talked with you about what you knew that had happened? >> yeah. >> okay. so you agreed to talk with miss fulton and tell her what happened? >> yeah. i agreed. >> you didn't really want to? >> no. >> did you feel like you were caught in the middle? >> what? >> did you feel like you were caught in the middle here? >> no. it just -- i -- the truth. >> so this is march -- >> i never wanted to see somebody cry. i'm not the kind of person who wants to see people cry. >> of course. >> i'm not an emotional person. just her son dead. >> so you knew then that when

you had the meeting with miss fulton that it would be a tough one for her? >> yeah. definitely to hear that i was the last one to even talk to her son. >> of course. of course. you knew that she would be very interested to know because. >> emotional. >> and emotional. because there were a lot more questions than answers that the point in the case, correct? >> yes. >> so you wound up doing that, am i correct? that you met with miss fulton? and was that on march 19th? >> yes. >> and did you tell her generally what you knew about the event? >> i told her a little bit. i just -- when i saw her, i gave her the letter and she did not even open the letter. she just asked what happened. she just wanted to know what

happened that night. and i had told her that trayvon was being followed that night. >> were you trying to make it easy for her to understand? >> yeah, and then she opened the letter. >> were you uing the words that trayvon martin spoke? >> what? >> when you told her what happened, did you use the words that trayvon martin spoke? >> being followed? >> no, about the -- >> no. >> you cleaned it up, in other words? >> yeah. he was just being followed. >> you just said a man was following him. >> yes. i didn't go -- she had asked -- i didn't tell any detail. i just told her that testifies being followed. >> uh-huh. and did you -- did you basically

explain the short form. >> yeah. >> the short version that you had cleaned up the language and you had beak said he was being followed? >> that's it. >> and then did you -- >> that is it. he was just being followed. >> and did you tell her that you thought it was just a fight? >> yes. >> did you tell her that trayvon martin had said -- >> no, i didn't tell her that. >> but you told her that -- >> i told her on the on the text -- not on the text but on the letter. >> and the letter is something that you and your friend wrote down? >> yes. >> and that was a letter that you thought you might be able to give to. >> that was plan a to give it to her because i didn't plan to see her like, no. i didn't plan to see her. i just agree. i just said okay, i'll just go and just give her the letter. >> is that partly why you didn't go to the memorial service was

because you didn't want people there to know you were the last person and that you didn't want to talk to miss fulton about that? >> when? >> the funeral? why i didn't go to the funeral? >> uh-huh. >> i didn't want to see the body. >> uh-huh. i did agree with my friends to go. you got to understand. >> you got to understand. >> uh-huh. >> you the last person to talk to the person and he down after you talk to him, you got to understand what i'm trying to tell you. i'm the last person. you don't know how i felt. you think i really want to go see the body after i just talked to him? >> i understand what you're

saying, but what you did instead was instead of saying -- >> i did not even know he was out. i did not even watch -- i don't watch the news. i heard it was on local news. i did not note about that. >> okay. i knew that it was emotionally difficult for you to decide whether or not to go to the memorial service. >> yes. >> and you decided not to. >> decided not to go. >> sure. and then what you did in order to explain that to miss fulton and then to mr. de la rionda was under oath was that you created a lie and said that you had gone to the hospital? >> yes. >> so when you told miss fulton what was happening on this march 19th meeting, you told her that you had gone to the hospital? and that's why you didn't go to the -- to the funeral? >> yes, i told her, yes. >> and then you gave her the

letter? >> i gave her a letter. >> and had you agreed at that point to be interviewed by her attorney? >> yes. >> and was your purpose at that point to do what you could do to assist so ta george zimmerman got arrested? >> yes. >> and what you did then was you had a recorded telephone interview with the family attorney? >> yes. >> you were supposed to see them in person. is that right? >> yes. >> but you didn't go or they changed the plan or why didn't you see them in person? >> they agreed it would be better for them on the phone. >> who agreed in? >> first it was supposed to be a person. that's what she told me and meet somewhere else, a place. >> can you speak up? >> first she told me when i was about to leave to go to my

friend's house. >> and where were you supposed to meet them to have. >> i don't remember. i don't even remember. >> was it at a house? >> no. >> was it at a studio? >> i don't remember where. >> were you supposed to be recorded for television? >> no, i did not know about no television. >> you didn't know that your interview was going to be recorded for broadcast? >> no. >> so how did the plan change? you thought it was going to be an in-person meeting but then it turned out to be a telephone interview. >> yell. >> who told you that we're not going to do it in person, we're going to do it on the phone? >> i don't remember. it would have to be by i think. >> did he give you a call and just say we changed the plan? >> it was her number. it was her number. i think it was a three-way. >> you believe there was a three-way conversation that

