jury instructions. again, even if they find for manslaughter. they then take the third step, which is, all right, was he acting in self-defense. and if they decide that zimmerman acted reasonably, that he reasonably believed that his

life was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. it's a complete excuse. it's a justification for a manslaughter and acquittal. therefore, would be necessary. >> greg, it gets down to whether or not the defense made a strong enough argument to put that thought, the latter thought in the juror's mind that there was intent, that he pulled -- we know he pulled the trigger, but he intended to kill this man. >> and i think there has been some discussion that both the prosecution and the defense really danced around the notion of self-defense. they really didn't get to the heart of self-defense which is reasonableness. would these jurors under like circumstances have pulled the trigger. would they have regarded it as reasonable or unreason will? if they conclude it was unreasonable. then he's guilty. if they conclude that it was reasonable that they too would

have feared for their lives or serious bodily injury. then they must acquit. it really comes down to reasonableness. was it reasonably necessary? >> jennifer i have a question for you about the self-defense argument is it possible that the jury could decide that zimmerman pursued martin? >> exactly. >> maybe even provoked the confrontation between them, and he was still defending himself in a confrontation that he initiated? >> no, you have to credit zimmerman's story that trayvon martin became the aggressor. you cannot -- because otherwise trayvon martin wasn't committing any crime, he was just defending himself. in order to find that zimmerman acted in self-defense, they have to credit zimmerman's story that he turned around, no longer was the aggressor, and that in fact martin became the aggressor, i think that's where they're going to have the greatest amount of

trouble. the prosecution did put on some evidence that showed that zimmerman was -- was the aggressor in the beginning and stayed the aggressor. we only have zimmerman's word. >> but aggressor is very, very tricky. and it has various meanings. these jurors heard from two different law enforcement officers, that it's not illegal. it's not unlawful to get out of your car and follow somebody. it's not illegal to call police if you're suspicious of criminal activity, and in fact, even if the dispatcher, who may not be a police officer at all tells you, you don't need to follow, you could ignore that -- there's nothing illegal about that. what's critical is the state of mind of the accused, the moment he pulls the trigger. and these jurors have to mutt themselves in the shoes of zimmerman at that very moment. >> you can't pick a fight, throw a punch, get engaged in combat

while the person is defending themselves aensay, i feared for my life. that is just not accessible. and the problem is, it is all circumstantial evidence. we only have zimmerman's words, he contradicted himself many times. i'm not suggesting -- all i'm suggesting is that this jury has contradictory testimony and a lot of blank holes. most juries due. there's very rarely direct evidence. >> let me jump in, i want to go to judge ail next a second. i want to clarify with you because ien watt to get his take on this. what is it you said if in fact george zimmerman followed trayvon martin, if in fact he started the fight, and then he may have been getting beaten up by trayvon martin. >> if george zimmerman started the fight. i don't mean following him, i

don't mean talking to him, i mean making some overt act that was physical in nature, in which martin felt the need to defend himself, then martin's defending himself, and george zimmerman does not get to pull out his gun and shoot him. that is not what the law holds. the instructions do not indicate that. that could very well be manslaughter and it's not self-defense. if that's what the jury finds. >> let's bring in judge alex ferrare, he's been listening to jennif jennifer. where do you stand in terms of in the 11th hour literally, the jurors coming up with only the second question so far, and that is to get clarification on manslaughter. >> if the jurors are following the instructions the judge gave them. then to me, it's a pretty clear indication that they rejected

murder two. if and only if they find that charge of murder two has not been moven, they should consider the charge of manslaughter. it doesn't mean they're following the instructions, but that would logically follow they looked at murder two, have rejected it and moved on to the charge of manslaughter. i understand their question about manslaughter. jury instructions all over the country are confusing. most lawyers in florida couldn't tell you the difference between involuntary manslaughter, which is culpable negligence. i can understand their confusion, but basically what it comes down to is this. george zimmerman did an act that resulted in the death of trayvon martin. that act was shooting trayvon martin. unless it is justifiable is illegal and constitutes manslaught manslaughter. the manslaughter by instruction goes hand in hand with the self-defense, self-defense is the justification for the shooting if there is to be one. so the jury presumably, if greg is right, and i think he may be

right, they're going down the line of instructions, they will get to self-defense. they will either find the shooting to be justifiable or they will not find it to be justifiable. the only wrinkle in that is that o'mara told them, why don't you start with self-defense and that may shortcut the whole process. if they did that, they've already dismissed self-defense. if they haven't, they will be progressing to that soon. but the manslaughter instruction doesn't really turn on whether or not in this case george zimmerman was the aggressor, because there hasn't been any evidence of aggression. under the gibbs case, the supreme court said -- or the florida court said that aggression has to be physical in nature. following even using racial epithets does not constitute aggression that would warrant exclusion from the self-defense statute. there is no evidence of that.

