thanks for watching. be sure to tune in for msnbc's special on the george zimmerman trial, that's tonight at 9:00 eastern. ha "hardball" is next. the jury gets the case. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm in for chris matthews. the fate of george zimmerman is in the jury's hands now. this morning mark o'mara made his closing argument saying that zimmerman had acted in self-defense. then state attorney john guy offered a rebuttal, asking juror does bring their common sense to bear in deciding this case and

pointing out what he says was in george zimmerman heart the night of the shooting. moments ago, the jury had a question for the judge, requesting an inventory list of the evidence by number and descriptio description. craig melvin has been following the case. >> two and a half hours, that's how long the jury of six women has been deliberating so far. didn't take them long to ask that first question, we're told. right now the clerk is working on maybing that list, that list of evidence. after the clerk is done leaking the list, counsel will review the list, and then it will be made available to the jurors. again, not terribly uncommon in a case like this for jurors to ask questions. in fact, we anticipate that more questions will be asked. i spent some time a short time ago talking to benjamin crump,

the attorney that has been working very closely with the martin family. he said this is something they were expecting and again, something that they continue to expect. we should also note that the attorneys right now are standing by at the courthouse. none of them have left. the family has not left. don't know whether that's a sign that they are anticipating a verdict tonight or whether it's going to be something that comes this weekend. we can tell you, though, that judge nelson has left it up to this jury to decide how long they will deliberate every night, whether they will continue to deliberate into the night. we can tell you the jury will be read very quickly. we told at one point the media would be given 60 minutes notice. at some point today that was decided that would not leslie be the case. a verdict could come down and four or five minutes later we could be on the air bringing it to you. we should also tell you that three of the jurors, the alter

n the alternate jurors were released. there was a law enforcement press conference a short time ago. in short, we will not tolerate law breaking. that was the head heine from the press conference. i can tell you, i just walked over to where the demonstrators are, there's only about 20 of them right now. more cameras than there are protesters. and court has also reconvened as well. >> very quickly, i take it that none of those alternates speaking to the media at this juncture. >> none of the alternates are speaking to the media, in fact, their identity will be concealed for an undetermined period of time by order of the judge. >> i'm joined by msnbc analyst lisa bloom, paul henderson,

karen desoto and todd nelson. he told the jury that he would take on an additional burden for his client, actually proving his innocence. >> i would like you to presume whatever you can for my client's benefit. because after all, that's what good defense attorneys do. but in this type of case we're going to do something that will probably upset or enrage defense attorneys anywhere who are listening to this case. of course, at the risk of confusing you, i'm going to take a side trip for just a few minutes. and that side trip is going to be, i'm going to take on the obligation to prove to you that my client is innocent. >> karen desoto. . you do defense work. are you enraged about that? how did it play out as a strategy? >> i think it's a great strategy

because in a case where you have so much emotion going on. so many people have been passionate about this, you have to try and dissect that. so you're going to do that how? of course righteous indig nation. you're going to say that your client is absolutely innocent because you want to get them to listen to the instructions, set aside the emotion and just all out fight for your client. >> he's saying look, i don't have the burden. i feel so strongly about the evidence in this case, i can assume their burden and still win my case. >> it's priceless. i mean, it's a great ploy. pt i don't think he means it. i don't think he thinks he's going to aggravate anybody or infewer rate or anything. the reality is, he said my gay is this good, guys. i don't need beyond a reasonable doubt, i can prove my guy innocent. he did a fabulous job. and he's got that ward cleaver feel to him.

