is doing the opposite. this jury is going to convict, don, on either attempted first or second-degree murder, and those totally unjustified shots, at least the last three when the driver was trying to get out of there, and so those are 20 years each just for shooting at one, two, three, young black males and so that is not the issue, but the issue is that the state overcharged for the first-degree murder case, and that is what the jury is going to wrestle with first-degree murder charge -- >> mark, mark. i have news here, but what i am saying here is that on the first charge, the charge that has to do were jordan davis, if they can't come to anning a greet on that, th -- come to an agreement, and that is the one that is the value of life. i understand that he is going to jail for a long time, i get that. >> but here is the response, don. arguing between first and second degree, they are not concerned about jordan davis not worth their consideration, but they are looking at the law and saying that it is not first degr

it telegraphs the jury, please try again. by this point after this many hours of deliberation, quite frankly, jurors are pretty positional. it just has to do with how big the hang is, in other words how many jurors are for acquittal and how many jurors are for conviction on this particular count. >> so then what happens now in this jury room? that's what everyone is wondering. how can they -- it seems to be a cut and dry case to most people. you heard what the judge told the jury. he said go back and try. i'm going to give you this allen charge, and go back in and try to come to a consensus. what's happening now? >> what's happening now is they are going back and either one or two people that are either for acquittal or conviction, whoever basically -- and it sounds to me like there's really only a coup couple. if they found agreement on most the other charges, for the most part, there's probably only a couple people or maybe even one person that's hanging on this charge. basically, they are trying to work it out. depending up

so i do applaud the jury, and they did not get to the first count. i has happened. it has happened to you, paul, and happened to me where you have a hung jury, and the reality is that they took their time to argue this, but as to the rational and logical argument to this, when it comes to jordan davis, was he inside of the car at the time of the shot fired? was he inside or outside of the car or stepping out? that is the issue, and did he represent a threat to michael dunn? they evaluated that and they were torn as to whether or not he was justified in shooting and killing him. that is going to represent a hung jury, but as paul said, he had a volley of the shots, and we heard throughout the course of the case, the surveillance tape, and you heard the surveillance tape, and the pop, pop, pop, and you heard it, additional shots. as to the other shots, there was a continuous course of conduct, but clearly some break there where the jury perhaps in the initial volley may or may not have been justified, but as to the second volley of shots, they did not apparently think

right now that's the grand jury indictment. we would proceed as the judge said, he mistried that count only. so we would go back to trial on that count alone. >> was it a mistake to do first-degree murder? would it would have been better than second-degree? >> absolutely not. i know you all have brought up the word overcharge. it came up months after the zimmerman case. hopefully this will help you understand. the state of florida has a lot of good laws on the books. one of the best laws, one of the best rules of procedure, it's called a motion to dismiss. if any criminal defense attorney thinks that the state of florida in any particular case has filed charges that shouldn't have been filed, or has filed an overcharge, they're welcome to file a motion to dismiss, pursuant to this rule. and it happens a lot in cases. defense attorneys do. but they have to sign their name to it. it has to be a sworn motion. it's called a c-4 motion. and it's a normal practice in the state of florida. so i'm not really sure why any criminal defens

the jury said we have reached a verdict on 4 counts. reach a verdict on count 1. count 1 is the big charge. that's the murder charge, which is life in prison. the judge then instructed the jury to come back into the courtroom and charged them with what is called the alan charge, where he gave them additional information and additional instructions. told them to go back in and try to come to some sort of decision. if they could not come to a decision on this, this is a mistrial. that's what the judge said. mark o'mara is joining us. martin savage is down there as well. but the legal angle on this is so important i want to get back to mark o'mara. the judge said, hey, listen, if you don't come out whatever time you go back in there and decide, but if you can't decide, this is a hung jury. and they have to start all over again. >> absolutely true. the whole nation and the davis family and the dunn family go through all of this again. the interesting thing is why they came out and said they have a verdict on four counts. if they had a verdi

