terrific job on "morning joe" today. >> thank you very much. >> i'm going to do a serious one. i learned allison grimes is the woman to watch as she takes on mitch mcconnell, see if she can take down the big guy. >> interesting to see if ashley judd comes out to support her. >> i learned, thomas, thank you very much for helping out here. you really helped out. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> if it's way too early right now, what time is it? >> time for "morning joe." right now time for "the daily rundown" with a hand some man, peter aleksander. he's not dressed like this. >> how do you know? >> well, i see. good morning from washington. it is tuesday july 2nd, 2013. this is "the daily rundown." i'm peter aleksander sitting in again for chuck todd traveling with the president overseas in africa. you're looking live now at the courtroom in florida where the lead detective who investigated the death of trayvon martin is taking the stand today for the second day. george zimmerman's defense team is going to cross-examination him. they are going to continue that cross-examination, focus on this former detective.

his name is chris serino. it should begin any time now. you can see the prosecution there as it gathers its stuff and prepares for the hearing. jurors heard from george zimmerman for the first time yesterday. he didn't take the stand but happened through video and audio recordings taken by police in the days following the shooting. they heard former detective serino say he believes zimmerman was telling the truth about what happened that night that martin was killed. >> the fact that george zimmerman said to you, thank god, i hope somebody didn't videotape the event, the whole event. his statement, what did that indicate to you? >> either he was telling the truth, or he was a complete pathological liar. >> if we were to take pathological liar off the table as a possibility just for the purpose of this next question, do you think he was telling the truth? >> yes. >> we're going to take you live

to the courtroom as the trial begins again today. joining me now craig melvin outside the courthouse in sanford, florida, and nbc analyst lisa bloom watching every minute of the trial for us. craig, i want to begin with you quickly as we begin to tee up the conversation again with chris serino. he was put on the stand by the prosecution. lisa, you'll probably explain this was the prosecution's bess day because we finally on monday heard from zimmerman in his own words. serino didn't exactly do what i think a lot of us anticipated he would do. in some ways it seemed like he helped the defense, craig. >> yeah, you hit the nail on the head there. here is a guy, the first law enforcement officer to recommend that manslaughter charges be filed against george zimmerman. here we had him yesterday on the stand, who not only said george zimmerman and to be straightforward when asked pointedly do you believe george zimmerman, chris serino on the stand said yes. so it will be very interesting

to see where mark o'mara, the defense attorney, takes the line of question with officer serino wants that cross-examination begins again in a few moments. we're also expecting today, peter, to probably hear from the medical examiner. the state at this point, the growing consensus on the ground here is they are running out of witnesses or they probably won't be calling that many more witnesses. as you know, the witness list itself is 200. we expect to hear in the medical examiner. the medical examiner will testify to trayvon martin's injuries. trayvon martin's injuries. also will probably spend some time talking about how there was no dna found on trayvon martin from george zimmerman, how there was no blood found on trayvon martin from george zimmerman. we expect who hear from the medical examiner. we also expect to hear probably at the end of the state's case from sabrina fulton, trayvon martin's mother, and also

trayvon martin's father, tracy martin. those are the witnesses we know we'll get in at some point of it's not clear whether we'll get those witnesses today or tomorrow. looks like they are getting ready to start in the courtroom. >> thanks very much. lisa, before we take our viewers into the courtroom, i want to briefly go through the inconsistencies. which ones were most more for george zimmerman when he did take the stand through video and audio recordings. among them flipping back and forth over why -- the fact he was following trayvon martin. one of the question posed, why don't you ask him what he was doing there. he said he didn't want to confront him. he was in fear. but he was in a car when this all began? >> right. how can you be afraid of an unarmed person on foot when you're in an suv with a gun. that's a tough question for george zimmerman to answer. he was asked that on the videotape. he didn't have a good answer for

that. you're zeroing in on one of the most important inconsistencies in zimmerman's story, was he following trayvon martin, as he says as sometimes, or was he innocently going in that direction because he wanted to see the name of the street. he wanted to see a street sign so he could give that to the police. really? this is a community where you live. there are only three streets in the community. you're the neighborhood watch commander. you've called many times in the past. you don't know the street sign. that goes to whether he was following trayvon martin, the aggressor, setting all these events in motion. that's an inconsistency. >> tell you at home, we're told the jury has not entered the courtroom. see judge debra nelson there beneath the seal. when it begins we'll take you there. want to play something from yesterday, one of the topics that raised a question, how badly trayvon martin in the eyes of zimmerman had attacked sipz.