they're wanting to believe him. and when he says something like that, i'm sure they're on the edge of their seat saying, god, we want to be with you. we want to be with you. >> the prosecution argument, a strong closing argument but strange in that they asked questions without having the answers to them. and when i saw o'mara doing that, i saw him seizing the mantle saying if they're not going to answer them i'm going to answer them. >> you heard him say i'm going to take on the burden of proving innocence. the bottom line is the judge instructs the jury at the end of all this that the prosecution

has the burden yonbeyond a reasonable doubt. this is a rhetoric more than anything else. he's really not accepting that burden. >> we saw two distinct styles in the presentations today, one more staid and thoughtful and the other focusing on the emotion. how did you judge the lawyering that we saw today? >> i think we saw very good lawyering. we saw very strong arguments presented on both sides. i thought the prosecution did a really wonderful job of laying out the evidence, laying out his case and making an impassioned plea about what he thought the evidence was. i still feel like i would have liked to see a little more focus on the self-defense issue and why it should fail, why it doesn't work, why there are inconsistencies, because i think the whole discussion about self-defense is the linchpin to what the jury is deciding right

now. >> o'mara was silent for four minutes during his argument. he did this to show the time that trayvon martin had to get home. >> common sense tells you, the person who decided that this was going to continue, that this was going to become a violent event was the guy who didn't go home when he had the chance to. it was the guy who decided to lie in wait, i guess, plan his move, it seems, decide what he was going to do. and when the state told you that he had no decisions? they dared to tell you that trayvon martin had no decisions? that my client planned this? really, four minutes. four minutes of planning. >> karen, that's not original. i mean, i've been in cases where time has been a factor and lawyers will sit there and watch that time. how effective do you think it was in this case?

>> it's extremely effective because four minutes is a really long time, especially for an argument or tussle or four minutes alone can be a lifetime, especially in these cases where you have the self-defense cases that are flip-flopping. it's like a shakespeare play. as you're doing the self-defense you're trying to create your client as a victim. so the four minutes is very powerful and very descriptive. >> the thing is trayvon martin had plenty of time to go home if he were attempting to go home, i think they said the distance of a football field. in rebuttal, was john guy successful in addressing this point? >> absolutely. i tip my hat to john guy. they did a fabulous job. they crossed every t, they dotted every i. and he did. they answered this question, but they answered it in a strange

way. they played a different ball game. they never really attacked the confrontation. they all changed the game. they set the narrative. they set the narrative by saying that zimmerman was wrong when he got up that morning, when he put that gun on his waist. when he decided i was going to go out. and they used these great words, like kids, skittles, profiling, every word was setting their narrative and they never had to talk about the fact that trayvon martin started this fight. they did as good as they could with the facts they had. >> lisa bloom -- >> they set the narrative from the beginning. >> in the rebuttal argument, john guy asked the jurors to apply common sense to this case as he described what he said were inconsistencies in the defense's description of those events that he says could not physically have occurred. let's watch. >> common sense that tells you

if trayvon martin had been mounted on the defendant as the defendant claims, when he went to get his gun, he never could have got it. i don't have to pull out that mannequin again and sit on it. you remember. if you have to, do it in the jury room. if he was up on his waist, his waist is covered by trayvon martin's legs. he couldn't have got the gun. he couldn't have. they wanted a reason? it's a physical impossibility. >> and then guy bluntly characterized george zimmerman state of mind when he decided to shoot. >> the defendant didn't shoot trayvon martin because he had to. he shot him because he wanted to. that's the bottom line. >> lisa bloom, you've been wondering when the prosecution would address this issue of access or lack thereof to the

weapon. how did they do on that today? >> i have a different perspective than this prosecution team. it's not who got the gun. we know that george zimmerman got the got and shot it at trayvon martin. it's trayvon martin's ability to see the gun. they say trayvon mash sin saw the gun. if you can eliminate trayvon martin seeing the gun you can undercut the self-defense. you do that in the most compelling way possible for as long as possible during your closing argument that the gun was holstered in a black holster inside the pants of george zimmerman. you do that showing the video, the 30 seconds of the video where he says that. you put that holster on your body in your pants, you knock that point out of the park. i didn't see the prosecution doing that. we know that george zimmerman got the gun. and we know that most of the time his story was trayvon

martin reached for the gun. so i don't feel hike they really adequately addressed this point. >> a great panel, they are all staying with us. the jurors heard the arguments. they've been instructed on the law, and now they have the case. let's get into what may sway them. and later to the role that race may play in the jury's decision. this is "hardball," the place for politics. 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. 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. i don'without goingcisions to angie's list first. with angie's list, i know who to call, and i know the results will be fantastic! find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust.

