family's foundation. >> maya wiley and jelani cobb. msnbc's coverage of the george zimmerman trial continues next. the jury in the george zimmerman trial began deliberations tonight after a day of closing arguments. i'm lisa bloom. >> i'm craig melvin live in sanford, florida. tonight, the final arguments by the prosecution and the defense. and what the jury must decide. >> assumptions presume a lack of evidence. if you have to presume something, you don't know it. >> a final plea to the jury. >> the defense in the george zimmerman trial just finished their closing statements. >> george zimmerman is not guilty. if you have just a reasonable doubt. >> mark o'mara was very strong in closing argument about reasonable doubt. >> do you have a doubt? beyond a reasonable doubt. just a reasonable doubt. beyond a reasonable doubt. >> attorney mark o'mara has

taken aim at the prosecution. >> we are now awaiting a rebuttal from prosecution. >> this case is not about race. it's about right and wrong. >> he worked very hard to paint the big picture. >> to the living, we owe respect, but to the dead, we owe the truth. >> the trial of george zimmerman is nearing its end. >> judge debra nelson sent out the jury to begin their deliberations. >> jury deliberations at the george zimmerman murder trial. >> coming after 12 days of testimony. >> 12 days of testimony. 56 witnesses. >> and several hours of passionate closing arguments. >> jury watch now under way. >> the six-woman jury will decide george zimmerman's legal fate. jury deliberations for tonight are over. they will start again tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. the six women on the jury will decide whether george zimmerman is guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty at all in the killing of 17-year-old trayvon

martin. 17 months ago. george zimmerman has pled not guilty, claiming self-defense. >> before the jury left for the night, they did have one request. they asked the judge for an inventory list of the evidence by number and description which the court clerk provided after getting the approval of both the prosecution and the defense. joining us now, msnbc contributor joy reid, gary kazmir, a former new york city prosecutor who does criminal and civil litigation, and former prosecutor marcia clark who is also the author of the new novel "killer ambition." so let's go around the horn and talk about the one little indication that we got from this jury. we've been trying to read them, read them like tea leaves. they want a list of the evidence. joy, let's start with you. >> i think because this is a murder trial, because it has such gravity both for the defense and also for the victim's family, i think the jurors are being careful. they're not going to give mark

o'mara the quick verdict they wanted. they're going to go through evidence piece by piece by piece. i think they're being responsible jurors. >> gary, what do you think? >> joy is absolutely right. they are being responsible, as most jurors do. they are taking it one step at a time. they asked for the evidence list at 4:00 and then recessed. they're going to start early tomorrow and probably call in some of the pieces of evidence so they can look at it. >> i guess we attorneys, marcia clark, are differential to jurors, they're so smart, they're so wonderful. they say, give me a list, let's get some organization here. >> it very well may be. you know, lisa, we know it is like reading tea leaves, unless it's very, very obvious. there are times it's rare, but there are time, when a juror's behavior is so obvious you can't miss it. that is when they consistently, like, turn away from one side and lean forward toward the other, then you know throughout the trial how they're feeling. in this case, you know, there's nothing that we can really deduce anything from. they took a lot of notes with this witness and not that one. who knows what they're writing. who knows what it means.

>> and who knows whether they might just be doodling, actually. >> yeah, true. true. true. >> the jury's day, the day actually started behind me here, the seminole county courthouse at 8:30 this morning. george zimmerman's attorney mark o'mara presented the defense's closing argument and he had this message for the jury. very simple message. do not connect the dots for the prosecution. >> assumptions presume a lack of evidence. if you have to presume something, you don't know it. and if you don't know it, it hasn't been proven. and if it hasn't been proven, as the instruction tells you, it's just not there. and you can't consider it. you can't fill in the gaps. you can't connect the dots for the state attorney's office in this case. you're not allowed to. >> well, maybe not, but you can draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. o'mara zeroed in on the legal

