right hand for one moment. >> do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god. >> i do. >> mr. zimmerman, like i said before, you're aware during this trial you have the absolute right to remain silent. you do not have to say anything, do anything, or prove anything. is that correct? >> yes, your honor. >> and you also have the right to testify if you want to. do you understand that? >> yes, your honor. >> and i've given you an opportunity to discuss with your attorneys whether or not you want to testify in this case, and you have indicated that you have had those discussions. >> yes, your honor. >> and have you made a decision, sir, as to whether or not you want to ef in this case? >> your honor, i object to that question. >> okay. overrule. >> have you made a decision as to whether or not you want to testify in this case? >> i object to that question. >> overruled. the court is entitled to inquire if mr. zimmerman's determination is to whether or not he wants to testify. mr. zimmerman, have you made a decision as to whether or not you want to testify in this case? >> not at this time, your honor. >> and when is it that -- how

long do you think you need before you make that decision? >> your honor, may we have an opportunity to speak? the case isn't concluded yet. >> i understand that. and i've asked mr. zimmerman if he needed more time to talk to his attorneys, and if he does, i will afford it to him. mr. zimmerman, how much more time do you think you're going to need to discuss this with your attorneys? >> i assume it would depend on how long the recesses are, your honor. the end of the day. >> okay. well, if your attorneys have finished with two witnesses before the end of the day, do you think that you would then know whether or not you want to testify? >> your honor, on mr. zimmerman's behalf -- >> i am asking your client questions. please, mr. west. >> i object to the court inquiring as to his decision about whether or not to testify -- >> your objection is overruled. mr. zimmerman, i will give you more time, sir, to discuss with this your attorneys.

thank you very much. >> thank you, your honor. >> may we approach on an unrelated manner? >> yes, you may. >> we're going to talk about that moment. also want to update you on what happened prior to the defense. of course, they're preparing to rest the case. they called a former law enforcement officer to the stand and also an experienced trainer on the use of deadly force. he testified that zimmerman had no fighting skills and that he believed trayvon martin was more physically fit. >> comparing what i know of to the best of my knowledge for each individual, mr. martin was physically active and a capable person. mr. zimmerman is an individual who is by no stretch of the imagination an athlete and that his physical -- i believe it's my opinion that the physical abilities he would find himself lacking when compared to mr. martin. >> under cross-examination, he admitted that this is his first

time testifying as an expert witness and that his consulting firm would benefit from the publicity from the trial. prosecutor john guy also asked him about the screams for help heard on the night of the shooting. >> if a person sees a firearm, would it be unusual for them to yell for help? >> if an average individual saw a gun that was pointed at them, i would say absolutely not. anybody looking down the barrel of a firearm, if you're able to vocalize something, would probably yell for help. >> this morning judge nelson issued two key rulings in the trial. she barred the defense from introducing as evidence this computer animation, which depicts george zimmerman's version of events the night trayvon martin was shot and killed. she did say the defense could use the animation in closing arguments. judge nelson also barred testimony about 17-year-old trayvon martin's text messages that purportedly discussed fighting. zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder and says he fatally shot trayvon martin

in self-defense. trayvon martin was unarmed. let's bring in msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom and criminal defense attorney john burress. let's start with the moment we just witnessed, which was extraordinary. i was watching from afar. you were here as well. i didn't know if george zimmerman was about to be the next witness on stand. what happened there? smpb >> apparently he didn't know if he was going to be the next witness or not. usually what happens is at the close of the defense case, after the last defense witness, a decision is made to testify or not. if the decision is not to testify, the attorney notifies the judge and then the defendant gets questioned outside the presence of the jury but on the record to preserve the record so later on they can't say, oh, my attorney tricked me, i didn't know i have the right. they just do through a series of questions. you understand tyou have the right to testify. yes. you've had a chance to speak to your attorney. yes. that's what we all that uought was going to be. zimmerman looked confused.

his attorney objected to the judge's questions, which you can't really do. not surprisingly, that was overruled. i think what his attorney don west was trying to do was to say this isn't the right time yet, your honor, because the defense still has a couple of witnesses, but he wasn't able to get that out. so we saw that extraordinary exchange in the courtroom. >> what would be judge deborah nelson's motivation here? would she have information perhaps that george zimmerman wants to testify and his attorneys continue to advise otherwise? what would be the motivation at this time to press in that very specific and direct way to george zimmerman? >> is we >> well, she referenced a conversation that happened earlier. i think she probably thought this was a pro forma moment. in other words, they were going to go through that litany, get it taken care of, move on to the next witness. i think she was as surprised as anyone at the answers she was getting. >> john, what's your take on what we witnessed there? >> well, i was really surprised at the judge pressing the point. from a defense point of view,