included miss fulton and mr. crump? >> yes. >> and that mr. crump told you there's been a change of plans. >> better for me to be recorded on the phone. >> before the plan was that you would be in person, but you didn't know if there was any plan to actually record you? >> i did know about -- the abc report? >> right. >> no, i did not know about that. recording from crump? yes, i knew about that because he had told me talk louder. this will be recorded and i said yeah. >> so was that something that was worked out in advance that you knew you were going to be recorded? and that there would be people there listening to the interview? >> the mother and the attorney and the father, yes. >> so what the plan was for your

interview with the family attorney was that you would be on the phone at one end and on the other end would be the family attorney who would be asking you the questions? >> uh-huh. >> and mr. martin and miss fulton would also be there? >> uh-huh. >> did you know anybody else would be there? >> huh-uh. >> nobody told you that a reporter from abcnous would be present? >> no. >> nobody told you that no police officers would be present? >> no. i didn't know, no. >> or other family members even? >> no. >> so tell me how that came about then. this is on march 19th, and you agreed to be interviewed on the telephone. >> yes. >> and you agreed to be reported? >> yes. >> had you -- you had already told miss fulton basically the short version of what had happened? >> yes. he was being followed. the short version. >> of course and you gave her the letter. >> yes. >> and 0 on the three-way call

with the family attorney, had you sort of briefed them as to basics including that you had gone to the hospital? instead of the wake you lied to them? >> one meeting in the mother before she had asked did i -- why i had not went to the wake. i -- i told her truth about not why i didn't go to the wake. so i lie to her. >> right. >> you weren't under oath. >> no, and i knew she was -- she was on the phone with me and crump. so she could have heard. she had asked me why i was not on -- why did i not go to the wake and i had lied again and said, oh, i was at the hospital. >> is that during the three-way call that you're talking about? >> yeah. >> and then you told mr. crump

that you had lied -- no, i'm sorry, you told mr. crump that you had gone to the hospital instead of the wake, which was a lie? >> yes. >> and you also lied and said that you were 16? >> of i don't remember saying that. but i did tell them i did not want my age out. >> did you -- did you say that you were 16 so that you could try to maintain more privacy? >> yes. >> so you wanted to make yourself seem like a minor so that maybe there wouldn't be as much public dischosh as if you said your true age of 18? >> yes. >> so you told ms .fulton that you were 16? >> yes. >> did you tell mr. crump that too? >> yes. >> and you told both of them that you had gone to the hospital instead of going to the

wake? >> objection, asked and answered. >> sustained. >> yes. >> may we approach? >> yes. >> i'd like to make a speaking auction. so i'd like to -- >> you can't make an objection. it was a question. >> you can't make an objection to your own question. you said you wanted to make a speaking objection. do you want to respond? >> thank you. >> yes, you may approach. >> we are watching the cross-examination of 19-year-old rachel jeantel. the last person to speak to trayvon martin on the day he was shot. there's been a brief recess. i'm joined by our legal expert, lisa bloom. lisa, what's your reaction to what you've been hearing? >> well, let me explain first what's going on. attorneys are not allowed to

make speaking ukz an objections which means we're only supposed to say the legal ground for the objection. not a long speech about why the evidence shouldn't come in. if attorneys have more to say, they're going to sidebar. this witness on the stand is a very important witness for the prosecution. she's a young woman who was on the phone with trayvon martin just before this altercation. she's now on cross-examination. and the defense is trying to bring out inconsistencies even lies that she has told in this case, and so far, they've gotten her to acknowledge two that she lied about not going to mar ten's wake. she said she had been in the hospital. it turns out she just did not want to go because it was emotionally upsetting for her to do that. he got her to concede she had lied about her age saying she was 16 when she was 18 in the hopes of protecting her privacy and avoiding the situation she's in now having to testify in this very public trial. >> as she was talking, lisa, it

was palpable, one could see that she didn't want to meet with trayvon martin's parents because she knew that they were grieving about their dead son. >> right. >> and she repeatedly tried to convey that to the attorney. >> there's a lot of emotion in this case. and you know, i have yet to try a case where witnesses are eager to come forward. almost every witness is reluctant to come forward. nobody wants 0 come and testify. a lot of people are uncomfortable even talking to the police. so this defense attorney has drawn out that she did not go to law enforcement after she learned that trayvon martin had died. even after she learned she was the last person to speak to him, she did not want to talk about it or discuss it with trayvon martin's family or even with the family attorney, benjamin crump. ultimately though she did. >> right. now according to miss jeantel trayvon used some very strong language to describe mr. zimmerman.

