your son was killed late evening sunday, february 26th. and you had gone over to the sanford police department the morning of the -- i believe it was the 28th. do you recall that? >> yes. >> and i believe, also, you only found out your son was dead at some point on the 27th. is that true? >> correct. >> was it still hard to believe that your son was dead? >> it's still hard to this day that he's dead. >> okay. and officers had come to your house, i believe, on the 27th and told you that your son was de dead, right? first they wanted to verify that was your son, because he didn't have an i.d. with him, so they

wanted for you to verify that he was the person that they found out in the courtyard of that retreat, where randy lived, right? >> correct. >> and i gathered you went and got a picture of your son, just to show them who your son was. or did they show you a picture of a person that at that time was just described as a person, they showed you a picture of the body there on the ground, correct? >> objection, your honor, may we approach? >> yes. the george zimmerman trial continues today with the first

full day of the defense continuing their case. they're actually at a side bar discussing with the judge at this moment. i'm joined now by msnbc legal analyst, lisa bloom. lisa, we have just seen tracy martin, the father of trayvon martin, on the stand. and i think this is what the defense have been building up to today, isn't it, by presenting all of these witnesses, who are claiming that the voice they heard screaming out on that so-called lauer 911 tape was actually george zimmerman. >> well, that's right. and there have been seven witnesses who were family members or friends of george zimmerman who said, it is george zimmerman screaming out for help on that call. now we hear from tracy martin, the father of trayvon martin, who says he now believes it was his son, trayvon martin, calling out. but we know that initially, when he heard it the first time, he denied that it was his son. and we heard from two police officers who were present at that initial interview. the defense is opening, number one, that the jury will say, it was george zimmerman, and therefore this is a self-defense

case, or a fallback position, it's just too muddled, it's impossible for us to believe, and therefore is reasonable doubt about it. i think either way is good for the defense. >> except, lisa, as i was listening to mr. martin speak there, i -- okay, we're going to go back, actually, because the proceedings are continuing. >> detective serino or investigator serino had come and showed you a photograph and you identified it as being your son, correct? >> correct. >> now we move to the 28th, where they ask you to go down to the police station, correct? >> correct. >> and you go down with your fiancee at the time, brandi green, correct? >> correct. >> and at that time they played several recordings to you, correct? >> yeah, they played a series of the 911 calls. >> okay. >> and these were calls where neighbors had called in, regarding what you now knew was the death of your son. correct? >> correct. >> right, and the recordings

were of people calling and explaining that somebody had been shot and i'm sure you listened to the personnel identified as the lady who went hysterical on the 911 call and you were listening to all of that, is what i'm saying. >> to my recollection, i don't think detective serino played each call in its entirety. >> okay. >> he played some of the, to my knowledge, he played some of each call. leading up to the last call, with the fatal shot. >> all right. so they played the call then of the cries for help and then you actually hear a shot, is that correct? >> correct. >> and am i safe to assume that you still at that time were in denial in the sense of not wanting to believe that your son was dead? >> correct. >> and this was an emotional time for you, would that be fair to say? >> very emotional. >> i must object and refer to --

your previous ruling. >> we're now on to the day of the phone calls being played. overruled. >> this was a very emotional time for you, in terms of this going on, i'm talking about the day the recording was played for you at the sanford police department, correct? >> correct. >> and you listened to the recording, and as you stated, describe to the jury, you pulled your chair back in disbelief that you were actually listening to voices for help and also, more importantly, also, a shot. >> correct. >> you realized that that was the shot -- >> that killed my son, yes. >> did you really know what to do, at that point? >> no, i was -- my world was,

from that point, until today, my world has just been turned upsidedown. >> okay. let's focus on that day, then, after you heard the cries for help or the recording, that's been referred to as the lauer recording, and then also the shot, at that same town, you were right there, investigator serino asked you about the recording, if you could recognize the voice, correct? >> correct. >> and i'm assuming that was difficult for you to even contemplate, identifying or not identifying the voice, is that correct? >> correct. >> okay. and as best you could, you attempted to answer investigator serino, is that true? >> yes. >> now, as was pointed out, there was a lot of commotion in that recording, wasn't there? the yells for help, the person calling, and then most importantly, the shot too.

in terms of your mind, what was going through your mind, can you describe to the jury what was going through your mind when you were listening to that. >> basically what i was listening to, i was listening to my son's last cry for help. i was listening to his life being taken. and i was coming, trying to come to grips that trayvon was here no more. it was just tough. >> and as mr. o'mara pointed out, the subsequent time, you were present when that recording was played again at the mayor's office, is that correct? >> correct. >> okay. and i believe your former wife, miss fulton, was present, correct? >> correct. >> and

in other recordings at that time too? >> i can't remember, i can't remember if it was all of the 911 calls or was it just that last 911 call, but i do remember that i took whole control of the mouse or the clicker or whatever it was that they had and i was able to rewind that same tape over and over again. >> do you want to, i guess, hear your son's voice over and over, just to -- did that bring you any comfort, i guess, is what i'm trying to -- >> i'm going to object again, same relevance, same objection as before. >> overruled. >> may i have the request read back, for -- >> i'll with glad to rephrase the question.

