>> no, sir. >> are the -- are portions of the interior of the sanford police station surveilled by video cameras? >> yes, sir. >> and have you seen the video surveillance of the defendant arriving at the station and walking through the station that evening? >> yes, sir. >> does that video fairly and accurately depict the defendant's arrival and transport through the police station? >> yes, sir. >> after the defendant got out of your police car, did you see any blood in your patrol car? >> no, sir. >> and where did you take the defendant specifically when you got to the station? >> into an interview room on the second floor. >> all right. your honor, if i could have some assistance playing state's -- i

believe it's 192. it's a composite. >> any objection to 192? >> if i might have a moment with counsel. thank you, your honor. >> okay. we have to change paper. is this a good time to take a short recess? okay. why don't we take a 15-minute recess. >> another key witness is on the stand in the trial of george zimmerman, sanford police officer timothy smith was the first officer on the scene. lisa, have you seen anything today that jumped out at you, any surprises, any forward movement for either side? >> well, let me summarize what all of the witnesses have been saying today with the three cs. george zimmerman after the shooting was coherent, compliant, and calm. that helps the prosecution in one sense. it helps the defense in another

sense. it helps the defense because he's compliant. when law enforcement came, he immediately identified himself as the shooter, put up his hands, identified he had a firearm, and answered all of their questions. but he was also very, very calm. according to one witness kind of strangely so. he didn't seem to be in shock and didn't look back at the body of trayvon martin even though he had just shot him. >> we just saw the police officer testifying to whether or not there was blood in the car when he was taken to the station house. so have we established how injured george zimmerman may or may not have been and what that goes to it the altercation they may or may not have had? >> the defense has taken every opportunity today to put up those photos of george zimmerman's head, the front shot that shows swelling to his nose and some lacerations to his nose and the shot behind his head. he had very short hair back then. almost a shaved head. you could clearly see the back of his head with lacerations and blood dripping down. the defense is going to use that to say, look, he was beaten by

trayvon martin and he was trying to defend himself. the prosecution says, well, he may have taken some hits, but it wasn't life threatening. >> all right. lisa, please stay with us. joining us now, criminal defense attorney john burress. how are you? all right. i have a question to start it right off. we heard basically a lot of protocol was followed in terms of securing the scene, in bringing mr. zimmerman in. what kind of foundation does that set for the jury when they hear that basically the police was doing everything according to the books? >> i think it's important for the jurors to know that the investigation was done properly, that they secured the scene that, they looked for trayvon, mr. zimmerman and essentially secured the scene in such a way -- and they tried to make some assessment of the medical treatments. i thought they were fairly even handed in the manner in which they were doing it. they were not conducting a real

investigation, so it only gives the foundation from the prosecutor's point of view as to what happened and what was taking place. it doesn't go to the real questions, though, about the questions and answers that took place with respect to mr. zimmerman. i think the question about the injuries that he had, for the prosecution, they need to show these injuries were, in fact, relatively minor and there is blood. blood counts a lot, but that doesn't then mean that they're significant in the sense they were in a life/death struggle as described by mr. zimmerman. i'm surprised that if he was bumping his head as the way they described it you don't have more really deep contusions at the back of his head that were more deep seated as opposed to minor lacerations. but it's still on balance. certainly helps the defense's point of view as to the fact he was in a fight and he was on the bottom and struggling. >> on that point, i found interesting there where they were describing when they found george zimmerman the back of his pants were wet. the back of his shirt was wetter than the front is what that

officer said right there. that has to aid the defense and this idea that george zimmerman was on his back sort of defenseless when he reached for his gun, correct? >> well, it certainly aids, corroborates the fact he's on his back and that he's struggling in some way because the wetness would corroborate that, and you have another witness that says that. i don't know that you would say that he was so defenseless that he had to draw his gun in that situation because everybody fight of that kind does not then mean you get to use deadly force. so you still have to -- the jury will still have to evaluate whether or not it was reasonable for him to use deadly force in a sense where he was maybe getting beat in a fistfight. the question is, who started this fight? that is also an interesting point because you can start a fight and start losing. it doesn't then mean you get to use deadly force. >> exactly. turning back to you, lisa, on that question of who started the fight, of course under the law the entire burden is here on the

prosecution to prevail in their side of the story. there is no legal obligation on the defense to say anything in theory. in practice, though, we know that you want to get a certain side of the story out towards the jury. tell us about that and whether this defense version is getting anywhere. >> you're absolutely right. the prosecution has the burden in this and every cay in america to prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt. the defense does not have an obligation to do anything. in this case, they could simply cross examine the witnesses. when it comes their turn, they could not put on a case at all and argue the prosecution has not met its burden. in this case, the prosecution also has the burden of showing that george zimmerman did not act in self-defense, which is kind of a difficult thing to prove. proving a negative, that he didn't act in self-defense. so they're doing that by building their case slowly, bit by bit. it's a circumstantial case, as most murder cases are. they're going to put it all together for the jury in closing argument. >> right. so talk to us about how you define that concept of