phrase that could decide the case. certainly he hopes it does. reasonable doubt. >> i call this case the bizarro case, in my practice, because it sometimes seems like it's turned upsidedown to me. not saying you should afrgree wh that, but just a perspective that i've had in this case. 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 -- i don't think, anyway, 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 point have any reasonable doubt as to those issues i've presented to you? they are supposed to use words

like certainty and definite. and without question. beyond a reasonable doubt. no other explanation. these are the words and phrases of good prosecutors. i used to be one. i know. i've used them. what aren't good words of good prosecutors are maybe, what if, i hope so, you figure it out, could have been. because those are the assumptions that pleas do not make. could have been? that's where defense attorneys learned to practice and words that they learned to read to a jury. i'm not going to do any of that with you today. i want you to know exactly what happened that night. i don't want you to presume anything.

i would like you to presume whatever you can to my client's benefit, because after all, that's what good defense attorneys do. but in this type of a case, we're going to do something that will probably upset or enrage defense attorneys anywhere who are listening to this case, because 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. something i absolutely do not have to do. it is the opposite. >> from there, the defense pointed out several instances where it said the prosecution neglected to, quote, connect the dots, including whether george zimmerman lied about not knowing where he was in his own neighborhood when he got out of his car the night of the

shooting. >> made about the recreation video and the numbers right behind him and the numbers now in the -- by the way, one other point on that, which witness, and this is going to sound as though i'm being a little bit sneaky, so let me premise you with that. which witness told you that miss lauer's lights were on that night? the numbers that they want you to believe that mr. zimmerman walked by and said -- just want to go after them. just so we're clear, the witness that showed you that miss laurer was here and the state asked the question of her, just so we're clear, because we really want to prove he was doing this intentionally and trying to say something that we can catch him on later. please tell the jury that your

lights were on that night. they never asked him that. just didn't. because they want you to presume and assume and connect the dots and do whatever. is that sort of sneaky? no. sorry. this is their burden. they have to take a away reasonable doubt. they have to look at this case and say to you, ladies and gentlemen of this jury, hi, we're the state. we have proved this case beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt because we have connected every dot that forms a line that leaves nothing but -- and they just didn't. >> o'mara attacked the prosecution's argument that george zimmerman followed trayvon martin. >> let me ask you something. is there any piece of evidence that you have in this case that supports the contention that george zimmerman ran anywhere or

that he ran after trayvon martin after he said, okay? i have another challenge for the state. let me tell you about it. let me show you in the record of this case that they had evidence that he ran after trayvon martin, walked after him after he said, okay. because if it's there, i missed it. presumption, assumption, connecting the dots? sure. but you agree not to do that and don't let them let you do that. >> and a lot of time has been spent on the position of the gun and the position of trayvon martin's body when the gun went off. >> now, here's a theory of guilt for you. you ready? because this is the state's

presentation. sol listen carefully. he might have been backing up. he could have been backing up. could have been. if i was arguing that, i would be arguing to you reasonable doubt. you know, it could have happened this way, it could have been that he was backing up. well, i don't know. i almost made light of it when i said, well, he could have been backing up to strike another blow. but could have beens don't belong in this courtroom. proof beyond a reasonable doubt. consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. he was leaning over him. nothing to suggest anything else but that he could have been leaning back? at some point after 45 seconds attacking george zimmerman, for no other reason, let's not forget, he didn't back up when

john good told him to. right? so for some reason, just before the shot takes off, at that moment the state wants you to believe trayvon martin retreated. really? really? one piece of evidence, just one, i ask for, just one piece of evidence to force at contention. where is it? where's the eyewitness who said i saw him back up? where's the forensic evidence? he got all the way back up, chest and shirt are tied together and shot is through and through. where is that piece of evidence? where is one shred of evidence to support the absurdity that they're trying to have you buy? one. mr. guy can tell you about it when we close. if it's there.