>> judge alex, i want to go back to judge alex for a minute. we're in recess, presumably when we come back, when court is back in session, we're going to hear from the judge exactly how the jurors question is going to be answered. what do you predict we're going to see? are we going to see another fight between the defense council and the prosecution and the judge? or are they trying to figure out exactly how to get the jury the information that they want? >> i don't think either side is going to go gently into that good night. we're going to have some disagreement on what the jury will be instructed on. the defense will ask the jury be instructed on manslaughter and self-defense. i'm not quite sure. i expected them to pound the self-defense aspect of the case in closing arguments, because it is their key and they didn't really beat that point home.

i'm not sure what friction we'll get. if history proves to repeat itself, there will be some friction here. >> did you want to jump? >> i think the judge has put it perfectly, i go back to again what the judge just said that this confrontation may have been initiated by george zimmerman, under the case law in florida. that doesn't constitute aggression, so that certainly helps the defense in that regard. i mean that doesn't negate the fact that prosecutors argued, he started it and should have stayed in the car, if the jurors actually followed the law, that doesn't matter all that much, i think the judge read the case, he's absolutely right. >> the jury could infer, however, that zimmerman followed through and month vocced this through physically -- they can infer that, it's -- the evidence is there from which to infer it, that's all i'm saying. >> and if.

>> they can infer that, it's not going to be a verdict that is inconsistent with the law if they infer that zimmerman provoked the fight. it's just not. >> that was the big part of the closing arguments, that indeed how you apply the law. how you -- your perspective. the depennsylvania is saying, whatever you do, drop common sense out the window. whatever you do, don't try to connect these dots, they're so widely spread apart. the prosecution is say ago to the jury plain and clear, use your god given common sense. >> exactly. >> that is what the prosecution is argued. the jury is absolutely within its right to infer that george zimmerman, having disregarded the dispatcher's advice, could have gone out and with an intents to start a fight did in fact start that fight. in fact, it's illogical that martin would have started the fight. it's more logical that zimmerman

started the fight. >> that's the part we don't know that -- >> we don't know it, but the jury could infer that. we don't know, there wasn't direct evidence on how it started. that's the problem. >> greg, i want to bring you back in, jennifer is talking about what the jury might infer. at this point we're only able to hear in -- from the interview with the police, we're only able to hear george zimmerman's take on what happened. trayvon martin is dead, he cannot speak. talk to me in terms of how the juror -- >> this is what happens. jennifer's right to this extent. juror's don't always follow the law. they don't have to -- they can do anything they want to do when they get back into that jury room. i've seen jurors engage in what's called jury null fiction, they ignore the law and say in fairness and equity, we're going to go the other way. they can do whatever they want. it's like reading tea leaves and crystal balls to figure out at

this point whether they're inferring something, whether they're going to buy into the prosecution's argument that he should have stayed in his car. it's all his fault. it just depends really, i think right now on whether jurors are going to focus on this manslaughter and then go to self-defense as judge ferrare said. when you read the beginning of the jury straukss it says go in this orders if they're following the judge's rules and instructions, they'll get get to -- after they finish manslaughter, they'll get to self-defense. that's a big if. >> let me jump in here, it's 30 minutes after the hour. let's reset on saturday afternoon. the jury in the george zimmerman murder trial, deliberating for about 11 hours. just in the last 45 minutes or so, notifying the court they had a question, asking for as you can see on the bottom of your screen, clarification on the

manslaughter charge. the judge bringing everybody in, including george zimmerman, sitting in the courtroom, explaining that the jurors had this question and then calling for a 30 minute recess. that's where we are right now. the court is in recess, we've seen protesters out in front of the courthouse, basically since the beginning of yesterday. folks, most of whom at least as far as i can tell are against george zimmerman, there are crowds outside of the courthouse and they're waiting for clarification on this as well. we wait to hear exactly how the jury's question is answered. its a jury made up of six women and they're setting their hours here for their deliberations, they can deliberate as long as they like, if they want to hold over and call it a night and start again tomorrow morning, they can do that as well, this is a jury that seems determined to get all of its information together and get as much of the facts as they can, before they go ahead and make their decision. judge alex, yesterday, we heard