you don't want to have to make this decision about whether your client is going to testify, even if you know. it's a gamesmanship effort that's going on here. you don't want the prosecution to know. i thought don west was appropriate in letting the judge know he didn't like this particular thing. i think the judge's issue here might be more of scheduling as well. she has these sequestered people here in the jurors. she may want to know. if he does testify, it's going to extend the trial for another day. so i think in her own mind, that's what she's really trying to get at. i don't think she was trying to interfere. at the same time, the defense lawyers really are trying to protect their client. they don't want to make that decision. they don't want the prosecution to know what they're going to do yet. i think they were both right in what they were trying to do. it was very, very surprising, though. i think -- >> it was. it was incredible to see. we at least know they're planning to call perhaps two other witnesses before resting. let me bring you in, lisa, on this guy on the stand. he's a former law enforcement officer and said to be an experienced trainer in the use of deadly force.

as he pointed out today in his own testimony, in a sense, he's advertised he would be part of this trial and that he knows he would benefit from the publicity. he's never been used as an expert before. with that said, he's making an expert assessment or opinion on who was more physically fit in this fight. he did not meet trayvon martin, did not examine trayvon martin d not spar or train with him. he negates the physical difference in george zimmerman in the trial right now and the george zimmerman, his physical condition anyway, when this incident took place. >> yeah, he made a number of mistakes in his testimony. really, all he knows, all the jury knows about trayvon martin is his height and weight. we don't know how strong he was, what kind of background, if any, he had in fighting. and he made a number of assumptions about that. you're right. george zimmerman at the time was much slimmer is and more in physical shape than he is now. he outweighed trayvon martin

substantially. trayvon martin was a few inched taller, about four inches taller than george zimmerman. i don't know what kind of conclusions you can draw. >> are you surprised the prosecution did not attempt to object more or question? i mean, again, george zimmerman was in mma training or training with a trainer at least three hours or two hours a day three times a week. forgive me if i don't have the specifics. we know multiple hours a day, multiple days a week. this witness, who did not examine either of these individuals, how does that process with a jury who's heard so much all day long and to hear this kind of what almost seemed irrelevant information? >> you know, i think on direct examination he came across well, but on cross examination he really had trouble answering some of these questions from john guy who was a very good cross-examiner. he also got tripped up on how light it was. we know from all the witnesses it was a very, very dark night in february at about 7:15 to 7:30. he said he went there in the summer in june, around that time, and it was fairly light out.

the jury has to know that's a mistake. clearly, he's got a small business. you know, he wants to be an expert witness. god bless him. nothing wrong with that. but you go into a high-profile case, you advertised your services, that's a strike against you in the jury's eyes. >> john, let me bring you in. he testified if someone was looking at the barrel of a gun, they would scream. there's no evidence, no dna evidence of fingerprints that trayvon martin was ever holding that gun and george zicmmerman was the person on the other side. he had a fumbling moment under cross. >> you certainly can't connect the screams as everyone has tried to do with george zimmerman suggesting that he was screaming and at the same time he has the gun. that's one of the disconnects in the case. from my point of view, you have a guy who would typically go to the prosecution and offer his services, having been involved in this case. it's quite surprising that he would go to the defense and volunteer his service in order

to bring himself into this type of case. but i think at the end of the day, all this discussion -- really, i don't think the prosecutors had to do a lot of some of these because these are going to be jury questions and whether the jury really sees these as significant. they're not going to want to believe that a guy that's had mma experience for eight months has no skill, as these people are trying to say. it defies logic and doesn't make sense. they didn't really help themselves. they overreached with this particular witness. i think it helped the prosecution more than they thought it would. >> from the jury's perspective, and i don't want to the go t-- o too far here, but i thought they were falling into the stereo types where you have the young, agile african-american kid and

then george zimmerman, who was in some type of training. he have wasn't a couch potato. >> we know in this case there's a subtext of racism no matter what. jurors may or may not fall into that. i think it's better, though, to look at how illogical and dis disinagain use it appears to be. >> and the jury has seen video of him. it's not as if there's a picture that exists that shows the fitness of george zimmerman. he looks fit. >> i think one of the problems you want to make sure is the jurors don't get confused about how he was then versus now. that's going to be the prosecution's job. they can see that for themselves. that video is really helpful to go to that particular point that he didn't look like a couch potato at the time. >> let me bring in craig melvin. let's talk about the judge's decisions today, which included a decision on this animation we've talked so much about, when the jury might see it as well as

these text mszages that were recovered from trayvon martin's cell phone. >> text messages out. text messages and pictures completely out. the jury will not see those in any way shape, form, or fashion. the animation, on the other hand -- and we keep calling it an animation. apparently it's now more closely resembled to several stills and there are a few animations in those stills. judge nelson ruling today that the animation itself cannot be used as evidence but can be used as a demonstration, meaning that the jury at some point can see it. they'll not be allowed to take it into the jury room with them when they deliberate. right now we can tell you that there's, of course, another side bar going on. judge nelson is considering an objection made by the state. the state is objecting -- the state launched this objection when dennis root was asked, was there anything in the use of the firearm that was reckless, referring to george zimmerman shooting and killing trayvon martin. he said no.