assumption, supposition. could have been. >> arguably, one of mark o'mara's most memorable demonstrations today was with a slab of cement. >> and then it was said how many times was it said that trayvon martin wasn't armed? now, i'll be held in contempt if i drop this, so i'm not going to do some drama and drop it on the floor and watch it roll around. but that's cement. that is sidewalk. and that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but skittles trying to get home. there was somebody who used the availability of dangerous items from his fist, to the concrete,

to cause great bodily injury. self-defense. great bodily injury against george zimmerman, and the suggestion by the state that that's not a weapon, that that can't hurt somebody, that that can't cause great bodily injury, is disgusting. >> we'll take a closer look at mark o'mara's closing with our panel as well as john guy's rebuttal coming up. and a little bit later in our show tonight, we will hear from someone who's been in that courtroom nearly every day since this trial started. stay with us. ever ybody has different investment objectives, ever ideas, goals, appetite for risk. you can't say 'one size fits all'.

it doesn't. that's crazy. we're all totally different. ishares core. etf building blocks for your personalized portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.

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'.

i almost wish, and i've never said this in a criminal trial before, never heard it being said before. i almost wish that the verdict had guilty, not guilty, and completely innocent because i would ask you to check that one, you have to check the not guilty, but check the innocent, then, too. >> back with us, joy reid, gary kazmir, and marcia clark. mark o'mara there, at some points during his closings he was dismissive of the state's case. at one point mocking bernie de la rionda. marcia, how would you characterize mark o'mara's approach? >> i understand his approach and he's wisely trying to bleed as much of the drama, as much of the emotional drama out of the case as he possibly can because the emotional drama does not work for his side.

it works for trayvon's side. and so he's going to adopt this very intellectual air, this very relaxed, calm, rational demeanor in order to appeal to a very calm sense and try to steer them away from the memory of the fact that a young boy was killed here. and, you know, i give him some credit for doing that. on the other hand, there were some things i thought he tid that really went over the top. for example, the whole bit with concrete, didn't impress me. and saying that it was disgusting to say that that was not a deadly weapon i thought was a over the top. you know, the concrete is there and trayvon wasn't carrying it and he didn't put a loaded piece of concrete in his pocket and chase down george zimmerman. i thought that was a misfire, if you pardon the expression, on o'mara's part. in general, the demeanor to make things very calm and very rational is probably the right approach for his side. >> so i watched this closing argument, as i did this entire trial, very, very closely.

i thought he was sharp. i thought he was on target. i thought he focused on his best argument which is reasonable doubt. so i was completely shocked, gary kazmir, to see on social media that so many people found him ararrogant. a lot of women found him condescending. now that i watch it a third time, a fourth time as i have been later today, i'm starting to see it. not so much in his delivery which i think is terrific, but in the content and in particular he doesn't address the prosecution's key argument. the web of lies. he really just shrugs that off as if it's nothing. well, you know, people retell their story. there's going to be some inconsistencies. really? he doesn't address george zimmerman saying he didn't know the name of the street, he didn't know the house number even though it's right there. saying on "hannity" that the killing was god's plan. is not addressing the prosecution's central argument a form of arrogance? >> well, no, i think as a defense attorney, you're not going to focus on that kind of testimony. that doesn't help you at all. it doesn't focus -- i think he

did a very good job of dismissing it because it doesn't turn on the facts. the facts here, has the defense gotten to the point of proving that zimmerman was not using self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? that's important. f you can't start talking about, oh, whether it was god's plan, confuse the jury. you want to focus on one thing. they haven't gotten to the stand or reached reasonable doubt in this case. >> except that mark o'mara said without having to say it, he admitted he didn't have to say it, he was going beyond poking holes in the state's case and prove the actual evidence of zimmerman. that was a mistake because i was waiting for him to do it. he didn't do it. his response to evidence presented by the prosecution is that's absurd, that's ridiculous, oh give me a break. it was a bit arrogant. i saw the same reaction on social media to the opening which was a charge to the jury. he was almost giving jury instructions rather than an opening to his closing argument. it was almost saying, you ladies are emotional, you respond with your gut. that's what it felt like.