>> okay, thank you. >> you were playing that recording over and over. you were still dealing with this? his death? >> yes. >> now, this was back, this was -- god, it was some time in march. it was later, it wasn't like days later, you were having to deal with his death? >> correct. >> and you played it, you said, did you actually write down, one, two, three, four, five -- or you're estimating that you played at least 20 times? >> i'm estimating that i played it maybe 20 times. >> and you played it over and over, why? were you trying to deal with this? what were you doing? >> it wasn't as much that i was trying to deal with it. i was just trying to figure out on that night of february 26th, 2012, why did the defendant get out of his vehicle and chase my son. >> and you weren't there when it happened, correct? >> correct. >> and this recording, i guess,

is one of the last things in terms of hearing the voice and the shot, and you were trying to as best you can figure out what happened or why it happened? >> yes. >> thank you, sir. no further questions. >> any re-direct? >> yes. >> do you believe that the police lied when the two officers said that you said "no" about it being your son? >> objection, your honor, it's improper about what somebody else is saying. >> your honor, i think it's necessary. >> well, you'll have to rephrase your question, because it's not proper to have a witness comment on another witness' testimony. >> i'll do it this way, then. did you ever instruct your attorney, ben crump -- you didn't have ben crump when you listened to the tape on the 27th or the 28th, did you? >> no. >> he was not your attorney at that point? >> no, he wasn't. >> later, did you instruct him to say that the police lied when they said that you couldn't tell -- when they said that you had said "no" about it being your son's voice.

did you instruct your lawyer to say that? >> i never instructed anyone to say anything. >> you never instructed ben crump to say the police had lied about that. >> i never instructed anyone to say anything. >> did you instruct your lawyer, ben crump, to say that the audio has since been cleared up and now you can hear it better? >> no, wii didn't. >> nothing further. >> may mr. martin be excused? >> yes, your honor. subject to recall. >> mr. o'mara, may mr. martin step down? >> certainly. >> you may step down. call your next witness, please >> we've just been listening to plaintive and painful testimony from tracy martin, the father of trayvon martin, speaking about those phone calls, the 911 calls, and i'm joined now by

jonathan capehart of "the washington post" and lisa bloom, who is our msnbc expert. and jonathan actually asked you, lisa, just before mr. trayvon took the stand, whether mr. martin, sorry, took the stand, whether you thought it would be a good idea for the defense to call him. and your reaction was no. >> that's right. and that's still my answer. i agree with the answer they gave before. you know, i don't think that was particularly helpful, to the defense. you know, i think it's kind of overkill at this point. and this is a very, very sympathetic man. i think any of us can understand, if your son has been killed, unexpectedly, at a young age, and you're at the police station and you're answering questions, you're going to be beyond dazed and confused. >> absolutely. lisa, we are going back to the proceedings, so thank you, but please stay with us. >> -- and on february 26th, 2012, what was your occupation? >> i was the chief of police for the city of sanford. >> no longer in that position? >> no, sir.

>> when did that end? >> june 22nd, 2013. 2012, i'm sorry. >> thank you. >> were you then chief of police during the initial investigation stages of the case that brings us here today, state versus george zimmerman? >> yes, sir. >> if you would, just tell the jury a little bit about your background in law enforcement. >> i've 30 years of law enforcement experience. i started at the seminole county sheriff's office as road patrol deputy in 1982. i was promoted through the ranks to the position of captain. i retired in 2009, at that rank of captain, and charged with our special operations division and emergency services division. nine years of that to experience was in investigations, five years as an investigator, four as a supervisor.

