hi, everyone. i'm tamron hall. the "news nation" is following the george zimmerman trial about to go to the jury. court is about to resume after a lunch break. then judge deborah nelson is about to charge the six-member all-women jury, which will then begin deliberations. all of this follows the conclusions we all witnessed before lunch, the closing arguments with prosecutor getting the final word. >> if that defendant had done only what he was supposed to do, see and call, none of us would be here. none of us.

but that's not who he was. that's not where he was that night in his heart. after months of these people getting away, not tonight. not this one. trayvon martin may not have the defendant's blood on his hands, but george zimmerman will forever have trayvon martin's blood on his. >> the day started with defense attorney mark o'mara presenting his closing arguments. >> he is a defendant. maybe the fact the state attorney's office has decided to charge him, he's done something wrong. how many could have beens have you heard from the state? how many what ifs have you heard

from the state in this case? how do you actually get to the level necessary for second-degree murder when you don't know the person? because this is the person and this is the person who george zimmerman encountered that night. that's cement. that is a sidewalk. and that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but skittles trying to get home. >> msnbc's craig melvin joins us live from outside the courthouse in sanford, florida. craig, let me get the mood there, the tenor, what you're feeling as we're entering this phase where the jury will take over. >> reporter: well, you know what, i've talked to some folks on the ground here. the city of sanford is ready for this thing to be over, as you might imagine. this is something that has consumed this city for more than a year and a half now. as you indicated, 38 witnesses have been called by the state,

18 by the defense, 24th day of this trial. here we are just a few hours away from the jury getting this case. we should note here that judge nelson has indicated she is going to leave this up to the jury in terms of deliberations. she's going to let them decide how long they deliberate, how long they deliberate into the night, whether they deliberate over the weekend as well. so we could get a verdict late tonight. could be over the weekend. could be monday. that's something we should find out here in the next hour after she reads this 27-page document of jury instructions. >> all right, craig. let me bring in -- while we prepare to listen to the judge give those instructions, let me bring in msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom and criminal defense attorney john burress. lisa, in listening to the closing arguments, i was struck be on both sides, honestly. they were asking the jury, in some ways, who do you identify with? mark o'mara choosing to show the

shirtless picture of trayvon martin, this kind of ominous picture with his cap on his head saying this is the person that george zimmerman faced that day while we know trayvon martin was clothed. that is not an accurate depiction of what he was wearing or visibly looked like that day. on the other hand, you had the prosecution say, listen, this was a kid, again attempting to appeal that, i think, all-female jury and saying this was a kid who was walking that day. what do you identify with? >> you know, i think it's such a great observation that you're making. in addition, how about mark o'mara showing the 7-eleven surveillance photo of trayvon martin with the hoodie up, which i always think makes him look omino ominous. we're used to seeing those surveillance photos when someone is robbing a store. local news is looking for a suspect. here he is just before the robbery that, grainy photo. that's what we associate it with in our minds. turns out both are right. trayvon martin was a kid.

he was 17 years old. in the lies of the law, he was a child. he was also a young man, 5'11", capable of fighting if that's what the jury ends up believing. he was taller than george zimmerman by about four inches. zimmerman outweighed him by about 50 pounds. they could look at it either way. it turns out trayvon martin was kind of poised right at the middle of both of those ways of describing him. >> and john, as lisa pointed out what we heard in court today, i was annoyed because it came off like a score card of two boxers here. like, you have two people. we're telling reach, size, and dimension. that's not the most relevant part of this as we hear and have heard all along. one of the most relevant parts is race. let me play a little bit of what john guy said in his closing argument about the race and the factoring in. >> if the roles were reversed and it was 28-year-old george zimmerman walking home in the

rain with a hoodie on to protect himself from the rain walking through that neighborhood and a 17-year-old driving around in a car who called the police, who had hate in their heart, hate in their mouth, hate in their actions, and if it was trayvon martin who had shot and killed george zimmerman, what would your verdict be? that's how you know it's not about race. >> john, this is why this case, i think, has gotten so much attention, why it's seen as i did -- divisive. you have john guy hitting it there. >> absolutely. when someone tells you it's not about race, generally it is about race. at the backbone an undercurrent of this case, there was always the question of race. even though mr. zimmerman is