self-defense in conjunction with these injuries that we were hearing about today. >> i think what prosecution is doing is showing that george zimmerman's story is inconsistent with what the witnesses saw. it's inconsistent with the physical evidence and he simply came up with that story after the shooting to justify what he had done. he has some knowledge of law enforcement. he has some knowledge of shootings. he talks very much like a police officer when he talks to it the police officers. so i think the argument is going to be, you know, he came up with this story immediately and he's essentially stuck to it even though it's not true. >> and lisa, further on that point regarding the injuries, i was sort of taken aback when the officer spoke that zimmerman said he did not want to go to it the hospital, that he was more than comfortable enough going directly to the station. what type of impact will that have on the jury? that if he was so horrifically beaten up, his first inclination is, well, i don't even need to go to it tthe hospital. i'm not even complaining about my injuries.

>> right. ultimately, he never went to the hospital for these injuries. he did get a little bit of medical treatment, but it wasn't anything all that serious. the defense is going to say -- and they've actually already said in their hoping statement, i mean, how much of a beating does a man have to take when he's down, when someone's on top driving their fists into his face? how much does he have to take? you know, zimmerman's story is that trayvon martin saw the gun, threatened him using profanity that he was going to kill him that night and that's the point at which george zimmerman took out the gun and shot him. ultima ultimately, that's going to be a question for the jury. do they believe that threat occurred and he reasonably feared for his life in that moment? >> let's jump back to john burress for a moment. you have defended several people in court. how do you think overall that this defense is doing so far? >> actually, i think the defense is doing an excellent job. they've taken the prosecution's case, every witness, and has raised some credibility issues with every one of them. raising questions about whether or not you can believe them. in some of those prosecution

witnesses, they've turned the evidence toward them. i think mr. goode's testimony today was very, very helpful to them. it got their theory of the case out. that's what you want to do as a defense lawyer. you want to get your theory out without having to put your defendant on. they've done a very good job in doing that, even with the witnesses. you might argue about the injuries, but notwithstanding, they are there. you also have a witness testifying, a very clear witness, that trayvon was on top of mr. zimmerman. that is consistent. now, the question is, how did this all start? from the defense point of view, they don't have to prove how it started. they have to prove at the time that gunfired that he believed in good faith his life was in danger. so far, they've done an excellent job in at least creating doubt amongst the prosecution witnesses and their case in chief. the prosecution is really trying to rebuild this and lay out a foundation, really, that suggests that mr. zimmerman was not being truthful.

that's going to be a burden for them. >> john, that's such an important point you make, that reasonable fear of being in lethal danger. for people watching at home, they may say, well, a lot of people can be afraid of being in danger, in being of hurt in all kind of oaltercations. what's the legal standard? >> out here in california you can have a good faith but unreasonable belief your life is in danger. that means you can be mistaken. a jury really has to look at this whole question. just because he says his life is in danger, the question is, is that really reasonable? this is a -- remember, he was the aggressive person following mr. trayvon martin. then there's a contact. it looks like there's a fight. i mean, this whole pounding, that doesn't look like that's actually what's going on, but you have physical injuries. the question s you get a bloody nose a scrape, is that a

reasonable interpretation you can use deadly force? that's a question the jury has to deal with. that's not second-degree murder. that's a voluntary manslaughter type case. whether or not they go for lesser included is another matter that each side will have to decide later. >> mr. burress, thank you so much for joining us. stay with us. let's bring in nbc's kerry sanders, who's been following the trial in florida. i don't know about you or what the jury is thinking, but explain the process right now the jury is going through in hearing from these witnesses. >> reporter: the one thing they don't have is they don't have the benefit of the legal experts that are on msnbc here explaining what's going on. that's important to note. what it means is that they're hearing, for instance, a witness like john goode being called by the state. yet, they're thinking the state is putting on its strongest case, why are they calling somebody who it might appear is actually providing testimony that supports the defense here? without that sort of prelude

from the prosecutor because they're not permitted by the rules in the state of florida to stay, now we're going to call this person and he's going to say this and i want you to understand that that's not important or is important. they have to do it in the back and forth. so i suspect in some cases jurors sit there and are somewhat bewildered. remember, they don't have the benefit, even though they're sequestered and eating together, they don't have the benefit to turn to it the other and say, what's going on here? they're not allowed to talk about the case until it is concluded in terms of the presentation. then they can discuss it all. another thing that has not been said to the jurors is the judge has not told them and neither have any of the attorneys it here, told them you'll have access to all of the transcripts, which means they're furiously writing down notes when they could look at the transcripts later to look at them. at times i've noticed their heads are buried taking notes. the judge did tell them at the