>> and where'd you grow up? >> i was born and raised in sanford. >> it's your hometown? >> yes, sir. >> did becoming chief of sanford police department then become sort of a pinnacle in your career, for its law enforcement? >> yes, it was. >> how long were you with sanford pd as its chief? >> i'm sorry? >> how long were you with sanford pd as its chief? >> from may of 2011 to june 2012. >> did you say you came out of retirement to take that position? >> i retired from the seminole county's sheriff's office and took a position with seminole state college with their director of public safety and provided certificate training in the areas of law enforcement, corrections, firefighting, and paramedic and emt services and also a two-year degree program in each of those disciplines. >> and were you then sort of

recruited from that teaching position to get reactivated in law enforcement as the chief of sanford pd? >> that position came available while i was still at the sheriff's office and i applied for that. >> particular to this case, then, i presume that you were not -- were you hands-on or were you just in a supervisory role in the investigation over the george zimmerman case? >> i was in a supervisory or administrative role at the police department. >> but you -- id you have particular focus on this case as well as a time went on, from february 26th, during the time that you still had involvement in the case? >> yes, sir. >> okay. did that also include the playing of a 911 call for the

martin family members? were you aware of that decision? and i want to focus you, at this point, simply, were you aware that that decision had been made, that the tape was going to be played for the martin family? >> my recommendation was that the 911 -- >> i want to be careful a little bit, that's why i focus the question. i don't want to spend a lot of time dealing with the decision to play the tape. i want to focus once that decision was made, and we'll talk about from that point forward. so you are aware, were you not, that a decision was made, that the tape would be released to be played to the martin family? is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> once that decision had been made, i want to focus you on the way that the recording was played for the martin family,

okay? >> yes, sir. >> so, generally speaking, with your experience in law enforcement, within the context of what we will call lineups or whether that be a visual lineup or an audio lineup, what are the best practices as to how to handle lineups, generally? >> generally, just as in a, for example, photo lineup, you would show that photo array or that piece of evidence to a potential witness in a case individually. >> and what is the purpose of doing it individually, rather than in a group? >> so their decision is not influenced. >> one from the other? one witness influencing another witness? >> yes, sir. >> so if, in fact, you were showing a photo lineup to this jury and asking them if they

could pick out me, would you do it as a group, as a jury, or would you do it individually, one juror at a time. >> you should do it individually. >> and the purpose of doing it individually, as opposed to a group? >> so their identification would not be influenced by others. >> is that a similar process, then, to what would be done with an audio lineup? >> should be, yes, sir. >> and an audio lineup, similar to a photo lineup, is just having somebody listen to a piece of evidence, to see if they can identify anything that piece of evidence? >> yes, sir. >> and that was what was going to happen in this case, once the decision was made to play it to the martin family, correct? that it was going to be played for them? >> it is my understanding that one member of their family had already listened to that tape. again, my recommendation --

>> right, we're going to talk -- i want to talk about your recommendation as to anything other than, once a decision was made, what was your recommendation as to how the tape should be played for the family members? >> it should be played individually. >> okay. >> do you know the result of how it was played? was it played individually or as a group? >> it is my understanding it was played in a group setting in the mayor's office. >> with law enforcement present? >> no, sir. >> in your years of experience, how is -- is that normally an event that would be handled by law enforcement? >> yes, sir. >> may i have a moment, your

honor? >> yes, you may. >> in this particular case, then, did you ask to be present during the time that the recording was replayed for the family? >> i offered to be present, yes, sir. >> and was that accepted? >> no, sir. >> were you secluexcluded from room? >> yes, sir. >> nothing further, your honor. >> thank you. cross? >> good afternoon, sir. >> good afternoon. >> the mayor made a decision not to have you in there, is that correct? >> i believe i asked the city manager if he wanted me to be in the room, and they declined. >> the city manager was your boss. >> that's correct. >> and so the mayor, by virtue

of that? >> in my position, my contract was with the city manager. >> okay. all right. and the recording itself was played in the mayor's office, correct? >> yes, sir, that's correct. >> and you weren't -- i apologize, did i interrupt you? >> no. >> did you finish answering? >> i did. >> and you were not present when the recording was played, correct? >> i was not present in the map mayor's office? >> you were in the same building, but not in the mayor's office when that was played, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> so you were asked about the lineup, and just so the jury knows, if case they haven't heard of a lineup, you don't want to have -- normally a lineup includes six photographs, right? >> yes, sir. >> and you have a person look at the lineup and then identify if they know one of the individuals that did something to them or was a witness or whatever, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> what you don't want to do is show them a photograph, just one by itself, correct? >> that's correct. >> also, in a lineup, you don't want a potential witness to a crime to have seen something on

tv saying, this is the person and this case is about this, and here's a photograph. you don't want to do that either, correct? >> preferably not, yes. >> right, because that would be kind of tainting it, right? >> right. >> so in other words, if you -- in your experience, you had a case and the witness said, oh, i saw the photograph on tv or i heard the voice on tv and it was, you know, they broadcast it recording the case of joe, joe is a suspect, that would be tainted, correct? >> possibly. >> okay. >> and the reason is because then the person, potentially, was influenced by the fact that the case dealt with joe, and they knew joe was arrested and there's a photograph of joe, then that would be tainted, potentially, correct? >> possibly, yes, sir. >> okay. >> and that also applies to

