wheel and on foot. so we had hashed that out, i thought. i understand mr. west didn't think any of it is credible or right. respectfully, that's up to the jury, not mr. west. so the issue is i think the provocation language should be included. the only issue that i hear is whether or not it also ought to on top of the issue of provocation include the phrase force or threat of force. and again, carrying a firearm or grabbing or accosting to the point that someone hears let go and a physical struggle, that is evidence of force or threat of force. it doesn't say -- gibbs certainly doesn't say deadly force because of course gibbs is itself a nondeadly force case in the first instance. so the state's argument is the

against is arguing what is credible, not what is actual. >> i understand both arguments. >> as a matter of law, following someone on foot or by car is not against the law. you are absolutely allowed to do that if you want to. and especially if you want to tell police where the person is. that cannot be considered provocation under the law just like because you happen to have a concealed weapons permit and have a licensed firearm on your person, that cannot be considered actual force or the threat of force. it obviously under gibbs and the reasonable construction of this issue with our common sense is force means force. force means force. physical force. or the threat of physical force. not a gun that's properly

concealed and certainly not the lawful act of doing what you're allowed to do in this state which is if you see somebody suspicious, by your own definition frankly, whatever you think is suspicious is good enough under neighborhood watch or by any other measure, and you call the police and you're asked to let you know if he does anything else and you follow the person in order to be able to tell the police where they went. by a car, on foot, what have you, that's not legal provocation. and the it would be error if the state were allowed to argue that to this jury. >> there is a separate instruction as to whether or not there is up lawful activity. >> we're not there yet. we're still under the 776.041.

>> yes. >> and the defense doesn't want it. the state is it. the court is not going to give it. the next paragraph in the defense version starts with, however, before you can find george zimmerman initially provok provoked. that's not in the defense version. it's not in the state's version. do you want to talk about that? >> my understanding from what i heard before, that it's only there in the defense version because of 774. so if the court is giving none of that, i assume they don't want that in there either. >> then we go to the next one. you are further instructed that merely following trayvon martin by car or on foot in order to report his location to the police is not sufficient for you

to find that george zimmerman provoked the use of force against himself by trayvon martin. before george zimmerman can be found to have initially provoked use of force against himself, george zimmerman must have used actual force on you the threat of force against trayvon martin. >> same issue.rn you the threat of force against trayvon martin. >> same issue. you the threat of force against trayvon martin. >> same issue.you the threat of force against trayvon martin. >> same issue.ou the threat of force against trayvon martin. >> same issue.u the threat of force against trayvon martin. >> same issue. the threat of force against trayvon martin. >> same issue. >> so all of that comes out, too? just making sure we get everything here. next says this deciding whether george zimmerman was justified -- i don't see any differences in those paragraphs. am i correct? >> yes. >> that's acceptable to both sides? >> so is the next paragraph. >> next paragraph interestingly enough, both of you did not follow tally and take out the comma. and cases have been reversed because of that infamous comma after the words including deadly force. that comma should be removed

based upon tally versus state at 103 -- sorry, 106 southern third 1015. do we agree? >> i agree. i will remove it. my apologies. >> do you agree, mr. west? >> that would read stand his ground and meet force with force, omit the comma -- >> no, that comma stays in. the including deadly force, that comma comes out. >> sure. that's fine. >> do both sides agree with that? >> yes, your honor. >> do you agree that complies with tally? >> i do. >> so no other issues in that paragraph. the next one in the defense version is you are hereby instructed that following someone by car or on foot in order to report their whereabouts to the police is not unlawful activity under florida law. what case law or statute or anything do you have that

supports that requested instruction, mr. west? >> it is an accurate statement of the law. >> show me where that's codified. good morning, this is thomas roberts in new york and we're going the back and forth between the attorneys on both sides talking with the judge presiding over the george zimmerman trial. as we get to the closing and final chapter of this trial because the jury is going to be brought in in early afternoon when the prosecutors at 1:00 p.m. begin their final arguments. what's going on right here is the back and forth over what the exact jury instructions will be and it's been pretty heated this morning with the exchanges going back and forth especially from the defense side. take a look. just when i thought this case couldn't get anymore bizarre you can the state is seeking third-degree murder based on child abuse. is the court going to give this any serious contention or consideration because if so, we have a lot of talking to do.