the jury heard from the fiancee. >> i hate that music. i heard pop pop pop. >> you got back in the passenger side of the car. did you see a firearm at that point in time? >> yes, michael was putting it into the glove box. >> throughout deliberations, jurors asked to watch that surveillance video twice. during closing argument, assistant state attorney john guy told jurors the case wasn't about self defense. it is rather the case of dunn's self-denial. >> jordajordan davis didn't hava weapon, he had a big mouth and the defendant wouldn't stand for it. >> the defense said dunn feared for his life. >> meeting with the dunn family we knew this was a clear case of self defense. >> but the case didn't add up. >> even people who have the right to self defense do not have the right to take the life of a child. >> he said he fires his nine millimeter handgun at the parked suv because he thought davis had a shotgun. >> there is my glove box, i'm looking out the window. and i said, you're not going to kill me you son of a (bleep) and i shot. >> no w

but, again, i mean, when you look at the composition of the jury, the racial composition of the jury,n women, one hispanic man, one asian woman who happened to be the foreperson. that is truly not really a diverse jury. it's somewhat diverse, but it isn't. and i suspect and we'll hear from them, i'm sure, i suspect that there was some sort of tension along racial lines and perhaps even along age lines because there was a large disparity in age. i saw people from their 20s through their 30s. >> yeah. in the days to come, we'll hear more about that. i'm being told tonight the jury has instructed the judge, here it is, the jury says they've instructed the judge they're not going to speak in the post-verdict news conference. no jury. jury has informed the court they will not participate in the end of trial press conference. we won't hear from them tonight. perhaps in the coming days. martin is there as well. you've been parked there for a long time now. not only getting the pulse of the community but seeing a lot more than that. you were there for the verdict as well. give us your perspec

>> well, we're always speculating in every single trial because the jury is back in the jury room andindow to see into what exactly is going on in that jury room. we can say from having observed this trial, it's a very strong second degree murder case. the prosecution has an indictment for first degree murder and you could make arguments there was a first degree murder, premeditation in the 15 or 30 seconds it took to get the gun and fire it, but in my view it's a much stronger second degree murder case. we do have a window unfortunately or fortunately today. the jury has asked some questions which give us an opportunity to know what's going on in that jury room. the questions go to whether or not they can find on one count that self-defense in fact applies and does that have to apply to other counts. we can surmise from that kind of question that they may be leaning towards a not guilty verdict on count one. >> we're looking at live pictures here from the jury room. i want to make sure our audience understands. yesterday the question was can we find on one and not all five? now it so

what happened inside the jury room? here were reports that there was yelling heard coming from the deliberation room. >> at at one point we were all trying to get the point across. >> screaming? people passionate about their position. >> yes, sir. >> tempers, cursing, screaming. the majority who thought michael dunn was guilty couldn't convince three of their fellow jurors. what swayed those jurors and how might this effect the retrial. back with me is faith jenkins. joining us now is dr. marshall, a nationally recognized trial and jury consultant. thank you for being here. >> appreciate it. thank you for having me. >> why couldn't a majority c convince those holdouts? >> anytime you have a case that is hotly debated and you have a situation such as this case that has had national exposure, you have going to have tempers flare. and that's basically that there was a lot of passion going on in that room where tempers were flaring and could not reach a consensus in terms of that individual. it's not unusual. >> you said in

because even when you talk about the jury deliberation, part of it was in the instructions to the jurystand your ground is a part of the instruction. whether it was discussed or not. it was in the zimmerman case. and so basically, it is part of the jury's instruction. and we must deal with it. it's too broad. it's a sloppy law. it says that you can shoot and kill. you can start the fight, and then say i felt threatened. that's bull. i mean, it's just unacceptable. >> congresswoman, a study of race in stand your ground cases showed there is a clear division between white and black victims. the tampa bay times found that in 200 cases, people who killed a black person walked 73% of the time. those who killed a white person went free only 59% of the time. and this is whether it's blacks killing blacks. you know how hard we fight that as well in our own community. but this data is startling and is grounds for review just on the application based on race of stand your ground. >> absolutely. that's true. but it embolds people to do things they ordinarily would not do. for example, texting. so

tough things the jury is struggling with. and by the way, if the judge makes the mistake in giving the jury an answer, the case gets reversed on appeal. this is a critical moment in a criminal case because the judge has to get the answer right on the law or the conviction will be thrown out ultimately. >> and that's why we saw the back and forth between judge healey and the state and the defense attorneys for more than 20 minutes on the answers to these three questions and i think they all agreed on the answers to one and two, but it was the characterization of after the, no, not necessarily on the question about if they determine deadly force is justified against one person, is it justified against the others? >> and that was the one they wanted to ask you about, paul. they say if we determine deadly force is justified against one person, is it justified against others, that sounds to me as though they have determined deadly force was justified. do you read that, too, or am i reading it wrong? >> well, it does sound like that