take a listen. >> i asked him how the man looked like. and he just told me that man -- the man looked creepy. and. >> he said the man looked creechy. >> creepy white. excuse my language. he said [ bleep ] now following me now that [ bleep ] is still following me now. >> what do you think the impact, lisa, of that will be? >> you know, this is fascinating me because as far as i know, these particular words that she attributes to trayvon martin had not been out in the public record so far. and she herself has just admitted she cleaned up the story a little bit when she talked to trayvon martin's parents, understandably so. now there are these racial terms we're bleeping out allegedly uttered by trayvon martin in describing george zimmerman. as to how the jury will react to that, they may say look, he's a teenager talking to a friend

who's a teenager. they use a particular kind of jargon and it doesn't mean a whole lot. the essence of her testimony is trayvon martin saying he was being followed by george zimmerman, that he was concerned about it and she was concerned too and thought he was close to the place where trayvon's father was staying and so ultimately he would be okay. >> the attorneys have finished their brief discussion with the judge. we're expecting the defense attorney to continue with his cross-examination. don west, in a moment. she also talked about the fact that, sorry. don west talked about the fact that she the lied and he kept putting together these two lies again. sorry we'll go back to the proceedings, lisa. >> statements that you may have made during the three-way conversation with mr. crump and miss fulton. i'd like to move to the actual

recorded interview that was done over the telephone. >> yeah. >> was that the same day? later the same day? >> march 19th. >> is that right? >> yes. >> and where were you when it was being recorded? when you were being interviewed? >>. >> a house. >> pardon me? >> my house. >> your house. okay. do you know where the other parties were? >> no. >> would you describe for us how that interview took place? >> on the phone. >> of course. did they call you? >> yes. >> and did you have a conversation prior to starting the recording about the kinds of questions you would be asked? >> no. >> did you have a conversation about who was going to be present in the room? >> yes. >> and what were you told about

who would be present in the room? >> the parents and the attorney. >> and that's all? >> yeah. >> had you given consent at that point to having this interview recorded? >> yes. >> and had you given consent to having any part of it broadcast or released to the public? >> no. >> was the interview done for the purposes of releasing parts of it to the public? >> no. i never knew there was -- they was public. >> you didn't know that the interview would be released or parts of it would be used in a press conference? >> no. the situation, yes. i never knew they was on local

media. i never knew they was on tv at all. >> did you know when you were giving your interview that parts of the recording that was made would be released to the public at a press conference? >> no. >> say again? >> no. >> were you told at different points in time during the interview to repeat things so that the person running the recorder could be sure to get them again or get them the way they wanted them? >> yes. >> pardon me? >> yes, i speak low. >> so there were certain things in the interview that you were told to repeat so the that the recording would be precise as to that issue? >> yes. loud. yes. >> and you did? >> yes. >> and you were asked during the interview certain specific questions about what had happened that evening in sanford on february 26th?

>> yes. >>. >> one of the -- let me ask you this. sorry. did you ever hear the press conference where certain parts of what you said were played? >> the next day? >> whenever. >> next day, i got a phone call -- a text from my brother that said he heard my voice on television. >> could you make a special effort to speak up? we're having such a hard time hearing you. >> the next day my brother had texted me and said do you know your voice is on television. >> i take it you didn't? >> no. >> so what did you learn about that? >> i was not really focused on the tape. i was just shocked that my voice

was on the television. >> the next day your face was on tv? >> no, my voice. >> and do you believe that what was on tv was part of the recording of the interview the day before? >> >> the television had showed every -- all the record. they just showed -- not show what gave half. and i wasn't really paying attention of the high start and all that. i was just worried about my voice. >> so if i understand you, then there was a television broadcast that included parts of what you had said the day before. >> yes. >> but they didn't have any pictures of you? >> no, because i had said i did not want my picture, my identity out to the public. >> and did they say in that recording that you were the 16-year-old girlfriend of

trayvon martin? >> what interview? >> in what was on television. >> the recording between me and crump? >> no. >> no, what i was talking about now was what was played. >> on television? >> on tv, right. that you were identified as the 16-year-old girlfriend of raven martin. >> no. >> that you had been in a relationship for more than a year. >> it was a person on the phone with him a moment before he died. a female was on the phone. a young lady, young girl was on the phone before, a moment before he died. >> did you ever see the press conference that mr. crump gave? >> no. >> where he played parts of what you said. >> objection. she said she doesn't know so asking a question she doesn't know an answer to. so i object. >> let me finish it first. >> overruled the objection. >> did you ever see the press conference that mr. crump gave where he played parts of his interview with you?