beginning, do not take so many notes you look track of what's going on. your goal here is to hear. you can write down things that are important to you. it's up to the jurors to feel their way throughout all of this. so i think the legal analysts can explain to the audience that's looking here -- and of course i understand it because i've covered courts for a while -- why it is that a witness like john goode would be called by the state when it appears they're not providing the real information that bolsters the state case. but for a juror sitting there, it has to be a head scratcher. >> all right. kerry sanders, thanks very much. let's dip back in with lisa bloom for a moment. kerry is raising an interesting point about jurors taking notes, not being able to take 100% attention while they're taking notes. what did you think it does for their ability to pay attention? >> kerry raises some terrific points. it does help to tell the jury at the beginning you're going to have access to all of the transcripts, all of the evidence

so they don't feel they have to be stenographers taking everything down. it's hard for jurors to understand in our system sometimes why a witness is being called, why they're hearing eight different witnesses telling very slightly different versions of the same thing, why the same questions are being asked of witnesses over and over again when some things have clearly been established. i can tell you that john goode is the witness that kerry just referred to who i aglee was an extremely important witness today. called by the prosecution but on cross-examination by the defense he established that george zimmerman was on the bottom. trayvon martin was on the top, straddling him. george zimmerman was screaming for help. and this was in the final moments before the gunshot rang out. so really at the most pivotal point in the time line of this case. that witness was called by the prosecution because the prosecution has to put the truth in front of the jury. they're not supposed to be an advocate for side or the other. if they leave out a witness they know about, the defense is going to make a great big issue about

it. >> lisa bloom, thanks for that. excellent stuff. we'll be back with more after this. our commitments. our commitments. and we've made a big commitment to america. bp supports nearly 250,000 jobs here. through all of our energy operations, we invest more in the u.s. than any other place in the world. in fact, we've invested over $55 billion here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger. ♪ i'm a hard, hard worker and i'm working every day. ♪ ♪ i'm a hard, hard worker and i'm saving all my pay. ♪ small businesses get up earlier and stay later.

and to help all that hard work pay off, membership brings out millions of us on small business saturday and every day to make shopping small huge. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. what are you guys doing? having some fiber! with new phillips' fiber good gummies. they're fruity delicious! just two gummies have 4 grams of fiber! to help support regularity! i want some... [ woman ] hop on over! [ marge ] fiber the fun way, from phillips'.

[ roars ] ♪ ♪ [ roars ] ♪ [ roars ] ♪ [ male announcer ] universal studios summer of survival. ♪

we're back and following the latest in the george zimmerman trial where neighbors and first responders have been taking the stand today. let's listen in as police officer timothy smith is on the stand. all right. let's go to lisa bloom for a moment as they come back to court. lisa, question for you. the jury, of course, is

sequestered and kerry said the jurors are not supposed to talk to each other. of course, we know that in a lot of cases jurors do talk to each other and do tend to get information from all sorts of sources. when we talk about sequestration, it's not usually perfect, is it? >> no, nothing's perfect, but we hope they're following the judge's orders. this judge is very careful every morning and every afternoon to inquire of them whether they've seen anything on tv, whether they've gone online, et cetera. if they're doing it, they're violating her orders. >> still, they might talk to a family member, right? >> i mean, might they be violating her orders? yes, they might be. i find that most jurors tend to rise to the occasion and take these orders seriously. >> all right. let's go back to the testimony. >> is that your patrol car pulling in?

>> yes, it is. >> is that you that just got out of the driver's seat? >> yes, sir.

>> and was that an accurate depiction of your interaction with the defendant as he got out of the patrol car and walked into the station? >> yes, it was. >> all right.

>> was that just you and the defendant walking through one of the interior doors? >> yes, sir. >> again, is that you and defendant walking through another portion of the place? >> yes, sir. >> all right. your honor, that's all we need for the lights. thank you. did you take the defendant to an interview room? >> is yes, sir. >> was anyone in the interview room when you placed the defendant if there? >> no, sir. >> did you uncuff the defendant when you placed him in had the

interview room? >> yes. >> did you offer him something to drink? >> i did. >> did you stay in that room with the defendant? >> no, sir. >> where did you go? >> the room's monitored by one-way glass. i went around to the other side of the glass. >> were you able to see the defendant from the other side of the glass? >> yes, sir. >> did you watch the defendant until someone arrived? >> yes, sir. >> to speak with him? >> yes, sir. >> about how long was that? >> 30 to 40 minutes. >> all right. at any time while you were watching the defendant for 30 to 40 minutes through the one-way glass, did he lose consciousness? >> no, sir. >> did he appear to have any physical problems of any kind, falling out of the chair, anything like that? >> no, sir. >> did he do anything that caused you concern about his health during that 30 to 40-minute period? >> no, sir. >> and who was it who arrived to interview the defendant? >> i believe it was investigator singleton. >> did you participate in that interview? >> no, sir, i did not.