it was sort of like, you need to put that aside, respond with your brain. >> that's an easy thing. you have six women on the jury. >> that was the reaction overwhelmingly. >> let me go to marcia clark. as if there were not enough hot-button issues in this case, now we have sexism rearing its ugly head today. we're going to talk about that l later on. i want to stick with mark o'mara. what about his implying that the jurors should write in innocent at the bottom of the verdict form and come back early and send a message that this never should have happened? i guess he didn't get a quick friday verdict because the jury is gone for the day. was that over the top? was that too much? >> to me, yes. that was a big mistake. do not throw down the gauntlet with the jury. do not do that. when he did it, i just sat back, i go, oh, duh. that's a bridge too far. you know, you don't want to push a jury that way and say, i want you to write down innocent at the bottom and you're going to come back immediately. and then as joy said, i'm going to prove to you, i'm going to show -- i'm going to do what no

defense attorney has ever, never gone there before, you know. right? where no defense has ever gone before, i'm going to prove to you that he's innocent. when you throw down that gauntlet, you better deliver and better deliver in a really solid, believable way where people walk away, go, he did. well, he didn't. and that only highlights the fact that he didn't. so i thought that was a really big, really big mistake on his part. >> i think -- >> there was -- you can't deny that the innocence part here, i think he wanted to convince the jury that he believed in his client's innocence. you have to express that. you have to get the jury on your side with this. it's not enough. and you this manslaughter conviction. if he's not innocent of, you know, and he wasn't using self-defense, it's a total and complete defense -- both to second-degree murder and the manslaughter. he has to reach the jury that way. >> why would you say ignore your common sense? when you say your common sense tells you this, ignore it, then you're basically conceding that your common sense would say sin

zimmerman is guilty. the only person attesting to the story george zimmerman put on the table to prove his innocence comes from him and he's been caught in falsehoods that were never addressed by his defense lawyers. >> it's always a mistake, i think, look, i think it's always a mistake for a lawyer to say ignore your common sense. just across the board. common sense is why we have juries. that's why we have them. to bring that common sense. >> craig, see how hard it is to get a word in with a panel full of lawyers. >> believe you me. i'm used to it. >> where you sit? >> well, no, it didn't come across as arrogant or condescending, but there was one part of his closing that did strike me. i'm going to play it and i want to talk to you guys about this on the other side. this is where he uses that picture of 16-year-old trayvon martin at the end of his arguments. 17-year-old trayvon martin. take a listen. >> november 15th, 2011. two months, three months before trayvon martin passed away, that's what he looked like. just a young kid.

nice kid, actually. if you look at the picture. not bad. the problem with it is that when we show you autopsy photographs, there are two things you need to know about autopsy photographs. one, they're horrific. the other thing about autopsy photographs is that there's no muscle tone because there's no nerves. there's no movement. he lost half his blood. we know that. so on that picture that we have of him on the medical examiner's table, yeah, he does look emaciated. but here's him three months before that night. so it's in evidence. take a look at it. because this is the person, and this is the person who george zimmerman encountered that night. >> now, if we're talking about

things that were over the top, joy, at one point during that presentation, you can see trayvon martin's parentsleaving courtroom. so did one of the family's attorneys. what was the point there? >> there are two problems with that. number one, the picture of trayvon martin shirtless with the gold grill is not the person george zimmerman encountered that night. he was not shirtless and walking around with a baseball cap. in the grainy sort of picture from the 7-eleven, these were designed to say to those jurors, this person would have been scary to you. that moment, then talking about trayvon martin's body on the concrete slab, seeing the parents say, that's enough, can't deal with it. you saw the mom get up first and walk out. i think that was a mistake on mark o'mara's part. i think it was dehumanizing to trayvon martin who is the victim in this case. i don't know, it struck me also as attempting to thuggize, if that is a word, trayvon martin, make him look like a thug. he throws in nice kid to

