zimmerman. good morning. i'm chris jansing on what is turning out to be one of the busiest news days we've seen in a very long time. first, decision day at the supreme court. four major cases left on the docket. we could get rulings on same-sex marriage, affirmative action and voting rights in just moments. we do have pete williams at the courtroom and a panel of experts standing by. the zimmerman trial begins. opening statements going on right now. edward snowden on the run while frantic diplomatic efforts are going on as we speak. where he's headed and what might be next. this is a major day for immigration as the senate is planning to vote this afternoon on a crucial border security agreement. this could be the first step toward comprehensive immigration reform. and finally, we will be checking in on nelson mandela after word

came late yesterday that his condition has taken a turn. this morning, he remains in critical condition in south africa. want to let you know we are keeping our eye as well on wall street. apparent concerns over more signs of trouble in china's economy and a jump in interest rates, on treasury notes here, look at these numbers. the dow already in early trading down 221 points. we'll let you know what's going on with that. but, let's begin in a florida courtroom where nearly 16 months after the shooting death of trayvon martin, testimony begins today at the trial of george zimmerman. the prosecution is delivering opening statements right now. john guy shocked the courtroom with a vivid description of the night martin was killed. >> [ bleep ] punks. these [ bleep ]. they always get away. those were the words in that grown man's mouth as he followed in the dark a 17-year-old boy

who he didn't know. and excuse my language. but those were his words. not mine. >> zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of 17-year-old trayvon martin. he has pled not guilty claiming self-defense. msnbc's craig melvin joins me live from outside the courthouse in sanford. i have to say, craig, if the prosecutor wanted to get our attention and more particularly that of those six women on the jury, he certainly accomplished that. >> yeah, he certainly did, chris. and john guy still going right now. he's about 30 minutes into that opening statement. throughout much of the opening statement, john guy as he has been recounting the last hours and minutes of 17-year-old trayvon martin's life, we have seen sabriybrina fulton in the courtroom, wiping her eyes, tracy martin, trayvon martin's father, also in court as well wiping his eyes. there was some housekeeping that

started at 9:01, judge nelson called this thing to order. they spent about 20 minutes haggling over a number of things, the attorneys did. the lawyers haggled most over who should remain in the courtroom, ultimately the judge decided that george zimmerman's wife and family should be removed based on laws of court in the state of florida. ben crump, the martin family attorney and spokesman was also removed. the judge says she is going to review some of the case law over lunch and may decide to allow them back in court. about 30 minutes before the trial started this morning, trayvon martin's family held a news conference. >> i will be attending this court and -- to try to get justice for my son. i ask that you pray for me and my family because i don't want

any other mother to have to experience what i'm going through now. >> so again, right now john guy continuing the opening statements. chris, he is also essentially made some promises to the jurors as well. the six women that you mentioned, five of them we should note have children. he has promised over the course of the next few days, couple of weeks, perhaps that they will hear a number of things from the prosecution. they'll see a number of things from the prosecution, some dna evidence. they'll hear from the first officer who was on the scene and they'll also be hearing from some of the witnesses who placed those 911 calls, chris jansing. >> craig melvin on the scene for us, thank you so much. i want to bring in legal analyst and former federal prosecutor kendall coffey and msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom. good morning to both of you. lisa, let me start with you. as we heard, from mr. guy, there was some profanity there as he was quoting the defendant, but

i'm also following twitter and the word that comes up most often is powerful. what did you think about his admittedly pretty shocking opening statement? >> well, i think the most important thing, other than the profanity, which does get your attention right away, is the fact that he's going through george zimmerman's statement to the police that he gave immediately after the shooting and lining it up with what he says the physical evidence will show to show inconsistencies. for example, he says that george zimmerman told the police that trayvon martin put his hands over his mouth, over his nose. if that's true, then why is there no blood on trayvon martin's hand. why is there no blood under his finger nails, no blood on the cuffs of trayvon martin's two sweat shirts. george zimmerman knows, we know at the time, was bleeding. >> kendall, let me bring you in and talk to you about what you've heard so. if your job essentially as a prosecutor is to paint a picture of what happened that night for

the jurors, obviously what you believe to be true as the prosecutor, is he doing that? >> well, i think he's doing a very good job. he started out with sort of dramatic surprising words, but he wanted to define george zimmerman first and membly before anything else happened in this trial. what he went from there was picking apart george zimmerman's story with a lot of inconsistencies because if the jury believes that george zimmerman was lying about things, then lying can equate to guilt. he also elevated i think very significantly the testimony of rachel johntell. this is a young woman listening to trayvon martin over the cell phone. remember she has some credibility issues which could be a challenge for the prosecution but given the fact that they lost a critical ruling over the weekend on using audio experts, i think they're having to load up more on george zimmerman's inconsistencies and the all-important testimony of