>> no. >> has anyone who wanted it told you about it? >> yes. >> and did they tell you how you had been presented as a 16-year-old girl and the girlfriend of trayvon martin? >> yes. >> and that wasn't true, was it? >> no. >> none of it was true. >> it was seen. >> you weren't 16 and you weren't his girlfriend. >> no, seen because text message. >> i'm sorry? >> a text message. it seemed like it because of my text message between me and trayvon. it seemed. like we were in a relationship but we was not and then the phone calls, all the phone calls. man. it seemed. and stuff. >> when you say text messages, are you referring to the texts between you and trayvon martin? >> yes. >> i don't understand what you're saying. sorry. could you explain that a bit?

>> it seemed like a friend texting another friend. it seemed like a relationship between person. >> are you saying that the text messages between you and trayvon martin. >> yeah. >> indicated that you were in a personal intimate relationship? >> yeah, yeah. >> did you give the text messages to anybody in the martin family or mr. crump? >> no. >> did you talk about that with them? >> no. >> you never told them that you were trayvon par tin's girlfriend, did you? >> i don't remember. i just said stuff was going on. that's it. >> did you think that you were going to be.

>> no because there was another young lady that he was seeing. >> you knew that? >> yeah. >> stow trayvon martin was in a relationship with another girl, another young lady? >> yeah. >> and the relationship with you wasn't like that. >> huh-uh, no. >>. >> so you just considered yourself like phone friends or pals? >> friends. >> uh-huh. >> but there were so many texts, weren't there? hundreds and hundreds? in just a two-week period. >> some of the texts is not even me. some of the texts are not even me texting him.

my friend, haven't gotten a phone and texted him several things. >> like a three-way texting thing? >> what? no, texting him from -- texting him from my phone and he thinking that's me. did you see the texts? >> yeah. so are you saying then that sometimes your friends would text trayvon par tin using your phone, and he would think it was from you? >> yes, when i'm busy, i'm busy doing something or driving. they would text for me. >> so a lot of the texts then are from other people? >> just two of. >> just two? >> yeah, two. >> but you were there with them when they had thmade them. >> yes, they were in my house in the car, yes. >> but there were hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of texts. >> some were -- some are me.

i'm not going to deny that some are me. some are not me. >> i kind of got offtrack a little bit there because i was talking about the interview that you gave that was recorded. >> yes. >> have you ever listened to that interview? >> no. >> never listened to -- >> well, my. >> even once? >> around. when i met you? >> right. >> yes. >> did you listen to it all the way through? >> during our interview? between me and you? >> well, let's set the stage a bit. we met at a deposition in march of this year. and then we -- >> march 15th. >> thereabouts, sure. >> march 15th. wednesday. 2:00.

2:00 something. >> right. >> and we didn't quite finish. correct? >> yeah, we ended around 6:00. >> uh-huh. >> and then we met again the next month? >> no, we met again that friday. >> hmm. >> when you did not want to interview me that friday. >> hmm. >> i didn't want to interview you? >> well. >> we didn't -- we didn't have an interview, did we? >> no. >> we hadn't finished on wednesday. >> you interviewed his brother. >> right. we were interviewing several people and you knew that. >> yeah. >> you were kind of. >> but we agreed toe that friday. >> uh-huh. >> and then we had a. >> this is what you said. well, not you, but your partner had said, oh, between trayvon brother and me, it would be

better if you interviewed his brother before me. we'll do it next time. not you, but him. >> because of scheduling? >> no. he took four hours. and the third interview took four hours. i could have did my four hours. >> i'm sorry that you were inconvenienced about you we did not have the interview on friday because of scheduling issues. would you agree with that? >> you should have put me up on thursda thursday. >> we then were able to meet again the next month? >> april 30th. >> okay. good enough. so what i'm trying to get at now is that you said you had, in fact, listened to your interview with mr. crump when we first met. is that what you're saying? >> yes. >> and is that during the deposition itself or before? >> the day of the interview between.

>> but before you and i spoke? >> no. the same day. >> you hadn't ever listened to your interview before that day? >> not the whole interview, no. >> in the interview, there was a discussion of the interview, what i mean is the interview that mr. crump did have you on the phone that was recorded on or about march 19th. that's the. >> yeah. >> and in that interview, you were describing for him what it was that trayvon mar ten said to the man. and you said -- >> he did not say this guy. he just asked what happened that night. >> nan response to that, you said that trayvon martin said to

the man why are you following me. and the man's response was, what are talking about? >> no, sir, i did not say that. i don't recall i said that. >> and then you changed it. and then you said -- crump interviewed. i can explain crump interview. >> okay. >> crump interview, i really did not want to do the interview with crump. so i hurry up on crump because i really did not want to be on phone talking about a situation, deadly situation. i didn't want to talk about death. so crump interview, i rushed it off. i had told you from the -- when he when we met, i had rushed and i had told the state i rushed on the crump interview. crump interview was nothing. crump interviewed on me meant nothing to me. >> you didn't take it seriously? >> no.