they wanted a list of all the evidence. today we understand they want the clarification on manslaughter. my experience, when it comes to women, they're going to be very thorough. the women in my life anyway, are very thorough, they're going to want to make sure they know exactly what they're dealing with before they hand down a crucial decision here not any lawyers on this jury. i wonder from a judge's standpoint when you have a jury of your peers, which we're all entitled to, these are not people who have been to law school. these are not people schooled on the definition of manslaughter. they're just going off the jury instructions that have been handed to them. in your experience, how often does the jury sort of get the law wrong? >> we don't always know. because remember, when they give a verdict, they don't tell us why they reach that verdict. we don't know if they misinterpreted the law, they interpreted it correctly, and they see facts differently than other people see them.

we don't get to see into the crystal ball. i will say this, it doesn't talk about who the aggressor was in the instructions, it talks about a person cannot rely on self-defense if they were the ones who initially provoked the fight, unless, after provoking the fight they made every effort to withdraw and were still pursued and were unable to defend themselves. >> jennifer, how -- has that been proven? >> that's clear stated that mr. zimmerman did everything he possibly could before pulling that trigger to get himself out of that point apparently, he was in harm's way and he feared for his life, according to the testimony. >> that's right, and that's according to zimmerman's statement. he didn't take the stand, and i personally think that was a mistake, as a defense attorney, i think he needed to get up there and testify and persuade this jury that hey, yeah, i walked away. i walked away, and he -- he's

the one that came after me after that, i may have approached him, i didn't throw a punch, i different do this, but he came after me, he didn't do that. and there were contradictions. and he was caught in inconsistent statements which is going to bear on his credibility. and that's why i think the jury may be struggling with this to some degree. can we expect zimmerman's story? it's not his burden, but we're inclined to infer what the prosecution has asked us to infer, that he was the person that started this, and probably followed through with some type of physical -- that's where we're inclined to go, but -- >> my guess is, there would have been a lot more inconsistent statements had he actually taken the witness stand. he would have been absolutely beaten up on cross-examination by very skilled prosecutors. and why would you risk that, i'm sure the defense was saying to

george zimmerman, since you've already testified without taking the witness stand. remember, they heard his account. more than once they saw the video re-enactment shortly after the shooting. they saw the jailhouse interview, which was videotaped. he explained himself pretty consistently, yeah. you're always going to find a couple inconsistencies. >> if the state disagrees, they're the ones that introduced those statements. >> and many defense attorneys thought that was full hearty, he had the opportunity not to take the witness stand. >> there's differing views on that. >> can i point out something in the jury instructions that is important here. the provocation aspect from what i saw when i read the jury instructions, it was removed. it is not in there, there usually is language about that in there. i didn't find it in there. if that is the case. that is because there isn't any evidence of physical aggression by george zimmerman. we weren't privy for that discussion, but there was no --

>> but -- >> if i could be allowed to finish. there is no evidence from which the jury could find that george zimmerman provoked through physical force or threat of physical force, trayvon martin, so that instruction should not be give tonight jury. if that's the reason it was taken out and it's not in there, the jury cannot infer what was presented to them. >> but here's the issue, they have to show that trayvon martin wasn't committing a crime. >> no, they don't. >> yes, they -- that's part of self-defense. >> no, they don't. >> they have to show -- to establish self-defense. >> no. >> if trayvon martin was defending himself. it's not self-defense. >> let me give you an example which i juster in the day. you wake up in your bedroom and you hear a noise, you come into the living room and you see someone coming through your window and you shoot and killed them. turns out your daughter called her boyfriend and said, come

over, i left the window open. was he committing a crime? what matters is, what was your perception, were you in fear and -- >> but the person breaking into the house -- >> that person wasn't breaking into the house, he was invited to come in by the daughter. the point is -- >> the person breaking into the house isn't defending himself. >> one second, hang on. let judge finish his thought, and then i want to hear your point, jennifer. >> nowhere does it say you can only use self-defense against a person committing a crime. >> that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is, if martin was defending himself. the guy breaking into the house isn't defending himself. >> jennifer am going to interrupt you again, i want to let everyone know we're looking at live pictures inside the courtroom. what's going on, as you know, the jury -- the jurors have asked for, may we please have clarification for the instruction on manslaughter, we're getting work from our

producers inside the courtroom there, as we thought would happen, the defense and prosecution, both sides are trying to determine how that clarification is growing to be clarified. >> yes, and i imagine that's going to be quite a fight. >> yeah, these lawyers went back there and they decided. they talked among them 168s, the defense team separately, the prosecutors separately. they're going to present to the judge their proposal as to how to handle this very vague and ambiguous request for clarification. a request to please clarify manslaughter. there are so many different elements to this. i'm sure the judge is scratching her head saying, which part do you want us to clarify. the judge may simply decide to reread the existing instructions back to the jurors again.