this young woman. >> do you think that ruling over the weekend as well, lisa, do you think that has had to change the strategy by the prosecution? >> probably not significantly. look, juries generally don't decide cases based on expert testimony, especially when there's experts on both sides, it tends to cancel out. the most critical issue in this case for the prosecution is george zimmerman's statements and whether they are inconsiste inconsistent. whether as the prosecutor said, george zimmerman immediately created a story, a story that's not true after the shooting. >> we also just heard from craig melvin and i found it interesting, kendall, they're already being promises being made by the prosecution. obviously you never want to make a promise you can't keep because jurors tend to make note of these things. did you hear anything in the way of over promising here or something that might be troubling? >> i don't think so. i think the prosecutor has put together what he's got. he acknowledged he doesn't have a single witness who saw the whole fatal encounter and he's instead engaging a jury in the

process of putting this puzzle together one piece at a time because when you add it all up he believes and hopes that it will establish murder beyond a reasonable doubt. >> lisa, i've heard a lot of disagreement in talking to lawyers over the years about various cases, about the importance of opening statements. how big a deal do you think this is in this case? >> i think by the end of the trial the opening statements are not all that ig significant. the opening statement is not evidence. the judge has already admonished the jury about that. it's laying out the framework for the case. both sides are going to do that. what's most important is the evidence that's brought in during this trial. will the evidence prove what the prosecutor has said? that remains to be seen. >> the prosecution wrapped. i think relatively quickly. what do you make of that, kendall coffey, and obviously you see the defense attorneys making copious notes during that time, are they going to try to answer some of these things point by point? >> well, i think that the defense opening will be a

combination of what they're prepared to say and what they want -- now want to say in response to the prosecution's opening. openingings are important, but i think in this case what the prosecution has is a finite universe of evidence. rather than go on and on i think they emphasize in a very crisp fashion their best ammunition and so i think it was an effective opening. i think it is the best case they can state under the circumstances. and i think they were wise not to go on because again, they have a limited amount of good evidence to work with here. >> kendall, lisa, thanks to both of you. i know you're going to be with us throughout this trial. i want to say they've take an break. they're going to go into recess for a short time before we get to the defense opening statement. and we also want to mention that george zimmerman has sued nbc universal, the parent company of this network, for defamation. the company has strongly denied his allegations. now to the increasingly cloak and dagger intrigue surrounding wanted nsa leaker edward

snowden. his game of cat and mouse prompted a panicked buzz at the moscow airport where he was believed to be booked on a flight to cuba. at departure edward snowden was nowhere to be found. the 29-year-old flew to russia sunday infuriating u.s. lawmakers and the secretary of state. >> we have transferred seven prisoners to russia that they wanted. so i think reciprocity in the enforcement of the law is pretty important. >> i don't know how anybody can view this person as anything other than a criminal. >> i want to get him caught and brought back be for trial. >> they should use every legal avenue we have to bring him back to the united states. if he really believes he did something good he should get on a plane, come back and face the consequences. >> but in the mean time there is a lot of speculation about snowd snowden's itinerary, possibly cuba and on to venezuela. his final destination could still be ecuador where the

government says it is considering snowden's request for asylum. joining me now jim me sada live in moscow. what do we know right now about edward snowden's whereabouts? >> well, we don't know certainly any more than we knew three hours ago or for that matter 30 hours ago. we do know that a plane took off over our heads three hours ago and we saw that it was or journalists on board who had cuban visas this plane was going to havana they saw, some took pictures of four empty seats, one of which was intended for the fugitive edward snowden, but as you suggested in your lead, chris, he was not on board. at least we don't believe he was on board. adding to always confusion, the airline is saying nothing about snowden's whereabouts. and it is, again, just the

latest twist in this ongoing story of i guess you call it intrigue and espionage. he could still be inside the airport terminal behind me. for all we know, he could be having lunch or dinner now at the ecuadorian embassy. there was even one russian report about an hour ago that he was outside of russian air space by a leading serious russian news agency, meaning that he was on a flight, some flight. now earlier today, ecuador's foreign minister did confirm to journalists that snowden had filed for political asylum in ecuador. it's not the only place. he filed in iceland. but that country is taking its time, it says, taking a decision or making a decision about it so that might suggest that he is eventually headed to ecuador. but as you said, chris, u.s. officials so embarrassed, so angry about first the hong kong decision, switching sides really, in so many ways and now today's events.

