live from the essence fest in new orleans, this is "hardball."

good afternoon. i'm chris matthews from the es tense festival in new orleans, the convention here. big easy, by the way, is still the big easy. leading off today, day 19 of the zimmerman trial. it is expected to be the prosecution's final day of arguments as they seek a second degree murder charge against george zimmerman. zimmerman has pled not guilty citing self-defense. a key witness, trayvon martin's mother, took the stand earlier today, along with trayvon's brother, and the county medical examiner. while it has been an emotional day in court, a series of procedural setbacks disrupted the testimony on several occasions as the court grappled with issues relating to its own evidence locker. for the latest, let's bring in msnbc's craig melvin who is live at the courthouse. craig, give us the sequence of

important events today. >> reporter: chris, you just mentioned that evidence locker. that held up court for about half-an-hour. basically it appears as if whoever had the key to that evidence locker couldn't find it so we had to call a locksmith to get the evidence locker re-opened. sybrina fulton, of course, as you mentioned was the first witness called today. her testimony was interrupted because they needed to get some evidence out. the most important piece of testimony from fulton this morning was the fact that she says -- she testified that the screaming heard in the background of one of those 911 calls was in fact that of her son, trayvon martin's. she also testified that the 17-year-old was right-handed. that would be important later in the day. then came jahvaris fulton, trayvon martin's older brother, student at fiu, florida international university down here. he testified he also recognized the voice in one of those 911

calls as that of his brother's, but he also acknowledged he previously told a reporter here in florida that he couldn't be sure, that he wasn't sure that it was his brother's. then after those two family members testified, dr. shipling bao, that's the medical xanler who you will be hearing from again in a few moments. that's where they left off, his cross examination. he basically testified he started by telling us that trayvon martin was 5'11", 158 pounds. he was shot by a single gunshot wound to the chest. he also testified that trayvon martin was alive somewhere between one and ten minutes after that initial shot. he went on to say that there were no injuries to trayvon martin's right hand. again, keep in mind sybrina fulton testified just an hour or two earlier that her son was right-handed, testified dr. bao said no injuries to the right hand, also said that no blood was found on either of the two hands.

he also said that the abrasions -- the two abrasions on trayvon martin's left hand, he said that those abrasions could have very well happened before the altercation with george zimmerman. dr. bao testified that the 17-year-old was shot at intermediate range. could have been up to four feet. he said that the muzzle of that 9 millimeter gun was not pressed directly against the chest, but it was close. and then -- this was very interesting, chris. at one point dr. bao said his heart was still beating. he was alive. he was still in pain. immediately after dr. bao said that, there was an objection from the defense. there was a sidebar. the judge sustained that objection. not clear at this point what the instruction will be with regards to the jury on that testimony. but again, that's the latest from here in sanford, florida. dr. bao expected to take the

stand here just any moment at this point and more cross examination, more vigorous cross examination. >> okay, thank you, as always, craig melvin down there at the courthouse. let's bring in msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom in florida. criminal defense attorney joseph hains davis. lisa, let me ask you about what you've seen this morning. what was important to the trial and the testimony of trayvon's mother to the jury? >> well, first of all, she was a very poised, dignified witness, unshakeable on cross examination. really a model witness. just directly answered the questions with the kind of steely resolve. and she testified that that was trayvon martin screaming for help on the 911 call just before the bullet rings out. she has maintained that from the very beginning. she was unshakeable. think that was very strong testimony for the prosecution. >> so if you're the defense attorney here, how do you deal with that in the coming days? how do you deal with the emotional power punch really of

the mother's testimony backed up by the brother to some extent that that's the sound of her son's voice? >> well, the defense attorney on cross examination did all that he could do, which was to be very gentle and just to plant a seed. the seed that he tried to plant was that she would have to hope it was trayvon because if it wasn't, then trayvon would have been the wrong doer and that that would create a very negative outcome for her family. of course she denied that. she said i wasn't hoping. that's what i heard. heard trayvon martin screaming. this is not about hope. but that's where the defense is going to go with this. that that's the conclusion the family had to draw to be able to handle their grief after this sheeting. >> let's take a look at it right now when trayvon's mother, sybrina fulton, took the stand. the court -- >> we'll play the recording now, ma'am.

>> 911. you need police, fire or medical. >> maybe both, i'm not sure. there's just someone screaming outside. >> what's the address that they're near? >> 123 lane. >> is he a male or female? >> it sounds like a male. >> you don't know why? >> i don't know why. i think they're yelling help but i don't know. send someone pretty fast. >> does he look hurt? >> i can't see him. i don't want to go out there. i don't know what's going on. >> so you think he's yelling help? >> yes. >> what is your phone number -- >> there's gunshots. >> you just heard gunshots? >> yes. >> ma'am, that screaming or yelling, you recognize that? >> yes. >> who do you recognize that to be, ma'am?