voice, correct? >> yes, sir. >> voice and photo lineups, you kind of do the same thing, correct? >> if you can, yes, sir. >> right. and when you say a voice lineup, you would actually have six separate recordings, to be fair, in terms of completely accurate, you would have six separate voices, then you would have the person actually look -- and listen to all six, and then say, if you did it similar to a photo lineup, you would have a person then say, which one do you recognize, correct? >> if you could -- if you could have six audit recordings that were similar in nature. and when you prepare a lineup, there are supposed to be certain characteristics of that person that is the subject of that photo lineup that is subject to all the other photographs in the photo array. >> right. just like if you had a photo array, you wouldn't pick -- if the suspect had a beard, you wouldn't put one person with a beard and the other people without beards, correct?

>> that's correct. >> because that would be suggestive, correct? >> that's correct. >> and so the jury understands, in other words, you don't want somebody potentially making a decision based on what they seen on tv of the photograph or the voice i.d., versus actually listening to it without having watched anything on tv about the case? >> yes, sir. >> okay. thank you very much, sir. >> thank you. >> any re-direct? >> please. >> just so we're clear, on this case, the issue of who was screaming for help on the tape was still an issue that you as the agency investigating the case was looking into, correct? >> we had -- the evidence and testimony that we had gave us an indication of whose voice it was screaming for help on the tape, but any other witnesses that we could try to corroborate, that would be beneficial in trying to find the truth. >> and the indications that you

had from the other evidence was that it was george zimmerman's voice -- >> objection, beyond the scope. >> beyond the scope, sustained. >> but as to the tape itself, and playing it for other witnesses, the potential witnesses are the martin family themselves, were they not? >> yes, sir. >> okay. and he suggested you go out and get six voices, but the reality in this case was that you would have done it in a way that each martin family member would have listened to it themselves and come up with their own opinion as to who they heard, correct? >> objection as to leading. >> overruled. >> you can answer. >> can you ask the question again? >> sure. within the confines of this

case, is the best practice in this case, would the best practice have been to allow -- once your decision was made to have them listen to the tape, would the best police practices have suggested that you let each family member listen to it individually, and get their statement as to what they heard? >> if it was for investigative purposes to let those -- the person that was going to listen to it, listen to it individually, so that you could get their response without influence. >> and so you would avoid the influence of having them all listen to it at one time, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and would you agree that in an emotional circumstance, such as this one would be, that the possibility for influence is even greater? >> it's possible, yes, sir. >> now, you had said that it was a city manager, in response to a

question by mr. de la rionda. the city manager doesn't normally make police decisions, does he? >> no, sir. >> does he go out and fight fires? >> no, sir. >> he leaves that to the fire department? >> yes, sir. >> leaves police work to the police department? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. nothing further, your honor. >> thank you. may mr. levy be excused? >> yes, i have no further questions. >> we have just been listening to the former chief of sanford police, bill lee. we'll have more on his testimony and more live proceedings, straight ahead. inct has 30. active dogs crave nutrient-dense food. so we made purina one true instinct. learn more at purinaone.com since aflac is helping with his expenses while he can't work, he can focus on his recovery.

he doesn't have to worry so much about his mortgage, groceries, or even gas bills. kick! kick... feel it! feel it! feel it! nice work! ♪ you got it! you got it! yes! aflac's gonna help take care of his expenses. and us...we're gonna get him back in fighting shape. ♪ [ male announcer ] see what's happening behind the scenes at aflac.com. when she's happy, she writes about bunnies. when she's sad, she writes about goblins. [ balloon pops, goblin growling ] she wrote a lot about goblins after getting burned in the market. but she found someone to talk to and gained the confidence to start investing again. ♪ and that's what you call a storybook ending. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

we've been following the trial of george zimmerman. the judge, judge nelson, is speaking. she has actually adjourned proceedings for the day. there will be no more defense witnesses. we've had something like eight already. but she's trying to resolve a

dispute between the prosecution and the defense, was in terms of testimony and proceedings, there will be no more. court has been adjourned. the jury stand down until tomorrow. i'm joined once again by jonathan capehart of "the washington post" and lisa bloom, who is our own legal expert for this particular trial. lisa, this was the big day for the defense. it's a tough question to put to you, because we've only just finished with proceed welcomes but what's your assessment about how things have gone? >> well, they certainly did a good job muddling the issue of whose voice it was on the 911 call, screaming for help. you know, last week, we were all talking about trayvon martin's mother, who we were anticipating would take the stand and would say it was her son, and how emotionally compelling that would be. and it was, when she took the stand and testified to that. >> and she was absolutely adamant that it was her son, without a shadow of a doubt. >> that's right. and she's maintained that from the very first time she heard