how can i help you? oh, you're real? you know i'm real! at discover, we're always here to talk. good, 'cause i don't have time for machines. some companies just don't appreciate the power of conversation! you know, i like you! i like you too! at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card and talk to a real person.

welcome back to "hardball." after nearly a month of courtroom drama featuring testimony from 56 witnesses, it's now up to a jury to return a guilty or not guilty verdict in the case of george zimmerman.

just as important as the evidence that they've seen, the testimony that they've heard are the rules they must obey. they've been provided with 27 pages of instructions to guide their deliberations which will be critical to the outcome of the case. remember these jurors are six regular people. they're not lawyers, and they're certainly not criminal justice experts. as important as what the law says is how they're interpreted. i spoke with alan der show wit earlier today. >> i feel that the prosecutor engaged in serious prosecutial miss conduct. reasonable doubt is written all over it. if the judge had any guts, she would have directed a verdict of not guilty. elected judges don't do that. >> we're rejoined by our panel. paul, pretty strong words from

professor ders wit. he was address his comments to the charge. how do you interpret that? >> he's speaking specifically to the intent. again, you know, i understand what his perspective is as a defense attorney talking about and focussing on the reasonable doubt standard, but i keep reminding everyone as i remind juries every time i stand in front of them, we use that standard of reasonable doubt every single time we get a conviction and a defendant is held accountable. so i'm not afraid of reasonable doubt here. and in this situation where we don't have a lot of information about what exactly happened, we don't have a lot of information about what exactly happened, because zimmerman shot and killed the other person that could tell us a version and we're left with a scattered version from zimmerman. so i don't think he should be automobile to benefit from that. i think there's enough information for us to infer

intent. i do agree that second degree is a really high standard for a case like this when there's so little clear information. >> if in fact the prosecution overcharged, angela cory was the individual who made the decision to go for second degree murder. if that were overcharging, does that help or hurt the manslaughter charge? >> well, ultimately, i think it helps, from a prosecutorial point of view. because in this case, the prosecution, they argued great. and they seemed like they believed in their case. i'm sure all six jurors are sitting there thinking these guys believe in their case. once you can't give them the second degree murder, you've really got to think, you know, what can i do with this manslaughter. the bottom line is we've got a 17 year old kid, he's a child, eating skittles. he wasn't doing anything illegal. so ultimately, that manslaughter is going to give them an

opportunity to have a comfortable little fall back. that's scary for the defense. that's the thing that's scaring them to death right now. >> o'mara also out lined the theory for self-defense which is the backbone of the defense's case. >> no injuries necessary to respond with deadly force. not a cut on a finger. the statute is clear. reasonable fear of bodily harm. captain carter told you, whoa, you can get reasonable fear of bodily harm when you're already getting your butt beat. that's certainly an indication. but do you need a cut on your finger? no. >> okay. i think this is really important. in their instructions, the jury has been given guidance on the legal grounds of self-defense, and this is what they've been told. a person is justified in using

deadly force if he reasonable bring believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. the danger facing george zimmerman need not have been actual, based upon appearance, george zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real. >> karen desoto, apply that standard to this case. >> well, you know, the whole idea of reasonableness in this case is really what this hinges in. the defense spent a large amount of time in their closing talking about self-defense, because if you may believe that self-defense might have been applicable then you have to find in favor of george zimmerman. so it's extremely crucial. and so now i would have hope that there would have been more of an instruction on what reasonableness is, a little bit more of a definition because it's so crucial in this case. so if they go back there and they do exactly what the defense wants them to do, which is before they even look at it, you know, do we brief that self-defense may have been

applicable here and then we can stop. and that's so much important with the lesser included offense because we know it's an an all-inclusive offense. if you have it in one, you would assume you have it in the other, unless we have a case where the jurors are going to compromise. >> if george zimmer mab's account is accurate, did he reasonably brief, as he was in that altercation and having his head slammed on the concrete. did he reasonably believe that he faced imminent death or a get of bodily harm? >> this is where it's important for attorneys to listen to each other in their closing arguments. o'mara conceded that zimmerman exaggerated his injuries. that he wasn't bapged head to the concrete several times. maybe it was a couple times. he exaggerated. he was panicked. i would have loved to seen the prosecutor pounce on that. that is not a reasonable person.