>> trayvon benjamin martin. >> you just saw there that powerful testimony by trayvon martin's mother saying that the voice screaming for help in that there is in fact her son. this is an exchange she had with mark o'mara, the defense attorney, right afterwards. let's listen. >> i heard my son screaming. >> i understand. the alternative, the only alternative, would you agree, would be that if it was not your son screaming, that it would be george zimmerman. correct? >> objection as to speculation. >> sustained. >> you certainly had to hope that was your son screaming even before you heard it. correct? >> i didn't hope for anything. i just simply listened to the tape. >> and in your mind, as his mother, there is no doubt whatsoever that it was him

screaming. correct? >> absolutely. >> what a moment in the trial there. joe hains and joe davis, let me ask but this approach by mark o'mara, the defense attorney there. did he make a mistake there by seeming to underestimate the solidity, the power of the mother's ability to respond to him when he suggested -- maybe coaxed her, is the right word, to say she hoped that it was her son's voice because it made him, if you will, the good guy and the victim in this case, rather than someone involved in a very tough fight with the defendant now. >> well, chris, i think mr. o'mara in his duties as defense attorney did what he had to do, which was zealously and vigorously represent his client, the defendant, mr. zimmerman. now how he went about it, it was probably the most professional and proficient way that he could under the circumstances. however, the prosecution's

witness, miss fulton, basically told everyone in the whole wide world, i am a mother, i know when my son is screaming, crying, and uttering things and i heard it and that's what i'm testifying to. >> let me go back to lisa on this point. it seems to me if the defense team now recognizes that the mother's testimony was powerful, do they now seek to extend the time between today, friday, the 5th, and when they have the jury actually deliberate? it seems to me you'd want to get that emotional impact to lessen with a long defense effort, even if you don't have much to show, you just want time to pass. am i right or wrong? >> well, you may be right about that. but i think the defense is going to put on a number of witnesses, probably law enforcement, the initial police officers who said, hey, this is self-defense, we don't think he should be charged. we may hear from george zimmerman's family members to say, you know what? that's george zimmerman screaming for help on that 911

call. this case is not over by any means. this was one very powerful witness for the prosecution. but that's out of over 30 so far and a number more for the defense. >> okay. we're getting near the end of this trial, sir. let me ask joe hains davis, do you think that the prosecution has made its points on two fronts? demonstrated george zimmerman's depraved behavior here, depraved attitude, approach, and knock down the self-defense argument so far? >> well, i certainly will say that the prosecution has attempted to do so, but a lot of the times -- and everyone has acknowledged this, the prosecution witnesses have done well for the defense. for instance, when professor carter -- i want to call him that -- the young man who taught george zimmerman at the university, at the college, and so forth, about things about

stand your ground and self-defense and so forth, he greeted him with a smile. he personalized george zimmerman and so forth. i mean he humanized george zimmerman in front of the jury. so i think the prosecution has done the best -- the best it's done under the circumstances, but i'm not so certain that they have, as a result, shown a depraved mind. i think the question becomes for the jury whether or not mr. zimmerman as a concealed weapons holder acted responsibly -- and i think that the prosecution might want to characterize that in their summation, in their closing, because that's what might be at issue for those six jurors. >> lisa, same question. i actually want to bring in the brother's testimony here. trayvon martin's brother. he testified also that he

recognized his brother's voice on that 911 call. and my question i guess is, is that undermined, to some extent, by the fact that when he spoke to police he wasn't sure? >> to some extent, yes. the mother was clearly much stronger because she knew immediately that was her son. she identified it that way and she stuck to it. with regard to the evidence of depraved mind, here's what the prosecution has. they have george zimmerman on the police dispatcher tape where he uses profanity talking about trayvon martin, a complete stranger to him, who had every right to be there walking down the street. zirm m zimmerman called him an a-hole, an "f'ing" punk. months later at the sean hannity interview he says the kilg killing was god's plan. that's such a discordant note to hear from him when he has an attorney sitting next to him. he's had time to prepare for the interview and he shows absolutely no compassion for trayvon martin or his family. jury could put that all together

and say, you know what? this guy did have a depraved mind if they don't buy the self-defense theory that's being offered by the defense. >> as i said, trayvon martin's brother, jahvaris fulton, also testified that he recognized that screaming voice as belonging to his brother, trayvon. but defense attorneys point the previous statements that jahvaris had made himself in which he said he wasn't certain. let's listen to it all. >> you had talked to a reporter about whose voice it may have been. correct? >> yes. >> and you told that reporter on march 31st, 2012, that you weren't sure. correct? >> yes. >> and from having listened to it, it was your thought that it might be trayvon. correct? >> when we heard it in the mayor's office, how do i