it's really left people completely befuddled. back to you. >> jim maceda in moscow, thank you. bring in michael isikoff, our investigative correspondent in washington. so many things to talk about. wow. this has a lot of moving parts here now, michael. the way "the new york times" puts it the elusive snowden is, quote, threatening to strain relations on three continents. never a good thing. start with russia. what are the options? >> well, first of all let me give you some breaking news as we speak. julian assange is having a press conference as we speak right now, he has confirmed that edward snowden has applied for asylum in ecuador and possibly other countries. he said. he said he has asked wikileaks to use its four assistants in getting the applications processed. he's embraced wikileaks which is also being criminally

investigated by the justice department for the earlier leaks through bradley manning. >> and the reps including lawyers from wikileaks believed to be with him? >> yes. actually, just before mr. assange came on, michael ratner, who is the chief lawyer for a group called the senate for constitutional rights in new york, which has been very active in representing guantanamo detainees and others accused of terrorism offenses, gave a briefing. he made it clear that he is assisting with the legal -- with mr. snowden's case and made a case that because mr. snowden is a whistleblower who is exposing political wrongdoing by the american government, that trumps any extradition requests by the u.s. government. that's the legal argument that's being made here. he said there is something called the refugee treaty, trl

tr international treaty which does protect in his view the kinds of activities that mr. snowden has been engaged in. so what's interesting here is, we have a full-blown legal defense for mr. snowden, emerging from both wikileaks and a prominent constitutional rights group in the united states. they are associated, as i said, with representing gitmo detainees but they've now fully embraced mr. snowden. >> all right. turns out we have other breaking news, michael isikoff, thank you for that update. that news conference with julian assange, that he was following for us. four major cases outstanding with the supreme court and our understanding there has been a decision on affirmative action. this case deals with colleges using race as a factor for making admissions decisions but it could have far beyond impact, far beyond just this.

susan with vanderbilt university, a constitutional law expert, joins me now on the phone. lay this out. lay out why this is one of the four cases we have been watching so closely? >> the reason it's so important is that in 2003, the court upheld affirmative action as long as the court -- the university is not using a quota and not using a hard factor. they can use race as a soft factor. the lower court in this case applied those cases and said the university of texas can use race, can consider race as one of many factors in determining whom to admit and the supreme court has reversed the fifth circuit. we don't have any information about on what grounds they've reversed the fifth circuit. this could be a narrow opinion or a very broad opinion. we're waiting to hear that. >> all right. let's go to nbc's pete williams who just got that information from the supreme court. pete, what can you tell us? >> the supreme court has said

that the legal standard here is a very narrow one. to use a -- to use a term in the law, strict scrutiny. that means that a program that makes a distinction based on race is presumed to be unconstitutional, unless the government in this case the university, a public university, can show a good reason why it's needed and that it's narrowly tailored to achieve very specific ends. so this doesn't say you can't have affirmative action. it's hardly a broad endorsement of affirmative action. but it sends the case back to the lower court to take another look at the affirmative action program that was at issue in this case from the university of texas. it had a very unusual system where the top 10% of all high school graduates in texas were guaranteed admission. that got some racial diversity because some high schools in texas are predominantly minority enrollment but the problem was, the university said it didn't give them enough diversity, not only in individual classes but within minority groups as a

whole. they used affirmative action as a plus factor in admitting the rest of the class which could be up to 25% of the incoming freshman class. what supreme court said it's casting a very gymlet eye on the practice saying you have to be careful when you use affirmative action sending it back to the court of appeals to take another look at this. in other words, raising the bar for the university of texas to try to justice its affirmative action program. it's a bit of a warning to other colleges nationwide that, you know, their affirmative action programs could be in trouble. >> bepete williams at the scout supreme court for us, thank you very much. professor, i want to ask you, what you think the very real world impact of this is right now. is it going to be these universities are going to have to scale back on the use of affirmative action? >> the first thing to remember is this only applies to public universities, to state universities. private universities like

vanderbilt or johns hopkins or harvey mudd college, any of those can continue to use their affirmative action programs with no interference from the courts. it is only public universities that might have to scale back and given that this is a 7-1 opinion and that they are not overruling any of their earlier cases i think this might be limited to schools like texas, that have their 10% program. but the court is making sure that courts will scrutinize affirmative action programs more carefully. i do think, though, that as long as a school is using race as a factor, not as a hard determinant, and as long as they don't have another method of admitting a diverse class, that is as long as they're not using a top 10% program, i think most of those universities should be safe. the court seems to have gone out of its way not to strike down all of affirmative action. in fact, justice thomas has