just don't know. it can be handled a wide variety of ways. the judge is being cautious and deliberate about this. >> that brings us back to jennifer, her point. it was so very confusing, it's all about semantics. and this judge says great, here's what it says, reread it, get back in your room and figure it out. >> my guess is, as i said originally, is they're confused over the jury instruction, which i don't think is a particularly good one, as to whether it is an intentional act resulting in the death of martin, or did zimmerman intend to kill trayvon martin, and you know that may seem like a small difference, but it can really confuse jurors. >> jennifer, thank you so much. >> thanks. >> really appreciate it. we want to bring in susan, a fox news contributor and professor of law at usc, as she joins us now.c &h(lc% put on your professor hat for a minute.

the jury wants clarification, what are they going to get from the court? >> well, you know, i mean, i've been listening to the judge, and to greg, and, you know, they know full well, we all know the answer to that is, we don't know. you know, we don't know -- first of all, i couldn't tell watching, maybe you could, whether there might have been more to the question than just that first sentence? >> no, i think it's a real quick question. >> clarification. i think both sides are going to come in, and you'll hear the different strategic judgments, if you're the judge here, you're going to let both sides go along. she may go back, as i think the judge said and others said, she can go back and read the instructions she's given once, she can tell them they need to come up with a more specific question. she can tell them to reread it themselves. it's just, you know, we don't have any idea. >> and is this going to come down to a debate between the

attorneys for the state and the defense attorneys on exactly what the jury gets to hear? or is this at the soul discretion of the judge? >> well, look, i mean, we've already had that debate. i mean, the judge will tell you, as greg will tell you, both sides spent a lot of time fighting about jury instructions. and in many cases, you know, there have been academic studies that say, juries don't listen to jury instructions. maybe they don't, but we sure act like they do, and we fight about them, and as i think the judge mentioned, these instructions are pretty awful and pretty confusing. if i were teaching the class, i could take the part about how self-defense has to be reasonable, take that piece. and take the other piece about how being unreasonable isn't enough of an intent and say to my students, how do you get those two to come together and we've been tearing our hair out. they thought about them a lot. they'll fight about them some

more. if i were this judge, you don't want to make big changes right now in the middle of the game. she's going to be trying to stick as close as she possibly can to the instructions she's already given and to restating them. if she was wrong, she was already wrong, but she didn't want to make another mistake. >> these were jury instructions both sides agreed to. they may be vague, they may not be perfect, both sides said, okay, let's have them read to the jury. >> there's not likely to be any problem with the jury instructions. if the other side didn't object to a particular instruction that's kind of waved. it's really wavable. i don't think there's an issue with the judge giving the wrong instructions, she gave the instruction, it's a standard instruction. judges are told to follow these instructions closely. but if the case law shows different, they are to modify it to comply with the case law, it's a growing, living, breathing animal. it changes every day, the instructions are printed in a book once a year, perhaps or

every six months. she gave the instructions, now i think what i would do. i would seek a clarification of their question if possible. and if they're able to give a better question, maybe the question will be we don't understand the manslaughter instruction, welcome to our world. a lot of people don't. >> the question that they add, may we please have clarification for the instruction on manslaughter. and speaking with you, if we can infer what's going on inside of the deliberation room, it appears that's what they're focusing on right now, if it gets to a point where who knows after how many hours or days, we're not sure what's going to happen, if the jurors get to the point where we don't -- we're looking at manslaughter, we don't understand it, we can't figure it out, we can't put together all the pieces, there may be some reasonable doubt as it applies to manslaughter, is it possible they say, we got nothing, and this guy goes free? >> it's possible. the other possibility is they guess at what it means and reach