we can start with they dumped this on us sometime around 7:30 this morning. there was an e-mail, oh, by the way, we've changed our lesser included request from aggravated assault to third-degree murder based on child abuse? >> that's the big sticking point today before the judge because again the two sides are arguing over this motion that was presented by the prosecution to allow the jury to consider the lesser charge of fell any murder in the third degree based on child abuse. now, the judge has already gone forward to say that the jury can consider manslaughter charges. our legal eagles have been watching this morning. lisa bloom and paul henderson. lisa, let me start with you about this. is this typical what we should be seeing as we're ramping down again to the final chapter, the jury to hear the prosecution start with their closing

arguments, is this legalees by the prosecution? >> it is. and we got agreement on one thing just a moment ago, that one little comma could be removed. jury instructions are very important. we can get highly technical. and the lawyers are. but they're very important because they come from the judge right to the jury. and the jury understands that the attorneys are advocates for both sides. but the jury has high regard for what the judge says. and if the jurors ask, they can take the jury instructions into the deliberation room and pore oig over them and try to apply the facts to the law. so everything understands how important they are. they are standard form jury instructions, but in each case the judge conforms them to the facts of the case so each side tries to get the facts in in a light most favorable to them. they're talking now about the self defense instruction.

obviously very significant in the case. they have to find zigeorge zimmerman was in fear of great bodily j bodily injury or death. whether anything trayvon martin did that comes in to it is being disputed. >> once the jury gets handed this case, they need to utilize the defense and compare it to the charges levied against george zimmerman from the beginning. second-degree murder. and now they have manslaughter in the mix and they might as well be considering this felony murder in the third degree based on child abuse if debra nelson allows that to be included. >> and this is why the jury instructions are so important because juries will tell you all the time they pore over these instructions. when the judge read it is to them, they go back into their rooms and they are reading this exact language and trying to

figure it out themselves which is why you're hearing these settle arguments that are complex and deal with small issues like what does provocation actually mean. what does the use of force actually mean and the context of evidence that has been presented. i love this part of the trial. i'm really excited by all of this discussion. >> let's get everybody back inside as this continues. >> you could argue that to the jury in the closing argument. >> judge, detective serino said so. >> as far as i know, i don't think that he drafted any of the legislation. >> he didn't say it was illegal to follow someone. he can't site you -- criminal statutes are pretty precise. they're designed to put people on notice what's illegal and what isn't. so if it's illegal to follow somebody to tell the police where they're going, there better be a law against it.

otherwise you can't say it's illegal to do that. >> i've heard the argument from both sides. aim not giving that instruction. >> we split that's an integral part of our theory of the defense and the court commits error by not instructing the jury properly on the law. >> i understand. i've already ruled. and you continually disagree with this court every time i make a ruling. i have provided you on three separate occasions with the court's professional conduct in the courtroom. and included in that is do not continue to argue with the court after we've ruled. if i have made a mistake in this case, you will appeal if there is a conviction, it will get appealed to a higher court and they can review it to determine whether or not may a mistake. this is my ruling on this issue. you are free to communicate that to the jury in your closing argument. i'm not instructing them on that. moving on to --

>> aim not disagreeing. i would like, though, to move linimy with regard to their anticipated closing argument to ask the court to order them not to suggest to the jury that following somebody on foot -- >> do you want me to get into getting a predetermined transcript of what each side intends to argue at closing argument and go through it and say what can and cannot be argued? they're free to argue that. >> no, ma'am, just this, that it would be an improper argument of the law if the state were allowed to suggest to this jury that it is unlawful for someone to follow another individual by car or on foot. >> i'm not going to address that issue. >> for the state to be allowed to make that argument would mislead the jury as to the law and would allow the jury to make

a decision based upon an improper legal premise. because the state can't make that argument legally and i'm moving in li mchmliminc about. >> that motion is denied. next paragraph, it starts in considering the issue. there doesn't seem to be any objection or difference in that paragraph. am i correct? >> yes. >> and the next one is if in your consideration of the issue of self defense, it's a three line paragraph, are there any objections to that paragraph? >> no, i think that's the standard language now. >> that you thin