explain -- i wasn't -- i guess i didn't want to believe that it was him. so that's why during that interview i said that i wasn't sure. i guess listening to it by clouded by shock and denial and sadness. >> joe davis, how did that read to you? did that come across powerfully or perhaps undermined a bit by the police statement? >> well, i mean, it showed some contradiction, of course. that's what the defense team has to do. on the other hand, i think he was pretty sincere as a young man who has just had this great loss in his family, that he might have made a mistake or -- and so forth and he is trying to clear it up and explain it under testimony today, under oath today. so i think it was still very,

very powerful because, chris, and counsel who is with us today, miss bloom, we all know that when you have family on the stand, the jury is going to listen to that family and the jury is going to pay attention to what that family says about their loss. >> let me just ask you about the complicated thing here. it is very complicated. because if the testimony given to police by zimmerman is accurate, then it puts trayvon in a bad light. isn't there a reasonable assumption by anybody watching this, including watching right now, that there is an interest in getting it straight if you are a family member and putting your lost son in a good moral light that he wasn't the aggressor, that the other guy's claim of self-defense is dead wrong. wouldn't you want to prove that? wouldn't that be a logical mission of anybody testifying? >> absolutely. >> -- in the family. >> absolutely. i mean the.

family wants to put the memory and memory of their loss in its most favorable light. this has been a tragic matter for these folks so naturally they are going to say that and to some degree rightfully so. but at the same time, the jury is going to put weight on what has been admitted in to evidence. that's what the jury is supposed to do. we here have this type of discussion on your show, chris, along with miss plume, and everybody in america's talking about this thing. but ultimately, the jury is going to look at -- and they should -- solely as to what is admitted evidence. they might even consider the fact that -- and it was brought out on cross -- that zimmerman, arguably, once he got out of the car, did nothing illegal. the question becomes does -- to me, and for some -- does a reasonably prudent law abiding citizen, gun owner, get out of

the car and go investigate in that man arer? that might also be a question. >> but that's not a crime. >> you're absolutely right. so if the jury looks only to the admitted evidence, then there is a strong possibilities that mr. zimmerman becomes exonerated. >> let's get back to what both of you think of juries generally. are they moved by family emotion? moved by ethnicity or race? are they reliable as truth detectors? lisa bloom, thank you, we'll be right back. please stay with us, all of you. we're coming right back with the trial of george zimmerman which is about to go from -- well, from prosecution to defense. we'll be right back. this is "hardball" from the essence festival in new orleans, the place for politics tonight. vo: traveling you definitely end up meeting a lot more people but a friend under water is something completely different.

i met a turtle friend today so, you don't get that very often. it seemed like it was more than happy to have us in his home. so beautiful. avo: more travel. more options. more personal. whatever you're looking for expedia has more ways to help you find yours. to support strong bones. and the brand most recommended by... my doctor. my gynecologist. my pharmacist. citracal. citracal. [ female announcer ] you trust your doctor. doctors trust citracal.

humans. even when we cross our t's and dot our i's, we still run into problems. namely, other humans. which is why at liberty mutual insurance, auto policies come with new car replacement and accident forgiveness if you qualify. see what else comes standard at libertymutual.com. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy?

♪ we're back at new orleans here at the convention center,

the essence festival. it is a very celebratory mood here. everyone is of course intently interested in this trial of george zimmerman and how it turns out. it involves the loss of life of trayvon martin. we're here joined by msnbc legal expert lisa plume, and florida attorney joseph hains davis. let me start with lisa about this. i want to do a little previewing now of the defense. will there be a defense, first of all to you, lisa. >> i think there will. mark o'mara has said this week publicly that he does intend to put on a defense. i know that he made a motion in the court to put on an expert use of force witness. this is the kind of person we usually see testifying in police abuse cases, somebody who will come forward and say under these facts, the use of force was appropriate. the judge hasn't ruled on that yet so i don't know if that expert will be testifying. we may hear from george zimmerman's family members to say that's his voice screaming out for help on that 911 call. and we may hear from law enforcement. because remember, initially law enforcement decided there was no