the judge has brought the jury in. is is a dynamite charge where he tries to push and shove and cajole the juror into going back into the jury room to deliberate more. >> i am required to read to you an additional jury instruction. i'm going to read that instruction to you now. and then i will provide a copy of it to each one of you when i'm finished reading it. i know that all of you have tried hard to reach a verdict in this case to each of the counts. it apparently has been impossible for you so far. sometimes an early vote before discussion can make it hard to reach an agreement about the case later. the vote not the discussion might make it hard to see all sides of the case. we are all aware that it is legally permissible for a jury to disagree. there are two things a jury can lawfully do, agree on a verdict or disagree on what the facts of the case may truly be. there is nothing to disagree on about the law. the law is as i told you. if you have any disagreements about the law, i should clear them up for you now.

looking at the jury, and trying to figure out what was about to happen. and then the verdict was read and every time that the judge read the attempted or the attempted verdicts, jordan davis' mom, you could see her with the head down. michael dunn's father also had his head down, and once the verdicts were read, you could see everybody get up and from the jordan davis family, everybody got up, and you could see some of them were holding hands and hugging, and visibly, v visibly distraught, emotionally distraught as they were leaving the courtroom, don. >> thank you, alina machado, and sunny hostin has been covering this in the courtroom as well. what did you witness? >> yeah, you know, i have had the opportunity to speak to leyland brunson's father, and some of the other family members, and they were absolutely devastated by this verdict. when lucie mcbath, jordan's po ther, her knees buckled and her family members had to help her. as a mother of a black boy, i am so afraid of what this verdict says. you just heard a car driving by and doi and doing a loop

tonight's lead, the jury has the case. right now 12 jurors in the loud music murder trial are shut away in the jury room deliberating the fate of 47-year-old michael dunn charged with first degree murder, seven months after george zimmerman was acquitted in the killing of unarmed trayvon martin the dunn trial has re-ignited the debate over florida's controversial stand your ground law. this case began at this jacksonville, florida gas station in a night in november 2012. michael dunn got into an argument over loud music with four teenagers. sitting inside a parked suv. dunn fired ten shots at the vehicle. 17-year-old jordan davis was killed. dunn says the killing was in self-defense and that the teen threatened him with a gun. this case centers on one question, will the jury believe mr. dunn was really in fear? today during the closing arguments the state repeatedly focus td on the fact that no gun was ever found. >> on november 23, 2012 when this defendant shot and killed jordan davis there was no gun in that durango. the

and that they made statements that the jury acted in good faith. so i think the family has been very well composed and has done everything appropriate under these circumstances. >> criminal prosecuting attorney ken padowitz. thank you for being leer. >> thank you for having -- being here. >> thank you for having me. >> by bringing people back we're bringing salt back to the land and we are bringing it to life again. >> why the jordan river valley may be fertile hopes of middle east peace. >>> and later on in our program, silicon alley? >> what you've done, matters less than how ambitious you are, where you can take it. >> if they can make it there, they can make it anywhere, new york, new york. >> with a new deadline looming for the israeli palestinian peace talks, secretary of state john kerry met. latest round hinges on one region in particular. that is the jordan river valley. it is an israeli occupied strip of the west bank that runs along the jordan river and for both groups it could be the key to a peaceful resolution. al jazeera's nick shifri

we ponder the jury's decision. it misunderstand dunn guilty of attempted murder, but couldn't agree on the serious charge, first degree murder. now a juror probing her silence, telling abc news about the angry fight from the jury room and what they thought happened. >> a jury of seven women and five men convicted dunn on four of five counts of attempted murder. they were deadlocked on the first degree murder charge. juror number four identified as valerie says, "the claim of defense was the reason why". . >> i said you're not going to kill me you son of [ bleep ]. >> a life was taken, there's no longer a jordan davis, and there's one had been why that is. we pretty much knew after about two days with the self-defence thing that we'd be hung. the judge declared a mistrial on that count. the juror who spoke said the panel was split 9 to 3. dunn never denied shooting dave. three of the nine bullets hit jordan davis, who was in the rear passenger street. juror number four said race was never discussed. jordan davis's pa