>> thank you. last one starts with however, three lines. any objections from the state? >> no, urps. agreed that's the standard language. >> okay. so were there any other requested changes or additions to this instruction by the state? >> as it elemeit relates to the justifiable use of deadly force? >> correct. >> having already argued and simply relying on the case of johnson versus state which is in the packet regarding provocation instruction, no, your honor. >> any others being requested by the defense other thanes ones i've already ruled on? >> within the justifiable use? >> yes.s ones i've already ruled on? >> within the justifiable use? >> yes. ones i've already ruled on? >> within the justifiable use? >> yes. >> no, your honor. >> then the next one we have, the defense has -- you just included in your packet the

state's proposed instruction. >>d i did just for comparison purposes. >> and then there is a circumstantial evidence requested from the defense. any objection by the state? >> there is. i've provided a case 757 section 655. 1999. citing the 1981 opinion standard jury instructions in krenl cases. the instruction requested here by the defense has been eliminated by the supreme court. it was eliminated over 30 years ago. and the reason it was eliminated as is made clear on page two of the opinion at the bottom,

spreechl court tod supreme court said where the jury is properly instructed on the standard of reasonable doubt, circumstantial evidence instruction was confusing and in-correct. the court sdoes go on to say tht while the supreme court didn't totally prohibit it, if they deem it necessary, they could consider it a special instruction. however, they catalog a litany of cases whereby the refusal to give such an instruction has been upheld. the prosecution has objected to a defense motion for circumstantial evidence to be included. the prosecution there using suggestions and examples of high are court rulings as to why their objection is merited. craig melvin is outside the court in sanford for us today. craig, this is a lot of ramping up to the final chapter and it

seems they have a lot of is to dot and ts to cross. >> reporter: but judge nelson again eaches hell bent on keeping this thing on schedule. 1:00, that's the time that the judge has indicated the jury will come back, that is the time that bernie de la rionda is scheduled to start closing'mara tomorrow. i do want to let the viewers know that we have learned, that sanford police and seminole county police as well have also asked the judge to announce a verdict on a weekday. they have asked judge nelson to announce a verdict on a weekday even if that verdict comes in over the weekend. again, that the point no one is saying that they expect any sort of civil unrest, but it appears as if the police here in the area are trying to take the

necessary precautions. at this point, we do not know whether judge nelson has received that request nor do we know whether she plans to honor that request. but we did do know that two police agencies have made that request. >> craig melvin there, thank you. lisa bloom also joins our coverage. let me bring that to you because normally when juries get the case and they get to start to deliberate, if they come back quickly, normally that means they have come back with a guilty verdict. the longer they're out, the longer -- it's better for the defense basically. correct? >> that is correct. with the exception of the o.j. simpson case where there was about a three hour deliberation and the jury came back with a not guilty. so anything is possible. i would add that this is only a six person jury. different than most states. so i would expect it to be a quicker verdict because you only have six people to hash it out rather than 12. also it is a sequestered jury. and i would think they will want to get on with it.

sequestered juries tend to reach decisions more quickly. and with regard to the public safety issue, a lot of people in the civil rights community have bristled at the constant question do you think there will be riots in response to an acquittal. reminding everyone that so far there have only been peaceful demonstrations with regard to this case. and some people even find it offensive to suggest that there could be riots given the way everyone has conducted themselves legally in the demonstrations. i want to say one other quick thing. judge nelson just a few moments ago go admonishing don west about his professional responsibilities suggesting that he's crossed the line into professional misconduct by continuing to argue with her after she give as ruling. that's a big deal in the courtroom. i can tell you as an attorney, if a judge said that to me and paul henderson can back me up, i'm really back on my heels. and he has continued to do that. you can argue your case strenuously. the judge makes a ruling. you know what, time to move on