some discussion maybe as many as 25 or 30 strikes with his fist and his head hit against concrete, all of which has raised new questions. here is the question from the defense to chris serino on that topic yesterday. >> you had an issue whether or not his rendition of getting hit dozens of times were supported by the forensic evidence of his injuries, correct? >> in my view, yes. they were lacking. >> do you believe in your investigation of him that it may have felt like he was getting hit 25 or 30 times? >> based on personal experience, it could be a panic thing more. yes, it very well could have been. >> ser ino basically described george zimmerman's injuries as minor but also sort of dismissed his inconsistency on that topic saying it may have been panic associated with that night.

we want to let you know exactly what's going on inside the courtroom right now, per our understanding at this moment the motion has been brought by the prosecution. they are asking the court to strike the latter part of chris serino's testimony from yesterday, from monday. specifically the part where he said he believed zimmerman was telling the truth. lisa, i want to pose that to you. that was the biggest mom of the day. serino after indicating a lot of inconsistencies that existed all day, he said, you know what, i don't think any of them are all that significant, i believe the guy. >> we trial lawyers have an expression you can't unring the bell. the jury heard that testimony. even if the judge now instructs them you are to disregard it. that frankly only highlights it even more. it doesn't surprise me. i have to smile as a trial lawyer myself that the prosecution wants to get that stricken from the record. i don't think it's appropriate. i think it's a perfectly legitimate cross-examination question. the defense has wide latitude in

cross-examination. this was all about detective serino's investigation. i think it was a perfectly appropriate question. the judge may disagree with me. we'll see what her ruling is. of course they want to get rid of it. every trial lawyer wants to get rid of testimony we don't like that doesn't help our side. >> i want to play a sound bite. as noted we heard from george zimmerman yesterday. this is part of the interview with zimmerman done the night of the shooting. take a listen to this. >> did it not occur to you? >> i said, i don't have a problem. i started backing away. >> but you kind of have a problem. that's why you were -- >> i was scared. >> afraid to tell him that? >> yes, ma'am. >> again, that goes back to the topic of why george zimmerman really approached him in the first place if, in fact, he was

scared, especially given the fact he was in the car and had a gun at the time. craig, i want to talk to you about inconsistencies focused on, the exact specifics of where the confrontation took place. the story from george zimmerman has change through different versions. at times he said trayvon martin he believed came out from behind the bushes. i haven't been to the exact location. but speaking of people who have been and based on the video we've seen where they re-enacted that evening with the detective chris serino, it doesn't seem like there's a lot of bushes there from which he could kind of pounce. >> yeah. that's one of the things that we've heard as well from folks on the ground there, folks who have been to the condo complex, exactly what you just said, peter. there are not a lot of hiding spots for someone who is of trayvon martin's size. what you just hit on there is one of the central questions in this case. precisely how the conflict

started. how did the conflict start, who was the initial aggressor. we should note that the hearing they are having right now going to the question yesterday, serino testifying he did, in fact, believe george zimmerman. now the defense, prosecution trying to get that tossed out. that was one of the moments yesterday we're told from our folks inside the courtroom, the jurors were taking copious notes during that exchange. they were really sort of hanging on on every word that officer serino uttered from the stand, paying very close attention to the video as well. lots of folks, of course, naturally keeping close eyes on the jury trying to gauge their reaction to every morsel of testimony. so when there's a juror who seems disengaged, we note that. yesterday during this particular testimony, during officer serino's testimony, the jurors very much engaged. >> all right, craig and lisa. we're going to ask you to stay

with us. the motion before the court as we speak. the prosecution asking the judge to strike the latter part of detective chris serino's testimony. specifically the part where serino said he thought george zimmerman was telling the truth. the jury is not yet seated. as soon as this trial begins in ernest we'll take you there. we'll be back after a short break. a lot more from florida and the george zimmerman trial. you're watching "the daily rundown" on msnbc. while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits

with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions, or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion.