the state immediately objected because earlier this week judge nelson decided to limit the scope. she limited the scope of his testimony. among the things he cannot say in court is that george zimmerman acted reasonably and he also did not violate any of the laws of the state of florida. >> real quick, also, craig, george zimmerman's friend, the man who said that george zimmerman was his best friend ever, i believe is how he described him, apparently he violated the witness sequestration rule. he was sitting in court almost two weeks before he took the stand. what's the latest there? >> you know what, we've got a picture of him in court before he testified. judge nelson at some point is supposed to consider what to do about his testimony, whether to strike the entire testimony, whether to strike a portion of the testimony, whether to sanction the attorneys. at this point, we have not heard whether a decision has been made nor have we heard if a decision has been made or what that decision is.

that could happen outside the view of the cameras. >> we're showing the video of him. he referred to george zimmerman really as a son in a sense. a best friend and son. that was him in court. i believe the date was june 25th. that was two weeks before he took the stand in his emotional testimony regarding his relationship with george zimmerman. thanks, craig. thank you very much, lisa and john, as well. we're going to go to a quick break and resume listening into testimony after a short break. ever ybody has different investment objectives, ever ideas, goals, appetite for risk.

you can't say 'one size fits all'. it doesn't. that's crazy. we're all totally different. ishares core. etf building blocks for your personalized portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal. "that starts with one of the world's most advancedy," distribution systems," "and one of the most efficient trucking networks," "with safe, experienced drivers." "we work directly with manufacturers," "eliminating costly markups," "and buy directly from local farmers in every region of the country." "when you see our low prices, remember the wheels turning behind the scenes, delivering for millions of americans, everyday. "dedication: that's the real walmart"

welcome back. i want to send you back to the sanford courthouse where dennis root is still on the stand. he's a former law enforcement officer and described himself as a trainer in the use of deadly force. let's listen in.

>> it helped create a picture in my mind to where it possibly started at. >> you were asked about blood flowing down, blood flowing back. in your experience both from law enforcement and more particularly from your experience as a -- do we call you a fighter? >> sure. >> okay, as a fighter. what happens when you get hit in the nose? >> well, there's a variety of things that take place with a nose strike. i mean, one of the most immediate things because of the nerve at the base of the nose can cause immediate tearing of the eyes. if the blow is significant enough and it does result in bleeding, there's a free flowing of blood, which depending on the person, how it's flowing and so forth, it can fill the nasal cavity, drain out of the nose. that can have an effect on your ability to breathe.

obviously, the most primary effect that it would have in addition to injury is the stunning effect it can have on a person. >> and in your experience with fighting mma and other types, is getting in a blow like that early in a fight significant? >> the training and everything behind it is -- >> judge, it's calling for speculation. >> sustained. >> if you were in a fight and wanted to get advantage over the other person, would a strike to the nose accomplish that? >> objection as to relevance and speculation. >> could be heard, but i don't want to -- >> well, i don't know if that's in his experience or not.

>> let me do a foundation. >> thank you. >> you've been a fighter, correct? >> yes. >> just to remind the jury what we talked about this morning, you've done kickboxing. >> yes. >> is kickboxing kicking and boxing? >> yes, basically. it's boxing, and you have to have a minimum of eight kicks per round to maintain the level of kickboxing. it's using your feet and your hands. >> okay. and as part of using your hands, you strike body blows, correct? >> yes, punching. >> and do you ever try and hit somebody in the face? >> repeatedly, yes. >> okay. is that sort of a target focus for you as a fighter, to hit somebody in the face? >> it is, especially with the jab. >> okay. and with that as an experience basis, how successful is getting in the first shot to the nose in a fight? >> getting the first shot into the face or into the person, it can provide a various outcome.

the primary thing is you let the person know you're for real and it's devastating, especially if you have a hard punch. you know, the rule of thumb for us in training and everything else is the fact that when a purge is thrown, if you're the recipient and you take that punch, that first strike, which is generally speaking 100% of what the person has because they don't try to just half hit you. you've taken a majority of their power. if you survive the first punch, you can keep -- stay in the fight. for somebody that's not well schooled or doesn't have the same ability, it can have a devastating effect. getting the first strike in and setting the tempo of the fight and letting the person know that you're on the attack and you're the person in control of the fight is very important. especially in any combat-type art. he who controls the ebb and flow of the fight, the rhythm of the fight, generally can become victorious. >> you've seen this picture before, of course. >> yes, sir. >> is this consistent with a strike to the nose? >> yes, sir.