that is not another one of the jury instructions talks about a reasonably cautious and prudent person. a person who's panicking is not reasonably cautious and prudent. that means would no longer have self-defense. we have at minimum manslaughter, because we know george zimmerman intentionally shot trayvon martin. >> in his closing argument, o'mara made this argument, it's the prosecution's job to connect the dots and not yours. >> how many what ifs have you heard from the state in this case? well i don't think they 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, those issues that i presented to

you. they are supposed to use words like certainty and definite and without question, beyond a reasonable doubt. no other explanation. >> paul henderson, is he on to something here? was the prosecution deficient insofar as they asked open ended questions without having a consistent theory of their own in their case? >> it depends on the lens that you use. i would liked to see more questions directed at the challenges to the defense's case and more questions posed that directly challenged the version that the defense was trying to sechlt just like lisa said earlier, i pointed that out too and was taking note when is they started talking about the exaggerations because that opens the door to have a conversation about the imperfect self-defengs, and i would have liked to see a presentation from the prosecution that focused on

that and gave them the answer, not just asked the questions, because i think asking questions is effective. but what's also effective if you raise the question and give them the answer so that they know and you follow the path that leads you to a guilty verdict. >> thank you for excellent commentary. up next, how race has affected the zimmerman trial both in and out of the courtroom. this is "hardball," the place for politics. of olay total effs plus the perfecting color of a bb cream equal? introducing the newest beauty trend. total effects cc cream c for color. c for correction. [ female announcer ] fight 7 signs of aging flawlessly. cc for yourself. [ herbie ] eh, hold on brent, what's this? mmmm, nice car. there's no doubt, that's definitely gonna throw him off. she's seen it too. oh this could be trouble. [ sentra lock noise ] oh man. gotta think fast, herbie. back pedal, back pedal. [ crowd cheering ] oh, he's down in flames and now the ice-cold shoulder. one last play... no, game over!

gps take him to the dog house. [ male announcer ] make a powerful first impression. the all-new nissan sentra. ♪ pnc virtual wallet®. the all-new nissan sentra. for a whole new way to view your finances. for organizing debit card purchases, credit card purchases and even your bills. for seeing your spending by category or by month. so you can set a budget and get alerts when you're running low. for keeping track of your spending to see when you're coming close to the limit you've set. for seeing how pnc virtual wallet® can help you manage your money in one simple to use place, go to pncvirtualwallet.com. pnc bank. for the achiever in you®.

the house caught fire and we were out on the streets. [ whispering ] shhh. it's only a dream.

and we have home insurance. but if we made a claim, our rate would go up... [ whispering ] shhh. you did it right. you have allstate claim rate guard so your rates won't go up just because of a claim. [ whispering ] are we still in a dream? no, you're in an allstate commercial. so get allstate home insurance with claim rate guard... [ whispering ] goodnight. there are so many people in our bedroom. [ dennis ] talk to an allstate agent... [ doorbell rings ] ...and let the good life in. . welcome back to "hardball." something happened in the last part of this trial. john guy brought up a subject and a word that has been almost entirely absent since the start -- race. let's take a look. >> this case is not about race. it's about right and wrong. it's that simple.

and let me suggest to you how you know that for sure. ask yourselves, all things being equal, if the roles were reversed and it was 28 year old george zimmerman walking home in the rain, with a hoodie on to protect hem seimself from the r 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. >> in some ways, it's remarkable that up until now race hadn't

been discussed more inside the courtroom, since from the beginning so much of this case in the public discourse, at least, centered around the topic. but judge debra nelson ordered that they couldn't say that they racially profiled martin, only that he profiled martin. still, the question remains, what role, if any, will race play in the jury's verdict joy reed is a contributor. why do you think it was necessary for them to make that statement when race hadn't been spoken of up until then. >> i think race has been a hidden sub text all along. you did have mark o'mara say that he was going to talk about the racial issue. i don't really see that he necessarily did that. so i think john guy took the opportunity to put it on the table. and when you have a jury with