>> if you weren't going to take it seriously, why didn't you just refuse to do it? >> well, i'm already there on the phone. >> but you're at home, right? >> in a closet. you think i wanted to be in a closet that long? >> my question is, if you didn't want to do the interview? why didn't you just say no, i'll talk to the police ini was already there and i had agreed to the interview so why me say no? it's already too late. >> so at that point, you felt you were committed to it? >> yes. >> so you had to go through with it? >> yes. >> but you weren't taking it seriously? >> i was rushing on it. >> you weren't even paying particular attention to what you were saying? >> i was. >> i was. >> i was. >> okay. so when you were telling mr. crump that will trayvon martin said, why are you following me, the first response

that you gave to mr. crump that is attributed to the other man, george zimmerman is what are you talking about, and then you changed it and said. >> objection. >> sustained. >> need a moment for the proper impeachment.

we are following the cross-examination of rachel jeantel, the last. ern to speak to trayvon martin before he was shot. there's been a slight pause in proceedings. lisa, what exactly is going on now? >> i think they're talking about where their attorney can go and follow up questioning. i want to point out something i think was very important. he asked a number of questions about the text messages that she had exchanged with trayvon martin on his final day. there are a lot of them. there's been a lot of pretrial wrangling as to whether text messages on trayvon martin's phone could come into evidence. right now they are not in evidence but the judge said that could change depending how things went on trial. the defense very much wants to get those in. that's why they're delving into that area. >> lisa, it seemed as though mr. west as trying to imply that have a von martin's relationship with rachel jeantel was much

closer than just friendship even though rachel had actually said he was actually having an intimate relationship with somebody else. >> right and that's important not just because of some scandalous love triangle because anytime he can catch her in a lie, he can later argue that all of her testimony should be ignored by the jury. there's an instruction that says that a witness who is not credible in one part of her testimony can be ignored in other parts of her jury. that will be for the jury to decide but it gives the defense ammunition to use against the witness anytime they can catch her in a lie. >> i'm joined by jonathan capehart of the "washington post" and craig melvin also in florida. john, i wanted to come back to you. how do you think and why do you think don west is approaching rachel jeantel in the way that he is? >> it's very curious. i find him to be very cold. very sort of culturally unaware of the witness he's talking to. >> you mean psychologically

unaware? >> psychologically unaware. i understand when she says i wasn't -- i didn't want to be there. i said i lied about why i didn't go and i said i was in the hospital. well, she said right there on the stand she didn't go because she didn't want to see the body. she was the last person to talk to him. that had a major impact on her. so yes, she lied. but the reason for her lie is not unsympathetic. that's what i find so very interesting. she -- yeah, she lied about her age. but she said right then in the cross-examination, not that she was asked -- she didn't want to give out her age. she wanted to protect her privacy. >> yes, because that was put to her. was this because if you were known as a minor, public attention won't have to rest on you? you could as it were remain discreet? semi said absolutely. that was why i said that. >> yeah, and the other thing that i found really interesting, remember at one point she cut

don west off and said you've got to understand. you've got to understand. trying to explain why she went through all of this and what did don west do? he cut her off. i sincerely think that don west is the wrong person to be doing this cross-examination. i think mark o'mara i think would have let her speak, would have been much more compassionate, someone who the other thing about don west and why i'm focused on don west, remember he's the one who told the knock knock joke in the opening statement for the defense. so he's already coming to this cross-examination with a knock against him. so you would think that he would show a little bit of compassion, not be so cold. >> right. we're also joined by craig melville melvin down in sanford, florida. you've been in the courtroom. can you describe the atmosphere? as things have been proceeded with this particular witness?

>> you know, everyone inside that courtroom earlier today, a lot of the folks were talking about rachel genteel, when she would testify today. perhaps it would be tomorrow. i spent some time talking to her attorney during one of the breaks. rachel jen tell apparently got counsel several months ago, a miami-based attorney who told me that they were very much prepared for this line of questioning. they knew that the lie that she told about going to the hospital that that would be something that the defense would focus on. he also said that -- he also told me that he thought this defense questioning could go on for at least an hour. so if that's the case, then we're in for at least 10, 15 more minutes at least. of course, don west not an attorney phone for his brebity. >> no, craig. also, craig, i understand at the moment the judge has said the court's going to be in recess briefly. is that right? >> you know what?