it, all the way through. she was very centered and straightforward in her testimony, unshakable. however, by the end of the day on friday, when we heard from george zimmerman's mother, who had very similar testimony, the issue became a little bit more confused and ambiguous, and now, today, we've had a whole stream of witnesses, saying that they are very clear that it was george zimmerman, their friend, or their family member, george zimmerman. absolutely, one older man who was a friend was in tears, choked up at how certain he was that it was grreorge zimmerman. then we heard from tracy martin, trayvon martin's father, who says different times, based on who you believe, it wasn't him, now he says it was him. i think the jury will have a very difficult time identifying who it was. >> john, just in tracy martin's defense, when he was being questioned, he said, i never said that that wasn't my son's voice. >> right. >> and he said his action was, when he heard it, he was clearly traumatized, he pushed himself

away from the desk and mumbled. >> right. >> and i believe it was officer serino who said he saw tracy martin mouth the words, "no," i think it was and sort of had his head hung low. but we have to remember, tracy martin is at detective serino's cubicle, the day after trayvon martin was killed. remember, he said in his testimony, he drove himself to the police station, because he thought he was going to do some other things, related to finding his son. he didn't realize he was going to hear the 911 call. and as he said rather very movingly, you know, that he -- to hear the gunshot was really something else for him. he didn't know that he was going to hear the last -- that shot that was going to kill his son. and the other thing he said was that, you know, my notes here are scribbled -- >> i have a better note. i believe he said, "it was my

son's last cry for help. his life had been taken. trayvon was here no more." that was the testimony that was extremely powerful. and yet, lisa, in terms of the police, we had detective doris singleton saying that she believed that it was mr. martin. then we had detective chris serino, the lead investigator. do you think that their evidence, as it were, has bolstered the case for the defense? >> right. so they said that tracy martin said that it was not his son. >> right. >> look, the bottom line is, when it comes down to jury deliberations, i think a lot of what we heard today is going to be a side issue. i think that everybody clearly understands how gut-wrenching it had to have been for tracy martin to have heard this. and perhaps there was a misunderstanding with the police. but can we use him as strong prosecution evidence to say that that was trayvon martin? probably not. we can take him out of the

equation. the prosecution has other witnesses who can say that. i just seriously doubt that the jury is going to come to any conclusion, one way or the other, as to who was screaming on the call. there's just too many witnesses going too many different directions. >> one of the problems, john, though, is that the the people who say with such absolute confidence, that it was the voice of george zimmerman, including the vigils who have written books, who have funded him, who have bought some of his clothes, and also, this is in the context, where mr. zimmerman himself originally said, he didn't think that was his voice. >> right. i think he had a lot of people who took the stand this morning, today, who said that, yes, that's him screaming, but, you know, how much of that is discounted, because of the personnel and financial connections that he has to those people. you know, you -- we've heard from trayvon's mother, trayvon's father, trayvon's brother. they all have a connection to him, to trayvon martin, but other people who did 911 calls,

who said they thought it was the guy on top, meaning the one screaming for help was the one on bottom was george zimmerman, but you also had some people who testified saying that the person they heard screaming sounded like a child, sounded like a young boy. >> okay, well, we're joined live now from sanford, craig melvin is there. and craig, can you tell us exactly what's going on inside the courtroom right now at this moment? >> reporter: right now, martin, judge nelson is considering hearing on john donnelly. he's the guy who's married to lee ann benjamin. they both testified to the fact that they gave money to the website to help george zimmerman pay for his legal bills. he testified that it helped him, took food over to the house. they also testified that because of his experience in vietnam, he was able to better decipher screaming. he said that he could recognize that it was george zimmerman's

voice on the tape, because he had spent all of this time in vietnam. well, now the prosecution, the state has objected. the state objected to the testimony, because he testified that he listened to the tape on saturday. he was deposed back in may. so, essentially, the state is saying that the testimony that was provided today was testimony that was withheld from the defense. that's what's happening right now. judge nelson is also going to take up two other important matters. one, we know about, the other we don't. let's start with the one that we know about. the state has objected to an animation that the defense wants to, at some point, hear introduced in this particular animation, it details, we're told, at least, based on the documents filed with the court, it details the events that led up to the altercation. it also shows, apparently, some of the altercation itself. the defense, excuse me, the