issued a concuring opinion in which he says that the earlier cases should be overruled. he wants to do something very broad, strike down all of affirmative action. the rest of the court doesn't want to do that. >> i want to bring in ken, a professor of constitutional law at nyu. is that how you see this? i understand that no one involved here, just come down, has had a chance to read the specifics of this. >> exactly. so i want to sound a few more cautionary notes with a caveat i haven't looked at the opinion yet. based on the coverage i've seen on the twitter verse and blog sphere, the last time the supreme court reversed and ra manded a decision was in 1995 on this issue and it said strict scrutiny has to apply. that was a shot across the bow telling the lower court to go its way and to strike down the affirmative action program. i'm less sanguine about this than professor sherry was. even though she's right this only applies to public universities, let's remember that title 6 means that all

institutions including private institutions that receive federal funds are covered by the same rule. the supreme court has interpreted title 6 to move in lockstep with the equal protection laws. whatever happens today under fisher is going to apply under all private institutions receiving federal funds unless the supreme court changes the juris prudence in that area. >> mark, president of the national urban league, good to see you. >> good to be with you. >> it's a careful decision. it's a cautious decision and until we read it we can't know what it says. i mean, what's positive is they didn't overrule affirmative action and they're going to give, if you will, the appellate court another bite at the apple, another shot at reis viewing the texas situation. so we -- the texas admissions plan. we've got to i think read the decision before we interpret it, before we say what it is. what's important is all of us who were concerned that this

decision would be landbreaking or if you will, a very important decision for its presidential effect, we may not be able to say that because this case and this instance, the texas admissions system, is going to be reevaluated by the court of appeals. so this case could be back at the supreme court in a year or two and i think that's a high possibility. >> do you agree with that, ken? >> i absolutely agree. there's also a michigan case that the supreme court granted on for next term, so the supreme court is not going to wait two years to look at affirmative action again. this is going to be front and center before the court next year. >> you said, marc, what's positive is this didn't strike down affirmative action overall, but what's your concern? >> our concern is, is that the court do anything to reverse decades of progress and that the court do anything to, if you will, tie the hands of great

institutions of higher education when it comes to achieving the very important goal of diversity in the 21st century when the nation is becoming much more diverse. and we think that it's important that texas, which has been very careful, have the maximum tools in its tool chest, if you will, consistent with the constitution, to achieve diversity in its admissions. i think texas has been careful. i think many universities have been careful in how they've done this. i think you see the tension in the court. what i would say is that there's still a need for affirmative action. it's still a very important thing. we've come a distance in this country but as the national urban research league indicates the gap between african-americans and whites remains large and we have a compelling interest i think to continue to try to close them. so this decision just bears a continued watch. we will have to look as the professor has indicated another decision next term. it seems like affirmative action is back on the agenda at the

court and we're waiting as we talk about this decision, for what the court will do with the voting rights case, the shelby v holder case. >> when you look at texas, mr. mayor, and you made the point rightfully they've been careful about this, is the worse case scenario in the interim, as all these other cases are being looked at and this goes back, gets taken down to another court, that in being careful, other schools, other universities, will be so careful that the net effect is that there is less diversity, that there's less opportunity? >> well, that's why we've got to see exactly what the decision says. we've got to read the decision. i think what i'm hopeful and would encourage universities is to certainly maintain the status quo. in terms of what they're doing and to continue to improve their efforts to achieve diversity. let's not lose sight of what this is really all about. this is all about the opportunities for fairness in

admissions and diversity in a student body to benefit all americans regardless of race. a diverse student body is important at these institutions because that's the america that the leaders of tomorrow, that the citizens of tomorrow, are going to live in, work in and navigate in. so we've got a very important, i think, overriding issue that it's important to discuss, but i caution that we've got to read and interpret the decision very carefully. in effect, the supreme court avoided what many felt was the central issue in this case. so that means that we're going to have to continue to battle this out. >> we were able to get a copy of this ruling to ken here and you haven't had a chance to read through it but i see you've been nodding as you're getting a better sense of it. what can you tell us? >> what's interesting about it, first of all, it's a 13-page opinion where the court is incredibly sin nop tick. it says it's not going to strike down diversity as a compelling

government interest and its concern the program be narrowly tailored to that -- >> give me a real world example of what that would mean. >> so we heard professor sherry say you can't use racial quotas, only use it as a plus factor. the idea would be this is only going to be a plus factor. you can't have hard set asides for racial minorities but then the question here is, did the lower court defer too much, to the university of texas. because all the lower court said was we're going to defer to your judgment that this is narrowly tailored enough to secure diversity interests without doing broader harm to other individuals. the issue is of tailoring and it's on that tailoring issue it sent it down to the lower court. what it's saying is the lower court deferred too much to the university of texas, the constitutional standard is more stringent, look at it again lower court and make sure you don't overdie de foverdefer to

university. >> thanks to you. we got word from the supreme court those other three major decisions that we have been waiting for, the voting rights act, the defense of marriage act and prop 8 in california, those last two, obviously very critical for lgbt rights are not going to come down today. so we'll have much more on this decision and as we have said a big news day. the market boards, down 242 points. we'll be back with much more on "jansing and company." ade and invest their own way. with scottrade's smart text, i can quickly understand my charts, and spend more time trading. their quick trade bar lets my account follow me online so i can react in real-time. plus, my local scottrade office is there to help. because they know i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade. voted "best investment services company."