hispanic, it was viewed he was dealing with an african-american male. i'm going to tell you, the defense lawyers play on that video tape, play the race, play the same type of stereotyping zimmerman was thinking to as well, in terms of how he looked with the hoodie and from that drawing the inference he must be a negative person. that, to me, was the undercurrent of what was going on in this case in terms of the arguments. >> let's now listen in to judge deborah nelson. >> -- any weapon that taking into account the manner in which it is used is likely to produce death or great bodily harm. i now instruct you on the circumstances that must be proved before george zimmerman may be found guilty of second-degree murder or any lesser crime. to prove the crime of second-degree murder, the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. one, trayvon martin is dead. two, the death was caused by the criminal act of george

zimmerman. three, there was an unlawful killing of trayvon martin by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. an act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose. an act is imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind if it is an act or series of acts that a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another and is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent and is in such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to resume life. in order to convict of second-degree murder, it is not necessary for the state to prove george zimmerman had an intent to cause death. if you find that george zimmerman committed second-degree murder and you

also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the crime he discharged a firearm and in doing so caused great bodily harm to or the death of trayvon martin, you should find george zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder with discharge of a firearm causing great body harm or death. if you find that george zimmerman committed second-degree murder and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the crime he discharged a firearm, you should find george zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder with discharge of a firearm. if you find that george zimmerman committed second-degree murder and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the crime he actually possessed a firearm, you should find george zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder with actual possession of a firearm. a firearm is legally defined as

any weapon which well is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the a of an explosive. to actually possess a firearm means that george zimmerman carried a firearm on his person or had a firearm within immediate physical reach with ready access with the intent to use the firearm during the commission of the crime. in considering the evidence, you should consider the possibility that although the evidence may not convince you that george zimmerman committed the main crime of which he is accused, there may be evidence that he committed other acts that would constitute lesser-included crime. therefore, if you decide that the main accusation has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you will next need to decide if george zimmerman is guilty of any lesser included crime. the lesser crime indicated in the definition of second-degree murder is manslaughter. the killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if

necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon george zimmerman or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which george zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing. the killing of a human being is excusable and therefore lawful under any one of the following three circumstances. one, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or, two, when the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or, three, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat if a dangerous weapon is not used and the attempted killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner. dangerous weapon is any weapon that, taking into account the manner in which it is used, is

likely to produce death or great bodily harm. to prove the crime of manslaughter, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt. one, trayvon martin is dead. two, george zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of trayvon martin. george zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter or committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide. each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. if there is a violation of that duty without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. the killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon george zimmerman or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which george zimmerman was at the time of the killing. the killing of a human being is

excusable and therefore lawful under any one of the following three circumstances. one, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune and doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent or, two, when the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion upon any sudden and sufficient provocation or, three, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner. in order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the state to prove that george zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an account that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death. if you find george zimmerman committed manslaughter and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission

of the manslaughter george zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, you should check the appropriate box on the verdict form, which i will discuss with you later in these instructions. the definition of firearm has previously been provided in these instructions. an issue in this case is whether george zimmerman acted in self-defense. it is a defense to the crime of second-degree murder and the lesser included offense of manslaughter if the death of trayvon martin resulted from the justification use of deadly force. deadly force means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. a person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. in deciding whether george zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances

by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. the danger facing george zimmerman need not have been actual. however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. based upon appearances, george zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real. if george zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity ena and was attacked in a place where he had a right to be where he could stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. in considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into

account the relative physical abilities and capabilities of george zimmerman and trayvon martin. in your consideration of the issue of self-defense, you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether george zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find george zimmerman not guilty. if, however, from the evidence you're convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that george zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. george zimmerman has entered a plea of not guilty. this means you must presume or believe george zimmerman is innocent. the presumption stays with george zimmerman as to each material allegation in the information through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. to overcome george zimmerman's presumption of innocence, the state has the burden of proving the crime with which george

zimmerman is charged, was committed, and george zimmerman is the person who committed the crime. george zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything. whenever the words reasonable doubt are used, you must consider the following. a reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary, or forced doubt. such a doubt should not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. on the other hand, if after carefully considering, comparing, and weighing all of the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt or if having a conviction it is one which is not stable but one which waivers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt, and you must find george zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. it is to the evidence introduced in this trial and to it alone that you are to look for that proof. a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of george zimmerman may

arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or lack of the evidence. if you have a reasonable doubt you should find george zimmerman not guilty. if you have no reasonable doubt, you should find george zimmerman guilty. the state must prove that the crime was committed on february 26th, 2012. it must be proved only to a reasonable certainty that the alleged crime was committed in seminole county. it is up to you to decide which evidence is reliable. you should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. you may find some of the evidence not reliable or less reliable than other evidence. you should consider how the witness has acted as well as what they said. some things you should consider are, did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified? did the witness seem to have an accurate memory?