five white women on it, one of the things you want to do is give them that gimme. we know that you're not making this decision based on race. but the next thing he did was set up an explicit racial question, which is if the races of these two people were reversed and it was trayvon marten who had shot zimmerman as zimmerman was walking through that community, what would your verdict be. >> i like your analysis. this is the prosecutor saying look, i'm going to address the elephant in the room. we haven't talked about it, but we know it's on your mind. put in a role reversal here. we'd still be here and we'd still be prosecuting this case. >> everyone knows, you have to presume the jurors know, race is an incredibly strong sub text from the way rachel jeantel is perceived to the reason why zimmerman might have thought that martin was suspicious in

the first place. this was a sub text there anyway. and it was, i guess the prosecution felt it was time they addressed it. >> in his closing, defense attorney mark o'mara said it -- they will show you that in that community, there was a rash of people burglarizing homes, and you know what else it's going to show you? it's going to show you that a lot of the people who were arrested for it, the only people who were found and arrested were young black males. i'm going to talk about race in a little bit too. the reason why i mention that now is we talked about assumptions and what you sort of bring into your world. listen to the calls. anger? frustration? hatred? ill will? spite? get out here and get these guys?

i hate these young black males? whatever the absurdity is they want you to get from that. listen to the calls. >> joy, as an african-american female, when you hear profiling, are you thinking racial profiling? >> y you can use the p word, but you can't say racial profiling. >> immediately. and as the mother of a young black male sons, that is immediately what i think of. and mark o'mara has in very settle way, introduced hey, wouldn't you be worried about this person too? the grainy photograph of trayvon martin in the 7-11, that's not to show his height, that's to show someone scary that you would feel nervous about. they put on a witness who said her home had been broken into.

who did it? young black male. the pattern they wanted to get into, young black males breaking into homes, suspicious behavior, they talked about like a jimmy, implying maybe trayvon martin could have been up to no good. i think race is a sub text even in the defense arguments. it's just that the defense doesn't want to make it explicit. and the prosecution had to put it on the table. >> you mentioned the photograph used. i was watching a feed that was showing evidence shown to the jury. there was a photograph in which he looked beare chested from th waist up. this was not one of the crime scene photographs. i was thinking what you just said while i watched that photograph. any reaction for you? >> yeah. that was like to present him as not a teenager but as a thug,

essentially. and those two photographs were paired together. i saw the same feed you did. and right next to each other was this grainy gray figure in a hoodie, looking much bigger than the guy behind the counter at the 7-11, paired with this photo of him with a bare chest. this was meant to say this want a boy walking home, this is somebody any reasonable person would have been afraid of walking home. this is someone attacking george zimmerman and trying to kill him. race is layered all over that. >> let's bring in kerry sanders. >> o >> reporter: you're asking questions about why it was so late in this particular case that this issue came up, don't forget that during the jury selection, the members of this jury live in this community. and five of the six said in open court that they had some understanding, some knowledge about what had happened here. they knew a little bit about the protests. and so one juror, the one from

chicago with eight kids said that she was just too busy, didn't know much about it. but the others were aware of it. the question that the judge asked was could they set aside any preconceived notions, any preconceived thoughts about what they briefed that they knew and only accept what they hear in the court as the facts for the determination here. so while this is a question that is perhaps good for discussion, i imagine the jurors have been wondering themselves why they only heard it today. now where are things currently going on in the courthouse? the jury is in their room. they're in their alone. there's a bailiff outside. and they're going through their deliberations. because they've asked a question, it's clear that they have now selected a foreperson, a forewoman, because this is a six member female jury. they've requested already one thing. and that is a list of the evidence with numbers so that they can sort of sort through that, and i assume maybe go to the next step of requesting