i gotta go deposit a check, transfer some money. so it's your uncle's turn. what? wait, wait, wait... no, no, no, wait, wait. (baby crying) so you can deposit a check... with the touch of a finger. so you can arrange a transfer in the blink of an eye.

so you can help make a bond... i got it. that lasts a lifetime. the chase mobile app. so you can. for a store near you go to benjaminmoore.com/bayarea.

congestion, for it's smog. but there are a lot of people that do ride the bus. and now that the busses are running on natural gas, they don't throw out as much pollution to the earth. so i feel good. i feel like i'm doing my part to help out the environment. one of the major rulings has come down from the supreme court and it's the one about race-based college admissions and essentially the court is sending it back to a lower court for more scrutiny. it's a 7-1 decision and it leaves unsettled a lot of the questions that are out there about the continued use of race as a factor in college admissions. but that also means that there are still six cases the justices have yet to issue opinions on, including the three major other

ones that we've been talking about. affirmative action and two on same-sex marriage. to pete williams, do we know when we might see those decisions? >> not yet, but this was the affirmative action decision so we're waiting for voting rights and same-sex marriage decisions. what supreme court says on affirmative action is that when courts review university affirmative action programs they have to satisfy themselves there was no workable race neutral alternative that would give the school the kind of racial diversity, racial other kind of diversity it was looking for. they say this means the universities have the ultimate burden of demonstrating before they turn to racial classifications that available, workable race neutral alter alternatives don't suffice. so affirmative action survives but the court imposes a stricter test that the federal courts already use in evaluating

affirmative action programs. the court has granted a case that will be argued next year on whether states can go to the polls and ban affirmative actions in their states. the case from michigan, which is where the last big affirmative action case came from upholding a diversity program at the university of michigan law school. so a marrowed bases of affi affirmative action today and a promise to look at this next term, chris. >> i want to bring back susanna sherry with vanderbilt university and kengy, professor at nyu law school. has there been a time when so many controversial decisions outstanding this late in the term? >> it does seem like they're making us sweat for it. one question, whether they would extend the term and i always get asked that and basically no. we'll know by the end of this

week. >> susanna, the thought that these opinions are still being written. >> >> i think they're still being tinkered in with. in particular concurrents and dissents going back and forth. i want to answer what the majority says. no, i want to answer what the concurrent said and they'll get them out by this week. >> let's talk about these cases. doma, defense of marriage act, the expectation is? >> the expectation is, that they're going to strike down the defense -- part of the defense of marriage act in which the federal government refuses to look at whether you're married under state law. under the federal law you will be married if you're married validly under state law. maybe in terms of prop 8? >> i don't think they're going to split the difference.

>> a lot do think there will be a split difference. i think they're going to kick the prop 8 decision on procedural grounds and flip only california for same-sex marriage. i think this might be a harbinger of what's to come. >> today, what happened, which is sending it back to the lower court. >> they might just say we're going to kick this on procedural grounds. it would be we think the wrong parties brought the suit and say you're not the right people before the court. that would have the effect of flipping california. >> do you think this might be a split decision essentially? >> i think it's possible. i think that kenji is right today's decision is on narrow grounds and sending a signal that the court is going to rule narrowly on the prop 8 case. they have another option for ruling narrowly besides saying that these are not the right people to appeal. i think jen kenji is right. the possible is to go with what the lower court said, which is essentially that california gave this right to everybody, everybody had the right to get

married including gays and then california took it away just from one group. and there was no reason for them to take it away. no rationale legitimate reason to take it away and the only reason they could have done it was out of animosity and they're not allowed to do that to anyone out of animosity. i think that the court could go that route. that would still be narrow. it would still apply only to california. it would leave gay marriage in place in california but it wouldn't apply to any other state. so they might go that route. >> and the final one that we've been waiting for is the voting rights act specifically, section 5, it says, states with a history of discrimination against minorities have to ask the federal government for permission before making changes. huge implications. especially when it comes to these new voter i.d. laws. >> this is a crown jewel of the civil rights movement, the 1965 voting rights act, renewed in 2006. unanimously in the senate with a vast super majority in the house of representatives. the supreme court seemed extremely skeptical during oral

argument as to whether or not it was constitutional enactment under congress' powers. >> it is sometimes a fool's game to try to read from arguments. susanna, what exactly it is that the justices are -- want to do. skeptical in their questioning, but do you think that is going to lead to a decision that reflects that? >> i think again, they have an opportunity to rule narrowly rather than broadly. although here it's still going to have significant effect even if they rule narrowly. they might say it's all right to demand preclearance from some states, but the problem is, that the formula that the congress used to figure out which states, which jurisdictions, have to be precleared, was dated. it was from -- they're using election data from 1972 and if you use election data from say 2004, you will find that some of the states that have to be precleared have better records.