was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys' questions? did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided? does the witness' testimony agree with the other testimony in other evidence in the case? did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he or she gave in court? it is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. the witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony. you may rely upon your own conclusion about the witness. a juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness. expert witnesses are like other witnesses with one exception. the law permits an expert witness to give his or her opinion. however, an expert's opinion is only reliable when given on a subject about which you believe him or her to be an expert.

like other witnesses, you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony. the constitution requires the state to prove its accusations against george zimmerman. it is not necessary for george zimmerman to disprove anything, nor is george zimmerman required to prove his innocence. it is up to the state to prove george zimmerman's guilt by evidence. george zimmerman exercised a fundamental right by choosing not to be a witness in this case. you must not view this as an admission of guilt or be influenced in any way by his decision. no juror should ever be concerned that george zimmerman did or did not take the witness stand to give testimony in the case. a statement claimed to have been made by george zimmerman outside of court has been placed before you. such a statement should always be considered with caution and be weighed with great care to make sure -- to make certain it was freely and voluntarily made. therefore, you must determine

from the evidence that george zimmerman's alleged statement was knowingly, voluntarily, and freely made. in making this determination, you should consider the total circumstances, including but not limited to, whether when george zimmerman made the statement he had been threatened in order to get him to make it and whether anyone had promised him anything in order to get him to make it. if you conclude george zimmerman's out-of-court statement was not freely and voluntarily made, you should disregard it. these are some general rules that apply to your discussion. you must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict. excuse me. you must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. if you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. there is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. all of us are depending upon you to make wise and legal decisions

in this matter. this case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions. this case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone or are angry at anyone. remember the lawyers are not on trial. your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case. your duty is to determine if george zimmerman has been proven guilty or not in a court of law. it's the judge's decision to determine a proper sentence if george zimmerman is found guilty. whatever verdict you render must be unanimous. your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias, or sympathy. your verdict must be based on the evidence and on the law contained in these instructions. during this trial i have permitted you to take notes. you'll be allowed to take those

notes into the jury room during deliberations. you are instructed that your notes are a tool to aid in your individual memory. you should not compare your notes with those of other jurors in determining the content of any testimony or in evaluating the importance of any evidence. notes are for the note taker's personal use in refreshing his or her recollection of the evidence. they are not evidence. above all, your memory should be your greatest asset and your recollection of the evidence. deciding a verdict is exclusively your job. i cannot participate in that decision in any way. please disregard anything i may have said or done that made you think i preferred one verdict over another. you may find george zimmerman guilty as charged in the information or guilty of such lesser included crime as the evidence may justify or not guilty. if you return a verdict of guilty, it should be for the

highest offense, which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. if you find that no offense has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then, of course, your verdict must be not guilty. only one verdict may be returned as to the crime charged. this verdict must be unanimous. that is, all of you must agree to the same verdict. the verdict must be in writing and for your convenience, the necessary form of verdict has been prepared for you. it is as follows. it reads at the top in the circuit court of the 18th judicial circuit in and for seminole county florida, case number 2,012 cf-1083a, state of florida versus george zimmerman, verdict, under the word verdict there are three lines. next to the first line it reads, we the jury find george zimmerman guilty of murder in the second degree as charged in the information. next to the second line it reads, we the jury find george zimmerman guilty of manslaughter, a lesser included offense.