a verdict based on their suppositi supposition. the defense is going to want the judge to read them the manslaughter instruction and the self-defense instruction, to say, if he shot and killed trayvon martin through an intentional act of shooting and killing. he doesn't have to intend to kill. that would be murder. if he shot and killed trayvon martin that satisfies the elements of manslaughter, unless you excuse it through self-defense. that's the path the defense is going to want to go, and the prosecution is going to say, just reread him the manslaughter instruction, they're not going to want to highlight self-defense again. that's my best guess. we'll have to wait and see. >> the judge, back in the courtroom, let's take a listen. >> i'll provide the court with four cases, i believe, and there's also reference to rules, criminal procedure 3.410. seasonally as i understand the case law, it's discretionary with the court to ask the jury

for further clarification of their inquiry on that level of request. there is a more recent case where the request was for a generalized read back. the court should have asked which portions of the testimony the jury wanted read back. the gerth versus state which is a 2010 case is probably the most descriptive, the florida supreme court case as well. there's a section in that that discusses the trial court in that case. the jury asked whether it could have a discussion with the court regarding jury instruction on principle. the court responded it could not engage in a general discussion with the jury but would address any specific question the jury might have. and i think that obviously, it's within the court's discretion to do that, but i think that should be at least at this point the extent of any communication, would simply be, if you have a

more specific question, there's a possibility we can answer it, or something like that. >> it sounds like an agreement. i think a couple cases -- >> if you have some kind of agreement, can you tell me what kind of response? i left the jury question in my chamber. but i can write out a response on this sheet of paper. >> it seemed like those cases -- the most recent supreme court case three months, diaz is significant to the extent that it references terriman, florida supreme court case of 1999. it says that where there are questions of law, the court can get clarification on their confusion and then can actually

answer specific questions of law with a sort of straightforward quick answer. let's find out their clarification. >> give me the wording of what you can agree on to send back to the jury, i'll go ahead and send that to them, and then we'll wait to see how they respond. >> either that or we could just work -- if you give us five minutes we could come up with a written one ourselves. >> do you have a sheet of pay summer. >> yes, your honor. >> if you can agree to one, that's great. if not, i'll help you word it. >> do you have the state cases? >> i do have the state cases, perriman, diaz. i don't have the one from three months ago. >> thank you. >> hager. >> while you're working on the wording, i will review the case. >> there you have it, once

again, judge debra neltsen in her no nonsense style saying, good, talk amongst yourselves, decide what it is you want to send back into that jury room in terms of -- as you know, the jurors have asked, may we please have clarification for the instruction on manslaughter. judge nelson says, great, you guys figure it out and we'll decide what you're going to send back to those jurors in terms of what you want to know, specifically what theyen watt to know. it's all semantics and i don't know, is this going to clarify anything at the end of the day for these jurors? >> when we send the request for clarification, when they come back with a blanket that we don't understand, it's not very helpful, they may get stuck with rereading the manslaughter instruction or rereading it with self-defense. they may come back and say we're not sure if he has to intend to kill trayvon martin for it to be manslaughter. they can clarify very easily, no, it is not necessary for the

defendant to kill trayvon martin in order for it to be manslaughter. the answers will be very succinct and responsive to the question. >> the judge has instructed the prosecution and state to decide what questions they wanted to throw back to the jurors in terms of what do you mean, may we please have clarification for the instruction on man slaught summer. >> that's what they're going to write. words to that effect, can you please clarify your question or something like that. >> i want to ask you, as a law profess professor, we saw, the jury comes out, the judge let's everybody know the judge has a question, and a 30 minute recess for both sides to come up with as much case law as they can, and we heard them rattling off the different cases and spelling the names of the litigants, what goes on behind the scenes during these recesses, when legal teams have to scramble to find whatever argument they want to put out. >> this is like big league baseball at its best. they called a quick time out,

it's like a moment in the debate when the fact checkers go to work about she gave them 30 minutes, they all went out and discovered the right citations for principle. we were discussing, which was the judge would have discretion to say to the jury. exactly what are you confused about. you go off and you spend 30 minutes and you get your cases and we got lucky on this one. they found similar cases and came back in and now they are going to agree about one sentence. it is like seeing paint dry and it might work in the end. it might give us clariction. >> mention paint dry. we'll bring in candace who is a former fbi agent and profiler. we live at just at world. everything is wrapped up so nice and easy and all dramatic. that is not reality. and i want to get your take on

what you think might be going on in the minds of the jury. exactly what does the manslaughter option mean, what do you think is going on? >> to me, they are considering the manslaughter option very seriously. >> so that means second-degree is off of the table, but you feel there is still a chance if they are considering the manslaughter option that doesn't mean an acquittal is out of the window, correct? >> yes, i believe that is the case, exactly. >> let's go back a bit. we are watching the live shot. both sides on attorneys defense and prosecution, they are trying to decide what questions to throw back to the jurors regarding the case on manslaughter. we'll talk about the style of both sides and the effectiveness