>> and where were you when detective singleton was speaking to the defendant? >> back on the other side of the one-way glass. >> could you hear what they were saying? >> not enough -- you can hear people talking, but it's not enough to make out. >> you can't make out what they're saying? >> correct. >> all right. thank you, sir. judge, that's all i have. >> thank you, cross. >> yes. afternoon, officer. how are you doing? >> good. >> thanks for being here today. how long have you been an officer? >> since 2005. >> okay. what was your training? what did you do to become an officer? >> i attended the law enforcement academy. >> okay. how long of a course is that? >> that's just shy of 700 hours. >> in addition, have you taken any other courses, like in community college or anything along the way or even before? >> i have attended seminole state college, yes. >> that's just down the street?

>> yes, sir. >> what type of courses did you take? >> general education courses. >> okay. any focus on criminal justice, your chosen career? >> not at seminole state, no, sir. >> okay. how long did you want to be a cop before you became one? >> since i was little. >> okay. sort of a life goal for you then? >> yes, sir. >> why is that? >> i enjoy helping and educating. >> okay. the traditional one -- i guess it's not on all police cars, but a lot of them, protect and serve. >> yes, sir. >> is that sort of a goal of yours then as a police officer? >> yes, sir. >> you feel that's a pretty noble goal? >> yes, sir. >> do you enjoy it? >> yes, sir. >> can't enjoy it quite as much when you get a shots fired call though, can you? >> no, sir. >> a little concerning, right? >> yes, sir. >> so you go on the radio. i think you testified about the

map. you get a call about a disturbance first, is that correct? >> suspicious person. >> that's right. at some point it got upgraded, did it not -- >> yes, sir. >> to shots fired? >> yes, sir. >> what is -- what do you then do once you have a shots fired event? >> you tend to wait for our little more additional information, but it becomes more of an officer safety issue. >> at that point your officer safety, right? >> correct. >> so you came into the circle and actually almost coincidentally, i guess, you were able to shine a light down that entire sort of alleyway towards where this event actually occurred, right? >> yes, sir. >> and noticed at least one person towards the end? >> yes, sir. >> could you tell who it was at that point? >> no, sir. >> so you pull up your car and then get out and you take out -- how do you equip yourself as

you're going out of your car to go to that back alleyway? >> due to the lighting, i grabbed a flashlight. >> okay. i talked to another officer before you. he said his gun actually has a flashlight on it. was that the way yours was set up? >> yes, my gun does have a flashlight on it. >> was that what you used? >> no, sir. i used an actual standard flashlight. >> okay. so when you first came around that corner heading over towards the scene, did you know that was the scene where the shooting occurred? >> no, sir, i did not. >> okay. so when you first came up on the scene, you had your flashlight out? >> yes, sir. >> had you taken out your service revolver yet? >> not at that point, no, sir. >> tell me what you first see when you come on the scene. >> i saw mr. zimmerman standing on the sidewalk. there may have been somebody out there with him. i saw travon laying in the grass. >> when you say sidewalk, there was a walkway you sort of came down from your car, correct?

>> correct. sidewalk makes a "t." >> there's a "t" intersection. >> correct. >> as you came around that corner, can you orient us as to where near the "t" or how far down mr. zimmerman was? >> if you came around the side of the building to the top of the "t," it was approximately 30 feet. >> 30 feet from the t-intersection? >> correct. >> very close by to where trayvon martin's body was, right? >> yes, sir. >> within feet? >> yes, sir. >> okay. and what was he doing? >> who? >> mr. zimmerman. >> he was standing on the sidewalk. >> okay. did he look towards you as you were coming towards him? >> yes. >> do you remember at that point whether or not there was anybody else present? >> there may have been, but i'm not 100% certain. >> okay. and flashlight on mr. zimmerman at that point? >> yes, sir. >> and could you tell he was wearing the clothes we talked

about, the orange or red jacket? >> yes, sir. >> okay. at that point could you see the injuries to his nose when you first had the flashlight on him? >> yes, sir. >> okay. and were they similar as to the picture that we've seen a little while ago? >> yes, sir. >> okay. even more with actual bleeding at that point, wasn't it? >> that's correct. >> okay. and his eyes were watered? >> yes, sir. >> okay. both eyes, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and what did you first say to him? >> i asked him if he'd seen what happened. >> his response? >> yes. >> did that seem like an appropriate response? anything wrong with the way he answered you? >> no, sir. >> next what did you ask him? >> if the young man had been shot and if he had seen who shot him. >> how did you respond? >> that he did and that he was still armed. >> okay. at that point, what's your