>> if this was the first strike of the fight, would it be a -- as you testified -- a significant maneuver to control the ebb and flow of the fight? >> judge, i would object. calling for speculation. >> calling on his experience in training, your honor. >> you're showing him a picture of something else. you need to ask a different question. rephrase it. >> yes, your honor. >> you talked about your criminal justice degree, correct? but you talked earlier about the police academy. i want to see if there's any difference between the two. in your training -- well, it's going to be difficult, but -- because you've got your criminal

justice degree after you started training as a law enforcement officer. >> oh, yes. i pursued my degree well into my career. >> i'm going to try and separate the two. did you learn any of your striking techniques or resistance techniques or takedown techniques in school for your criminal justice degree, or was that just in the academy and your further law enforcement training? >> there was no physical courses like that required in my criminal justice degree. the criminal justice degree is geared more toward educating you about the criminal justice system, about the courts, the processes and things like that. the academy is about applying the enforcement of the laws, what laws are to be enforced, how to enforce them, physical ways to enforce it, how to conduct traffic stops, how to conduct every day business as a professional law enforcement officer, whereas a criminal justice degree is kind of like the bookend, if you will, of

criminal justice. it's how the system works in and of itself. >> and having done it for now, i guess, 20, 25 years, did you enjoy being a law enforcement officer? >> i did. i enjoyed being a police officer very much. >> you think it was for you a noble profession? >> absolutely. >> would you encourage or discourage -- say you had a 20-year-old nephew or son, would you encourage them or discourage them of taking on a life of law enforcement? >> depends on the child. i have a stepson, for example, very physically fit. i would encourage him without question to pursue it. >> an interesting line of questioning that we're listening in as mark o'mara continues to question dennis root, asking him about his law enforcement background and whether he would recommend someone in his family join law enforcement. we'll continue to listen in to this testimony, the relevance to this case, and some of the other

interesting moments that happened, including what happened about 30 minutes ago when george zimmerman was questioned directly by the judge in this case, judge deborah nelson. we have our team standing by. we're going to a break. we'll be right back. [ male announcer ] this is kevin. to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪

yup. another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap. ♪ "stubborn love" by the lumineers did you i did. email? so what did you think of the house? did you see the school ratings? oh, you're right. hey babe, i got to go. bye daddy! have a good day at school, ok? ...but what about when my parents visit? ok. i just love this one... and it's next to a park. i love it. i love it too. here's our new house... daddy! you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen. a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion.

because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions, or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat,

or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion. want to you back to the courtroom in sanford, florida, where dennis root is testifying, answering questions about the application of force, when is it justified and when an individual should know what force is appropriate in a situation. let's listen in. >> -- the totality of everything comes into play when you consider when and how force should be used. >> okay. so going back to my question i asked a moment ago, we were outside in the courthouse and i walked up to you and pushed you on the chest, what would your response be? >> objection as to relevance and speculation. >> that's why i laid the foundation, your honor. training experience. >> overruled.

>> my personal response if you shoved me -- again, we're taking this just you walked up blind and pushed me, i would take a position of advantage and give you strong verbal commands and make sure that it was very clear to you you made a mistake. >> okay. would you punch me in the nose? >> objection, your honor, as to relevance and speculation. >> again, his training and what level of response he would have. >> but you're asking him what he would do in a situation just of that. sustained. >> i'll move on, your honor. if i might just have a moment. >> let me bring in lisa bloom and john burress. lisa, let's talk about this line of questioning. you've got mark o'mara setting

up these different scenarios. what would you do if someone poked you? what would you do if someone punched you in the nose? is this relevant at this point? >> he's trying to prove his defense case through this witness. he's arguing that trayvon martin punched george zimmerman in the face. that's the defense position, that he did so unreasonably that george zimmerman simply walked up to him, made a comment, and trayvon martin just burst out with a punch. this is way inappropriate for this witness. >> let's listen in as he's cross-examining. >> a gunshot comes from one person and one person only, correct? >> yes. >> so your opinion there was another option is based on the words from his mouth, right? >> no, sir. my opinion -- >> did you talk to somebody else? >> objection, your honor. i'd like him to answer his question. >> my opinion that there were no other option was based on the totality of his training background and experience. the options you're referring to really come into play based on