next to the third line it reads, we the jury find george zimmerman not guilty. you're to place an "x" on the line that reflects your verdict. under that it says, special findings. if you find george zimmerman guilty of murder in the second degree, you must choose one of the following. there are four lines. next to the first line it reads, we find that george zimmerman discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily harm to another during the commission of this offense. next to the second line it reads, we find that george zimmerman discharged a firearm without causing death or great bodily harm to another during the commission of the offense. next to the third line it reads, we find that george zimmerman actually possessed but did not discharge a firearm during the commission of the offense. next to the fourth line it reads, we find that george zimmerman did not actually possess or discharge a firearm during the commission of the offense. if you find george zimmerman

guilty of manslaughter, you must choose one of the following. there are two lines. next to the first line it reads, we find that george zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm during the commission of the offense. next to the second line it reads, we find that george zimmerman did not carry, display, use, threaten to use, or attempt to use a firearm during the commission of the offense. you're to put an "x" by the appropriate line if you so find. so say we all, a line for the foreperson to sign, and to date. in just a few moments, you'll be taken to the jury room by the court deputy. the first thing that you should do is choose a foreperson who will preside over your deliberations. the foreperson should see to it that your discussions are carried on in an organized way and that everyone has a fair chance to be heard. it is also the foreperson's job to sign and date the verdict

form when all of you have agreed on a verdict and to bring the verdict form back to the courtroom when you return. during deliberations, jurors must communicate about the case only with one another and only when all jurors are present in the jury room. you are not to communicate with any person outside the jury about this case. until you have reached a verdict, you must not talk about this case in person or through the telephone, writing, or electronic communication such as a blog, twitter, e-mail, text message, or any other means. do not contact anyone to assist you during deliberations. these communication rules apply until i discharge you at the end of the case. if you become aware of any violation of these instructions or any other instruction i have given in this case, you must tell me by giving a note to the court deputy. if you need to communicate with me, send a note through the court deputy signed by the foreperson.

if you have questions, i will talk with the attorneys before i answer so it may take some time. you may continue your deliberations while you wait for my answer. i will answer any questions, if i can, in writing or orally here in open court. your verdict finding george zimmerman either guilty or not guilty must be unanimous. the verdict must be the verdict of each juror as well as the jury as a whole. during the trial items were received into evidence as exhibits. you may examine whatever exhibits you think will help you in your deliberations. these exhibits will be sent into the jury room with you when you begin to deliberate. in closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. there are no other laws that apply to this case. even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. for two centuries we have lived by the constitution and the law. no juror has the right to

violate rules. we all share. at this time, if all of you will please take your notes with you and follow deputy jarvis back into the jury. >> the jury is now leaving the courtroom. the george zimmerman murder trial. let me bring in lisa bloom, john burress with us as well. they've been given their instructions in great detail, lisa. we've watched this. i mean, you know, i think back to the first time i saw a tweet from someone saying, what's happened in sanford, florida? a young man had been shot. he was unarmed. where is the justice? along this journey, trayvon martin's family said they want justice for their son. whatever the outcome that we will eventually see here, we don't know, but in their words, they want it to see justice. today the defense attorneys representing george zimmerman believe they've done a great job, in their words, representing george zimmerman and what he says happened that night. let me get your first reaction to the day and what we saw with

these closing argument, lisa. >> you're so right, tamron. i've heard from so many people that consistently stick to that theme, that this entire incident was avoidable if george zimmerman had just stayed in his car. he's the one that set the whole thing in motion. legally, that's a little bit less significant, but morally, that's packs a lot of punch. we just heard the judge's instructions. as an attorney, they make perfect sense to me. i think to most non-attorneys, they're about as clear as mud. she kind of goes through very quickly as most judges do, reading the law, which i think is confusing to a lot of people. jury instructions have gotten a little better, a little bit more plain english in recent years. the jurors can take them back into the deliberation room and pore over them and see how the evidence fits in to the defenses of excusable or justifiable homicide or the offenses of murder or manslaughter. but i think upon hearing them, most people have a confused reaction the first time around. >> let me play what mark o'mara said this morning regarding the

prosecution, in his words, not proving its case. let me play it. >> how many could have beens have you heard from the state in this case? how many what ifs have you heard from the state in this case? they don't get to ask you that. i don't think they get to say to you, what do you think? no, no, no. no, no, no. what have i proven to you? what have i convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt occurred in this case so much so that you don't have any reasonable doubt as to those issues that i presented to you? >> john burress, today it seems as if with john guy, he, for the prosecution, painted the picture of what they said happened that night. painted the picture from the beginning when these two people encountered on that terrible night where one ended up dead. we know trayvon martin is that person.