once again we're keeping our eye on the george zimmerman trial in florida. we're going to take you back there momentarily. as soon as the jury enters the room. the trial begins again today. president obama and his family have begun the long journey home from africa. before taking off from tanzania, president obama wrapped up his

six-day trip by joining his predecessor, george w. bush. this is an event to remember those killed during an attack on the embassy years ago. >> reporter: good morning, peter. it was a busy final day for the president, a half day on the last day of this six-country three-day stop for president obama in africa, his longest visit to africa as president. it was a unique event this morning. you had two presidents, president obama and bush standing side by side at the u.s. embassy. they were laying a wreath playing tribute to a 1998 terrorist attack which turned out to be one of the first big terror attacks plotted by osama bin laden. before 9/11, there was attacks on the embassy in tanzania and north here in kenya. now, the more interesting event, though, of bush and obama turned out to be a meeting of the two first ladies. first lady laura bush hosting a summit for african first ladies.

she invited michelle obama. they had a candid discussion about life in the white house. you heard laura bush describe it sometimes confining like a prison. laura bush joked, a prison with a pretty good chef. they talked about the struggle of being in the fish bowl and the stress of obviously the weight of the world on their two husbands. president obama's final event turned out to be a tour of a power factory where he demonstrated the socket ball. what it is, it's a soccer ball. when you kick it around it builds up kinetic energy. you can use it for a light. part of the legacy he plans to leave, he's the american president that provides resources to bring power and electricity to rural africa. he's off back to washington, d.c. he'll host a fourth of july event at the white house and camp david for a long weekend. traveling with the president here, peter, i'll see you back next week. i'm in tanzania now. hopefully we'll be back in

washington in a couple of days. >> all right, chuck. thanks so much. travel safe. he promised us some souvenirs. we're hoping to get one of those socket balls. we'll let you know how it goings. moving on to politics, what might be the nastiest senate race in the country, the fight to unseat mitch mcconnell. allison grimes will challenge mcconnell in 2014 arguing kentucky is tired, in her words, of 28 years of obstruction. >> i have met with my supporters. we have had a great determination and decided we can make the best move, the best difference in the commonwealth of kentucky by running for the u.s. senate. >> mcconnell is known for willing to play hardball, already running ads calling her

the president's, quote, cheerleader in kentucky. despite his huge war chest, grimes says mcconnell is vulnerable to defeat. >> i'm no stranger to being an underdog. his ads are based out of fear of losing his 30-year grip on power. this kentucky woman does not believe that the voters of kentucky will be fooled that easily. >> though kentucky has a history of electing moderate democrats to statewide office, president obama won less than 38% of the vote in that state in 2012. grimes is already distancing herself from the president. >> i will tell you that regardless of the vote that is issued in this race, we cannot change who our president is. but we can change who we have in washington representing

kentucky. it's time -- >> nbc news political editor joins us now. >> hey, peter. >> we know mitch mcconnell is a tough adversary. ashley judd didn't even get in the race and they were already going after her. what does alis ochlt n grimes entering the race say. >> president obama won just 30% of the vote in 2012. the other force at play, mitch mcconnell has never won more than 55% of the vote with just one exception in his past runs for kentucky senate. so mcconnell has the advantage, but it's probably going to be a close race. but the biggest development in the race, peter, mcconnell does have a race. had she, grimes, not gotten in, he would have skated to re-election. now a race on his hands, "going to spend a year and a half focusing on kentucky rather than

legislative battles. >> can we talk about timing, unlikely timing for rollout. fourth of july week, president overseas, george zimmerman trial eating up a lot of time on cable television. was this odd timing for this announcement to take place? >> took a lot of observers by surprise. we had no idea she was getting in until moments before the event. we knew she was setting up 3:00 p.m. announcement. i think most people thought she was going to decline to run. she decided to. some awkward thing, grimes as secretary of state behind her instead of u.s. senate. it seemed a little haphazard, a little put together. better now before the fourth of july holiday than last week when we had supreme court rulings, all the stuff about edward snowden. in a way there's a news vacuum. she might have gotten better play yesterday than last week. >> with members of congress back home meeting with constituents in their district, one thing they are hearing about is the topic of guns. gabby giffords trying to fill