>> they did not. >> ken, will the jury buy this? >> well, it's a good tactic that the defense has to use in this case. he has to try to poke holes in the investigation by the police, or lack thereof, to try to show that there was an opportunity for their to have actually have been a weapon, there to have been a gun, and that it was disposed of by the other individuals in the car. the problem here is, again, it rests on credibility of the defendant, even after we focus on the police investigation. the defendant not saying anything to his fiancee, the day driving away, not calling the police, driving away to the hotel, not saying anything to his fiancee about a gun at the hotel. and the next day driving home and not saying anything about a gun, that's going to undermine the good points that the defense attorney made in front of that jury. so i think it was the right thing for the defense to do. but i think it's going to go, again, down the tube because of the testimony by the fiancee that mr. dunn never said anything about a weapon. >>

>> yes, it is. >> explain to the jury how that area works? >> rhonda started talking about a key card? the elevator is locked. you have to have a room key to operate the elevator. >> so the pizza guy couldn't come up. >> correct. >> again, did you ever go outside other than the area of the elevator to get that pizza. >> no, i did not. >> when you brought the pizza up, did miss roue prchlt try to eat the pizza? she did. she tried to eat a slice. >> did you eat any of the pizza? >> no. i had no appetite. >> at that point, you guys still had some alcoholic beverages in the room you could make? >> yes, we did. >> did you make them? >> yes, i did. >> can you tell the jury was it to have a night cap and put your head on a pillow and watch a movie? >> no. it was trying to calm down, trying to -- we were both so upset. >> at that point, were your hands still shaky? >> absolutely. >> was your body still shaky? >> yes, it was. >> what about miss rouer? >> she was quaking. >> visibly? >> visibly quaking. >> is that the reason why you poured alcohol? >> y

all signs that the jury was struggling with the case. they could not agree on the first-degree murder charges, but they did find 47-year-old michael dunn guilty of attempted murder and shooting into the suv. >> i said you're not going to kill me and i shot. >> reporter: jordan's parents say they are still seeking justice for their son, who would have turned 19 on sunday. >> we will continue to stand and continue to wait for justice for jordan >> reporter: under florida law, dunn could serve at least 60 years in prison for the murder convictions, and the shooting into the suv. >> it has not sunk in, and when he sat next to me, he basically said, how is this happening? >> reporter: trying to convict dunn of first-degree murder in his opening statements. >> you pointed that pistol at the car full of unarmed teenagers. he was guilty of shooting into an unarmed vehicle and guilty of three counts of attempted murder and guilty of the first-degree murder of jordan dais. >> once the jurors delivered their verdict, the protesters showed their fru

on the most serious charge the jury deadlocked. listen to the judge before the verdict was read. >> all right. we have verdicts in counts two, three, four, and five. based on the jury's inability to reach a verdict as to count one, i would declare that mistried. >> mistrial on jordan davis. martin savidge live in jacksonville. he's facing a lot of prison time but what happens with that first degree murder charge? >> right now it's a mistrial which means there is the potential we could do it all over again at least on the charge of murder first degree and michael dunn. that is a formality yet to come. after the verdict, immediately a news conference held by the prosecution and defense. it was the defense attorney who pointed out and said, look, my client is going to go away for a long time. you could retry him but why would you? after that you hear the prosecution. >> looking at 60 years because of the aggravating fact a firearm is used. it could run consecutively with judge healey. again, 60 years. i don't think miss corey will rech

you were surprised by the lung jury, arriva. you thought there was a good solid case for first degree murder? >> i was surprised. i thought in particular, the rebuttal of the case summed up so well what those jurors could do, which is use their common sense in finding michael dunn guilty, and i thought the way he laid out the case for them, he gave them a clear pathway to do that, i agree with mark, that there is a culture, and in particular in particular, that says that even the slightest altercation can end up in the use of deadly force. particularly when it's with an african-american teenager. i applaud the states attorney for saying they're going to retry michael dunn, it doesn't matter that he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail. we have to change this culture that says african-american teens get labelled thugs or gangsters because of the kind of music they listen to, that's not acceptable. kids are dying, and we have to do something about that. >> what about that culture? you tried a case that fell smack dab in th