what you're capable of doing, not simply just because this event is happening you have another option. >> don't the options also depend on what the other person is doing? in this case, trayvon martin. >> well, absolutely. >> so your determination as to what trayvon martin was doing at the time he was shot came from him, right? >> that was one of the elements that i considered for that, but when you take the small portion of weight given to a statement and then you add in the other evidence that surrounds the event, the injuries and everything, to see if it corroborates it to a point that it seems plausible that this exactly is what took place and everything lines up to say, yes, based on what i see here physically, the injuries and so forth, this all makes sense. so the opinion is that based on what he told me in combination with all the other variables involved, that's how i formed my opinion. >> yes or no. do you know what trayvon martin was doing at the moment he was

shot? >> yes. >> you do? >> you're asking my opinion. based on the information, i was given the opportunity, just like i could look at you and say, i don't know what mr. zimmerman was doing, i don't know what mr. martin was doing. if you're looking for me to say if i don't know trayvon martin was doing this one specific thing, we're talking about the totality of how i formed my opinion. you're asking me about what he was doing at that time. it appears clear through the eviden evidence. if you want me to surmise and say based on your perspective, he wasn't doing this. >> i don't want you to surmise anything. i asked you a simple question. do you know what trayvon martin was doing at the moment he was shot? >> i personally was not there, so i cannot attest to specifically knowing exactly what mr. martin was doing at the time. i can only base my opinion on

the totality of the evidence as i've learned it throughout my exploration of this case. >> which includes your perceptions or his perceptions as he told them to you, right? didn't you say the defendant's perception is important? >> the perception of an individual involved in any conflict is what you have to take into consideration when making a forced decision. so the perceptions -- if i told you i had a perception that the jolly green giant was jumping on me, that would be ridiculous. but if i was in this booth right behind here and said i had the perception that one of these wires were wrapped around my ankle, it was plausible. the perception is taking in the totality of the event as it unfolded to see if the perception that was related by mr. zimmerman was plausible. >> right, the perception as relayed by him. >> absolutely. >> and your conversation with him came two or three months before his second-degree murder

trial, right? >> sure, that sounds about accurate, yes, sir. >> you were asked about testifying. this isn't the only time you've ever worked in a criminal case, right, on behalf of a defendant, is it? >> no, sir. >> you've been consulted on plenty of cases on behalf of defendants, right? >> you're going to have to qualify that a little bit more. >> right. have you ever been retained, hired, by a defense attorney to testify or consult with on behalf of a criminal defendant? >> a criminal defendant, i believe retained. it's in my curriculum so i don't want to misspeak this. twice maybe, i think. one would have been, i think, the chambers case. the other one would have been write consulted, did not have to testify either by deposition or

in trial. the name of the gentleman is escaping me, but it's toward the bottom of my cv. >> this is just the first time you've testified in front of a jury? >> yes, in a criminal case in this way, yes. >> you mentioned the continuum of force. the fourth continuum, that applies to law enforcement officers, right? >> it's a conceptual model. if you looked at florida state statute, that's a continuum. it's a systemic approach to the escalation and deescalation of force. the use of the words continuum came out of law enforcement, yes, but the actual application of the concept is regardless whether you're in law enforcement, the military, or an individual on the streets of, you know, orlando, a continuum is still part of the conceptual variables that you consider when looking at a use of force event. >> you were asked about getting punched in the nose. you don't know when george

zimmerman was punched in the nose during this confrontation, do you? >> no, he was punched during -- obviously repeatedly during the event. the exact time the injuries to the nose were sustained i couldn't tell exactly. >> and it may not have been from a punch even, right? didn't you say he could have hit it on something else? >> no, i never said that. i never said george zimmerman hit his face on anything else. >> could it have been caused by something other than a punch? >> in this event, i'm not aware of anything else that was present to have resulted in that injury. >> okay. you're not aware of the concrete? >> i do not believe that a facial contact of that nature with concrete without seeing other types of abrasions to the face and eye area. when you're talking about force significant enough to cause damage to his nose with an impact on a flat, hard surface, you're going to have continued rollover, which is going to increase injuries in some area around the face. it was clear the abrasions around the eyes or anything like that, so i wouldn't recommend the position that concrete caused that nose thing.