do you believe they buttoned up, as lisa was concerned yesterday, that the prosecution did not tell the jury, this is what happened, no questions, this is what happened. >> well, i don't think they did that. i did think he worked very hard to paint the big picture and, as he said, start from the beginning and not at the end. that's very important. a jury really has to see that. there's clear evidence about that. he didn't -- neither one really did address the question of reasonableness of the force. i mean, the defense said the prosecution hasn't disproved the argument of self-defense. at the same time, the prosecution did not address the question of real self-defense. they took the position that the totality of the circumstances were that this was a young man who was essentially minding his own business. he's accosted and has a confrontation. he gets shot. he was not the aggressor. the aggressive person was, in fact, george zimmerman. i don't think either side really addressed the other issues because from the defense point of view, they really didn't deal with the question of the mental

state that started out at the beginning. i think that's crucial in the assessment of a jury. at the same time, the prosecution didn't address how do you deal with the reasonableness of the offense. i think the jury instructions are kind of confusing on the question of self-defense and manslaughter. i thought a better job could have been done. >> with that said, does it concern you that those instructions that you view as confusing in your experience, will that complicate a verdict? >> i think so. i think it's very confusing to try to work through because the self-defense instruction leaves a lot to be desired. when you go from second degree down to manslaughter, which is really a reasonableness -- what you're really saying, you used excessive force. you may have thought you were able to used it under whatever circumstance, but it was not reasonable that you overreacted. i'm not certain that that instruction is clear enough for jurors to work through it.

now, they can because there are going to be some jurors who will say, he started this whole thing and shouldn't have done what he did. therefore, there must be something here because the injuries were not significant. even though you don't have to have any injuries, the fact you have minor injuries should also be considered by the jury. i think the instructions are con feu confusing, but they could find their way through it. >> lislisa, what is lingering i your mind? >> i wish the prosecution would have connected the dots. we heard from mark o'mara a strong challenge, naming john guy, telling him to come back up and connect the dots. it's true the prosecution didn't do that. what did the prosecution establish? certainly sympathy for trayvon martin and his family. of course, the judge instructs them sympathy should not be part of their verdict. it's certainly a nice part of what the prosecution typically does in a murder case, but it can't be the overall, you know, most important thing that they do. they talked about lies. clearly those lies are there. they didn't pull it through to talk about these particular

crimes. george zimmerman is not on trial for lying. he's not on trial for profiling or coming to terrible assumptions about trayvon martin. he's on trial for murder or manslaughter. the prosecution never really hit hard back on the self-defense claim because the self-defense boils down to two things. the beating that george zimmerman says he got, which we now know was exaggerated. mark o'mara admitted that in his defense closing argument, that george zimmerman exaggerated the extent of the beating. it couldn't have been as bad as he says. all right. so that takes out a significant part of the self-defense claim. also, that trayvon martin was supposedly reaching for the gun and threatened to kill george zimmerman. the prosecution really could have put that one away. there was just no way trayvon martin could have seen the gun. they didn't do that. >> yes, george zimmerman is not on trial for being a liar, but part of his story -- if you are to be believe him, you cannot believe he's a liar. isn't it that simple? >> the prosecution case is based fundamentally upon george

zimmerman being a liar. so that's circumstantial evidence. you don't have to have direct evidence. if he's lying, the question s why are you lying about this and that? particularly around the issues around the fight, how it got started, things that were said. these are important considerations. i think the fact you didn't prove it directly in a way that i would like to have seen it prosecuted -- and certainly when i was a prosecutor r circumstantial evidence is very, very important. the problem is it could have two different interpretations. one points to innocent. you have to accept that. if one is more reasonable than the other, you have to accept that. it's a two-headed sword the prosecution has to deal with. the jurors have to fight through that. >> and that is so true. lisa, let me bring you in. i don't want to put you and john on the spot, but you're experts. people want to know. you've listened to the testimony intently. your analysis has been incredible. lisa, what do you believe will be the verdict here? >> i think it will be a defense verdict. i think the defense attorneys simply outlawyered the prosecution in the case. i mean, you're asking my opinion. that's a very different

assessment than my assessment of the evidence and how this case could have turned out. i think the evidence was there for a conviction. mark o'mara was very strong in closing argument about reasonable doubt. he is correct on the law. the prosecution should not be asking questions in closing argument, leaving so much linger, leaving it to the jury to sort through and figure out what the prosecution theory of the case is. now, i could be wrong. these jurors could put it all together and come back with a conviction. if i had to guess, i would guess a defense verdict. >> and john? >> my feeling is there's evidence there, at most, for manslaughter. if i had to bet on it, i'd say it's not as likely. i would think that the prosecution could have done a better job in illustrating that. i was really surprised they never even talked about manslaughter. they never talked about the reasonableness of it and why it was important. at best it's manslaughter. it wouldn't surprise me if it was a defense verdict. >> john, lisa, thank you very much. we'll talk more with you before the end of this hour.