case here. there was no reason to prosecute. they believed george zimmerman's story. it took 44 days and a groundswell of public support. 2 million people signing a change.org petition and a lot of media attention to get these charges filed. so i expect to see some of that come out in the defense case, chris. >> do you think there will be an effort he to show had he no racial bias, that his past experience with other people in different ethnic and racial backgrounds don't display any racial point of view in terms of, well, the word is depraved. we've been using that word in terms of the law. would you have to sort of get that out of the picture for an acquittal? >> right. normally that kind of general character evidence is not admissible so i would not expect to hear that. for the prosecution, there was a cousin who had some unkind things to say about george zimmerman and having negative racial views. that person has not testified. so if that person doesn't testify, i don't expect to hear

the opposite of that for the defense, that he was not a racist, that he was open minded, that he had a racially diverse family. i don't think the judge is going to allow it in on either side. >> joe davis, same question to you. would you if you were the defense attorney and you are skilled in this matter, would you sort of try to fortify the idea, this is not a bad person when it comes to race generally or what would you do with that question? or leave it alone? >> well, absolutely. i think the best way to do it is to generally humanize him in a non-racial way. again, i believe, if i'm not mistaken, in terms of the profiling issue, the judge ruled that you cannot use race in terms of the introduction of any profile evidence. so i would also think that -- and it makes sense -- that you can't overtly use race in trying to humanize the defendant, mr. zimmerman. but i believe that mr. o'mara and mr. west are definitely

going to do what they have to do to not only defend him zealously and vigorously but also humanize him and point to things to show that he is a nice guy, he's likable. what you've heard should be believable. in other words, the things that you've heard positively about him. that's what they're supposed to do and they are ethically bound to do that. >> hold on, folks. right back down to craig melvin with the latest. what's happening in the trial, craig? >> reporter: chris, this is actually the fourth or fifth sidebar that we've seen today. which is fairly unusual. judge nelson has really been keeping the proceedings moving along at quite the clip. right now we are told that before lunch, there was -- that the attorneys for the defense, attorneys for the prosecution, they were going back and forth over dr. bao's notes. he made a bunch of notes related to the autopsy and the defense asked to see those notes.

they wanted, at first, to make a copy of the notes. judge nelson told them that they could look at the notes, make their own notes off those notes. they had an hour to do that over lunch. but apparently this is related to dr. shipling's autopsy notes. this is the longest sidebar of the day. >> we'll be back from the essence festival down here in new orleans after this. this is "hardball," of course the place for politics. [ female announcer ] waiting, waiting...

feel like you're growing older... waiting to look younger? don't wait. [ female announcer ] get younger looking skin fast. with new olay regenerist micro-sculpting cream. the next generation with 2 new anti-aging ingredients. it penetrates rapidly. visible wrinkle results start day 1. and you'll see younger looking skin before you even finish one jar. ♪ new olay regenerist. the wait is over.

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 help save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide. 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. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. 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. o0 all this produce from walmart

and secretly served it up in the heart of peach country. it's a fresh-over. we want you to eat some peaches and tell us what you think. they're really juicy. it must have just come from the farm. this right here is ideal for me. walmart works directly with growers to get you the best quality produce they've ever had. what would you do if i told you all this produce is from walmart? wow! is it really? (laughter) find fresh peaches and all your quality produce. backed by our 100% money back guarantee. walmart. we are at the essence festival here at the convention center in new orleans. what a crowd around me.

now we are getting to a serious subject, gun violence in america. everybody is having a good time but this is not about a good time. over in chicago so far it's only friday of this fourth of july weekend. five people have been killed by guns. 24 injured in shootings by guns. among the injured, a 7-year-old boy who was shot while picnicking with his family in a chicago park. in washington where i work, democrats tried and failed to pass legislation requiring background checks. we all know there is support for limiting gun sales to people that ought to have a gun. but when you dig into the numbers you find a pronounced split between people who live out in the country, in the rural areas, and people who live in the big cities especially. a recent pew poll said wlab is more important protecting the right of americans to own guns or to control gun ownership. look at these differences. support for gun control is highest in cities. 58%. lowest in rural areas, out in the countryside.

37%. just the opposite, support for gun rights is lower in the city than rural areas. the poll shows suburban voters are pretty evenly split. this is fascinating. joining me to talk about the politics of guns, new orleans mayor mitch landry who has done a hell of a job apparently. look at the boom around us. u.s. congressman cedric richmond of louisiana. we also have the mayor of baltimore, stephanie rons blake. thank you for joining us as well, mayor. my city of philadelphia has had had gun violence. chicago's had it in the worst way. it seems to me ifrt wrrelevant the mayor is. hate to say this. too many guns in the wrong hands, too many people in the wrong situations. maybe outright criminality, maybe just a fight that gets started. whatever it is, people are getting killed. why can't the country agree on gun control, mayor blake? >> i wish i knew why we couldn't agree -- why congress can't agree. the country has agreed.