they are -- their registration for african-americans, their turnout for african-americans, is better than some states that are not covered, that is, some states that don't have to be precleared. what the court could do is essentially throw it back to congress and say, you're allowed to demand preclearance but you have to come up with a better, more rationale formula and then it will be up to congress whether congress can agree on a formula to determine which states need permission. >> well, wouldn't that be something if we're waiting for all these decisions by the supreme court and essentially what they do in the majority of these cases is send them elsewhere for decisions, essentially. susanna, kengy, great having you both here, we will see you as any predictions when we might get the other decisions? >> some time this week. >> thanks to both of you. we appreciate it. we've been telling you what a busy news day this is, this afternoon around 5:30 a key vote for immigration. the senate will take up the border security amendment. that's a deal expected to bring a lot more republicans on board

and is a preclude lewd to what we expect to be a final vote this week. >> this is going to be a historic week for the senate as we pass comprehensive immigration reform. about two-thirds of the senate right now. our momentum is growing. i believe we'll be in the neighborhood 6 -- 70 votes. >> the bill will pass. we're on the verge of getting 70 votes. we're very, very close. >> president obama will also meet with ceos, business owners and entrepreneurs in the roosevelt room at the white house to talk about immigration reform. i want to bring in white house reporter david nakamura. when you look at today's vote on the border security amendment what was should we be looking for? could we get signs about how the bigger vote is going to go later this week? >> i think so. this is a big amendment. it's been worked on for several weeks with the two republican senators, corker and hoben, and what they're saying is this is going to bring a lot of our

colleagues and maybe some more conservative democrats who were sort of towing the line like mary landrieu, now she's signaling she's going to be for it. what you're going to see today is a number of statements that this really does secure the border and there's still some sort of far right conservatives who says it doesn't like jeff sessions but the middle-ground conservatives come to the floor and say this is the best we're going to do. it's giving billions more in new money to build fences, create drones, surveillance along the border and hire 20,000 more border security agents over ten

years. this is -- there's lots of signals but the two gang of eight members speaking this is going to put it over the top and give the senate bill a lot of momentu momentum. >> they need that momentum. some of them talking ability the 70 number. senator rand paul said flat out he's a no. and let me play for you what was his prediction for what's going to happen in the house. sn>> >>. >> it will pass the senate but it's dead on arrival in the house. the house is closer to me and i think they think border security has to come first before immigration reform. >> the headline on this morning's "national journal" was time is up, immigration won't pass this year. pretty dire prediction saying the house is going to pass on this until the clock runs out. on the other side, luis gutierrez who thinks he has 218 votes for on the house side. how close is this? >> it's hard to predict because what the house is doing, luis u gutierrez a part of gang of 7 who are working, say they have a bill ready, not as expansive a the senate bill, it would create a tougher pass to citizenship and more border security hurdles. it's not clear that bill will come to the house floor.

there's another group in the house and the judiciary committee that's working on individual bills. and so there's a number of republicans that say let's pass what we agree on border security and not the more contentious path to citizenship. democrats, president obama, and those in the senate that are doing this comprehensive bill said that's not going to work. what all -- the big question is what speaker boehner is going to do, which way he wants to go and whether he would bring any kind of bill to the house floor for a full vote without the full support of his caucus. he says he won't. others saying that's a bluff. top republican leadership want to get past this contentious issue. >> we saw the result with the farm bill last week. it remains interesting. david nakamura, thank you so much. we've been showing you what a wild ride it's been this morning in the markets. the dow down right now almost 200 points. it's been over 200 much of the morning. cnbc's mandy drury here with what's moving your money. what's going on? >> it's really quite messy out

there, chris. last week was quite a lot of carnage as well. the s&p 500, the more broader index, had its worst weekly loss in a couple months and the highs we've reached back like may 21st we're down about 6% on the dow, 6% on the s&p 500 as well. you know, obviously lots of things going on you've got on one hand the federal reserve saying the economy is getting better, more optimistic. the market is looking at that as a negative thing because all that stimulus pumping into the market is going to be taken away and they'll start reducing some of those bond buying purchases later on this year according to whatever happens in the economy. and on the other hand you've got a lot of concern about what's happening in china as well, chris. i think that's front and center this morning. you had shanghai really tanking. shanghai market really tanking. particularly the banks are being hammered here because of a credit crunch that's going on.