now that the jury has the case, our kerry sanders is actually getting new reaction from trayvon martin's parents as well as the attorneys representing george zimmerman. we're going to talk with kerry sanders about what he's being told right outside that courtroom. we'll be right back. [ moaning ] [ french accent ] antacid! sorry, i have gas. but you relieve gas, no? not me... that's his job. true. i relieve gas fast. [ male announcer ] gas-x is designed to relieve gas. gas-x, the gas xpert. you're too perfect. even the inside of your dishwasher sparkles. ok, so i'm the bad guy for being clean? you said it! you know, you... bababababa ladies! let's not fight dirty. hi, cascade kitchen counselor. see, over time... new cascade platinum's triple cleaning formula delivers brilliant shine that finish gel can't beat. it even helps keep your dishwasher sparkling.

new cascade platinum is cascade's best. mhandle more than 165 billionl yoletters and packages a year. that's about 34 million pounds of mail every day. ever wonder what this costs you as a taxpayer? millions? tens of millions? hundreds of millions? not a single cent. the united states postal service doesn't run on your tax dollars. it's funded solely by stamps and postage. brought to you by the men and women of the american postal worker's union. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company.

like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral. see why millions of people have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. don't wait. call now. o0 c1 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. 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'. welcome back. this is tamron hall with "news nation." as you know within the last five minutes or so, the jury who will decide the fate of george zimmerman went into their deliberations. this has been an incredible journey, to say the least. you have a family who's lost a son. you have another family who wants their son to come home because they believe he is innocent. let's remind you the makeup of the jury. it's comprised of six women. that's been much talked about. juror number b-76, white. b-37, white. a-6, white. e-40, white.

b-29, hispanic or black. that was the description provided by observation. observation meaning people in the court. we've learned about their background. some of them are mothers. one lives in a home where there is a gun. these things obviously come into play when you look at the jury, their backgrounds, and what might have hit a note with them, quite honestly. the prosecution or the defense. we're going to go back to sanford, in the meantime, where kerry sanders is standing by. you've been doing incredible work including getting some of the first reaction from the martin family as well as the defense and prosecution there. >> reporter: well, the reaction after the final presentation, which was the rebuttal close by john guy from the state, i spoke to tracy martin, who is trayvon martin's father. i walked out with him. i just asked him, you know, how do you feel, how do you believe the state has done here? he said they did good, they meaning the prosecutors. he hit that refrain twice.

sybrina fulton, who is tracy's ex-wife and is trayvon martin's mother, walked out. she didn't want to comment. accompanying them is their family attorney, who is ben crump. ben crump said to me that john guy, the prosecutor, gave a strong close. then a couple minutes later he said that john guy cut to the heart of the matter and that is where this case is, a heart. then a few moments later he said, emphasize heart. then he texted me, emphasize heart. they are now off to the side in the courthouse. there are special rooms set aside for the attorneys, for family members to go to. so they've retreated to that location. meantime, angela cory, the special prosecutor assigned from jacksonville by the governor of the state, who put together this charge. it was her decision to bring a second-degree murder charge. she did not present this to a

grand jury. the police did not bring the charge. it was angela cory's decision. as she exited the court, i asked her what she thought about how things went. she basically said, here's the quote, we do this all the time. we put it in the hands of the jury, and now we wait. i also saw bernie de la rionda. didn't want to say too much. he said, i'll wait until we hear back from the jury. finally, i had an opportunity to speak to mark o'mara. he's the defense attorney for george zimmerman, accused of killing trayvon martin in a second-degree murder. he said as he exited, i'm happy with the way we did and the summations and now we wait for the jury. as you pointed out, as i think i heard lisa bloom say, there's no time limit here now. these six jurors will go back. this is the first time they've had a chance to talk to each other about the case, about some of the small things that no doubt jurors want to talk about, the way people were handling, comporting themselves in the courtroom. maybe they have some funny observations. maybe they have some stern