of both sides. you had one sheiking and omarawas monotonous in his presentation and dela roenda showed a gun. and then the life- size dummy. talk about the way they talked about the closing arguments and talking about this is not a television she but real life? >> a lot of questions there. let's go with the dummy thing. i thought the dummy was dumb. i thought it made the defense raise a lot more questions against their client for a reasonable person to lean against what they wanted the jury to believe about their client >> if i may jump in there and

help you with that. that was the point where the prosecution straddled the dummy and put his knows under the dummy's armpit. how did trayvon martin grab the gun if the struggle over the gun is what they were talking about? >> yes, yes. it looked to me like the prosecutions put a nice bough on their presentation there and that was fine and it makes sense. but a lot of people are not getting hung up on who was on top when the gun went off. a lot of people think that there is a distinct possibility trayvon was never sitting on top of him and that zimmerman had the gun out when he approached him. and so the whole who is on top

thing is silly. >> with that in mind. you say a lot of people you are talking to. you are talking about colleagues, friend or both. >> my friends tend to be my colleagues, yes. but people who are knowledgeable about the case and people in law enforcement and prosecutions and civil rights. i work civil rights case as an fbi agent. >> i am going to have to jump in and move on. candace one more question for you. based on what your colleagues and friends are saying in terms of how they so this does it matter to the jury who was on top or bottom. they may feel a lot of pressure.

and i hope they let the conscience be their guide. zimmerman told a lot of lies and the question is why? why was he okay getting in front of the cameras to be interviewed before the trial. >> that is definitely. thank you, the court does not engage in specific questions. but may request clariction for the instructions on manslaughter. if you have a specific question please submit it, is that acceptable to you, sir? >> yes. >> acceptable to state >> yes. >> acceptable for the counsel for the defense. >> we'll rewrite it and have you review. it >> you intend to bring them in the courtroom? >> i was going to give it in

writing to them. >> acceptable to us, your honor. >> that way they can reread it over and over again. the jury will have questions they want. and greg jarret. the recess and it seems like it could have been resolved more quickly. i had to laugh. the lawyers spent halfap hour doing legal research on what the judge had the authority to deal with a clariction and it is a jurisdiction would know that the judge has lat to youed and they have run cross it before.

that's how they spent their half an hour. and as the judge predicted. you can't answer the question unless you get more specifics. in the end. they are asking ladies, it is six women tell us what part of the manslaughter instruction you are unclear about. that's what is happening >> how is this jury going about the business. they have deliberated for a long time. and they hear acquittals and verdicts faster than this. >> yeah, i have lost so much money making educated and bets on jury. >> you know we don't count.

my children would be embarrassed. i don't lose money in vegas only in jury. >> it is saturday night at accept o'clock. does it moan they are trying to get done tonight ore enjoying loving their husbands. >> the fact that there is agreement for the jury to be more specific in the questions. does the prosecutions want the jury and additional information do they want the jury to get versus what the defense will get. >> the defense wants to remind the jury about self defense. no matter what they come back with. the defense will argue that it needs to address self defense. the prosecution wants to remind them, if he took a gun and shot it and pulled the trigger that

is enough. let's listen in. right now. delaro la roinda it so manies lt will have a chance for the jury to get more information and see where it goes. >> at one point, the defense wanted the jurors to come back in the courtroom to get the answer provided to them, and the prosecutions said no. and the judge said no, one single handwriting on a note to give to the jurors. here we are at 7 o'clock in the east. we want to thank susan and judge alex. and our colleague greg jarret who is an opportunity to help us try to understand it. this is the third time we hear from the jury and the second

time, they want more clariction on manslaughter and exactly what kind of clarification, we are about to find out. >> and thanking jennifer and candace. we go to harris falker with the fox report. >> fox urgent. a busy saturday as we are on verdict watch in the george zimmerman murder trial, playing out in central florida. we'll split screen it and you will see the field we often see, there is activity going on in the courtroom and has been in the last now minutes, but when they are in side-bar, as they are talking about yet another question that came from the jury, we cannot hear what the judge and attorneys are talking about. but we have inferences and ideas of what they say. my guests will chime in momentarily. to the left of the screen, is the growing crowd that we have