mitigate it. it rubbed me the wrong way. i don't know how the jurors felt about it. >> i don't know if the jurors -- i think he was trying to make a point. he was trying to make a point that the guy looked a little thinner and stronger than -- >> he's talking about him dead on a concrete slab saying he's emaciated on the concrete slab dead. >> the autopsy picture. >> in real life he looks like this guy with no shirt on and a gold grill. that is not the person george zimmerman encountered that night. >> was it effective? >> i think it was not because i think it seemed insensitive. especially when the parents react to it by getting up and walking out. >> and you know what, speaking of -- >> all right. >> hey, wait, guys, we have to take a quick break. i didn't mean to cut you off there. joy, thank you so much, also, joy reid, for adding words to the lexicon as well. stay with us. coming up, coming up, the state's rebuttal. you're watching msnbc's special coverage of the george zimmerman trial. with angie's list, i save time, money, and i avoid frustration. you'll find reviews on home repair to healthcare, written by people just like you.

find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust. which shirt feels more expensive? that one's softer. it's the same t-shirt. really? but this one was washed in downy. why spend a lot of money when you can just use downy? [ woman ] downy's putting our money where our soft is. try downy softness. love it or your money back. 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.

happy birthday! it's a painting easel! the tide's coming in!

this is my favorite one. it's upside down. oh, sorry. (woman vo) it takes him places he's always wanted to go. that's why we bought a subaru. (announcer) love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru.

the last words the jury heard from lawyers in the george zimmerman trial before beginning deliberations came from the prosecution. >> prosecutor john guy offered the state's rebuttal to the defense's closing arguments. >> if we really want to know what happened out there behind those homes, on that dark rainy night, should we not look into the heart of the grown man and

the heart of that child? what will that tell us about what really happened out there? was he just casually referring to a perfect stranger by saying fing punks? that doesn't evidence to you anything? that's normal language? or is that not? what was in that defendant's heart? was that child not in fear? when he was running from that defendant? isn't that every child's worst nightmare, to be followed on the way home in the dark by a stranger? isn't that every child's worst fear?

that was trayvon martin's laugh emotion. >> guy then turned to the specifics, highlighting what he claimed are the inconsistencies in george zimmerman's account and he also asked the jury to apply what he called common sense. >> 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. he couldn't have grabbed it. the only way that defendant gets to his gun, the only way trayvon martin was getting off of him, or he had backed up so far on ht hit him, couldn't touch him. the defendant didn't shoot trayvon martin because he had

to. he shot him because he wanted to. that's the bottom line. >> guy asked if the events and choices that night legally amounted to, quote, nothing? >> your verdict is not going to bring trayvon benjamin martin back to life. your verdict is not going to change the past, but it will forever define it. so what is that? what is that when a grown man, frustrated, angry, with hate in his heart, gets out of his car with a loaded gun and follows a child?

a stranger in the dark. and shoots him through his heart. what is that? is that nothing? that's not anything? is that where we are? that's nothing? well that's not his call and that's not my call. that's your call. and i submit to you the oath you took requires it. trayvon martin is entitled to it and that defendant deserves it. >> at the end of the prosecution's rebuttal, guy addressed what was the elephant in the room for the entire trial. the influence of race. this is what he said. >> 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 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. >> so much there to discuss with the panel coming up next. then a little bit later in our show, the attorney for trayvon martin's family will join us. stay with us. we've been bringing people together. today, we'd like people to come together on something that concerns all of us. obesity. and as the nation's leading beverage company, we can play an important role. that includes continually providing more options. giving people easy ways to help make informed choices. and offering portion controlled versions of our most popular drinks. it also means working with our industry

to voluntarily change what's offered in schools. but beating obesity will take continued action by all of us, based on one simple common sense fact... all calories count. and if you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, you'll gain weight. that goes for coca-cola, and everything else with calories. finding a solution will take all of us. but at coca-cola, we know when people come together, good things happen. to learn more, visit coke.com/comingtogether

could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. yep, everybody knows that. well, did you know some owls aren't that wise? don't forget i'm having brunch with meghan tomorrow. who? meghan, my coworker. who? seriously? you've met her like three times. who? (sighs) geico.