state is arguing against this, for a variety of reasons, so they're expected to take this up as well. and there's also going to be a hearing on the admission of some toxicology evidence. we're still working to find out a little bit more about what that is, precisely, but, again, at this point, the animation, the toxicology, and right now, a hearing to determine whether john donnelly's testimony is going to be thrown out. but that's precisely why judge nelson adjourned for the day. she wants to take up these three matters before court resumes tomorrow morning. >> that's very helpful, craig. and on this specific animation, do you mean some kind of graph-sized narrative, some kind of visual that the defense will portray as their version of what happened? >> yes, that's precisely -- that's precisely what they hope to introduce. now, the state has said, according to court documents, the state has said there are a number of problems with the animation. one of which, there's apparently some lightning that's being used in the animation. we don't know that it was

lightning that night, precisely, where it was taking place, and it also relies heavily on testimony from witnesses, some of the testimony that it relies on, from witnesses, some of that testimony is a bit murky. i mean, some witnesses said one thing in a police report and they said one thing in a deposition, and then they got on the stand and they said something else entirely different. so the state has identified a number of problems they claim, a number of problems with that particular animation. >> okay. thank you so much, craig melvin. and we'll be back in a second with more on the trial of george zimmerman. and drop offs begins with arthritis pain... and a choice. take up to 6 tylenol in a day or just 2 aleve for all day relief. all aboard. ♪

all aboard. i dbefore i dosearch any projects on my home. i love my contractor, and i am so thankful to angie's list for bringing us together. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust.

[ male announcer ] you wait all year for summer. ♪ this summer was definitely worth the wait. ♪ summer's best event from cadillac. let summer try and pass you by. lease this all-new cadillac ats for around $299 per month or purchase for 0% apr for 60 months. come in now for the best offers of the model year. we've been following the trial of george zimmerman. at the moment, there's a discussion before the judge about certain matters of dispute between the defense and prosecution. the testimony given by john donnelly earlier, which the defense -- sorry, the prosecution is seeking to have scrubbed. and also, an attempt by the

defense to bring in an animated version of their belief of what happened on the night trayvon martin was killed. that's also a point of dispute. but i want to bring in now msnbc contributor, goldie taylor, defense attorney, karen desoto, and msnbc contributor, professor james peterson. and if i might, let's begin with trayvon martin's father, tracy martin, who was asked on the stand his reaction the moment he heard what had happened. take a listen. >> can you describe to the jury what was going through your mind when you were listening to that? >> basically what i was listening to, i was listening to my son's last cry for help. i was listening to his life being taken. and i was coming, trying to come to grips that trayvon was here no more. it was just tough. >> goldie, i was watching that

and i found that a painful and plaintive cry of a father. what was your reaction to that testimony? >> my reaction was much the same. that tracy martin fought hard for this day and that he is getting this day in court to defend his son, which he -- he doesn't believe he ought to be able to do. you want to know some background about tracy martin and his relationship, trayvon. trayvon martin saved his father from a house fire. they were best friends. so this father's devotion to his son on the stand today was absolutely palpable. but i think it was a mistake. if you think that, you know, the prosecution calling a certain witness, witnesses that were then turned in favor of the defense was a mistake, then, absolutely, the defense calling tracy martin to the stand wasn't a smart thing to do. they already had a detective on record, under oath, saying that tracy martin said that it was not his son on the tape. they should have let that stand. instead, they gave tracy martin

the opportunity to explain himself and to explain that he was under duress, that he was in denial about the tape, and that that was the first time that he had heard his son's last cries and his son being shot. and so i think that, you know, tracy martin really, you know, it was a mistake to put him on the stand today. it was difficult to watch, but i think that, you know, he earned this day, to speak on behalf of his son. >> and goldie, the words he used when he was asked, did you say that was not your son, and he said, i never said that wasn't my son's voice. that is a direct contradiction to the presentation by the defense that, in fact, this is what he had said. >> that is exactly a direct contradiction. the defense wanted to ask next, it was objected to and sustained, that they wanted to ask, are you calling the police officers liars? i think if tracy martin had been

allowed to ask, he would have said, yes. he was very, very direct about how he described what happened the day that he heard the tape for the very first time. i think that this trial will go on over the next several days is and the defense will continue to put on, you know, witness after witness, testifying to the idea that they heard this tape, independently, and that they identified george zimmerman as the person shouting or yelling for help on the tape. i think that is really a bit of overkill. i think that it's a wash, as today, as to who you believe might be screaming, based upon one side and the other, testifying that it was their person screaming. >> and karen desoto, if i can bring you in, karen, let's remember that in all the individuals today who were so absolutely confident, that the voice they were hearing was george zimmerman, let us not forget that george zimmerman, himself, declined to give that confident view of his own voice. >> yes, excellent point, martin. and let me explain a little bit about that. i've been doing cases and