pieces of evidence back in the courtroom or transcripts that they can review. inside the courthouse, you have up on the fifth floor, trayvon martin's family. and they're in one of the attorney/client rooms that are set aside outside most courthouses in the country and they're there with their attorneys. you also have george zimmerman with his family and his defense attorneys also in the courtroom. also on the fifth floor in another portion of the fifth floor in another one of those rooms. and then you have the prosecution team led by angela cory, whom you haven't seen a whole hot of, but she's the one who brought the charges. and she is there. and everybody is waiting. and so when and if the jury were to come back, let's say today, with a verdict, it will happen quickly. everybody will be told assemble in the courtroom. it would not be like they initially thought about send out a tweet and give them an hour. but how long will the jury stay

here? >> thanks for setting the stage so well. we appreciate your report. joy reed, thank you. as the jury continues its deliberations, and a reminder you can listen to my radio program weekdays in the morning. this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ female announcer ] made just a little sweeter...

because all these whole grains aren't healthy unless you actually eat them ♪ multigrain cheerios. also available in delicious peanut butter. healthy never tasted so sweet. when you do what i do, iiyou think about risk..er. i don't like the ups and downs of the market, but i can't just sit on my cash. i want to be prepared for the long haul. ishares minimum volatility etfs. investments designed for a smoother ride. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing.

risk includes possible loss of principal. i'll believe it when i--- [ both ] oooooh... [ female announcer ] as you get older, protein is an important part of staying active and strong. ensure high protein... fifty percent of your daily value of protein. low fat and five grams of sugars. [ major nutrition ] ensure! nutrition in charge!

i'm hampton pearson with your march get report. the nasdaq gaining 21 points. this as americans become less optimistic about the economy. boeing shares drop after a 787

caught fire at heathrow airport. twingsys return to the markets. now back to "hardball." welcome back to "hardball." we're rejoined by our panel, lisa bloom, tad nelson and karen desoto. something that surprised me today was the lack of argument by either side, differentiating in their closings between second degree murder and manslaughter. i really think that's an important part of the case, and yet both seemed to stay away from it. what what's your read on that? >> i wanted to hear more on those differentiations. obviously the issue with the

second degree murder is the intent. but beyond that, i think the bigger issue is the self-defense. and i really wish both parties had spent more time ar particular rating why the self-defense is successful or why it fails. i brief that's the real legal issue. and that's what i brief the jury is in that room now trying to discuss and trying to figure out whether or not there's a real self-defense and where that failure or success fits in between those two charges. >> tad nelson, i think a difficult aspect for the prosecution's case is that evil intention. in meeting the requirement and that's why they spent so much time as you know on the f-ing punks and ahs and so forth. so that's why we didn't hear from the prosecute ares, look, we think we've established the elements of second degree murder, here it is. but if, ladies and gentlemen, you don't find those elements

have been met shall here's the standard for man slaughter. and of course, we've met this burden, something like that. you're the prosecutor. talk to me on that issue. >> well, you know, i don't really take umbrage with them not really explaining it that much. you know, i think they went out of their way. they used, you know, the f-ing punks and the things they said, and they tried to, you know, raise the level of intensity in the courtroom, tried to hake it more racial, more provocative. but the only difference between the two charges is the dark heart, the hatred and all that. that's such a minor part of it. other than that, they pretty much read verbatim. and if you don't think you can get the top one -- that's why it's there. they're going to keep pushing. they're going to keep pushing. and they're looking for this comfort level of falling back on this compromised verdict. they're going to keep bringing those words up because the words is their narrative. and they're creating their narrative to set the bar very

low for themselves. i thought it was great what they did. they had a horrible, horrible set of facts. >> there was a contrast in style between the prosecution, which was more emotional in their approach than the defense, which was more stoic and workman like. and by way of example. john guy appeared to become emotional when he talked about not being able to call trayvon martin to the stand. >> the bottom line is who is responsible for trayvon martin lying on that ground? trayvon martin didn't kill himself. and who's responsible for the state not being able to ask trayvon martin to step forward so i could put my hand on his shoulder? i'd love to do that. who's responsible for that.