fifteen minutes could save you...well, you know. it is a tragedy, truly, but you can't allow sympathy to feed into it. when i say that to you, you should sit back, someone should raise their hand and twgo, are u nuts? how dare you tell me to leave sympathy out of my life, how dare you tell me to leave my emotions beside? how dare you? i don't do that ever in my life. welcome to a criminal room. >> i'm asking you to use your common sense. use your heart. use what you know is real. use what you know you've heard in the law in this case. >> we're talking about the closing arguments in george zimmerman case today. back with us, again, are joy reid, gary casimir and marcia clark. all right. let's talk about the end of john

guy's rebutting closing argument which we saw a moment ago, which he said this is not about race. then he tells a story, gary casimir, let's imagine the situation is reversed and trayvon martin is the shooter and he's put on trial. we know how that would turn out. footnote, that's a reference to john gresham's "a time to kill" if you've read that book or seen that movie. anyway, coming back to my main point. he says at the end, it's not about race. is he saying it's not about race or it is about race? >> he's saying it's about race. e did an effective job. you know what it is here? the prosecution brought back the issues in this case. the emotional issues. the high-level issues. the issues at the heart. when he kept bringing that in your heart thing out, when he kept mentioning the hatred and told the story, you know, when he switches the races of the perpetrators in this incident. i thought he did it effectively. it's not about race, but hey,

would you feel the same way, would you let him go if it was a black kid who was the shooter? >> why does he utter the words, it's not about race? >> context of this case, this is a small southern town that last year was being called the new selma, the new birmingham. and for people in sanford who are white, that is a searing really emotional issue. it can get somebody to set off on you in a heartbeat if you just bring it up. yes, we were the new selma. i talked with city officials about this including the black city manager. they were saying, this is not what we are. we're not the new selma. i think that that really, it gets to this thing where when you try to talk about race, african-americans are used to. we have to talk about race all the time. a lot of white americans aren't comfortable with it, don't want to be seen as making decisions based on race. you're looking at a jury where there aren't african-americans on it. what you're saying to these women, i know you're not deciding this on race. i'm taking that off of your shoulders. >> we're going to talk about

this more next hour. one more question to joy on this point. it's kind of a sensitive subject. is it essentially he doesn't think white people, they can't handle this? >> he wants that burden off their shoulders so they can say, we really made this case on the efs den ef evidence. he wants hem to know if the races of these two were reversed, you know how this would go. he's giving with one hand and taking with the other. i think the context is, this is the south. >> the other part is he's rebutting the defense's presentation. the defense did a good job of saying, listen, your job is to focus on reasonable doubt, take emotion out of this. he brought it back. that was because -- i'm sorry, the defense's presentation was very, very good. it made them stick to the facts. no, you don't have to do that. that shows weakness. nothing, the part about nothing was the best. you can't say that nothing happened here. which i think is an attempt to say, you have to get him for

manslaughter at least at a minimum. >> this case began so much about race. then we heard a lot less about stand your ground and whether stand your ground laws are a good idea or a bad idea. then stand your ground went away because mark o'mara didn't do the pretrial hearing he could have done and said this is a stand your ground case, get the whole thing thrown out. i don't think stand your ground particularly applies here because the defense theory is zimmerman is down, he's pinned, can't get away so he has no opportunity to run which is what stand your ground is all about. john guy in his prosecution rebuttal closing argument did talk about stand your ground in one sense. take a look. >> let me suggest to you, in the end this case is not about standing your ground. it's about staying in your car. like he was taught to do. like he was supposed to do. >> so marcia clark,s do these little tag lines resonate with the jury?