i want to put in perspective here as someone that's followed ate shan markets, china does go through these credit crises if you like every five to ten years so they were maybe due for one. we don't know if they can manage a soft or hard landing in this case and that's frightening the markets here, chris. >> that uncertainty. thank you so much, mandy drury. the dow down 192 points. we will keep our eye on it. they've come back from a side bar in the trial of george zimmerman. we heard the prosecution with a very compelling opening statement. we're going to take a break and be back with the defense after this. any projects on my home. i love my contractor, and i am so thankful to angie's list for bringing us together. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust. a regular guy with an irregular heartbeat. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib:

atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed. back in the george zimmerman trial. the defense attorney don west, the co-counsel about to begin opening statements. let's listen. >> this is a sad case of course.

as one of your fellow jurors commented during the jury selection process, a young man lost his life. another is fighting for his. there are no winners here. how profound and how insightful. sybrina fulton and tracy martin are grieving parents. without question, they have the right to grieve. they have the right to feel the way they feel. george zimmerman's parents also are grieving. you see, trayvon martin's parents, mr. martin and miss fulton in the courtroom, seated right over here. they're likely to be witnesses in the case. you don't see mr. zimmerman's parents here, though. they would be seated over here, the way the courtroom has been constructed. there's a reason for that. the reason is, that they are on

the witness list. they may testify. they may not, as you know, from the beginning of this, there's a couple hundred people, certainly not all of them will testify. because they might and because they are not related to the decea deceased. they're not allowed in the courtroom now. not that they aren't here. not that they aren't, in fact, right around the corner in a room wishing they could be, that includes mr. zimmerman's wife shellie and other family members. any witnesses, unless there's a specific exclusion that they may sit in the courtroom, cannot. the -- i grew up in a family that had certainly moments of

great joy and moments of profound sadness. there's no doubt all of us have had in one form or another. my mother used to actually -- she still says -- >> i'm sorry. objection, your honor. improper argument during opening statements. >> sustained. personalizing. it's supposed to be what the evidence will show. >> well, i think the evidence will show that this is a sad case. that there are no monsters here. sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying. so let me, at considerable risk, let me say, i would like to tell

you a little joke. i know how that may sound a bit weird in this context under these circumstances. but i think you're the perfect audience for it. as long as you don't -- if you don't like it or don't think it's funny or inappropriate that you don't hold it against mr. zimmerman. hold it against me if you want, but not mr. zimmerman. i have your assurance you won't. here's how it goes. knock knock. who's there? george zimmerman. george zimmerman who? all right. good. you're on the jury. nothing? that's funny. after what you folks have been through the last two or three weeks. let's get on to however this serious business of why we're

here. let's take a look at where all of this started. george zimmerman is not guilty of murder. he shot trayvon martin in self-defense after being viciously attacked. and here's the evidence that will show you how and why it happened the way it did. i've got some things to display for you that will help. some of them will be up there too. is this okay? all right. sorry.

okay. . what you're looking at is an aerial view of the complex in sanford over near the seminole town center there called retreat at twin lakes. this is basically the whole thing. just as a bit of orientation, george zimmerman lived down here in this area. this street is called retreat view circle. sometimes people use that interchangeably with the complex name, the complex is retreat at twin lakes. this is retreat view circle.

here is the clubhouse. you can see the pool right here. this is considered the main entrance. and this is known as the back entrance. so we have the main entrance here and there's a gate and the back entrance here. you can -- i guess you can get in either way of course. the pool, there's some mailboxes around here for the community. and i think this is called twin lakes or twin trees. this street that cuts through here. you'll hear a lot of testimony about the t. the t intersection, the t. that simply is where two sidewalks connect per pen dix cularly. that's where almost all of the important events took place

within just a few feet of that. let me point that out to you here and we have a better picture to focus. this is it. sometimes this is called the dog path or the dog walk and there's the t right here. you can see over here, again, retreat view circle. and this can be a cut-through so you can, if you're walking, come right through here between these rows of houses, go down this way if you want to get to this area, or continue on through if you want to get to retreat view. >> as don west continues his opening statement on behalf of the defendant i'm joined by legal analyst lisa bloom. covered a few trials in my day and you've been in the courtroom a lot more. maybe the first knock knock joke