observations is. they've gotten to know each other in every other layer of their lives. you pointed out that five of the six jurors are mothers. one of them has eight children. they're obviously from this area. as florida is generally the case, people move here from elsewhere. there's one who only moved here recently from chicago. so those jurors now will bring what they heard in the courtroom and as much as we heard in those closings, that they are supposed to use what they heard in the courtroom. there's a recognition by lawyers, and i know lisa can talk about this more, that people bring things to that room, that sealed room, that room where really we never know what goes on in there, even when people eventually talk. they bring things with them that are part of their deliberations that maybe shouldn't be. just part of the human existence. >> thank you, kerry. let me bring in lisa, since you reference her. lisa, to kerry's point, i've never served on a jury, never

been selected to serve. as he pointed out, we are human beings. people bring in their experience, their fabric of life, what they've seen, what they've witnessed. when you're in a situation like this -- and all of these jurors know the high-profile case that they are deliberating over. they know the back and forth in many cases of what's gone on, to some degree anyway. what do you believe they're thinking right now? >> so, you know, i've never been chosen for a jury. i've gone down in the pool and sat there like everybody else, waited all day, and got sent home. i sure have interviewed a lot of jurors, especially after high-profile cases. the first thing they do is pick a foreperson. i think in this case it's safe to say a forewoman of the jury. that's the person who will sort of guide all of the deliberations, make sure that everybody gets a chance to be heard, make sure that the discussions are civil, decide when they take breaks and ultimately that's the person who signs the verdict form and returns it to the courtroom. you're right. jurors are supposed to bring their common sense into the

courtroom. in fact, some of us think that's why it's better to have juries decide cases than judges and lawyers. maybe regular folks have a little more common sense than most of us who spin off with all of our crazy legal theories and technicalities every day. some places like south africa don't have juries. they just have judges and professionals decide the cases. we have jury duty in america. i think that's a good thing. i think it's good to have ordinary people randomly selected from the community to come in and decide cases, especially tough cases like this one. >> well, and lisa, speaking of tough, you were talking about the instructions given to the jury. i know you just received this information as i did. this is regarding the jury instructions and the language for justifiable use of force. in the jury's instructions in the george zimmerman case, apparently borrowed from the language of florida's stand your ground law, even though this is not a case surrounding stand your ground. this was a self-defense case. in the jury instructions in the case, it reads in part, if george zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was

attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. now, in the stand your ground law in the florida statute t says similar language, lisa. a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat. it's literally word for word here what i have here in the jury instructions and the stand your ground law, which we know became a hot part of this story in the beginning and even resulted in a task force in florida looking at and ultimately keeping that law in place. >> isn't that interesting how the pendulum has swung back and forth about stand your ground's applicability to this case? initially this case got a lot of attention among other reasons because it seemed like a stand your ground case. many people criticized the stand

your ground law, myself included, for the idea that somebody can just stand there and fight back instead of retreats, which would avert a lot of violence. then there was a chance for the defense before this trial to have a stand your ground hearing, have a hearing without a jury, just in front of the judge. if they could establish facts sufficient to prove stand your ground, this trial would never have happened. mark o'mara said, we're not going to do that. we're going to waive george zimmerman's stand your ground right. bottom line, they decided to go to a jury. george zimmerman's story is really not a stand your ground kind of story. he says he's pinned down with trayvon martin on top of him, ground and pay mma style. obviously, he wouldn't have an opportunity to retreat if that's what were going on. now we're back to having stand your ground back in the trial in those jury instructions. >> yeah, it is incredible. lisa, i hope you can stick around. we've got ten more minutes in the show. as i mentioned, jury watch now underway in the george zimmerman trial.

our coverage will continue after this break. george zimmerman is not guilty if you have just a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. >> the defendant didn't shoot trayvon martin because he had to. he shot him because he wanted to. ♪ [ male announcer ] you wait all year for summer. ♪ this summer was definitely worth the wait. ♪ summer's best event from cadillac. let summer try and pass you by. lease this all-new cadillac ats for around $299 per month or purchase for 0% apr

for 60 months. come in now for the best offers of the model year. 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. these are sandra's "homemade" yummy, scrumptious bars. hmm? i just wanted you to eat more fiber. chewy, oatie, gooeyness... and fraudulence. i'm in deep, babe. you certainly are. [ male announcer ] fiber one.