this is not about stand your ground. it's about staying in your car. >> i think it does. and i think that was a particularly effective tag line because that's where it all started. he's in his suv, engine running, rig lights on. calling the cops. why does he need to get out at all? at all? that's why the first lie they actually did a beautiful job of showing right off the bat that he didn't know what the name of the street was and he needed to tell the street where to meet him was a grave one. no, you didn't have to get out of your car. there's to reason why you couldn't have seen that line, as you pointed out, lisa, and no reason why you didn't know the name of that street. there's only three streets in the neighborhood. you've lived there for years. you walk your dog. you're neighborhood watch. that's a lie. you didn't have a good reason to get out of your truck. starting it there is a perfect tag line. the got the ball rolling. one thing flows from the other as a result of the that. >> the jury did not come back with a verdict today. they're going to be deliberating

tomorrow morning. we have so much more to discuss. stay with us. [ man ] ...6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. cleared for takeoff. [ female announcer ] introducing swiffer steamboost powered by bissell. [ command center ] all systems go. [ female announcer ] steam-activated cleaning pads penetrate deep to remove dirt that mops can leave behind. [ command center ] we have lift off. [ female announcer ] don't just clean your floor...boost it... with new swiffer bissell steamboost. [ command center ] mission accomplished.

[ 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.

a friend under water is something completely different. i met a turtle friend today so, you don't get that very often. it seemed like it was more than happy to have us in his home. so beautiful. avo: more travel. more options. more personal. whatever you're looking for expedia has more ways to help you find yours.

our panel is back with us. we've been talking about closing arguments today in the george zimmerman case. and yesterday, of course, was was the initial closing argument. bernie de la rionda for the prosecution started it all off. you know, at some points i thought he might have gone a little far astray. i want you to take a look at this little clip from the closing argument yesterday. he showed some emotion when talking about what police found on trayvon martin's body after he was killed.

>> he bought what? what did he buy? what was his crime? he bought skittles and some kind of watermelon or ice teawatermer whatever it is called. that was his crime. he had $40, and 15 cents in his pockets. he was wearing a photo button, and he was speaking to a girl in miami. he was minding his own business. >> yeah, this just didn't really hit me, marcia clark, what was his crime? he had skittles, has anybody

even argued that having skittles was a crime? >> you know, no one has, it was an effort to show just how innocent he was, he went to a 7-eleven, and by the way, those who tweeted me for saying liquor store, i meant to say 7-eleven, in the spur of the moment it was said. that is all he did, that was his big crime. i think that was the effort to do that. but i agree with you, lisa, i was not particularly impress weekend that particular tactic. >> it seemed like it was more of an effort to humanize him. >> yeah, but there are better ways to do it. >> i think he just wanted to drive home the fact the kid was coming home from the store. >> hasn't he driven that home a hundred times -- >> from the point of the prosecution, they say child, child, over and over. you want them to see it in terms of life lost. somebody has to pay for this.

and that is what they're trying to do here. because the fact, i think the defense did a good job of presenting a defense argument. >> what is fascinating is, one closing argument, you got five people, five different ways of viewing it. that is what is so fascinating. >> that is what is interesting about these kind of cases. i think from my read of the two sides, this case is about compression. they want you to only focus on the fight itself, just that. just focus on the minutes, the injuries that george zimmerman got. compress everything else you can, and just think about that. but the prosecution is about expansion, they're saying wait a minute, go back, let's look at what george zimmerman wanted to be, a want to be cop. he even said come with me, come with me, let's look at him not getting out of his car and violating the rules of being on neighborhood watch. why does he have a gun, bernie de la rionda said, why do you go around the corner? because he has a gun. they want you to look at the big