after that. >> and this is the same attorney that objected to her line of questioning which is completely unheard of. >> that's right. and a couple of nightsing a ai she walked out on him while he was talking. >> paul, what is your take on that? >> she's correct. and these incidents keep occurring when the jury is outside the room. as an attorney, you are conscious of how the judge is communicating with you ayou and the judge is ruling when the jury is in the room because they're trying to gauge and evaluate who the gaujudge is listening to and frustrated with. so when the jury is not in the room, being he he withink he el. but these are things as a trial lawyer you never want to drift

into that area where you're bothering the judge because it will affect you in front of that jury, as well. >> and again the jury is due in there at 1:00 p.m.. let's get everybody back inside. >> when you connect up the dots, if you will, when you pile on all of these circumstances, they must be so conclusive that it can only indicate proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt. if the circumstances are susceptible of two reasonable constructions, one indicating guilt, the other innocence, you must accept that construction indicating evidence. so indeed circumstances of this case, which is all circumstantial, if you will, on the issue of intent and frankly a lot of it is circumstantial on

the core issue of self-defense, even though mr. root said that zic zichl george zimmerman 's conduct was objectively reasonable. the jury has to find was his fear, did he reasonably believe that he was facing imminent great bodily harm or if he didn't respond with force. they will have to get inside george zimmerman's head. they will have to take what was going on in his head under those circumstances apply to their own common sense, to their own somewhat objective standard of what's reasonable and what isn't. and come up with a decision based on circumstantial evidence whether under those circumstances it was reasonable after being hit in the nose, after having his head smashed on the concrete several times and being held down on his back

whether it was reasonable for him to have responded to that force in the manner he did. so there is no other instruction i think that's as specific, as appropriate to help the jury define how -- to help the jury analyze the evidence in this case than this particular instruction. it could not be said to confuse the jury. in fact it gives them the guidance that they desperately need in a case just like this one. so of course while the court has discretion, the discretion should be exercised here to give the instruction. it's perfectly proper. >> if that argument were correct, every case with a single bit of circumstantial evidence in this would get this instruction because there is some circumstantial evidence

involved. number one, that's not true. it's not the law and the reason it was abandoned 30 some years ago and i haven't seen -- i don't see a case relied upon by the defense here where it has been. number two, this is of course not a totally circumstantial case because we have direct evidence in the form of the defendant's own statements and there is direct evidence that the defense shot and killed the victim. so there is no question that this is not a totally circumstantial case which is i would put it the only way we even get close to thinking about giving this in-sfruks. and if the defense's argument were correct, this instruction would continue to be given every case where there is -- we're listening to arguments going back and forth over whether circumstantial evidence instructions will be given to the jury once they're seated at 1:00 p.m. for the start of closing arguments. y parent wantt and healthiest products for their family. that's why i created the honest company.

i was just a concerned mom, with a crazy dream. a wish that there was a company that i could rely on, that did all of the hard work for me. i'm jessica alba, and the honest company was my dream. [ male announcer ] legalzoom has helped a million businesses successfully get started, including jessica's. launch your dream at legalzoom today. call us. we're here to help.

[ female announcer ] enter a world of clean inside the only 3 chamber laundry detergent. ♪ now, here you go, let it go ♪ 'cause we're gonna go ♪ go to a place that we never, ever know ♪ ♪ ooh, ooh ♪ 'cause it's a bright light ♪ when i look in your eyes ♪ doo-doo-doo-doo-doo doo [ female announcer ] tide pods... three chambers. three times the stain removal power. so that all your clothes pop!

we continue to watch the back and forth over jury instructions. those are given at 1:00 today. we go back inside where they're talking about whether or not compensation of certain expert witnesses can be included. >> just for clarification -- >> possible information out there. so i won't give it. >> thank you, judge. just for clarification, from mao only said what he was charging. >> expenses are entitled to be paid. p so we won't give that number. so redo that.so we won't give t. so redo that. anything else that either side had any objection with? >> not from the state. >> defense? >> no, your honor. >> the next one was the expert witness instruction. and yesterday there was an

indication there was no objection from either side. does that remain? >> yes. >> yes. >> defendant testifying we said was not going to be given. is there any objections to that instruction? >> no objection. >> not from the state, your honor. >> yesterday there was an indication there was no objection to that especially instruction being given. is that the same day? you don't have to keep jumping up and down. you can remain seated. >> thank you. whether we're going to personalize these instructions, too? >> all of them. everything will be conforming. >> kyes. no objection. >> rules for deliberation. yesterday there was an indication there was no objection to this instruction. does that remain the same today? >> yes. >> your honor, if i may as to the substitution of the names,