you've already said over 90% of americans believe that we should have stronger background checks on guns. that is us agreeing. the problem is congress can't agree. mayors agree and the public agree but the congress just hasn't had the courage to act. >> thank you so much. we have to get back to the trial but thank you, mayor, for welcoming us so well to this wonderful city. great job as congressman. i think you're going to be great. congressman richmond, thank you for joining us from new orleans. we're back to the trial now. >> three weeks ago. >> yes. >> about how long trayvon martin may have lived after sustaining the gun so the wound? >> yes. >> and is that based upon additional research that you did? >> no. based on another autopsy i did -- not i did, in our office.

we had a case very similar to trayvon martin's case three weeks ago. first i need to explain to you what is opinion. okay? opinion could be changed. that's why you ask jury to be open minded, to have open mind. right? opinion, there is no truth or false, just right or wrong. if you have new experience, if you have new information, if you read a book, you change your opinion. if someone never change opinion you can call mental retarded or you never learn. right? >> the focus of my questioning now is -- yes. >> -- about three weeks ago you changed your opinion. >> yeah. you're surprised. because -- >> and the reason you changed

your opinion is because of a case that you handled at the medical examiner's office? >> three weeks ago. right. yes. >> not additional research through textbooks or consultations with other experts. >> no. >> okay. and three weeks ago when you you changed your opinion is when you decided that instead of one to three minutes, it may have been one to ten minutes that trayvon martin may have lived? >> yes. >> and did you -- once you formed that opinion, did you make notes of it? >> no. i did not write notes of it. >> did you contact the -- >> oh, no, i have notes on it. actually still in my office right now. >> did you contact the state attorney's office to tell them that you had changed your opinion on that important matter? >> no. i did not. >> when prior to today, but after the november deposition, have you spoken with or met with members of the state attorney's office? >> yes, we did.

>> yes. when? >> yesterday. >> any time prior to your deposition -- i'm sorry. any time after your deposition, and prior to yesterday, did you meet with or talk with any member of the state attorney's office? >> the only time we talked is to the secretary, jennifer. we asked the time, when i should come here to testify and i told jennifer that i need meet with the lawyers, the attorney, if he want to present photos. because if he present photos, i want to know what kind of photo he want to present so i prepare to explain those photos. >> okay. so you had that conversation with a staff member of the state attorney's office. >> yes. i always talk to her. >> yesterday you met with mr. de la rionda. >> yes. july 4th. right? >> was there anybody else

present? >> no. >> where was it? >> where or when? >> where. >> where. is in my office. >> in volusia county? >> yes. >> and prior to that meeting with mr. de la rionda, you had not spoken with anyone about your anticipated testimony except with the legal staff, jennifer. >> no. i just tell him. nobody else. >> yesterday when you met with mr. de la rionda, did you talk about your anticipated testimony for today? >> yes. >> you met with him a half-hour, 40 minutes? something like that? >> no, i don't have any notes to recall how long. >> what do you think basically? >> it is my opinion now. not of a fact. >> sure. but what your opinion be as to how long you and mr. de la rionda met yesterday? >> 40 minutes. >> okay. and during that 40 minutes did you tell mr. de la rionda that you had changed your opinion on how long trayvon martin may have

lived? >> i don't remember. i may toll him, i may not. >> do have you any notes about that conversation? >> i do not have any notes. >> did you think it was an important matter? >> i think it's important. >> and important enough to tell the lead prosecutor in this case that you had changed your opinion? >> he's not my lawyer. i'm not his employee. i'm independent voice. actually, i learned that -- >> are you saying that you just don't remember whether or not you told mr. de la rionda that your opinion had changed -- >> no -- >> please, let me finish the question. are you saying you just don't remember whether you told mr. de la rionda yesterday in your meeting of about 40 minutes that your opinion concerning how long trayvon martin lived after the gunshot wound, that you didn't tell him that your opinion had

changed. >> i don't remember. i did not write down i did or not. >> wait -- >> i have two purpose -- >> no, i don't remember, i did not write down -- >> yeah. the reason i sadie not remember because i did not write down. okay. i cannot answer you question which i'm not sure. the purpose of the meeting was i want to know what kind of photo he wanted me to present because i don't want a surprise. you give me photo, i don't understand or he may present photo, it's not my photo. >> just a second. specifically on that point, that's all i'm interested in right now. it's your testimony regarding whether you told mr. de la rionda that your opinion changed that trayvon martin may have lived from one to three minutes