picture because that is where the strength is in the case. >> and craig melvin, you have been in sanford, florida, i practiced law in california. i talked to a different kind of jury and audience, maybe these prosecutors have been very, very successful. bernie did e la rionda, i think said is 148 out of 149 cases. how do you think it will play out? >> we'll have a guy who has been in the courtroom just about every day. i've been in the courtroom a few times. but the jury, by and large, especially during the closings, they put their note pad aside and paid close attention to what both sides had to say. you guys talked about bernie de la rionda, when he is talking about george zimmerman not knowing the street names, and there are three streets in the neighborhood. and he points out something. and this has been the course where he was outlining the

different lies that the state asserts that george zimmerman has told. but i want to show this clip and talk to you a little bit about it on the other side. that is why he kept talking about oh, i didn't know the name of the street. i was looking for an address. >> because he cuts down here and made a right. >> did you catch that? did you catch him in one lie right there? he originally told the police, over and over before and even after this interview he didn't know the name of the street. and then when they just kind of let him talk he gives them the name right there. >> really, if i'm bernie de la rionda, maybe i start with that, use that to lay out the fact that maybe this guy, that is the state's assertion that he is a liar, if that is your assertion, why not start with anything that

is pretty glaringly obvious. >> literally there is one street that goes around all that. retreat view circle, george zimmerman lived on that street, there are only three streets and it is really not hard to figure it out. after being a few weeks, he should have been figuring it out in three years. the jury maybe should have asked for a visit to the space. because george zimmerman's car was parked on the other side of a building. he walked on a lane and went around to the back of the building. they said shouldn't you be going back to your car if you're on the other side of the building? you walked around the building. they didn't use the physical space, in my opinion, very well. that is one reason why they needed guy to close the case. i know that the issue was argued

and the judge declined. because he couldn't provide security for the jury in the viewing of the place. so you know it was an effort made. and you're right, i think it would have been extremely helpful for them to go and see it. i was kind of disappointed in that ruling. >> you know, i agree with you, marcia, and having looked at the maps myself, having watched the trial, you see the key. there is absolutely no replacement for going out there and looking at it. what about the hannity interview, marcia clark, where hannity essentially says, you didn't know anything about "stand your ground" before this, did you? and he says no, no, and he says it so calmly. and that really struck me, before you know the facts of this case and you just watch george zimmerman in his interviews. boy, he seems pretty good, a straightforward person, calm, intelligent, answering all the questions. and once you know about that lie, the college professor comes

in, he knew everything about it. it makes you wonder about everything else, doesn't it? >> it does, and lisa, that is a great point. that is why these obvious lies kind of spread out, to say oh, give him that, now you won't give him that. these are big obvious ones that he got caught in. he said during the course of the interview with sean hannity that he has no regrets. these things of devastating, i have to tell you. now he is the hand of god? but to talk about that, an outright lie, i didn't know about stand your ground? boy, that is a huge one, if he has one regret it must be the interview with sean hannity. >> hold that thought for one minute, mark o'mara never addressing in closing arguments why on earth he would say the killing was god's plan, i was

waiting for that. also coming up, attorney jane weintraub, what she thinks the prosecution missed. and my special guest, gloria allred, stay with us. you're watching special coverage of the george zimmerman trial. have i got a treat for you... new clean whipped creme foundation from covergirl. a delicious new recipe whipped up by clean makeup. they took their clean fresh foundation, added a dash of hydration, then whipped it to smooth matte perfection. finally, a non-drying whip that wears like a dream! ♪ what a treat from clean. new clean whipped creme from easy breezy beautiful covergirl.

so you can capture your receipts, ink for all business purchases.e and manage them online with jot, the latest app from ink. so you can spend less time doing paperwork. and more time doing paperwork. ink from chase. so you can. [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk.

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. (girl) w(guy) dive shop.y? (girl) diving lessons. (guy) we should totally do that. (girl ) yeah, right.