law give you a unique privilege not to speak about the jury's work. you are at liberty to speak about the deliberations. you are also able to not speak. and it may come from those who are source and media and elsewhere. it will be up to you to decide whether or not to preserve your privacy as a juror. and you should know that your decision whether to talk about your experience is entirely yours and an individual decision. you don't have to vote on this as a group please remember though that my order regarding the confidentiality, your confidentiality and your identity remains in affect until further order of the court. keep that in mind. if you were to decide that you wanted to speak to someone about this case whether it was family, friends or media, i would ask you to please not identify any of your fellow jurors. and because of the publicity that is surrounding the case. i would advise you speak for the media today. we can have a court administrator to the courtroom 407 for you to be intrude if that is your desire. basically we take you through a bac

take us inside the courtroom and also explain to us the instructions the judge gave the jury and the possible outcome for all of this. >> reporter: injury. i mean, the jury made it clear they have reached a verdict on four counts, but they were really dead locked on the first count. not only the first-degree murder count, but all the lesser includes. they went over manslaughter and still couldn't reach a consensus. when that happens, when a jury is dead locked, the united states supreme court in a case called u.s. vs. allen, a judge can instruct a jury to go back, try to reach a consensus and consider the opinions of your fellow jurors. that's exactly what this judge did. the charge was a bit different

the jury is in its fourth day of deliberations now. l dunn is charged with first degree murder in the shooting death of jordan davis. dunn says he acted in self-defense after the teen threatened him, in his words. joining us to talk about the jury is richard gabriel. he's a jury consultant. he worked on the o.j. simpson and casey anthony trials. he has a book coming out this summer called "acquittal" talking about some of those big cases. good to see you. >> good to see you too. >> today this jury is already exhibiting its diligence. it was willing to work through the weekend last week and this weekend. deliberating now four days over 20 hours. this morning the jurors had yet another set of questions for the judge. let's listen to those three questions asking the courtroom for some clarification. >> first question. is the defense of self-defense separate for each person in each count? the answer is yes. second question. are we determining if deadly force is justified against each person in each count? the answer is yes. the third questi

i think the jury is asking that same thing. certainly thinking about, what constitutes reasonableness. if you are in imminent fear for your life, you saw a stick, you saw the butt of a gun, you saw something that you thought could take your life and you reacted, because you had to and had no other alternative, what does human behavior dictate that you do following that, that you call 911, that you stay and that you tell the police, i didn't mean to do it or, oh, my god, it was my only alternative or does reasonableness dictate that you go and that you go to a bed and breakfast and order a pizza and that at some subsequent time, you travel back 130 miles? not to the crime scene, of course. the reality is that it does not comfort with human behavior. one could argue the prosecution will certainly make that argument. i think the jury is wondering if he was in such imminent fear, why did he react in the manner that he did following the shooting? >> the other question i have, and i'll pose this for ashleigh, because she has to go an

the jury's verdict means dunn will go to prison but not for killing jordan davis. a mistrial was declared on the most serious count, murder in the first degree. but dunn was convicted of three counts of attempted murder and a charge of firing into a vehicle. prosecutors hope to retrial davis, retry dunn, i should say, on the murder charge. now kerry sanders live outside the courthouse. what has the reaction been in jacksonville? >> reporter: well, those who believed that michael dunn was guilty are very upset and they don't understand how it is that after all of the presentation made to the jury that they could not conclude that he was guilty of first-degree murder. it appears according to analysts that looked at this because we have not heard from the jurors, that they were hung up on the issue of first degree or second degree. and the reason it appear this is they're hung up on the two is because they did find him guilty of aterveted murder for shooting his weapon ten times, nine times striking the car with three other people in the car. until we hear from the jur

kerry, what can we make of those requests by the jury? s not uncommon for the jurors to request pieces of evidence so that they can examine them back there in the jury room. remember, they have sat inside a jury box and seen this stuff presented to them. but to actually reach out and touch it is something different. in this particular case they have requested the mannequin, which was presented, a mannequin which was supposed to be the suggestion of what the victim's body looked like. and the medical examiner had taken dowels, pieces of wood, and shown the industry locations of where those bullet wounds had been that entered his body. so the jurors wanted to take that back there along with those dowels and look at that close up themselves. but the judge ruled in this particular case while it was presented for demonstration purposes, indeed it wasn't actual evidence and they only can lay their hands on evidence. so while they can ask for and have asked for the videos, and those are the security videotapes that they can look at, they can look