to one to ten minutes, that you don't remember whether you -- >> i do not remember which -- because that's not reason i meet -- i want to meet him. i may say, i may not say. >> you may have said it -- >> yes. there is difference between fact and opinion. >> sure. well let's talk about something else then. >> okay. >> at your deposition last november you acknowledged that trayvon martin had the active ingredient of marijuana, thc ghb his system. correct? >> yes. >> 1.5 nanograms. >> yes. >> and it was your opinion that that level of marijuana would have no physical or mental emotional effect. is that correct? >> yes. >> that was your testimony in november. >> yes. when. >> when you prepared your notes for your testimony today, one of your notes indicates that since last november, you've changed

your mind on that subject. correct? >> i changed my opinion. >> change your opinion. >> yeah. today is fact, opinion. you cannot use terms, story, or mind. i change my opinion. >> last fall -- >> -- everybody clang it. i can change every hour. i don't see any problem. >> last fall your opinion was the level of marijuana would have no physical or mental effect. correct? >> yes. at that time. >> now your opinion is that it would indeed have at least some mental effect. >> could be. i say could be. >> okay. so -- >> because -- >> and that's based on additional research you did. >> yes. i spent hours an hours. i went to the library. read papers. and i try to pull out my previous research and i call to other expert -- >> i'm sorry?

>> i talk to other expert. >> who did you talk with? >> i talk to my previous friend in washington state. >> who is that, please? >> dr. brooks. >> pardon me? >> brooks. b-r-o-o-k-s. >> is that the last name? >> yes. >> is that person a toxicologist? >> he's not toxicologist. he's biologist. he's one of the best, if not the best of low-dose radiation. low-dose radiation feck in the world. i work with him for being years. >> you consult with dr. brooks on the issue of toxicology. >> yes. >> an other literature you consulted. >> yes. work together many times. >> did you review studies where research was done on the intoxicating effects or the impairment effects of marijuana at various levels?

>> yes. i believe -- >> can you tell us today what studies you consulted that led to your change of opinion -- >> the purpose of this sr. limited hearilimi -- limit hearing is a richardson hearing so please keep on topic for that. >> all right. let me focus you then on this. when did you change your mind about the significance of the thc level in trayvon martin's blood? >> i don't remember exactly time. could be in last 60 days because -- >> 60 days? >> yes. when we decide to have this trial, in the last 60 days i try to prepare for this testimony. because not every case go to trial. >> so you're saying that some time in the last 60 days is when you changed your opinion on the effects of the marijuana? >> yes. >> and did you mention that to mr. de la rionda yesterday when you met with him for about 40

minutes? >> no, i did not mention how -- i did not mention i change my opinion. i just say marijuana, tox report is part of the autopsy report. we should talk about it. i report to jury -- i say i should report to jury the toxicology report. i did that every time in the previous case and he said we may not talk about it because of some issue in the cause, some hearing, whatever. >> all right. did you tell him that your opinion had changed -- >> i did not tell him. >> did you tell him that your opinion had changed about the significance of the thc level? >> i did not. >> why not? >> because he say we will not talk about it. >> the issue is not why. the issue is did he tell him. is a richardson hearing and i'd like to stay focused on that issue at this time. >> yes, of course. was there any conversation with mr. de la rionda about anything

related to marijuana and the research you had done? >> no, i did not. he didn't want to talk about it. i said i need not just marijuana but toxicology report. because toxicology report is part of the autopsy report. jury, they need know. it is their right to know. we just cannot skip that. >> was there anybody present during your conversation yesterday with mr. de la rionda? >> no. >> had you spoken with any other member of the state attorney's office, any staff member, lawyer, investigator, paralegal, and such, where the notion of marijuana came up? >> no. >> so yesterday was the only time you spoke with mr. de la rionda or anyone on his behalf in connection with this case after your deposition of last november. >> yeah, he's only one i know actually in the state attorney office.

other than the secretary or investigators. he's the only attorney i talk to regarding any issue. >> you didn't tell her anything about changing your opinion on the marijuana issue? >> no, no. i don't think she can understand that. >> thank you, your honor. >> thank you. are there any other witnesses that you wish to call in regards to a richardson hearing? >> this guy is on his uppers here, this prosecutor, because he seems very disturbed by this. seems to me. or is this the defense attorney? he seems to be -- i don't know what he's into. >> -- until three weeks ago your opinion was that trayvon martin would have lived one to three minutes. >> yes. >> based upon the case and the

medical xanler xanler's examine office, you now believe it was one to ten minutes. >> yes. >> as to the marijuana, last november you believed that there would be no physical or mental effect by the marijuana. >> yes. >> and today you believe there would be. >> not today. not yesterday. in the last 60 days when i try to prepare this testimony -- >> so for the last 60 days you have believed that in fact there is some toxicological significance in the marijuana -- >> that's a different issue. stick to the richardson issue. the richardson issue is whether or not that information was made known to the state attorney's office and if they failed to pass the information on to you. do you have any other questions regarding that issue of dr. bao? >> your honor, with the court's