>> let me ask you this. you've been punched in the nose before, right? >> absolutely. >> you didn't quit, did you? >> i didn't quit? >> right, did you keep fighting? >> no, i'm a fighter. >> so you kept fighting? >> absolutely. if you're a fighter, that's the whole purpose of entering into a fight. you fight. >> and you've seen other people continue to fight after they've been hit in the nose, right? >> i have seen both. i've seen people that when they've been struck, it exits the fight right there. the fight continues, but they are not able to respond in any form or fashion. then i've seen others -- i mentioned earlier about the warrior mindset. not everybody has that. so when you look at an individual, if they're involved in a physical altercation and they don't have that internal fire to be involved in that way, they're not going to fight. when the fight starts, they're going to be that person that's just beaten. conversely, if you have somebody that's got the warrior mindset and they're struck, they're going to return in like fashion

and then you have two individuals with the same mindset going about one another and you have tremendous damage to both persons because neither one is going to stop. >> all right. my question was, have you seen people who have been hit in the nose during a fight and they keep fighting? >> yes. >> okay. mr. o'mara got on the floor here, and i got on the floor. we did this little demonstration. you kept using your hands like this. got to be 90 degrees, right? the two bodies. isn't that what you did? >> considering you were on the floor with a mannequin, was trying to use my hands as trying to best relate that i could that just being in this position, this position when you talk about 90 degrees, we're talking about maintaining a level or an alignment in some ways that puts them in a position. so when you talk about leaning back, maybe mr. zimmerman's coming up, but when you have the mannequin in that position, you weren't maintaining that same alignment, so the 90 degrees that you were referring to wasn't possible from what i was seeing. i was trying to visually to show

that when one hand turns, the other hand turns. at some point they were in this alignment that enabled them to have that type of entry wound. >> okay. in fairness, haven't we left something out like the wrist, hand, and arm? can't that move independent of the body? >> sure, but what you're talking about there is you're wanting to say it's this. >> i'm asking you, if i'm laying flat on my back and somebody's over me like this, can i not shoot them at 90 degrees even though i'm on my back? >> can you? yes. when you also look at it from the perspective of discharging a firearm, if you try to hold any firearm and hold it like this to shoot, it's going to become much more complex. the average person isn't sitting there trying to do this and don't do it like you see in the movies where they hold it gangster style. the idea is when they draw a firearm, it's put to work in the manner in which it's drawn, which is by grip. could he have taken the gun up and angled his wrist this way? anything is possible. that doesn't make it plausible. >> okay. tell me, then, what's not plausible about this.

if i'm laying down on the ground and somebody is over me at any angle, i can always make it 90 degrees, right? i mean, it can be 90 degrees here. it can be 90 degrees here. depends where the other person is, right? >> everything depends in relation to where you are to that other person. it also depends where the firearm is in relation to it the other person. when you talk about the discharge of a firearm and you talk about -- and if you've done any kind of shooting, you learn very rapidly that the wrist position is not exaggerated. why? because that's not how you shoot. it takes very much conscious thought to remove yourself to put it so you're at another position. is it plausible? it's possible that the wrist was moving. i'm not trying to say it's not possible. it's just highly unlikely. >> so it's possible you can shoot somebody almost at any angle because we have arms and wrists and elbows, right? >> anything is possible, yes.

>> you were asked a question i think before the lunch break about -- was it your opinion that george zimmerman's perception of the threat had disappeared because trayvon had run off? is that what you said? >> let me make sure i was very clear on this. when i listened to the call and i heard mr. zimmerman mentioning mr. martin in the recording where he was facing him, my perception of that call at that time i sense stressed in his voice he was approaching him, looking at him. his hand was going forwatoward waistline. as he left, that tension diminished. that, to me, also re-enforced what i've already heard from mr. pollack and saw from reviewing the information in this case. he's not the confrontational one.

he's not that "i'm going to get on you" type. when mr. martin ran, he's running, there's no immediate threat to him. his perception is he's taken off running, so he gets out, and that's where he is now trailing or following, i would say following the person, to see where they want because that's what he was doing for them. >> we're going to take a quick break from the testimony. again, this is dennis root. he is a former law enforcement officer, says he's an expert in the use of deadly force. another interesting line of questioning. i've got lisa bloom and john burress standing by. we'll go to break and be back with more analysis on what we've heard so far. constipation, diarrhea, gas, bloating? yes! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap each day helps defend against these digestive issues... with three strains of good bacteria. [ phillips' lady ] live the regular life. phillips'.