that just happened, martin. i didn't hear because i was talking to you. are they in recess now? >> don't worry, we'll come back to you in a moment. lisa, this idea of describing this witness as a liar, to jonathan capehart's point, is this particular little helpful for the defense in the way they've been so cold towards this particular witness? >> first of all, anybody who thinks that a defense attorney in a murder case is going to be warm and fuzzy with a key prosecution witness has it wrong. okay? that's not going to happen. >> i get that, but to jonathan's point. >> it's not a tea party. >> but john was not suggesting that. what he was suggesting was that there appeared to be in don west's questioning a complete lack of understanding that here was a young woman who was traumatized having learned what happened and having learned that she was the last person who

spoke to this young man. and she didn't even want to meet that young man's parents because she was grief stricken by the suffering that they were going through. >> i understand that. >> that's what john was on to. >> i'm trying to put this in context for you. the job of a defense attorney is to establish any lies especially by important witnesses ta they can. now, this defense attorney is i think actually being very soft on her. his voice is very calm. he has long pauses. for the most part, he lets her speak. he does not raise his voice as we attorneys are entitled to do on cross-examination. he's not bombastic. what he's doing is spinning a web around her of lies so that he can use that later on closing arguments. it will be for the jury to decide whether her lies are understandable and clearly some of them are, or whether they can draw an inference that perhaps she lied about other things. i would expect the closing arguments about this witness to be along the lines of this is a

woman to tells lie when she's uncomfortable. she she talked to his parents, she told them one story. to the media, she told a second story. in this court, even though she swore to the tell the truth, she told a different story. which one are you to believe? >> that's what this defense attorney is trying to do. i think he's doing a good job. i groo he with you about the knock knock joke though. >> lis la bloom offering anticipation of what don west is going to say in closing arguments. thank you very much. we're going to take a very brief break. but we will be back. chantix... it's a non-nicotine pill. i didn't want nicotine to give up nicotine. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. [ mike ] when i was taking the chantix, it reduced the urge to smoke. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix.

if you notice any of these, stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these, stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, or if you develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. it feels wonderful. i don't smoke. i don't smoke. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. to fly home for the big family reunion. you must be garth's father? hello. mother. mother! traveling is easy with the venture card because you can fly any airline anytime. two words. double miles! this guy can act. wanna play dodge rock? oh, you guys! and with double miles you can actually use,

you never miss the fun. beard growing contest and go! ♪ i win! what's in your wallet? i win!

for a store near you go to benjaminmoore.com/bayarea. it is a very busy wednesday afternoon. we continue to follow developing news out of florida on the george zimmerman trial. as you know, we're currently in recess. that's going to be about another ten minutes but it's also been a huge day for gay rights in this country following the supreme

court's decision on doma and proposition 8. let's continue with julian epstein. doma struck down, but can you explain what happens with proposition 8 now? >> proposition 8 is remanded back to the circuit court and effectively that will circuit court decision stands. so effectively same-sex marriage is now the law of the state in the state of california. it would be wrong to say it was game, set and match on same-sex marriage today but it's getting very close to that. in the case of doma, what the court is saying once the state of new york grants the same-sex marriage to its citizens, the federal government cannot come in and rescind that right for the purposes of federal benefits. and it did so not on the basis of state rights but on the basis of equal protection. and so it is then hard to see on the remaining legal issues where you could see challenges and it would be on two things.

one is on the two-thirds of states that the don't recognize same sex marriage and secondly the other part of the doma statute that the -- called the privileges and immunities provision that allows a state like alabama to not recognize the same sex marriageses that a state like new york grants, it would be hard to see how the equal protection reasoning in the doma decision today would not also invalidate both of those other prohibitions on same sex marriage. >> jimmy, your reaction to the ruling today from the supreme court? >> i see it as sort of a glass half full, but just under the halfway mark. i mean, julian just gave an excellent sum participation of exactly what happened. my problem with what the court ruled today is twofold. first, they did not tell lower courts what are the level of scrutiny should be when it comes to how they're going to decide cases going forward. and anyone who understands the law on this knows that they're

going to be a multitude of cases going forward mostly in states where gay marriage is not a right or a privilege. secondly. >> and, of course, that's about 30 states, isn't it where gay marriage is currently banned. >> that's exactly right. it is banned in 30 states and the others are silent or have something similar thereof. my other problem is the states where are gay marriage is legal, doma is now defunct in those states for married couples but it does not in any circumstance cover other people in those other states. that is my biggest problem with this. is this a huge step? yes. are my civil rightsen an jonathan's civil rights in a much better place than 24 hours ago? absolutely. i'm a resident of the common of virginia. tonight i cannot get married and doma still applies to me. that is still separate but equal. >> isn't jimmy right that actually this is halfway full but not the complete packaging? >> look, what happened today was