permission i'd like to expand this just a little bit because the admissibility issue is -- >> i'm not on that issue at this time. for the third time, we're talking about the richardson violations and whether or not there was one. this is a richardson hearing. do you have any other testimony you want to elicit from dr. bao on that, or do you have any other witnesses that you wish to call on that issue? >> no, ma'am. >> okay. the state have any other witnesses you wish to call? >> no, your honor, but i'll be glad to show counsel my question on this issue and i can -- he can read the answer to that back. i'll be glad to share that with the court. may i approach? >> what issue are you talking about? >> the one to ten minutes. you can look at the answer that you have prepared, what i thought he was going to say at the bottom of that. >> that says one to three minutes. >> yes. >> the court, after hearing testimony, finds that there is no richardson violation.

are you ready to cross examine dr. bao and bring the jury in? >> i would like -- yes. but, i would like to question dr. bao about his opinion regarding the intoxicating effects of marijuana -- >> very briefly. >> before the jury. we've already addressed it here. >> no. i've made my ruling on the toxicology. information that i've heard at this time. my ruling stands. >> your honor, this is new information, please. >> i understand -- you can ask him whatever questions you want but not in the presence of the jury. >> all right. thank you. regarding the intoxicating effects of the level of marijuana in trayvon martin's system, it is now your opinion that based upon additional research, consulting with other experts in the field, that indeed there was some physical or mental effect by the level of

marijuana that was in mr. martin's system. >> okay. that's your opinion. my opinion is marijuana could have little effect or some effect -- >> okay, that's your opinion, my opinion is marijuana could have -- >> no effect or some effect. because if you ask my opinion, instead of you say your opinion, ask me yes or no. i can not do that. >> so your opinion -- not mine. your opinion is that there could be no effect or there could be some effect. >> yes. >> and you can't tell exactly how much. >> no, i cannot. >> that's the inquiry, judge. >> okay. thank you. based upon that, my prior ruling on the toxicology issue and the state's motion in limine which

the court granted remains. so that is the court's order. are we ready to bring the jury back in to finish or to do your cross examination of dr. your cross-examination of dr. bao? >> your honor, yes, i would like dr. bao's notes marked as an exhibit in the record. >> you'll have to give me a copy. i gave him back his copy. >> would the court ask the witness to make the notes available? mine have my notes all over them. we could do it at some point before we finish is all. >> that's fine. >> sure. >> okay. let's bring the jury in. >> lisa bloom, give us a sense of what we just saw there. that whole fight. >> yes, that was a richardson hearing outside the presence of the jury, which means the defense was alleging a discovery violation by the state.

this expert witness has changed his opinion in two critical areas. one, about the thc found in trayvon martin's system. initially he said it would have had no effect on him. the amount was too small. now his opinion is that it may have had an effect ohim. the judge has said none of that is going to come into evidence anyway, so irrelevant. the other point that he changed his testimony about -- i'm just checking my notes really quickly. oh, about how long trayvon martin would have lived after the gunshot. he said in his testimony one to ten minutes. now he's changed his position from previous statements where he said one to three minutes. the defense is arguing the state knew about that change. they had an obligation to disclose that to the defense. they didn't do that. so it's a discovery violation. the judge said no, ruled against the defense. i want to emphasize the extraordinary testimony we just heard was outside the presence of the jury. they did not hear anything about the thc in trayvon martin's

system. according to this judge, they're not going to hear about that. chris? >> why would the judge make a ruling that you wouldn't know the condition of trayvon martin at the time of the incident? why would that not be relevant to a juror's judgment. also, the question on how long he might have survived the shooting. why is that not something the judge wants the jury to hear? >> well, the jury has heard testimony about how long he survived after the shooting. the defense can inquire about that on cross-examination, about how he's changed his mind about that. with regard to the more explosive issue about the thc, the active ingredient in marijuana, the judge has said it is more prejudicial than probative. the jury might come to some conclusions about that, that are irrelevant. the only thing that matters is what george zimmerman knew at the time he pulled the trigger and whether or not he knew about any drug use or not. the judge has said it's just simply not relevant. look, you could argue it both

ways. you could say that marijuana in his system, even in those tiny amounts, either had no effect on him or it could make him more relaxed and less likely to fight, or it could make him behave strangely, which is what george zimmerman claimed on that police call. he said trayvon martin looked like he was under the influence of drugs. you could argue it a lot of different ways. the judge says not relevant, not coming in. >> joe davis, wouldn't that be grounds for appeal? if, for example, he's convicted of second-degree murder in this trial, could his lawyers then say the jury was denied information relevant to the performance, the behavior of the deceased? that they should have been told he had been smoking marijuana, could they make that a basis of an appeal? >> it's quite possible, chris, they might do that if he indeed gets convicted. the thing most fascinating to me was how much resolve the good doctor had in making sure his