this void, launch add seven-day, seven-state effort calling rights and responsibilities tour. they are targeting those senators who opposed the background check bill that a couple months ago failed. want to get a sense of why this is so significant and what these two really can do to change this conversation right now that's really been put on the back burner. >> peter all about keeping the campaign going. legislative battles throughout history, often been defeats. you have to be able to sustain five years, ten year, fifteen years from now. that's what you're seeing gabby giffords and home run husband do. they might not win now, four or five years now but to be able to sustain a campaign, so when all the political forces are in your favor you can get things down. she'll be in salmonella today. voted against background checks. that's what this is about, putting pressure on democrats and republicans who voted against it and also thanking some of the democrats and republicans who voted for it in the background check vote this

year. >> aggressive schedule, nevada yesterday, alaska, north dakota tomorrow. here was her husband mark kelley speaking to andrea mitchell. what he had to say about 2014 and the election upcoming. >> if we don't have a congress that can pass some reasonable gun legislation, which i think the public is asking for overwhelmingly in some cases with an extended background check, if congress won't pass that legislation, we'll find some new members. >> it's also worth noting, mark, giffords and kelly are trying to run the campaign as gun owners, trying to embrace the second amendment as many in that community support gun rights. they say, you're coming after gun rights. they are saying we're part of your community, we just think there has to be -- >> in states where gun rights is so big, the problem for nra and other gun organizations is in presidential contests, suburbs in favor of those background

checks play into a bigger perspective there. >> all right, mark. thanks so much. thanks for visiting today. a lot more, by the way, about the kentucky race. we put it on the website of you can see it yourself@rundown.msnbc.com. when we come back we'll have more on the george zimmerman trial. we'll take you live to sanford, florida. you're watching "the daily rundown" on msnbc. ted as hourly associates. there's opportunity here. i can use walmart's education benefits to get a degree, maybe work in it, or be an engineer, helping walmart conserve energy. even today, when our store does well, i earn quarterly bonuses. when people look at me, i hope they see someone working their way up. vo: opportunity, that's the real walmart. that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses.

the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about. and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. there's a range of plans to choose from, too. and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations...

and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay -- expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you'll be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and you never need referrals. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions, and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. i'll just press this, and you'll save on both. ding! ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls,

llllet's get ready to bundlllllle... [ holding final syllable ] oh, yeah, sorry! let's get ready to bundle and save. now, that's progressive. oh, i think i broke my spleen! home insurance provided and serviced by third party insurers. florida on msnbc where officer chris serino is back on the stand. joining us again nbc's crying melvin outside the courthouse in sanford, florida, as well as msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom watching every minute of the trial with us. lisa, as the camera focuses in on george zimmerman, i want to ask about him. even though we haven't heard him take the stand we got to hear a

lot of his own words yesterday. what is the likelihood zimmerman takes the stand himself at some point? >> extremely low. every criminal defense attorney i spoke said they would not put him on the stand. >> one more story? >> he'd be subjected to a rigorous cross-examination, even though he was asked hard questions by the investigators, nothing like the cross-examination he'd have to endure. >> right now we should note the jury reenters the courtroom. there's don west alongside attorneys, george zimmerman. we'll take you back to court. i trust my producers will let me know as soon as things get going again. craig, i want to ask you about challenges chris serino will hear over the course of the day. obviously the prosecution tried to throw out the idea what he believed zimmerman had to say. what is the prosecution's challenge after they get the chance after cross-examination to revisit with this witness?