do you want that in the title, too? >> everywhere. thank you. then the instruction on notes, indication yesterday, there was no objections. does that remain the same? >> yes. >> yes. >> cautionary instructions. no objections yesterday. does that remain the same? >> yes. >> verdict. no objections yesterday. does that remain the same? >> yes, your honor. >> defense? >> yes, that's fine. >> in submitting the case to the jury, there was no objections yesterday. does that remain the same? >> yes, your honor. >> agreed. >> we have to talk about the felony murder third degree. one of the elements for felony

murder -- or the child abuse portion is the intentionally. having an initial issue with that. child abuse requires the defendant to have committed an intentional act. that's not alleged in your information. >> it should be. it was an intentional act. same intent required to second-degree murder. second-degree murder requires the additional depraved mind element. but i don't think it's argued that this was an unintentional shooting. the question is whether it was

justifiable, not whether it was intentional. >> that's the issue that i'm going to be looking at. we'll give mr. west some time to do that. the other -- was there any objections to the manslaughter instruction as it is written? >> no. >> so the only one that i have to deal with and make a determination on is the felony third-degree murder. can we then now look to the proposed verdict form? >> judge, to the third degree murder issue, of course the court pointed out it's one of those historically category two which means that it's discretionary so long as the evidence -- >> the state gets it if they want it if the facts fit to it. it's not really a discretionary issue. >> i disagree.

>> well, i'll cite you to i think it's johnson versus state. >> in any event, i'll look at that. >> i want to make sure i give you the right citation. >> but it's clear that the state must convince the court that the unique facts of this case -- >> always the facts have to fit into it. that's not the issue. the issue is whether or not if the facts fit into to they if do they good eet the instruction. >> my understanding is the defense objects to it in it entirety, but we can discuss placing it if we wish -- >> let's get it on the record. state's proposed special jury

instruction number one, defining great bodily harm, setting the authority of 847 second 423. 2003. suggested instruction reads great bodily harm in the context of the aggravated battery means great harm is distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm. and as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted on simple assault or battery. that would be in the court was giving the instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force that included the force of the felony being inflicted on the defendant, is that correct? >> well, i don't agree necessarily just to that. i would agree that if the court is not going to give the issue about aggravated battery, that we might remove the phrase of aggravated battery.

however, even the requested instruction by the defense discusses the concept of in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. so i think the definition in the concept behind the cited cases here is defining great bodily harm so that the jury has a flame of referenframe of refere. so whether the court gives the state's requested additional instructions or only the -- >> let me see if i have this right. you would take out in the context offing aggravated batte and put it in the defendant's virgs of justifiable use of deadly force after the paragraph a person justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself? >> that would be a reasonable location. >> any objections? >> kre.

yes. >> what is your objection? >> the context of the cases cited is not appropriate for the context of the definition. there is no objection because the supreme court decided it didn't need to be defined beyond that within the common understanding of those terms. the state is shifting a those cuss away from the bodily harm. the instruction is not that mr. zimmerman sustained great bodily harm or great bodily injury himself. that is a completely irrelevant

issue in this case. >> where where in your proposed instruction does it have the definition of great bodily harm? >> it doesn't. i gave the language that the supreme court used. that's the standard instruction. the supreme court did not define great bodily harm in the standard instruction for justifiable use of deadly force. >> but the state is saying that this authority as previously cited, cites to owens versus state, and c.a.c. versus

state -- >> the arguments continue there in the courtroom this morning. as the debate goes back and forth over the exact charges and the jury instruction that they will receive coming up this afternoon. e? i drive a ford fusion. who is healthier, you or your car? i would say my car. probably the car. cause as you get older you start breaking down. i love my car. i want to take care of it. i have a bad wheel - i must say. my car is running quite well. keep your car healthy with the works. $29.95 or less after $10 mail-in rebate at your participating ford dealer. so you gotta take care of yourself? yes you do. you gotta take care of your baby? oh yeah! all this produce from walmart and secretly served it up in the heart of peach country. it's a fresh-over. we want you to eat some peaches and tell us what you think. they're really juicy. it must have just come from the farm. this right here is ideal for me. walmart works directly with growers to get you the best quality produce they've ever had. what would you do if i told you all this produce is from walmart?

wow! is it really? (laughter) find fresh peaches and all your quality produce. backed by our 100% money back guarantee. walmart. 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.