wiretap cases for many years, more than i care to, and it is not uncommon for a person not to recognize their own voice on the tapes. it's very common. and, in fact, i thought that the defense's strategy of having all of these witnesses on didn't -- it didn't muddle the waters, martin, but one of the reasons that they put all of these witnesses on, because at the end of the trial, there's going to be instructions. and there's going to be jury instructions. and the judge is going to sit there and say, you're going to weigh certain evidence, you're going to weigh witnesses. and the emphasis the defense attorney is going to put on is going to be independent corroboration. which is going to be john good, who is the neighbor who didn't know either of these people, and also statements that were made directly after the incident happened. so the defense attorney is -- this is a strategy. what you do is you focus on independent corroboration and you give that more weight than you would somebody who has some bias or motive, like moms or friends.

john donnelly, which we could also discuss what the defense's strategy probably is with that, beyond just the tape recording. >> yes, indeed. professor peterson, were you surprised to see former sanford police chief, bill lee, called? a man, after all, who was forced to resign. >> i was shocked. and i don't know if people follow me on twitter, but my first question is, can we please put the sanford police department on trial here? i don't no if we can go back a few months in time -- >> i remember it very well, professor peterson. i remember bill lee saying that the police supported george zimmerman's version of events. >> that's exactly right. and really, this goes to the core of what this case is about, which is the devaluing or the inability for the criminal justice system to value black life. he was the captain of the ship of the institution that started this whole thing. and so i would love to see him on trial and look the past sort of injustices and racial profiling and the sort of unsolved murders in that police department, that police

department should be on trial right along with mr. zimmerman. but one more thing, martin. for all this talk about the voices and all this testimony about identifying voices, it seems really strange to me that the judge didn't allow any of the experts to come in, even if the technology is flawed. even if you can't make it an exact sort of assessment of the voices, the fact that we're now hinging part of this case on random folk who don't have any training, who don't use any of this technology, to identify this voice, it just makes sense to me that we would have allowed that additional information into the trials of the jury, so they can make a better informed decision about this particular hinge point of the case. >> karen, why do you think that is? professor peterson makes an important point there. and that is that people who are related to each other are perhaps bound to say they hear the voice of their relative. that's why we needed some kind of independent science, as it were, around this. why was this ruled out? >> well, because the science isn't up to snuff. and one of the things that you have to do, we have these rules of evidence. and you have to authenticate, lay a foundation, and the witnesses are supposed to have

firsthand knowledge. so if you don't have those factors, the audio tape doesn't come in. an expert is an expert, they're not familiar with the sound of somebody's voice. they can't authenticate it. so authenticating something through technology that hasn't been accepted is unacceptable. >> indeed, it is. karen desoto, goldie taylor, and professor james peterson, thank you so much for your contribution and we'll be back in just a moment. has 30. active dogs crave nutrient-dense food. so we made purina one true instinct. learn more at purinaone.com the ones getting involved and staying engaged. they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is "how did i end up here?" i started schwab for those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives.

her long day of pick ups and drop offs begins with arthritis pain... and a choice. take up to 6 tylenol in a day or just 2 aleve for all day relief. all aboard. ♪ bob will retire when he's 153, which would be fine if bob were a vampire. but he's not. ♪ he's an architect with two kids and a mortgage. luckily, he found someone who gave him a fresh perspective on his portfolio. and with some planning and effort, hopefully bob can retire at a more appropriate age. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

we continue with our concentrated coverage of the george zimmerman trial. the jury has been adjourned, proceedings have been adjourned, but the attorneys are currently having a discussion about various matters, including the evidence of one john donnelly, and whether that should remain, and also the possibility of the defense putting in an animation, some kind of graphisized animation of the events that they believe happened and being able to show that. so that discussion has been ongoing. i'm still joined by jonathan capehart, as i said, of "the washington post," who's helped me through the hour, and of

course lisa bloom, our legal expert. lisa, give us your sense of today's proceedings, and as they weigh in the balance. >> let me tell you first about what's going on right now. the attorneys are arguing about the toxicology report that was done on trayvon martin, as part of the autopsy. and as we in the press know, and the public knows, there were very small amounts of thc, the active ingredient in marijuana, found in his system. that has not come into the trial thus far. the jury does not know about that. the medical examiner last week testified outside the presence of the jury that that could have had an effect on trayvon martin. that's different than his prior testimony, where he said that it would not have an effect. so the defense has renewed their argument that that should come into the trial, and that's what they're arguing about now. >> on that point, though, lisa, if the defense are able to get that in the trial, will the prosecution not be able to argue that they should have access to george zimmerman's arrest