>> karen desoto, god, i'd love to do that. react to that. >> there were so many puzzle pieces missing, you have to play on the emotions. the defense is going to play the law because that's more favorable to george zimmerman. in a state that prosecutes 12 year olds as an adult, it was interesting to hear a prosecutor call a 17 year old a child time and time again. the use of that emotional word, he was a child, he was a child, you know, i think that was a little bit much. i thought that was overacting. i don't think that getting emotional about something, calling somebody a child who's 17 and keep on repeating it -- >> and the day before they tried to get a jury instruction on third degree murder on child abuse. stick with us. please remain where you are. back in just a moment as the zimmerman jury continues its deliberations. ♪

[ male announcer ] fight pepperoni heartburn and pepperoni breath fast with tums freshers. concentrated relief that goes to work in seconds and freshens breath. tums freshers. ♪ tum...tum...tum...tum... tums! ♪ fast heartburn relief and minty fresh breath. yeah? then how'd i get this... [ voice of dennis ] ...safe driving bonus check? every six months without an accident, allstate sends a check. silence. are you in good hands?

[ slap! ] [ male announcer ] your favorite foods fighting you? fight back fast with tums. calcium-rich tums starts working so fast you'll forget you had heartburn. ♪ tum tum tum tum tums you know you've been covering the zimmerman trial too long when your name makes it onto a local bill board. here's the sign outside of mel's diner. apparently he's known as kerry, the nbc guy. they are famous by tee shirts that say kiss my grits and

they're known for another famous tv personality, larry the cable guy. wi 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! but at least i can help keep their underwear clean. with charmin ultra strong. i'll take that. go get 'em, buddy! [ female announcer ] charmin ultra strong has a duraclean texture and its four times stronger than the leading bargain brand. enjoy the go with charmin ultra strong.

[ john ] nope. [ tires squeal ] twelve bucks a night! no. they have waterbeds. ew. no! are we near a gas station? [ phone beeps] [ phone ] no. is that from the mini bar? [ both ] no. is that a cop? no. [ cop ] do you know how fast you were going? no. eighty-seven [ groans ] he's right. is that oscar mayer? [ karen] yes! [ male announcer ] in a world filled with "no", it's nice to finally say "yes". oscar mayer selects deli meat, no artificial preservatives and gluten free.

it's yes food. it's oscar mayer. it's yes food. i'to guard their manhood with trnew depend shields and guards. the discreet protection that's just for guys. now, it's your turn. get my training tips at guardyourmanhood.com welcome back to "hardball." we're back with lisa bloom, paul henderson, tad nelson, and karen de soto. lisa bloom, by the end of the case, had the prosecution pretty much conceded that it was trayvon martin who was on top? >> i think they did. unfortunately, i got really tired of seeing the prosecution playing out the same scenario as the defense. at one point, the defense had that dummy, and they used it very effectively to demonstrate what they say happened in the fight with trayvon martin on the top, george zimmerman on the bottom there is mark o'mara pounding and giving a very powerful visual representation to the jury. i can't emphasize how important

i think visual representations are to a jury. and then after that, john guy got on top and did essentially the same thing. i understand what he was trying to do. he was trying to make the point that even under the defense's scenario, certain things were impossible. that's good. but i would additionally stand that dummy up and demonstrate the two men, side by side, how that could have happened. i would have had george zimmerman on top, as several neighbors testified that they saw. he failed to do that. and so the jury goes into deliberations with only really one scenario in mind, the scenario put forward by george zimmerman. and as mark o'mara pointed out in his closing argument, the prosecution never offered an alternative hypothesis, much less proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. >> well, i share your perspective. and that's why i asked the question. and i feel somewhat the same way relative to the voice identification in the background on the 911 call. although the prosecution was still making assertions by the closing, it seemed they pretty much waved the white flag on that too. lisa, do you disagree with me in

that respect? >> yeah,ing they did, and also on race. remember that burglary victim who testified towards the end of the trial. >> yep. >> very nice looking young woman who said an african-american male had broken into her home and she was in the closet with her baby, and she was so scared. what happened to the cross-examination of her? i would have asked her was it trayvon martin who robbed you? did trayvon martin break into your home? are you saying that trayvon martin is a burglar or a criminal? well, of course not. then why are we hearing about this? why are we hearing about another african-american male? is that to say that they're all criminals? that it's reasonable to suspect one walk do you think the street because of what another one did? that is the very definition of racial profiling. >> lisa bloom, tad nelson, and karen de soto are sticking around. we'll be back in just a moment. . for seeing the small details and the big picture, so you can do more with your money.