i've ever heard. >> yeah. it's a strange kind of bumbling start i have to say to the defense opening statement. i don't want to make too much of it, but first he made comments that warranted an objection, an objection sustained by the judge that told him essentially, stick to the evidence and what the evidence will show and then he told a joke that fell flat. so that's the beginning of defense opening statement. >> what is going to be the heart of this case, though, for the defense? >> the heart of the case is simply this was self-defense. however the altercation began, once these two men were in the altercation that george zimmerman feared for his life and that his only recourse was to take out his gun to shoot once to save his own life. >> is that the key phrase under florida law, fear for his life? >> he has to show essentially he was in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death and feared for his life. that's the essence of the defense. >> what do you want to -- and again, i think there's dispute among lawyers i talk to about

how important the opening argument is. usually they say the important thing is, you deliver on what you say you're going to deliver. that's kind of critical. but beyond that, what can he do here? is his job to any exit tent to answer what we heard and generally regarded as a strong opening argument on the other side? >> well sure. because we know that what jurors and any human being tend to remember in a long presentation is the beginning and end. so opening statement matters. closing arguments matter as well. of course the jury is supposed to decide the case based on the evidence. these are two completely divergent stories about what happened. the prosecution says that george zimmerman profiled trayvon martin and murdered him. the defense said it was self-defense and zimmerman had no other choice. >> how do you expect once we get beyond this and to the witnesses how is this going to start? >> i would expect to hear from lay witnesses who talk about trayvon martin on the last day of his life. why he went to the convenience

store, bought the arizona iced tea and skittles and perhaps law enforcement and the medical examiner. >> how long do we think this might go? i was surprised. first of all i said this in the beginning that the prosecution's statement went pretty quickly. but in terms of this response, the opening statement by the defense, and the trial overall, what's the best expectation here? >> i expect about an hour or less for each opening. the prosecution adhered to that. then we have the two to four week estimate from both sides to the length of this trial. this is a no nonsense judge keeping to the schedule. >> all right. thanks very much, lisa. always good to have your expertise. that's going to wrap up this hour of "jansing and company pz kwp thomas roberts is up next. >> hey. >> get ready. >> a wild morning. >> busy day. >> we've got our seat belts buckled. the agenda next hour, the supreme court issuing the first of four summer blockbuster decisions dealing with affirmative action. we're going to break it down and reaction from the reverend al

sharpton and naacp emeritus. catch me if the can. where is edward snowden? ecuador did give edward snowden a document called refugee document of passage that got him out of hong kong. where he is now is anybody's guess. we're going to break down the latest. well, ready to go look? so ready. lots of options, huh? i can help you narrow it down. ok thanks. this one's smudge free.

smudge-free. really? and this one beeps when you leave the door open. get those brand name bells and whistles, even on a budget, with red white and blue savings. thank you! more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. buy now and save $300 on this stainless steel samsung refrigerator.

♪ there you go. come on, let's play! [ male announcer ] there's an easier way to protect your dog from dangerous parasites. good boy. fetch! trifexis is the monthly, beef-flavored tablet that prevents heartworm disease, kills fleas and prevents infestations, and treats hook-, round-, and whipworm infections. treatment with fewer than 3 monthly doses after exposure to mosquitoes may not provide complete heartworm prevention. the most common adverse reactions were vomiting, itching and lethargy. serious adverse reactions have been reported following concomitant extra-label use of ivermectin with spinosad alone, one of the components of trifexis. prior to administration, dogs should be tested

for existing heartworm infection. to learn more about trifexis, talk to your veterinarian, call 888-545-5973 or visit trifexis.com. you don't have to go to extremes to protect your dog from parasites. you need trifexis. visit our website to save up to $25. available by prescription from your veterinarian. [ bleep ] punks. these [ bleep ], they always get away. those were the words in that gren man's mouth -- grown man's mouth. >> those were the shocking first words in the opening statement of george zimmerman's second-degree murder trial. that was john guy laying out his case against the man accused of killing 17-year-old trayvon martin. good morning. i'm thomas roberts. topping our agenda today the opening statements are under way in the murder trial after two weeks of jury selection and zimmerman has pleaded not guilty in the shooting death of martin

claiming self-defense. machine was unarmed the night of february 26th. the defense don west in his opening just a short time ago. take a look. the day began with the judge ruling temporarily that some members of george zimmerman's family and the martin family attorney, benjamin crump would have to leave the courtroom for opening statements because they are potential witnesses down the line. however, before court opened, martin's parents made their own emotional statement. >> i ask that you pray for me and my family because i don't want to any other mother to have to experience what i'm going through now. >> as we enter the courtroom today, and seeking justice for our son, we hold on to his smile, which strengthens us. >> joining me live from sanford is msnbc's craig melvin. already we're seeing drama unfold in this courtroom.