response to find out that somebody involved in a shooting is right there in front of you armed? >> at that point is when i unholstered my service web. >> and take it out? >> correct. >> that's protocol, is it not? >> correct. >> again, it's officer safety is your number one -- >> right. >> -- charge, because without that you can't do anything else, help anyone else. >> correct. >> point it at him? >> yes, sir. >> again, that's appropriate, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you do not point it at him because of any immediate threat that he posed to you, correct? he didn't challenge you in any way, did he? >> no, sir. >> as a matter of fact, he was completely cooperative, was he not? >> yes, sir. >> but protocol is you arm yourself and make sure that you have it on him to take care of the situation. >> yes, sir. >> and what did you next ask him? >> to -- as he was telling me he had shot him and he was still armed was when he kind of leaned

over to expose the firearm. >> so if i were to do that then for just a moment, tell me -- i'm going to try. the gun was on his right hip, i think you testified. >> correct. >> so this jacket is longer than what he was wearing, right? >> yes, sir. >> but if we flipped it up, he went like this? >> yes, sir. >> just by this movement was able to be enough -- >> the hands going up and the leaning over. >> oh, okay. so sort of like that? >> right. >> and just doing that movement, that was enough of a movement where the gun was exposed, correct? >> correct. >> the jacket didn't cover the gun by more than a couple inches, right? >> i don't believe so. >> so any movement up of the jacket, even that small movement that he did by leaning over, exposes the gun, right? >> correct. >> and had the jacket been ridden up in any form or fashion, the gun would have been exposed, right? >> i would imagine so, yes. >> so do you remember if he had

a cell phone in his hand or not? >> i don't recall. >> okay. in any case, he showed you his gun, kept his hands in the air, didn't he? >> correct. >> that's what you told him to do. >> yes. >> and what do you do at that point now that you have a flashlight, a gun, and you see another gun? >> i asked mr. zimmerman to put his hands on top of his head, interlock his fingers. >> okay. >> at which point i reholstered, made hands-on contact with mr. zimmerman and placed him in handcuffs. >> okay. you leave the gun until you get his hands secured. >> yes, sir. >> that's protocol? >> choice. >> he didn't resist in any way, did he? >> no, sir. >> and i guess that not resisting as you have him like this, interlocked, correct? >> correct. >> then you would either turn him around or go behind him. >> to handcuff him? >> yeah. >> i was behind him. >> right. take one arm, get it back, take the other arm. >> correct. >> you of course, would have been in, i would imagine, hundreds of situations having to

handcuff people. >> yes, sir. >> and most people -- i'll let you answer it. what percentage of people at least offer some resistance to you when you're trying to get their arms behind their back? >> objection, relevance. >> sustained. >> have you had other people resist getting their arms behind their back? >> same objection, your honor. relevance. >> at this point -- i don't want to speak for you. >> please approach. >> i'll rephrase it. >> okay. >> did mr. zimmerman offer any response whatsoever to your cuffing him behind his back? >> any response of resistance? >> yeah, did he resist at all? >> no. >> complied with that command of yours immediately? >> yes, sir. >> and completely? >> yes, sir. >> once you had him secured,

then you were able to secure his firearm? >> yes, sir. >> and i think a point was made that at that point your focus, even more so than other people involved, is to secure the firearm, correct? >> correct. >> and though in a perfect world you might have been able to put on gloves, you didn't have the time then, you just grabbed the gun and i think you said you put it between one of your clips and your vest? >> yes, sir. >> okay. and that was necessitated by the circumstances, wasn't it? >> that is correct. >> that was your primary goal, number one, at that point? >> yes, sir. >> okay. at that point, as your first contact to mr. zimmerman, did he seem angry? >> no, sir. >> did he seem frustrated? >> no, sir. >> did he seem spiteful of anything that was going on? >> no, sir. >> any ill will or hatred at all that you saw him exude as you

first saw him literally moments after the event? >> no, sir. >> any concern about him at all except for his injuries? >> no, sir. >> even though he had that obvious injury to his nose, had you at that -- did you see any injuries to the back of his head yet? >> while i was securing him, yes, i was able to see that. >> as you got behind you could see the blood. >> correct. >> even with those injuries, did he seem agitated? >> no, sir. >> there has been testimony that he was seemingly calm. did he come across that way to you? >> yes, sir. >> okay. having just gone through what he went through and now that you know having just shot somebody, did his behavior to you just seem strange?