♪ 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. want to get you back in court. an interesting moment as they hash out the details of the jury instructions that they will hear this afternoon. let's go back in. >> -- skull wasn't fractured. just because he healed up relatively quickly doesn't mean that he didn't have that fear and that reasonable belief at the moment. the state is asking the court to deviate from the jury instructions with something specific that doesn't apply, that's not an accurate statement of the law or a definition that has been approved in self-defense cases. this is treading on very thin ice for this court.

very thin ice for the court under these circumstances to instruct this jury on something that just isn't the law. >> response. >> standard jury instructions for any defense, self-defense, there is no definition anywhere. that's the rope the courts have given it. self-defense isn't some sort of some special circumstance. whether in self-defense instruction or in connection with another instruction isn't the point. the point is the court said it provides no definition of great bodily harm and that's anywhere. that is the reason they approved the court giving the jury some guidance as to what that might be.

he's not correct that the doctor said injury x isn't from getting your head on the concrete. what they said is. >> thom: consiit is consistent getting struck by any hard object. >> you have to take each of these proposed jury instructions and the special instructions being requested by either side and weave it into what the evidence shows so the jury be instructed. your argument that you just provided to me has two different sides of the story and the jury can decide which within they believe, whether the injuries were consistent or not consistent. the instruction you're seeking on have entered says great

bodily harm does that include mere bruises as are likely to be enflikted in a simple assault and battery.testimony before the court whether the jury chooses to believe it or not, that's their purview, is that don't have to have any injury to be in fear of the justifiable use of deadly force. >> i agree and that's why the argument wasn't quite finished. what we're talking about here is the defendant's reasonableness of his fear. if his fear is only that he'll get a fist beating, for example, that is something that the jury should know in relationship to the definition of great bodily harm. >> i find this definition akin to what i've just stricken from the defense request that they want me instruct them that it's

not illegal to follow somebody. so i understand your argument. you can -- you have it all on the record. i've cited the cases that you've cited to me in support of them. they're on the record. unless you have further argument about that, i'm ready to rule. >> especially the only further argument i'll make, especially since i believe that we should include thinge aggravated batte sections, especially since i think those should also be included most certainly this definition should be included. >> i've already struck those. so that's not an issue. the court is not going to give that special instruction. so is there any other special instructions being requested by the state? additions, omissions, anything? >> only under johnson because there was evidence in the record that johnson may have initially provoked, but those were the two

requested here and the aggravated battery definition. >> how about the defense? can we go to the verdict form? it may need to be readdressed because of pending the court's ruling on the third degree felony murder. >> i don't have a copy in front of me, judge, sorry. >> you have to do you have an e? >> are these the same committed earlier? >> one is third degree -- >> if i could have a set then. thanks.

we continue to watch the arguments going back and forth in the courtroom. a lot about the semantics certainly around the charging and the jury instructions that they will receive about what george zimmerman can be charged with and how the jury can deliberate whether or not he's guilty in the death of trayvon martin. lisa bloom and paul henderson both join the conversation. lisa, what is your take on how this is going so far, how is the prosecution doing in making sure that they are getting enough charging on george zimmerman in front of this jury? >> important stuff. because the essence in this case is self-defense. did zimmerman kill in self-defense or not. self-defense is when you are reasonably in fear of imminent great bodily harm or death. great bodily harm.