>> that's a good point. do let viewers know what's happening inside the courtroom in terms of this hearing. it really basically stems from what officer serino said on the stand yesterday when he was asked essentially whether he believed george zimmerman, he said yes. now the state is trying to get that thrown out. judge debra nelson has just decided that is going to be an issue she takes up later today. they are still looking at some case law. that's something the judge decides on later today whether that's going to be struck from the record. again, that's obviously something the jurors heard yesterday. after that there was another interesting back and forth. they are talking about a guy named gordon pleasants. he's a professor at seminole state college. it appears he taught an online course george zimmerman may have taken. there's been some back and forth over when he may be able to testify. there was an agreement originally to take that deposition and testimony

videotape before the trial. that did not happen. but the state has indicated that professor may be a witness they want to call who may be able to provide information about the court -- one of the particular courses that may have relevance in this case. we haven't got a great deal of informati information. he's a witness we expected today or tomorrow, apparently he's not in this time zone. officer serino is back on the stand, as you indicated. we expect the cross-examination for mark omary will pick up precisely where they left off yesterday. it will be interesting to see how much time they spend on zimmerman's state of mind, since that was the impetus for the objection and back and forth of the hearing. >> lisa bloom, as we see mark o'mara begin cross-examination i want to ask you quickly after the judge gave the jury instructions, the court reporter

repeated a q&a that took place yesterday. do we know any more about the significance of that? >> yes. let me tell you what just happened in the courtroom. the biggest moment yesterday when detective chris serino testified that he believed that george zimmerman was telling the truth about his self-defense story. that has now been neutralized. the judge just instructed the jury they are to disregard that testimony. >> all right. lets listen to what's happening. that's significant. that's a big deal. lets listen to what's taking place inside the courtroom now. detective chris serino on the stand. >> in that context, actually yelling at the person like you're angry with them, are you? >> no. >> it's a technique to gain control of the situation. >> correct. >> similar in the issue, not as though in this context you're actually angry with mr. zimmerman, correct? >> no, anger is not a part of it. >> it's just a technique or tactic you use to try and

undermine his confidence in his own story, so you can see if he breaks, correct? >> yes, sir. >> that's the purpose of it, correct? >> yes. >> when you challenge him, you said you sound frustrated on the phone conversation. everyone is going to hear these things, you know? when was your purpose in that? >> on which phone conversation? on which phone conversation. >> i presume, having read the entirety of your interview, talking about how he sounded on the nonemergency call. >> okay. >> was that an attempt to sort of, again, undermine his confidence in himself, so you might get some movement in his story? >> not necessarily. i mean, it could have been. i'm not quite certain which one might have used. >> for the jury's consideration

the way you present to yourself in the challenge interview rather than just me going over, repeating it in sort of their words. >> yes, sir. >> but you agree that your purpose was to challenge mr. zimmerman. >> could have been. >> and try to undermine his confidence in himself such that he might tell you more or change his story in some way that would give you an opening, correct? >> i would classify it as extract truth, if he was hiding it. >> did you extract any truth, change in his story through this technique? >> no, i did not. >> he was consistent throughout? >> yes he was. >> he was consistent with his prior statements, correct? >> to my knowledge, yes. >> as the chief investigating officer, you had availability of those prior statements, correct? >> yes. >> there were some changes. you said yesterday there were certainly some expansions and minor inconsistencies?

>> yeah. there was some variations. >> nothing you considered significant? >> nothing major, no. >> nothing that was evidence to you that he was lying to you? >> objection, your honor. improper argument. >> sustained. >> any inconsistencies you consider to be significant? >> none which i can challenge him with, so i would say no. >> with some help, hopefully this will work, i'm going to play a portion of the tape you heard yesterday. i understand -- i'm going to play it. if you can't hear it, i'll play it a second time. this is part to focus on the investigation where you are playing for mr. zimmerman the 911 call which has screams in

the background. try to get the volume correct. may need a couple of tries. it is 182. >> is it a male or female? you don't know why. >> i don't know why. >> did you hear mr. zimmerman? >> i'd have to hear it again. >> sure. >> keep it low, your honor, until we get back to that point. >> if there's anything that

needs to be changed -- >> your honor, i'd ask it be played at the same level so the jury it establish a context. >> i think he's trying. >> hear this voice in the background? >> 911. >> i'm not sure -- >> i think it was pointed out on two occasions yesterday that there was a suggestion mr. zimmerman said, doesn't even sound like me. do you remember that? >> yes, sir. >> is it your opinion? did you interpret that that mr.

zimmerman was denying it was him or just that it didn't sound like him? >> i'm going to object having this witness testify about what he was thinking based on what he said. >> sustained. >> did that change the direction of your interrogation of him, that statement that he said, doesn't even sound like me. depend change the direction of your interrogation at all? >> no, it did not. >> did that cause you any concern whatsoever? >> no, it did not. >> want to make sure i get the right portion of the tape. i think i might need to play it more.