>> no, sir. >> just usual? >> i wouldn't say usual. >> okay. not -- well, was it particularly unusual? >> no, sir. >> even for those circumstances? >> no, sir. >> you didn't think that he was -- didn't come across to you as being cavalier, did he? >> no, sir. >> or just uncaring? >> no, sir. >> fairly appropriate for what you now know he had just gone through? >> correct. >> so you secure the gun. >> yes, sir. >> and then what's the next thing you do? >> i have mr. zimmerman have a seat in the rear of my patrol car. >> okay. let's talk about the walk over. my understanding -- again, from other testimony, is that another officer came on scene fairly quickly behind you. do you recall that? >> is that's correct. >> do you recall who it was? >> officer ayalla.

>> and you had control of mr. zimmerman and that became your now task, correct? >> correct. >> and was it true that officer ayalla took over the situation dealing with the other person, now known as mr. martin? >> that is correct. >> okay. and as you were going -- anything else you recall mr. zimmerman saying to you at the scene before you started walking towards the car? >> not before, no, sir. >> okay. as you were walking towards the car, didn't he utter something to you, sort of voluntarily? >> yes, sir. >> what did he say? >> he stated to me that he was yelling for help and that nobody would come help him. >> and how long after you first saw him did that happen? within a minute? >> it was a few minutes. >> okay. as long as it took to do what we just talked about? >> correct. >> and then because as soon as you had him cuffed, you secured

the gun. >> right. >> turned him around and walked him towards the car. >> correct. >> the car was 30 yards away? >> approximately. >> and it was during that walk -- actually, almost immediately upon turning towards walking towards the car that he uttered that to you, right? >> it wasn't very long after, no, sir. >> okay. he actually said that to you twice, didn't he? >> correct. >> second time was after you got to the car. >> that's correct. >> tell me how he said that. was it as -- tell me how he said that. >> it was almost confusion. sort of -- >> i kept -- well, tell me -- >> basically it was sort of a confused look on his face. >> like he didn't know why after screaming for help nobody would come help him? >> correct. >> objection, that's calling for speculation. >> sustained. >> i'll rephrase. >> thank you. >> it came across to you as though he was confused?

>> that's correct. >> you had testified a little while ago about mr. zimmerman's condition. we've talked about his injuries, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you also said that the back, particularly the back of his jacket, was wet. >> yes, sir. >> of course, it was raining on and off that evening, wasn't it? >> yes, sir. >> was the back noticeably more wet than the rest of his body? >> yes, sir. >> as though he had been laying in grass on his back? >> that's correct. >> and he actually also had pieces of grass on his back as well, correct? >> yes, sir. >> could you tell with blue jeans that the back of his blue jeans were wet as well? >> they appeared to be a little darker. >> a little darker than the front? >> correct. >> evidencing to you what in the darkness? >> that he had been laying on

his back. >> and that his jeans were wet as well on the back? >> correct. >> okay. so you get him to the car, which my understanding is you stayed with him the entire time? >> i did. >> again, that's your charge at that point, correct? >> correct. >> so you were there when the medical personnel came and treated him? >> i was. >> okay. did -- did he say anything -- well, did he say anything about the facts of the case to the medical personnel? >> no, sir. >> when you first arrested him -- i'm sorry, when you first detained him, did he ask for a lawyer? >> no, sir. >> as far as you know all the time you were with him, did he ever ask for a lawyer?

>> no, sir. >> so you have him in the car -- >> we'll continue with the testimony of officer timothy smith in a moment. we'll be right back after this. lindsey! i just discovered these new triscuit are baked with brown rice and sweet potato! triscuit has a new snack? no way. way. and the worst part is they're delicious. mmm, you're right. maybe we should give other new things a chance. no way. way. [ male announcer ] we've taken 100% whole grain brown rice and wheat, delicious sweet potato, and savory red bean... and woven them into something unexpected. the new brown rice triscuit line;

with sweet potato and red bean varieties. a new take on an old favorite.

what are you guys doing? having some fiber! with new phillips' fiber good gummies. they're fruity delicious! just two gummies have 4 grams of fiber! to help support regularity! i want some... [ woman ] hop on over! [ marge ] fiber the fun way, from phillips'. [ woman ] hop on over! wellso ready.o go look? 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. upgrade your laundry room and kitchen appliances during red white and blue savings. thank you! more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot.

your choice, maytag or ge washer, now just $399 each. i tthan probablycare moreanyone else.and we've had this farm for 30 years. we raise black and red angus cattle. we also produce natural gas. that's how we make our living and that's how we can pass the land and water back to future generations. people should make up their own mind what's best for them. all i can say is it has worked well for us. we've been listening to the testimony of officer timothy smith, who was the first responder to the scene on the night of the george zimmerman shooting of trayvon martin. let's go back to that. >> -- detective singleton?