[ phillips' lady ] live the regular life. resoft would be great, but we really just need "kid-proof." softsprings got both, let me show you. right over here. here, feel this. wow, that's nice. wow. the soft carpets have never been this durable. you know i think we'll take it. get kid-friendly toughness and feet-friendly softness, without walking all over your budget. he didn't tell us it would do this. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. right now, get whole-home installation for just 37 bucks.

welcome back, i want to bring in lisa bloom and john burress quickly. dennis root is still on the stand. lisa, your impression of this witness so far, it seems that he is willing to answer and comment on any question asked, as if

he's the ultimate expert, it seems. >> well, he is a use of force expert. he's talking about that. but there was a very interesting piece of testimony just a moment ago. i wonder if the prosecution noticed it. the witness said that george zimmerman is not the confrontational type. he's not the "i'm going to get on you" type. i wonder if that could be opening the door to the prosecution for introducing george zimmerman's history. that's not allowed in. the judge said she would consider it if it became relevant. >> john, is that now relevant? this witness has gone far beyond what we thought we'd hear from him. >> i think it's potentially relevant, but it doesn't give consideration to the fact he made these statements, calling him an a-hole, a suspicious kid, they always get away with it. those are confrontational-type words, particularly when he followed him. this person seems to not -- only has a small slice of it. he's really trying to constrict

his testimony. i don't know that it opens up because the defendant himself hasn't made those statements. >> all of these witnesses and many of them except for perhaps those who have talked about the science of the gunshot wound and even their credibility, i think, can be put on the table. but a witness like this, this dennis root, who admits this is the first time he's ever been used as an expert. he knows the publicity that will come with this case. he goes beyond my questions on deadly force to questions of demeanor and what someone was thinking and all of these things. it just begs to the question of his credibility. >> frankly, i think this is a problem with the lawyers, both sides, particularly the prosecution. they were supposed to stop this through objectional testimony. what they did, they then fed into it and themselves went in and asked all these questions. they gave this person an opportunity to answer questions way beyond the scope of his

expertise and more importantly this case. i think it's the fault of both lawyers. >> so lisa, is this a sign this has run out of gas, that all of the big witnesses we've heard from, we've seen, and that this should be moving rightfully so to closing arguments? >> you know, probably. what you see with expert witnesses is both sides arguing their entire case through the witness. so we've seen both attorneys now down on the dummy demonstrating the fight. interestingly, they've both demonstrated with trayvon martin on top and george zimmerman on the bottom. you know, i would like to see the prosecution demonstrating a number of different positions and angles because that's more consistent with the prosecution argument. but what they're doing with this expert, he's testified as to just about everything in the case. they're cross-examining about just about everything. >> so root is off the stand now. we believe that the defense has two more witnesses. just quickly, if we do have the time here in our last few minutes, i'd like to play a little bit of the exchange between the judge and george

zimmerman -- can we play it? okay. we're going to get that on tap. again, that was an extraordinary moment, lisa, in this case for us to hear, a, from george zimmerman, and the uncertainty in his mind as to whether or not he's going to testify. >> right. so let me set it up for you. in normal criminal cases, and this is so far from a normal criminal case, at the end of the defense case, the defense announces that the defendant is not going to testify. then there's a particular format that the judge goes through in every case where she asks a series of questions to make sure he knowingly, voluntarily, willingly decided on his own not to testify, that he understands he has the right to and he's waived it. the judge started to go into that. defense attorney don west objected to the judge's own question. she overruled his objections to her questions. she tried to get answers out of george zimmerman. he didn't seem to know what was going on. it was just an extraordinary moment. >> let me play a little of it for our audience who missed it.

>> you have the absolute right to remain silent. you do not have to say anything, do anything, or prove anything. is that correct? >> yes, your honor. >> and you also have the right to testify if you want to. do you understand that? >> yes, your honor. >> and i've given you an opportunity to discuss with your attorneys whether or not you want to testify in this case, and you have indicated that you have had those discussions. >> yes, your honor. >> and have you made a decision, sir, as to whether or not you want to testify in this case? >> is your honor, i object to that question. >> okay. overruled. have you made a decision as to whether or not you want to testify in the case? >> i object to that question. i think that mr. -- >> overruled. the court is entitled to inquire if mr. zimmerman's determination is to whether or not he wants to testify. mr. zimmerman, have you made a decision as to whether or not you want to testify in this case? >> no, not at that time, your honor. >> okay. when is it that -- how long do you think you need before you make that decision? >> your honor, may we have an opportunity to speak? the case isn't concluded yet. >> i understand that. and i've asked mr. zimmerman if

he needed more time to talk to his attorneys, and if he does, i will afford it to him. mr. zimmerman, how much more time do you think you're going to need to discuss this with your attorneys? >> i assume it would depend on how long the recesses are, your honor. the end of the day. >> okay. well, if your attorneys have finished with two witnesses before the end of the day, do you think that you would then know whether or not you want to testify? >> so john, do you believe that -- meaning the defense here, if they've made a decision as to whether or not they're going to bring george zimmerman on the stand? >> i think the lawyers clearly have made a decision, and that decision has been made a while ago. they're just kind of waiting to see how the case unfolds. the problem is some have suggested the defendant wants to tell his story. the lawyers are probably trying to dissuade him from doing that. that's why don west is basically saying, you should back off