unbelievably historic. i mean, jimmy, love you to pieces but i can't be -- i can't share the sort of dour pessimistic. >> don't. >> this is great. also because when the supreme court said they were going to take these cases, if you go back and look at all the commentary back then, the legal folks and the folks i talk to, this is almost the exact result we thought was going to happen. that doma was going to be struck down because on equal protection grounds, there's just no way for doma to stand. but prop 8 was the one, the case where folks wondered, is the court really going to listen to ted olson and do the complete -- there's a constitutional right 0 marry, or are they going to punt on issue and declare that the folks in california who were trying to keep prop 8, they didn't have the standing, which would allow gay marriages to go forward in california without addressing the cosmic question

as i call it. so what had sets up is sort of another shoe is going to have to drop. remember the court did not want to take the prop 8 case. they didn't want to have a this question. so what they've done is really by buy themselves some time and buy the country some time for more states on their own to adopt marriage equality so that when the next case oms comes, they'll be able to do it and hopefully by then the court will be completely different. >> i think it's more significant than that if i might. it's important to remember in equal protection cases particularly when it came to race, you rarely see the court issue this one fell swoop broad reaching decision. if you look at brown versus board of education, there were half a dozen courses chipping away at separate but equal. so they come gradually and inkremtly. the important point is the court for the first time in same-sex marriage is recognizing the equal protection issue. that is crossing the ruby con.

while jimmy is correct it doesn't enunciate the level of scrutiny, once you have a rationale basis kind of flag planted there, it's hard for me toe see, looking at the reasoning of the court. if you look at the language of the court it used things like the indignity of selecting gay and lesbian americans and taking away their rights, the importance of marriage in terms of just your fundamental liberty interests. it's hard if you read the case to ehow the additional challenges that are going to come from the states and on this other provision of doma which still stands, it's hard to see how they won't be successful wince you crossed the rubicon on equal protection. i think this is a very, very major victory for equal protection. >> edith windsor was at the center of the tax bill of $363,000. here's what she had to say. >> and we won everything we

asked and hoped for. >> children born today will grow up in a world without doma. and those same children who happen to be gay will be free to love and get married as thea and i did but with the same federal benefits, protections and dignity as everyone else. >> that was a perfect summation, was it not? >> yes, it was she is out of central casting for the person who you want to have, the face of marriage. you know, this woman who had been with her partner, her wife for like pour daks. >> 44 years. >> 44 years. and she looks like the mom next door, the neighbor next door who would bring you cookies or a cas roll if you moved into the neighborhood. i want to go back to something julian was talking about in terms of the language and planting the flag. the person who wrote the opinion on doma was justice anthony kennedy. >> yes. >> ten years ago today, june 26th, 2003, he wrote what is one

of the -- until today one of the greatest moments in gay history and that was the lawrence v texas decision. today, ten years exactly ten years to the day, waer reading an opinion from him declaring doma unconstitutional. the language in lawrence v texas is so beautiful. it's moving. for the first time, i as a gay american read after institution, an equal branch of government talking about me. and my life with dignity and respect that he hadn't been done before. >> okay. >> thank you so much. jonathan, jimmy and julian, all js, i'm afraid we're going to have to pause because proceedings are being picked up again. back in court in sanford florida, where the george zimmerman trial is about to go -- continue in a moment. sorry. before we do that, lisa, what are you expecting as we proceed with this cross-examination of rachel jeantel?

>> i expect her to be on the witness stand through the remainder of the day. defense is no hurry to finish her testimony. i think they want to allow her to talk and to talk and to try to get further inconsistent statements out of her. i should emphasize she has stuck to her core story that trayvon martin told her in a phone conversation that he was being followed by george zimmerman. that's the essence of what she's here to talk about. and that's the story she's stuck to thus far. she has a remarkable memory for dates and when you look them up, it turns out that march 17th is indeed a saturday just like she says. >> she talked about the interview, the first interview with don west the defense attorney. and then also talked about a second interview. he wanted to talk about one a month later on april 30th and she complained that actually she was ordered to attend an interview that was proposed on the friday of the same week, but there wasn't enough time for that interview to take place because mr. west was conducting

depositions with someone else. >> yeah, i don't know if that helps her or hurts her. i don't know if the jury is going to see her as you know, appropriately standing up to the defense attorney or being disrespectful. that's going to be for them to decide. you know, the jury after awhile, starts to understand how the system works, that witnesses are there to answer questions. they're not supposed to be firing back at the attorney but that they're human beings and sometimes they do. >> do you think also that don west has been subtly trying to imply that benjamin crump, the martin family lawyer, may have been involved in assisting her in terms of her deposition? because he repeatedly said to rachel jeantel, did you know that reporters were on the telephone when you were talking to mr. crump? and she said no. and he said, did you know that law enforcement, police officers were? >> you really put your finger on it.p. the evolution of her story is something the defense is going to argue about. she didn't come forward to law enforcement. instead, she was kind of pulled