>> correct. >> do you know who cleaned him up at spd? >> while at the station he was given a bottle of water and some tissue sho tissues. >> oh, to clean himself off? >> correct. >> is that how it went from the first picture we saw with the blood all over him to the one where the blood is gone? >> he was cleaned up some by the fire department on scene and then while he was at the station. >> okay. was there ever a time at sanford police department where there was any other videotaping of him that you know of? >> not that i'm aware of, no, sir. >> okay. was there ever a time where he needed any physical assistance from you or whatever in helping leaning against a wall or doing

anything like that? >> no, sir. >> and you watched him for about 30, i think you said, 30 or 40 minutes before the investigator came in to talk to him, right? >> correct. >> questioning him about what had happened. >> yes, sir. >> and did you say that you watched that interrogation or interview sm. >> yes, sir. >> okay. was he cooperative? >> he appeared to be so. >> okay. did he have an actual lawyer during that event? >> i don't know. >> had he asked for one, the interview would have stopped, correct? >> yes, sir. >> if i may have a moment, your honor. >> all right. let's go back to lisa bloom. lisa, we've heard a lot about the defendant's demeanor and mindset in the moments around when he was arrested by officer timothy smith. what is the defense trying to do there in how he responded to

being taken into custody? >> well, the prosecution has tried to present george zimmerman right after the shooting as very strangely calm, almost cold and uncaring about what he had just done. so the defense is trying to show that this is a fairly normal reaction and they've gotten tim smith, this officer, to say it wasn't unusual that he was so calm afterwards. >> all right. let's go back to court now. >> did he seem to be angry or frustrated and you said he did not. >> correct. >> do you know what was going on in his head when he pulled the trigger for the bullet that killed trayvon martin? >> let me interrupt with an objection. i think that's going to be speculation and i'll object to that. >> sustained, it's speculation. >> do you know what he was thinking before you arrived? >> your honor, similar. >> that's yes or no. if the answer is yes, it calls for speculation. >> if the answer is no, i would suggest it's not relevant. >> okay. sustained. >> you were asked about whether or not his firearm was visible when he exposed it to you like

that. >> yes. >> and you had a flashlight on him. >> yes, sir. >> do you know if his firearm was visible when he was out at the location where trayvon martin's body was in that lighting? >> that i don't know. >> you said at the station you offered the defendant some tu tissues to clean himself. >> yes, sir. >> did anybody else clean him at the station? >> not that i saw. >> your honor, i would like to publish one more photograph, if i could. officer smith, i'm showing you state's 46. is that a fair and accurate depiction of the way the defendant appeared when he was at the police station after he

had been cleaned up? >> yes, sir. >> all right. that was taken on the evening of the 26th or perhaps just after midnight into the 27th? >> yes, sir. >> all right. thank you, sir. judge, that's all i have. >> a very brief followup. i think it was just a mistake, but i want to clear it up. mr. guy, when he suggested his maneuvering for the picture, actually lifted up his left arm. you had testified, however, pretty certainly that the gun was on his right side, correct? >> correct. >> and that he lifted up his right arm. >> correct. >> so you have no question in your mind whatsoever, do you, that the gun was located on his right hip? >> no, i don't. >> okay. mr. guy is putting it up, his left arm, was just a mistake as far as you can tell? >> correct. >> thanks. nothing further. >> any redirect? >> no, your honor. >> okay. may officer smith be excused? >> he may. >> joining us now is former pennsylvania representative and also a former prosecutor, mr. patrick murphy.

thank you so much for joining us, patrick. you're a man of many hats. i'll ask you to put on your prosecutor one right now. from what you see in this trial so far, how do you think this witness is going, and is it favoring the defense strategy or the defense strategy or the prosecution strategy. >> toure, i do think it's helped the defense because the defense attorney for zimmerman has done a great job on cross-examination. a couple points i want to highlight. the fact he got him to say he talked about zimmerman, it's not -- it's not hearsay because it's from a defendant. he said i was yelling for help but no one came to help me. two, the fact that his back was noticeably more wet. three, he never asked for an attorney when he was in custody. and four, the fact that he felt light headed which shows or at least suggests that he was the one that was getting the back of his head slammed to the concrete. that was a great lesson of information of the cross-examination from zimmerman's defense attorney. i know this is a prosecution

witness but i think this do could be a potential turning point in this matter. >> talk about the mental state which was laid down as a foundation in a lot of this testimony. what was the reaction of mr. zimmerman to the situation. we heard testimony how calm elves. talk to us how important that is in the context of florida law which i'll highlight for you under the justifiable use of force that could be the issue in this case, one of the things that can defend against this kind of charge is the idea that a person as we said earlier in the broadcast reasonably believes they're in imminent danger or of death or great bodily arm. so you have to believe that that's what you're face package. we had a reference earlier to laws in other states. in florida, it's that reasonable belief. so what did we learn today from this testimony about mrmr. mr. zimmerman's sort of mood some period of time here imminently after he would have had to potentially have that fear? >> well, i think it's a great