record, which includes, of course, the assault of a police officer? >> yes, and the prosecution has already argued that, and the judge has said no to that. you know, the rules are different. i know this is hard for people to understand, and maybe they shouldn't be different, but the rules are different for the defendant and for the victim. the judge is saying that the only evidence that should come into trial, regarding trayvon martin, is what george zimmerman perceived that night. whether he may have had, you know, other bad acts the in the past, propensities to do certain things or not, are really irrelevant. because the only relevant question is what george zimmerman perceived, whether he was reasonably in fear for his life. this is not a trial about the background of each of them, whether each of them was likely to fight or not, but i have to say, with regard to the marijuana, i don't know which side it necessarily helps. i mean, one could say, if this young man was under the influence of marijuana, he would be less likely to be aggressive, less likely -- >> and remember, we are talking about tiny, tiny amounts. >> and we are talking about tiny trace amounts. very tiny trace amounts, that

could have been in his system for up to 30 days. but, again, this issue has come up again, because the medical examiner, employed by the state has now said, outside the presence of the jury, that it could have had an effect on him. >> right. well, thank you so much, lisa. i know you're going to continue coverage for us with "hardball," so you can go off and take a brief break. but as i said, i'm still joined by john cape hart. john, going back to the point that lisa made. the judge has decided that the only things that can be admitted are what the individual defendant perceived the threat to be. but what are the downsides to getting, if they do manage to include this marijuana claim in? >> well, look, i mean, we're talking pot, not pcp. i mean, i think a lot of people out there who would hear someone was under the influence, however much is in his system, of pot wouldn't exactly think that the person would go on a, you know, a big fighting spree or, you

know, a big sort of violent streak. it's actually the opposite. he would have the munchies and want to curl into a ball, or so i'm told. so i'm just -- it's sort of interesting to hear that i was always under the impression that if the defense were able to bring in trayvon martin's toxicology report, mind you, one wasn't done on george zimmerman that night, we don't have his toxicology report, that the state would then be able to say -- would be able to bring into evidence george zimmerman's arrest record for assaulting a police officer. the restraining order, taken out by george zimmerman's fiance against him, and also the one he took out against her, and both of those charges went away because of some outside court activities that he was able to do. but if trayvon martin's toxicology report is relevant in terms of what was his mind-set that night, then why isn't george zimmerman's propensity to get into fights and have problems with the law, why isn't that part of the discussion, because that had to play into

his mind-set that night. >> now, there was also, just as we draw to a close, john, there was also a discussion about lineups. and the defense, mark o'mara, was making the point that individually, you would normally show people six different examples, not just one. and there was some -- what was the point of that? why do you think the defense were trying to push that? >> you know, i'm still trying to -- i'm still trying to figure out the whole kabuki theater here that was happening. but the one thing that we have to keep in mind, the police bought george zimmerman's version of events from moment one. that's why he was -- hadn't been arrested for 44 days. that's why -- i mean, that's why we're having this discussion. and that's why, i think, bill lee was put on the stand. to sort of talk about that. i think the threads that we saw through that testimony will be woven together in closing arguments. >> you and i watched trayvon martin's father, and it was difficult to watch.

>> yeah. >> as he described. how powerful was that testimony? >> i think it was very powerful. and i think it was a mistake for the defense to do that. i think -- i believe it was lisa, who said during the cycle, that just leave it at detective serino and singleton saying that tracy martin said no. to put him on would be a mistake. and as we saw, you had the power of a grieving father on the stand, saying, i heard that shot that took my son's life. >> and also, he denied that he'd ever said that he did not believe that was his son's voice. >> i never said that was trayvon's voice. >> jonathan capehart, thank you so much. and indeed, thank you to all of our guests and thank you for watching. stay with us all week for continuing coverage of the george zimmerman trial. "hardball" with michael smerconish is next. who was crying for help? trayvon martin or george zimmerman? let's play some hardball.

good evening. i'm michael smerconish in for chris matthews. leading off tonight, day 20 of the trayvon martin murder trial. it's the first full day for george zimmerman's defense team, which say they could rest their case as early as wednesday. zimmerman is pleading not guilty to second-degree murder charges, citing self-defense. well, today the defense team called witness after witness, including trayvon's father, tracy martin, in an attempt to counter last week's dramatic testimony from trayvon's mother, sabrina fulton. she told the court it was absolutely her son's voice yelling for help in the background of a neighbor's 911 call, but mr. martin previously said that it wasn't his son's voice, it was key testimony. at the heart of the issue whether or not zimmerman acted, as he claims, in self-defense. since the prosecution rested its case on friday, the defense has already called about a dozen witnesses, including zimmerman's mother, who said late friday that it was her son's voice on that tape, and not