>> may be on that portion. >>. [ inaudible ] >> is it a male or female? >> a male. >> you don't know why? >> i don't know why yelling help. i don't know. >> does he look hurt? >> did you hear it, then, in the background? >> what he said. >> nonetheless, you heard it. you heard his words, doesn't sound like me. >> yes. >> that didn't change what you did as far as the investigation? >> no, it did not.

>> similarly in the challenge interrogation, you even told him that you were moving from the interrogation room out to an area by the dechk as well? >> yes, sir. >> that was both to listen to the tape, correct, but you also changed setting for him? >> no, because of the facility. i didn't have a computer inside the interrogation room. >> you said in response to a question yesterday you perceived mr. zimmerman's injuries to be minor, correct? >> yes, sir. >> that was at you looked at him that night after midnight. >> yes, sir. >> we showed you the picture of his injuries before he was cleaned up, correct? >> yes, sir. >> did he need to have any

injuries at all for you to look into the investigation concerning both the crime and any possible defenses? >> no, sir. >> that's not an element? >> as far as him having injuries, no. >> and you saw him on the 27th after midnight, correct? >> yes, sir. >> then he went to work the next day and saw you for the 27th in the afternoon for the re-creation video, correct? >> yes, sir. >> he came back to talk with you again voluntarily on the 29th, correct? >> that's correct. >> and did you talk to him after

that? >> yes, we had conversations. >> that was over the phone? >> yes, sir. >> did you talk to him in person? >> none that i can recall. >> when you spoke to him on the phone, that was, again, to forward your investigation of both the crime and any defenses to it, correct? >> i believe he contacted me. but yes the ultimate goal would have been to forward the investigation. >> in all of his communications with you even after the 29th, he was cooperative? >> yes he was. >> presented himself to do whatever it is you wanted him to do? >> yes, he did. >> you have done even more than take the interviews of my client as part of your investigation in this case, correct? >> yes, sir. from other aspects of the investigation. >> met with other witnesses.

>> yes. >> you met with tracy barton? >> yes. >> at your office? >> yes and at the residence. >> why did you meet with him at your office? >> object. beyond the scope of direct and calls for hearsay, too. >> let me take them one at a time. it was not covered in direct. it's not hearsay. the question-and-answer that it would elicit. i have to sustain on wasn't covered. >> may i respond? >> yes, you may. >> i would just allow a little leeway for this chief investigating officer in the case to ask him what else he has done in his duties. >> you can do that in your case. >> call him in my case? >> yes. >> i will do that. i need to get this back to the clerk. are you going to use it? >> redirect.

>> use a laptop on occasion. thank you very much. >> good morning, sir. >> good morning, sir. >> i'm not going to ask you to the opinion of anybody's guilt or innocence. that's improper. you understand i can't ask you that? >> yes, sir. >> let me object to that nonquestion of this witness. nothing but a comment on your previous ruling, which is inappropriate. >> sustained. >> my question, mr. o'mara on

behalf of the defense counsel asked you questions about anger, ill will, hatred. >> yes, sir. >> do you remember him asking awe series of questions regarding to that? >> somewhat, yes, sir. >> specifically asked you about your interview with the defendant, that you had reviewed it and also investigator singleton's interview and whether you found any evidence of hatred, spite, anger, disdain, ill will. do you recall a series of questions regarding that? >> somewhat, yes. >> want to play something for you, sir, if i can figure how to do thi nonemergency call the defendant made.

>> would you call up these ass holes. >> no, i would not. >> does that seem like a friendly comment to somebody else? >> no, sir, it's not. [ inaudible ] >> the back entrance.