-- as well as the sanford police chief cecil smith there

making a joint statement in the wake of this case now in the hands of the jury. let's listen in. >> our mission is to provide a safe and secure environment for the entire community. june 10th members of our community walked into this courthouse as potential jurors. just like people throughout the country do in our 3,000-plus counties. once seated, these individuals will decide cases and controversies in their respective jurisdictions, and they do it under the watchful eye of a presiding judge. now, for 15 days this jury has heard from witnesses. they have viewed evidence. they have learned the facts. they've been instructed of the

laws that apply, and now they are deliberating. and soon, hopefully, they will issue a verdict. as americans, we entrust our fellow citizens with this solemn duty. in exchange, we the public, respect and accept their decision. now, at times, as individuals, we may not agree with this verdict. but as communities within our country, we respect the rule of law. before i turn the podium over to chief smith, i would like to speak to what i see in our community. we recognize while this case has brought a great deal of emotion, there's no tension in seminole county. let me repeat that. i cannot speak for any other jurisdiction, but i have to tell you we recognize that this case has stirred up a great deal of emotion, but we're not seeing

tension here in seminole county. there's no party involved in this case who wants to see any violence. and we have every expectation upon the announcement of this verdict that our community and its visitors will continue to act peacefully. please be assured that our office has been working with other law enforcement agencies, particularly sanford police department, to ensure the safety of our citizens and visitors it here. we encourage businesses to not disrupt operations. we encourage all residents to live their lives normally. we will not tolerate anyone who uses this verdict as an excuse to violate the law.

i am proud of the efforts of the men and women or our organization, and we're going to continue to work hard to provide the best possible service to the people of seminole county. now i would like to introduce chief smith. >> first i want to thank you all for being here today and taking the time to be here. 17 months ago a tragedy took place here in the city of sanford. one in which has changed the mindset, the perception, what we see in our country today. it also took the opportunity to bring some things to light that may have taken place many, many, many years ago. 15 months ago 30,000 some odd people showed up here. during that same time, they requested that several things take place. they wanted an investigation. they asked for an arrest. they asked for charges to be made. they asked for a trial.

each of those things have taken place. additionally, they asked for an investigation into the police department and they asked for a review of the things that have taken place in the police department through the department of justice. each of those things have taken place. but also during that time, a blue ribbon panel was developed to look at issues and concerns not only in the police department but throughout the city. community meetings have been held to talk about issues and concerns that affect the people in sanford and how we as a community can work together to resolve those. there's been training done with law enforcement through their department of justice within the police department to talk about the issues based on bias-based policing and ethics. we've gone out into the community and talked, spoke to people about what their issue is by knocking on their door,

introducing ourselves to say, let's see how we can improve the relationship between the police department and the community. we've also developed what's called sanford's pastors connecting where we've connected with the pastors throughout the entire city. those pastors, regardless of their religion, their believes -- they get a good feel for the things that are happening, talk about the things going on within the community. in this case, they are the ones who have the opportunity to unite, to have that vision, to see the direction that the police department working through the pastors, how our community can move forward. as we await this verdict, we would like to remind everyone that the city of sanford has been a peaceful location since

that time 17 months ago. it remains a peaceful location. an example of that is when you come into the building here today, the number of people who are in the area for free speech, we've learned some lessons through this past 15 months. many of which we're going to move forward with and see how we can band together to make sanford a much better place. part of that is communications and being able to talk to each other about the issues and how we can improve upon the things that need to be done in our community. what more needs to be done. i'm not going to sit here and tell you everything is peachy keen in the city of sanford. i'm not going to do that. but what i will tell you is this. our community is working together to be a better community, to be an example for the other people throughout

florida, throughout the nation. to be the example to talk about issues, to put things on the table, to see the duration that we can do better. we can do more. as a community, it becomes our responsibility to work together to talk about what the issues and things that are out there. it's our community. when this trial passes, it will still be our community. when everyone is gone and the cameras are gone and the light is no longer shining on sanford, it will still remain our community. an example of how a community can come together in a crisis to work together, to resolve issues, to be peaceful, to put their things it on the table, to talk about what is out there and how we can move together. as the sheriff has indicated, we have worked together