for finding out how pnc virtual wallet® can help you, go to pncvirtualwallet.com. pnc bank. for the achiever in you®. [ herbie ] eh, hold on brent, what's this? mmmm, nice car. there's no doubt, that's definitely gonna throw him off. she's seen it too. oh this could be trouble. [ sentra lock noise ] oh man. gotta think fast, herbie. back pedal, back pedal. [ crowd cheering ] oh, he's down in flames and now the ice-cold shoulder. one last play... no, game over! gps take him to the dog house. [ male announcer ] make a powerful first impression. the all-new nissan sentra. ♪

the last thing i want is to feel like someone is giving me a sales pitch, especially when it comes to my investments. you want a broker you can trust. a lot of guys at the other firms seemed more focused on selling than their clients. that's why i stopped working at my old brokerage and became a financial consultant with charles schwab. avo: what kind of financial consultant are you looking for? talk to us today. i dbefore i dosearch any projects on my home. i love my contractor,

and i am so thankful to angie's list for bringing us together. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust.

welcome back to "hardball." we're back with lisa bloom, paul henderson, tad nelson, and karen de soto. paul, i am frustrated by those that i perceive as rooting for a particular outcome in this case. maybe it's human nature. i personally have been rooting for a fair fight. i feel this has been a real good trial. i've watched most of it. and both sides have been ably represented by counsel. certainly you know what i'm talking about, though. just anecdotally in all of our communities, it seems that's the way people are interpreting it. your thoughts? >> i'm getting a lot of calls as well from community, particularly in the african-american community. i mean, people have a visceral reaction when they hear the facts about this case. and i think that's why there is so much pressure, there is so

much attention, and there is so much focus on this case, because a lot of people feel this case means something to them personally. this is exactly why when i was talking earlier, i wish that we heard a little bit more about the race issue in the closing. i feel like we had more tools in our tool box to use that would have helped this jury decide things. and we can't be afraid of the race issue because i think the race issue has a lot to do with how this case unfolded. i think race has a lot to do with how this case will be decided. and i think race will have a lot to do with what people take away from this case regardless of the results from this jury. and they're going to be talking about it along time. >> karen, let me be clear. i'm not talk about only the african-american community. pretty much when people call my radio program and i can discern their race, i almost always know what they're about to say about this case. it applies to whites as well. >> right. it's a shame, because, you know, at the end of the day, you know, you have to say to yourself that the state of florida really has a tremendous amount of liability

in these cases. i mean, there is a lot of racial division. but the liability for giving george zimmerman a concealed weapon i think is one of the elephants in the room here. i mean, all of this emotion, you're handing out guns like m&ms and you're giving them to people who are not military, they're not police, and then you expect that these kind of incidents aren't going to happen. that's the liability. the liability here rests with the state of florida. >> tad, the system gets beat up. we only have 30 seconds left. but in this case, from what i've seen thus far, what did churchill say about democracy in the worst system of government except for all the others. you could say the jury system is the worst method of conflict resolution except for all the others. >> absolutely. you know, speaking the last point, i'm down here in texas. i've never shot a handgun. i'm probably one of the few down here. but it is so sad what has happened with race creeping into our judicial system. and our entire environment here.

even the people that have talked on your show the last couple of days, all the shows, by and large, the african-americans will tell you that it looks like it should be a guilty verdict, with very few exceptions. >> and whites are the other way. >> it's crazy. >> thank you, lisa bloom, paul henderson, tad nelson and karen de soto. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being was. "politicsnation" with al sharpton starts right now. >> thanks, michael, and thanks to you for tuning in. tonight's lead, verdict watch in the george zimmerman trial. the jury's decision could come down at literally any moment. these are live pictures from the seminole county courthouse in sanford, florida, where jurors have been shut away in the jury room, deliberating for about three and a half hours now. by this point, they probably selected their foreman and are reviewing the evidence. after 12 days of testimony and 53 witnesses, these six