so we know that george zimmerman had some injuries on the front of his face, on the back of his head, some lacerations, some bruises. the defense says those are big and those show a reasonable fear of great bodily harm. in fact he had already been inflicted with great bodily harm. the prosecution says are you kidding me? those are minor injuries and he panicked. he overreacted and therefore this is a murder or manslaughter case. so the wording of that instruction is very important and that's why they're haggling over every word and every comma. >> the biggest one up for debate right now for judge nelson would be considering whether or not that the lesser charge of felony murder in the third degree based on child abuse will be entered for the jury to hear and be instructed upon considering that. the biggest thing that i get from judge nelson is talking about the issue with intent on this. and the prosecution is saying, well, of course there was intent to abuse this child because the gun was fired. so no matter what, if it was a fatal shot or a grazing shot,

there was intent here to use this gun to harm the child. am i understanding this correctly? >> you're understanding it perfect perfectly. that's their argument that the use of the gun is not in dispute. it's been clear from every version and all of the evidence that's been introduced that the use of that gun was intentional. it's the circumstances around that intentional use of the gun that will be the issue. but this is exactly why there is so much of a fight over these jury instructions because what we're about to see in the next few hours from the attorneys is a reference to all of the instructions as they're making their arguments to guide the jury to make sure they understand their version and they will be referencing all of the decisions being made right now to give the jury to go back to affirm the arguments that they're going on make based on these issues. that's why you're having such detailed fight about each and every word, each and every definition. because the lawyers are then going to use that and incorporate that into their

closing arguments. it's a very important part of the trial and all good lawyers focus very carefully on this part. >> and is that the linchpin that then goes back to why they need to understand great this self-d defense, because is this shooting justifiable? >> that's exactly why. that's why the prosecution is fighting so hard to make sure that that instruction gets in there, because he's going to want to show and want to reference them in their very own jury instructions that the great bodily harm is already defined from the judge to you, jury, and here it is and it wasn't there on that evening. >> and i would add that it's interesting that this issue of child abuse is just arising today. trayvon martin, 17 years old, no question about that. does legally become a child under the eyes of florida law because he is under the age of 18. nobody has ever thought about this as a child abuse case but when you go through the legal elements as the attorneys are doing this morning, it makes some sense. it really does seem to apply.

>> i think that's some good lawyering right there. i was really encouraged by that. it really is a sign of good lawyering when you're still hearing these theories that actually both fit the law and fit the circumstances of the evidence. i think it is great. >> but the question is, did the prosecution give enough notice to the defense, i mean really to come up with a brand-new legal theory with with a whole pile of case law to support it just before closing arguments and say to the defense, hi, guess what? we have a brand-new theory. i think the defense has some substance behind their argument. boy, we didn't get appropriate notice and the judge has said to the defense, okay, we'll give you a little time. well, guess what? the prosecution closing argument is set for 1:00 p.m. it is now about nine minutes before noon. i guess they're entitled to a lunch break. so is this all going to work time wise? i guess we'll have to -- as far as i know, 1:00 p.m. is still closing argument. >> stand by. i want to bring in to our conversation "washington post" columnist, jonathan capehart.

goldie taylor. great to have all three of you here. we didn't anticipate going so deeply into the court coverage this morning, the semantics going back and forth. jonathan, your take as we get up to this final chapter with the jury to be coming in here shortly and closing arguments to begin. >> well, what's interesting about all of this, all of the stuff that we've been watching the last few hours has been out of the jury's presence. some of the more interesting moments of this case have happened with the jury out of the room, once again showing how we, the viewers, folks who are following this case in the media know a whole lot more than the jury will ever know about this case. that's what i find so fascinating among many things. what i find so fascinating about this case and this trial. >> goldie, we have been watching this. this morning we had a report briefly from our craig melvin who's been outside the courthouse giving reports and

told us that the police department has put a request in to the judge -- not sure if judge nelson has received it yet, that the verdict come out on a weekday. what do you make of that? they're trying to anticipate what reaction will be. >> i believe it's perfectly reasonable for law enforcement to make all precautions they think are necessary in case there are very civil protests that happen on the back of this verdict, or if there are other kinds of protests. but i do think that from what i've heard on some social networks and some commentators across other networks, the idea that there will be violent rioting on the back of this verdict both defies it history and it is irresponsible. if you know anything, anything at all about the anatomy of, the structure of riots over historic o historical underpin bes with it has a lot more to do than with race. they can neither be planned nor can they be led. the very idea that people are