here. you're invading our client/attorney relationship. you could put the defendant in a position to where he feels pressured to do one or the other. >> lisa, let me bring you in. how much of a battle is going on? if you have a client who's insisting and who's had the kind of television exposure that george zimmerman has had, including that interview on hannity, where he referenced god's will, this person may believe he is on the side of truth and he may need to take the stand. >> i'm just skeptical in any high-profile case. it's always the same. i mean, in the scott peterson case, you know, they said, oh, he really wanted to testify, but i would not let him testify. we hear that every time. this case is a little bit different because this is clearly a man who likes to talk. as you say, he gave a long interview to hannity. he spoke to the police

repeatedly right afterwards. he gave a long, videotaped interview. it's possible here. if and when he doesn't testify, and i don't think he's going to, his attorneys are going to say, oh, he really wanted to, but we wouldn't let him. bottom line is, it's george zimmerman's decision. the judge had the right to question him about that. she has legal obligation to question him about that. she needs to get it clear on record is that it's his decision. the attorneys can recommend. they don't make that choice. he makes that choice. >> right now on the stand, this is a former resident of the community where george zimmerman lived and was the neighborhood watch. her home apparently was broken into while she was home with her baby, and in a police statement, zimmerman said it was that incident that prompted him to start the neighborhood watch. before we listen in, i know that you've ended many of these days, lisa and john, assessing wh inid the better day. so far, lisa, what do you think? >> i think the defense because it's their case. they put on a decent use of

force expert. i think he put on some good evidence. i don't think he was as good as yesterday's expert, but i think it's a good day for the defense. not outstanding but good. >> when you say good evidence, what would be good evidence at this point? i find this person fascinating down to his ability to comment on any and everything. >> right. >> even down to when he was asked, you know, did you know -- trayvon martin's actions or something. the whole group reacted when he answered, yes, as if he's a mind reader in addition to being an expert. >> no, i agree he overstepped and mistakes. he talked about the fact 30 or 40 seconds in a fight is a very long time. that's true. that getting punched in the face can stun you, can knock you out. that george zimmerman, you know, may not have been capable of fighting at all. these are points that are scores for the defense. that's why the defense put them on. >> that makes sense. john, your assessment? >> sure, he made some points for the defense, but i also don't

think that he was as great as his verbiage suggests. he presents well. he talks well. some of the things he said, i think, were not well founded and evidence. i think the jury will be in a position to distinguish some of the things he has said. he looks good, but i think in terms of the presentation and actual evidence, i don't think it was as great as the defense had hoped. >> right now the jury has left the courtroom, but we're still listening in to this person who lived in the neighborhood, olivia bertalan. she's zimmerman's neighbor. her home was broken into with her child there. let's listen in. >> is it correct to say that you and he talked about this approximately 20 times after that? >> probably around there. >> i'm sorry? >> probably around that amount. >> and you discussed with him the fact that the person had not yet been caught? >> i'm sure i did. i spoke to several people about

it. >> and the person wasn't caught until after you moved out of the retreat at twin lakes, right? >> he was arrested in december. then he was released because he was a minor, and he was arrested again after we moved out. >> after you moved out? >> i believe so. we got a letter after we moved out. i'm not sure of the exact date of his arrest. >> another thing you and george zimmerman discussed was where he believed that particular suspect lived, right? >> i'm sure we discussed that. >> and you discussed that he lived near the back entrance of the retreat at twin lakes? >> yes. >> again, this is former twin lakes resident olivia bertalan. her home was broken into while she was there with her baby, and according to a police statement, it's that incident that prompted zimmerman to start a neighborhood watch. obviously she's speaking a lot about the community and setting the stage there as far as security and the concerns of folks who lived in that area. that does it for this edition of

"news nation." thank you so much for joining us. thanks to our team as well. our coverage of the george zimmerman will continue next on "the cycle." hey linda!

what are you guys doing? having some fiber! with new phillips' fiber good gummies. they're fruity delicious!

just two gummies have 4 grams of fiber! to help support regularity! i want some... [ woman ] hop on over! [ marge ] fiber the fun way, from phillips'. if it's 3:00 in new york, it's time for "the cycle." this hour, complete coverage of the george zimmerman murder trial. both the prosecution and the defense are still trying to use that controversial 911 call to prove their case. developing now, the accused boston marathon bomber faces a judge this hour. he's also facing survivors of the deadly terror attack. and four days after that terrifying plane crash in san francisco, the faa changes the rules. all the news as it happens right now. it's "the cycle." we start in sanford, florida. it's the george zimmerman trial. right now we're hearing from a new witness, a neighbor of zimmerman's whose home was broken into while she was inside with her young