into this case. that's understandable. a lot of people don't want to come forward but then the media was involved. jurors ten to not like it when jurors speak to the media before they speak to police or law enforcement. she spoke to a family lawyer instead of speaking to the police. all of these are little pieces of evidence the defense is going to trial to pull together to use oo against her. >> how much longer do they normally have for proceedings in florida? what is a normal court day? it's now on the east coast, it's five minutes to 5:00. >> they've been stopping at 5:00 p.m., pretty close, sometimes in a witness goes a little bit longer, they'll go a little bit over that. this judge runs a tight ship. she may want to finish this witness today. we may go a bit over. >> jonathan, can rachel jeantel in the remaining part of her witness testimony as it were were, i don't know, become more persuasive, more credible, deal with the issues of so-called lying and falsification that don

west has accused her of. in acknowledging her lies for the first time at least for all of us, we're seeing her be honest. when he puts to her, you said this, was that a lie, she owns up to it. she doesn't try to get around it. well, yeah. but she is an explanation. and some of the explanations as i said before are understandable. yes, they are lies but if you lie about why you did not go to a viewing or a funeral and that lie is because you just couldn't go, you couldn't see -- you couldn't bear to see the body you yourself were grieving and in pain, if i were sitting on the jury, i would sit back and go, well, yeah i get that. so you know, but i do think that as lisa was saying, i bet the defense wants to keep her -- keep rachel jeantel on the stand. one, thing i'm noticing on

twitter and my own thinking, she's not exactly, you know, the most cordial wit witness. of course, she's not there because see wants to be there. she's been dragged kicking and screaming >> she's reluctant bunch. >> but she pushes back and there's a demeanor and attitude there of like, hey, man, do you not hear what i'm saying? or come on. why are you going at me like this? the more they can keep her in the seat, and lisa correct me if i'm wrong, the more they keep her in the seat and try to get at her and get under her skin, the more they might get her to do something that would then really of sort of erode herring ander. >> express soming ander. >> and erode her credibility even further. >> lisa, what's your reaction? >> he's trying to paint her not as an impartial witness but as an advocate for the martin family. if he can do that, he shifts her testimony a little bit away from somebody who's completely credible 00 who told a lie that

was understandable to someone taking a position and perhaps made up a story to help the martin family. that's what the defense is trying to do. they're never going to get her to admit that she lied about trayvon martin being followed. that's her core story. she's going to stick to that. the defense is trying to undercut it by showing that she lied about her age, she told inconsistent stories and to put it all together and say perhaps the she lied about this to make the family feel better. that's an inference that the jury could draw. >> lisa, do you also think there was an attempt by don west, the defense attorney, to imply that she's lying about her relationship with the late trayvon martin, as well because he keeps appealing to this multiplicity of text messages. he was almost flabbergasted by the number. well, i've got a teenaged daughter. i can tell you, there's nothing inconsistent about 5,000 text messages that are sent in a day. was that not what he was trying to imply. >> she's lying about her relationship to this young man.

>> the defense wants to get the text messages that were on trayvon martin's cell phone into evidence. and they will use any possible legal means to do that. i'm sure they don't care whether she was a friend or whether she was a girlfriend, whether he had another girlfriend. none of that is particularly relevant but they very much want to get text messages in which they say shows hostility, even aggression on trayvon martin part. right now the jury doesn't know about those text messages. the prosecution wants to keep it that way. >> i thought the judge had ruled that some of that material on his phone was inadmissible? >> for now but that can change. a trial is a living dynamic thing. if some information comes into the trial that makes it relevant, it's called opening the door and you can hear the sound almost of a door creaking open if some of that comes in. the more they can get her talking about text messages, i can almost guarantee you this defense is going to go to the judge and say now you have to

let the texas messages in. >> i don't know how to thank you for helping us through the coverage. skraungt capehart, jimmy williams and julian epstein, we're grateful for your coverage, too. stay with msnbc for continuing coverage of the george zimmerman trial. >> equality. let's play "hardball." >> good evening. i'm chris matthews up in new york again. the zimmerman trial is continuing and we will update you on the latest developments in a moment. but first let me start tonight with had huge supreme court decision striking down the defense of marriage act. it means that the united states government opposes any discrimination against same-sex couples married in one of the states that recognizes the same-sex marriage. married means married. if you're married in one of the states that