talking about this in very irresponsible ways is disconcerting to me but the idea that the sanford police, that they are making precautions that they feel are necessary for their community i think is the right thing to do. >> when we all learned of this case in february of 2012, it took 40 days for george zimmerman to be charged in this. that was basically the outcry to have this person sent through the justice system and to live through what we have right now, this trial, all information be vetted and a defense being mounted for george zimmerman. is that going to be enough when people have started with the justice for trayvon? have we seen justice for tray john just in the fact that george zimmerman was brought up on charges and we've witnessed this trial. and come what may, there has been justice for seeing how this young boy was killed and who is at fault, if at all george zimmerman. >> i think what we're seeing here is the justice system -- maybe not justice. i think people are looking at

this and seeing what they want to see, quite frankly. if you came into this predisposed to thinking that trayvon martin was a thug who fli initiated the violence here, then you saw evidence in this case that supported it, and visa versa for people who think george zimmerman is the aggressor here and committed second degree murder. i think the key here is that the state actually overcharged. this is a strategy that prosecutions use often. they overcharge knowing that if they fail to prove that burden, often the jury will give db be given instructions to consider the lesser charges, in this case manslaughter. now that creates a problem for the state. state has lost some credibility here and now they have to come back and tell the jury, hey, look, even though we did not prove the crime we were supposed to prove, george zimmerman is guilty of something. that can be a problem for this jury. >> jonathan, i'll give you the last word because then we have to go. >> i interviewed sybrina fulton, trayvon martin's mother, back in

february. i asked her if she would be comfortable, happy, with whatever the jury came back with. she said look, this has gone in stages. first we wanted an arrest. then we wanted to have him put in the justice system. we would love a conviction but we will live by the jury's verdict. i think that's something sybrina fulton, the martin family, wants everybody to understand. >> thank you all so much. and thank all of you for watching. we are done for this hour. court is in recess for their lunch break, again coming back this afternoon at 1:00 when the jury will be seated. that's when the prosecution will begin its closing argument. "now" with alex wagner is next. out there owning it.

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.

see, i knew testosterone could affect sex drive, but not energy or even my mood. that's when i talked with my doctor. he gave me some blood tests... showed it was low t. that's it. it was a number. [ male announcer ] today, men with low t have androgel 1.62% testosterone gel. the #1 prescribed topical testosterone replacement therapy increases testosterone when used daily. women and children should avoid contact with application sites. discontinue androgel and call your doctor if you see unexpected signs of early puberty in a child, or signs in a woman, which may include changes in body hair or a large increase in acne, possibly due to accidental exposure. men with breast cancer or who have or might have prostate cancer, and women who are or may become pregnant or are breast-feeding,

should not use androgel. serious side effects include worsening of an enlarged prostate, possible increased risk of prostate cancer, lower sperm count, swelling of ankles, feet, or body, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing during sleep, and blood clots in the legs. tell your doctor about your medical conditions and medications, especially insulin, corticosteroids, or medicines to decrease blood clotting. in a clinical study, over 80% of treated men had their t levels restored to normal. talk to your doctor about all your symptoms. get the blood tests. change your number. turn it up. androgel 1.62%. day 23 of the george zimmerman trial. it's thursday, july 11th and this is "now." closing arguments are set to begin in the george zimmerman trial with the prosecution

expected to start this afternoon. george zimmerman has pleaded not guilty and claims he fatally shot trayvon martin in self-defense. right now the prosecution and defense are debating the instructions that will be given to the jury and what specific charges they can settle on. so far judge nelson has ruled that if the jury decides that george zimmerman is not guilty of second degree murder, they could still hand down a verdict that he is guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter. joining me now, msnbc legal analyst, lisa bloom. lisa, tell us about what is going on in the courtroom this morning. there seems to be a lot of back and forth over the specific charges, some new ones being introduced. >> you know, it's been a hallmark of this case in what are usually fairly routine hearings, something dramatic happens. i mean we saw that with george zimmerman yesterday at the moment when we expecteded him to simply say i'm not going to testify and the judge would walk him through it. all of a sudden there were fireworks in the courtroom. and today at charging