>> [ bleep ] punks. are you saying you would testify -- >> as we listen to the testimony from sanford, florida, george zimmerman trial, we want viewers to know we take this serious, foul language from the trial, we have it on short delay in order to mute some of the foul language being used there. we'll take you back to the trial right now. >> are you saying those words were uttered by a defendant in reference to wanting to meet the victim? >> excuse me, your honor. that would be speculation. >> i'll be glad to rephrase it. >> does that indicate ill will, hatred and spite against somebody else, sir? >> no, it does not. >> in your opinion calling somebody -- [ bleep ].

[ inaudible ] >> are you following him? >> yeah. >> okay. we don't need you to do that. >> okay. >> i'm sorry, sir, what is your name? >> sir, you were asked by mr. o mara on behalf of the defendant whether or not there was evidence he followed him. do you recall that? >> yes, sir. >> you, in fact, to use mr. omaoma o'ma o'mara's word challenged him. do you recall that? >> yes. >> did you hear the word about

the nonemergency operator whether he was following him or not? >> yes. >> did the operator tell the defendant not to do that? >> in so many words, yes. >> in your interviews and review of investigator singleton's intervie interviews. [ inaudible ] >> sure. sorry. in your interview and review of singleton's interviews, did the defendant in your interview, did he ever say he was excited? i'll be glad to rephrase it. i apologize. in your interview and review of investigator singleton's interview of the defendant, which you've had an opportunity to do, correct? >> yes. >> mr. o'mara asked you about those. did the defendant ever indicate that he was happy that there

were burglarieses? >> no, he did not. >> did he of say he was excited his neighborhood was getting burglarized? >> no, he did not. >> in fact, didn't he say this, sir. >> is this this correct one. 1950 -- okay. i'll be quiet and you tell me the story. you tell me what happened tonight, okay? whatever led up to this. anything you want to tell me what happened and why it ended up what it ended up to, where this boy got shot. >> this neighborhood has had a lot of crimes. my wife saw our neighbors get

broken into, and she got scared. >> you're talking about the residence or vehicles? >> the residence. >> okay. >> the the one that was occupied. so i decided to start a neighborhood watch program in my neighborhood. >> okay. what is the name of the neighborhood? >> now, investigator singleton asked what led up to this in terms of the shooting, correct? >> yes. >> and that's how you replied, correct? >> yes, it is. >> -- officer buchanan and the coordinator, and there's been a few times where i've seen a suspicious person in the neighborhood, and we call the

police, nonemergency line. these guys always get away. >> okay. what made them suspicious? >> do you recall hearing that in terms of investigator singleton asking him, the defendant,on? and he's stating, as he stated there, that they always get away? >> yes, sir. >> do you recall that? >> yes. >> didn't he say that that to the non-emergency operator also? he used more colorful language. [ audio muted ] >> correct. >> those words were uttered. [ audio muted ] >> yes, they were. >> i called before and the police had come out but these guys know the neighborhood very well. they would cut in between buildings and -- >> you are saying these guys.

who are these guys? >> the people committing the burglary. >> have you seen more than one people looking suspicious. >> yes. >> investigator singleton had him clarify when the defendant in that interview on the 26th stated these guys, had him clarify or describe what he meant, correct? >> yes, sir. >> the defendant said that the people committing the burglaries, correct? >> yes, sir. >> to the non-emergency operator, earlier that evening, when he spotted trayvon martin, he made reference to. [ audio muted ] correct? >> correct, sir. >> so when mr. o'mara. [ audio muted ] isn't it accurate he was proceed piling trayvon martin as a criminal?

he assumed he was a criminal that night? >> objection. calls for speculation. >> sustained as to speculation. >> do you recall mr. o'mara asking you whether he was profiling the defendant -- sorry, trayvon martin? >> yes. >> okay. if somebody were to believe that another person is a criminal, could that be a form of profiling? >> objection. that would be -- speculation or irrelevant. >> overruled. >> if i were to believe that you are a criminal, and i followed you and did something -- wouldn't that be profiling you? >> object based upon improper testimony unless you are opening that door. >> you can testify if he knows in his experience as a law enforcement officer. >> go into his opinions. fine. let me make sure i'm clear. if i were to believe somebody was committing a crime, could that not be profiling that person -- >> objection, your honor.