point. the fact that zimmerman was calm, cool and collected for the most part could play both ways. so the defense is going to play it saying he was hurt, he was injured. the prosecution though will say listen, this guy is a cold-blooded murderer as they're alleging and that's why they're trying him for second degree murder. either side will use that testimony elicited today at trial in their closing ars when they make those arguments with a jury. as you know, ar i, this case, they just need one of six to find him not guilty for him to get off on this case. they're trying to make sure they can get that one on board for their side as far as the defense. >> all right congressman, stay right there. let's go back to lisa bloom for a minute. do you know who this is on the stand right now so we can set the scene for viewers? >> i don't because i've been listening to the program. i don't know who that is. >> i'm sorry about that. we'll get that information for you in a moment. that the defendant was on his back for part of the fight has been established.

very clearly. but does that answer the ultimate question of whether or not lethal force should have, could have been used? >> so for part of the fight, that's what you just said. that is a key point because this was clearly a dynamic situation. according to most of the witnesses, there was a scuff, there was movement. most of us know fights are like that, one person is up, one person is down and there can be a switch. we know zimmerman was on his back at some point because of the wetness according to the police officer. we still don't have the whole story. that's why we have to go witness by witness. >> we're watching lindsay full gate a physician's assistant testifying >> as a physician you have four years of a medical school degree and you go on to do a residency. we're trained on a similar model although ours is scaled down where for the first year i'm in a didactic group program and the second year is our clinical year where we do different basic

rotations. >> are you able to do everything that a doctor does except what? >> i'm able to do most things that a physician can do except in the state of florida, i cannot sign off solely by myself on controlled substances. >> okay. >> and do you have your own patients? >> i do. >> how long have you been a physician's assistant at alty month family practice. >> from april of 2011 to the present time. >> can you tell us how altamonte family practice is set up? i'm assuming if you're a patient, you come in, what is the process that a patient coming in would be treated? >> from the beginning you would like that? >> very briefly. >> if you were a patient to come into our office, you would enter through the doors, dreet our front desk staff. they would obtain your insurance and license information. they would give you the paperwork if it hasn't been filled out as a new patient. once that is received, the insurance is varified. then the chart gets put up to be taken back. the medical assistant would come

and get chart, take the patient back and do vital signs and get a basic note of why they were being seen in the office that day. >> at that point then, would you become involved in treating or assessing the injuries or whatever was wrong with the patient? >> yes. >> okay. did you have a patient by the name of george zimmerman? was he a patient of yours at altamonte family practice? >> he was. >> and do you see that person in the courtroom today, ma'am? >> i do. >> okay. is that the person that just request stood up? >> it is. >> let the record reflect the witness identified the defendant george zimmerman. >> the radio will so reflect. >> miss folgate, your first contact was on august 1th, of to 11? >> correct. >> in terms of dealing with him the first time, wa is a history obtained from the defendant, mr. zimmerman. >> yes. >> do you review and personally go over the information that in this case mr. zimmerman provided to you or to your assistant in

making sure you are documenting everything you need to in order to treat him? >> yes in order to get what medication and what other possible benefit you can provide in assisting had imin whatever he has a problem with? >> correct. >> okay. what i want to do is introduce at this time state's exhibit, make sure i get the right one. >> all right. we'll be back with more of this trial in a moment. the martin bashir show hosted by karen finney will be up next. ye! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap each day helps defend against these digestive issues... with three strains of good bacteria. [ phillips' lady ] live the regular life. phillips'.

vo: i've always thought the best part about this country is that we get to create our future. you get to take ownership of the choices you make. the person you become. i've been around long enough to recognize the people who are out there owning it. the ones getting involved and staying engaged. they're not sitting by as their life unfolds. and they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is "how did i end up here?"

i started schwab for those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives.

good afternoon. it's friday, june 28th. in a week of historic

proportions, which side of history will republicans choose to follow? ♪ >> the federal defense of marriage act unconstitutional. >> the supreme court have not yet arisen to the level of god. >> i'm not evaluating the depth of the right. >> i think there's a new round of culture wars here. >> man and man, wife and wife or man and wife. >> people take it to one extension further, does it have to be human. >> what is it with these people and animals? >> it's a panda, a rare red panda. >> you cannot unsee what you just saw. >> late today, a history-making vote immigration reform passed by a lot. >> it was a good day. >> the louder they scream. >> impossible for the house to ignore. >> we're going to do our own bill. >> you can't limit these people's rights to vote. >> to our friends in the house. >> enough with the house members. >> speak with your votes. >> it's amnesty. >> in a way that you feel comfortable. >> it's sham necessity, sir. >>t