testimony was accurate. >> i've got to get back. here we are back in the trial. >> if at any point in the questioning you use your notes to refresh your memory or that you are relying on your notes instead of having a memory, would you please let us know. >> okay. >> okay. i think before lunch we were talking about the basic protocol used in conducting an autopsy. >> yes. >> at the medical examiner's office. and you were saying that the clothing is removed item by item and packaged. >> yes. >> and there would be a chain of custody started, correct? >> yes. >> so the person who packaged the clothing would indicate on the packaging that they received it and they would actually initial or sign the packaging.

>> yes, generally speaking. >> and then through whose hands that package travels to indicated line of custody. >> yes. >> in this instance you don't specifically remember if you were present when mr. martin's clothing was removed and packaged. >> normally i should be there. >> but you don't specifically remember. >> no, i told you i do not remember anything on the day of autopsy. >> but you have a procedure whereby the clothing is removed by one of the assistants, provided to another who then photographs it and packages it, correct? >> yes. >> and you have no reason to think that wasn't done in this case. >> yes, right. >> and then once the clothing is removed and on its way to being photographed and packaged, you then do a preliminary inspection

of the body. >> yes. >> at what point in the sequence are the fingernail scrapings done? >> i do not recall. it's the autopsy technician's job to scrape the fingernails. >> in this case -- well, generally speaking you don't do that. >> no, i never do that actually. >> so it's always a technician. >> yes. >> and do you know which technician in this case did that? >> i believe it's ben. >> is there a specific procedure that you used for that? >> i do not -- i do not know. they were trained to do this job. it's their responsibility. i have confidence on them they did the right thing. >> but you don't know in this case whether he did it right or not. >> i do not. >> and is it the practice of

your lab to use one of the little wooden sticks for all five fingers on each hand? >> yes. >> why is that? >> i did not write the protocol. i don't know. >> do you know who did write the protocol? >> i don't know either. >> is that okay with you that they use one stick for all five fingers? >> i -- that's not my job. i would not worry about it. >> would you agree that if you use one stick for all five fge had the biological evidence of interest? >> yeah, you cannot if you just use one for all five fingers. then you have no ability to identify which one. >> and how would you know, in fact, in the process of making the scrapings that some of the biological material that you couldn't see didn't actually wipe off instead of being accumulated with each finger.

>> objection, speculation. >> sustained. he testified he doesn't -- >> i never did that job. i have no experience about that stuff. so you can ask them. >> you wouldn't be able to say then whether or not it was done correctly or incorrectly. >> i have no experience. i have no fact. i have no opinion. >> do you know, in fact, that each of the five fingers were scraped on each hand? >> i hope so. >> of course, but do you know? >> i told you, i don't remember anything on the day of the autopsy. >> does the protocol require all five fingers -- >> i never read the protocol. >> you can't tell me then, i take it, what trayvon martin's fingernails looked like. >> i look at trayvon martin's body everywhere, everything. >> can you tell me what his fingernails looked like?

by that, i mean were they long? were they short? were they cut off below the tip of the finger? >> i toldyou, i don't remember. if i found something significant to my attention, i will write it down. anything i did not write down. i believe it's not significant. >> right. so in other words, if it was significant to you, you wrote it down. >> yes. >> if it wasn't significant, you didn't. >> yes. >> but if you missed something, it wouldn't be there. >> objection -- >> i don't understand what you're saying. it's my job to not miss anything. i shouldn't miss anything. >> right. could you show me -- first of all, can you tell me what trayvon martin's fingernails look like? >> i do not remember. >> can you tell me whether or not the act of scraping them is likely to be successful because they were long or short? >> i did not do that.

i told you i don't have memory. i do not have any facts. i have no opinion. >> if i were to show you a picture of trayvon martin's fingernails, you wouldn't know whether or not they looked the same that day. >> the fingernail has to connect to trayvon's head for me even to identify. >> i'm talking about the condition -- what the fingernails looked like. if i showed you a picture, that wouldn't do you any good because you have no memory. >> yes. >> is that correct? >> i do not have any memory. i told you before, i told you right now. i do not remember anything. >> part of the protocol also includes fingernail clippings, correct? >> it's not my protocol. it's not my job. it's technician's job. they are trained to do that. >> don't you supervise the technicians? >> i supervise them. >> don't you make sure they do their job completely and correctly? >> i have confidence on them. they are trained