leading. >> overruled as to leading. >> do you understand my question, sir? >> yes, i do. it could be construed as such, yes. construed as such, yes. >> your review of the evidence there, was there my indication that trayvon martin -- trayvon benjamin martin, the young man, i think, 20 days past -- just turned 17, was committing a crime that evening, sir? >> no, sir. >> was there any evidence that that young man was armed? >> no, sir. >> you were asked by mr. o'mara several times and i think he made reference to your last interview being a challenge interview, i think, i don't know in you completely agreed with him on had a or agreed to use the term molly for that.

did you agree that was a challenging interview? >> i wouldn't was tie it as that. it could be viewed as a challenging interview based on his view of it. >> his being mr. o'mara's? >> yes. >> you know what i'm referencing to. >> yes. >> your last interview with the defendant on february 29. >> yes, sir. >> mr. o'mara asked you whether there was inconsistencies or not? >> yes, sir. >> i want to play certain parts of where i believe you at least questioned him about whether he had said something inaccurate before, said something different. do you recall that? >> yes. >> i want to ask you about these if i could.

>> do you recall you playing that record for the defendant and asking him about that? that somebody may refer that to a challenge. do you recall questioning him about that? >> yes, sir. i pointed it out to him. >> okay. [ audio muted ] correct? >> yes. >> mm-hmm. >> i wasn't following him. i was going in the same direction. >> that's following. >> i was the other side.

>> now, you were questioning him pointing out an inconsistency, were you not? that's following him, correct, do you recall saying that? >> yes, sir. >> these what it sounded like. are you following him? that's what he sounds like. that's why he's asking you the question. sounded to the dispatcher. you were running. that's why he asked you that question. are you following him? the answer is yes. okay. but then you get to the other side and you are concerned about what -- when he has already been chasing him essentially. he's talking about your car.

now you -- you want us to believe that you are concerned about having a flashlight? do you know what i'm saying? >> do you recall you and investigator singleton questioning about that? >> yes, sir. >> about the possibly being an inconsistency based on what he is saying and what the evidence shows? >> as far as actions and words to clarify. >> while we are at this point, mr. o'mara asked you about videotaping. do you recall that you had questioned the defendant about videotaping and you showed him the victim's camera that was at the scene near where his body was. do you recall that? >> yes, sir. >> you stated, i believe, and direct and cross-examination that you were bluffing him. you were telling him the victim had potentially videotaped the whole thing? >> at that point, yes. it was a bluff. yes, sir. >> you knew that not to be true, correct? >> at that point, yes.

>> all right. and may point is -- the defendant made a comment like -- i hope to god it was videotaped. do you recall that? >> yes, sir. >> mr. o'mara asked you about other places that have videotapes out there. >> yes, sir. >> the defendant, i believe you already testified, was -- head of the neighborhood watch, correct? >> yes, sir. >> lived in that neighborhood a while, correct? >> yes, sir. >> okay. so he would have been aware whether there was videotaping or not at my of those buildings correct? >> yes. >> i know you weren't there when it happened. but -- you agree the interaction between a defendant and the victim in this case, defendant was aware of whether the victim before he got shot took out the video and videotaped the defendant correct? >> object next sustain. >> was there any evidence the victim before he got shot said hold on, let me take out my

camera and take a picture of you before you were shooting me? >> no, there was not. >> was there any evidence that the victim it is a defendant was following him, hold on, i have to take a photograph of you so there will be a record before you shoot me that you are following me? >> objection. that was asked and answered. >> overruled. >> was there any evidence that the victim, as the defendant was following him, said hold on, stop right there, let me take a photograph of you and let me video tape you before you shoot me or before you are following me and then shoot me? >> no, sir. >> when mr. o'mara asked you whether the defendant knew that or not he would have known that, correct? >> i would assume so, yes, sir. >> so he basically knew you were bluffing is what i'm getting at? >> objection -- >> based -- >> speculation. >> sustained. >> let me play another recording for you if i could, sir. >> concerned about having a flashlight to move back where

you just ran? you know what i'm saying? >> flashlight. >> yes, ma'am. >> this is -- this is where -- >> you were questioning him about what he had said, about the evidence, correct? >> yes, sir. >> is that -- what you were doing will? >> yes, sir. >> do you recall -- at what point -- prior to you shooting him he was on you, correct? >> yes