. >> the only logical explanation for the verdict is that the jury hung on whether he acted in self-defense and firing the fatal shots into jordan davis, but remember, there was a second volley of shots direct ed ed to car, and those are the attempted murder counts that the jury convicted on and of course for firing into the car. so ironically, you have a hung jury on the main issue, and whether jordan davis' death was caused by his action and firing on the fleeing vehicle, and they convicted on that. >> well, it is very interesting that someone e-mailed me, and they said, how can he be found guilty of attempted murder and then not be found guilty of killing someone? >> because of paul's explanation, and the first things first. this is the process at work, don.

to the jury. he broke down. he was in tears almost in some points. let's listen to what he said talking about his fiance, rhonda rouer. >> this is where rhonda starts coming into my mind because i know she's heard the shots. i know rhonda -- it wasn't just my life i was worried about. >> you know, you know jurys. what do they see? >> seeing a defendant break down on the stand can be touching to a jury. the problem is the times he broke down yesterday were in reference to his fiance and then the other time was in reference to his dog. not once in that three to four hours of testimony when he's referring or talking about the death of jordan davis did he ever show any emotion or remorse whatsoever. and so i think the fact of where he showed the emotion is going to be detrimental to his case. >> he was almost clear, calm, and cold when he was talking about the shooting itself. when he spoke about his dog x he started to get teary. another subject that came up was the chain of events that happened afte

nevertheless, he took his chances with the jury. he went to trial for 11 days, now he has been found guilty on 20 of the 21 counts that amounts to 20 years in prison depending on his sentencing. the latest breaking news, the trial is over after a day off for jury deliberation yesterday. they came back today and went to lunch for 30 minutes and within 20 minutes of coming back from lunch the jury told the judge they were ready to file bac comn the jury room and filed back in and found him guilty of 20 counts against the mayor of new orleans. >> ben, it was believed that nagin might have been trying for a jury nullification by maintaining what he was doing was trying to speed up the contract-letting process following hurricane katrina. obviously the jury did not buy that argument. >> one of his main arguments was, look, we had billions of dollars coming in this city. 80% of it had been destroyed after hurricane katrina, and he had a big part in getting the rebuilding done. this was a mere effort for us to try to get back federal money

i don't think the jury will focus on it. it's whether they believe michael dunn. acquitted or a lesser included charge, but again the physical evidence is on the side of the prosecution. >> let's talk about that. it interesting in this particular jury instruction. the judge included a lot of lesser offenses. it's not that he said you must find first degree murder. he included a lot of other reasons that they could find him guilty. it's interesting that the jury came back with the question that they came back with once they started deliberating, saying can we find guilty on one charge and not another or not guilty on one charge and guilty on another? what does that tell you? >> i think what they are probably focusing on, i will say it's a caveat. you never know what the jury is thinking. >> right. >> we could be completely off base. if i'm in the courtroom and hear that question about self-defense and whether we should consider it separately, there is no evidence whatsoever that michael dunn had seen anything to suggest the other people in that car, the other three

today the jury asked four questions of the judge. they asked to see the gas station video that was shown in court. it's 20 minutes of footage from multiple angles. they also asked to see the dummy used by the prosecution to illustrate where jordan was shot. the judge did not allow them to see this because it wasn't entered into evidence. and they had additional request. a dry easel or large paper, which they received, some missing pages from one juror's jury instructions, and late this afternoon, they wanted to know the date of a letter mr. dunn sent his brother last june from jail. so we wait on a jury of 12 inside that florida jury room to decide if michael dunn is guilty for the killing of jordan davis. if convicted, dunn could face life in prison. back with us tonight is former prosecutor faith jenkins and florida criminal defense lawyer ken padowitz. ken, it's been 11 hours, 11 hours so far. take us inside that jury room. what does this mean? what is your take on this? >> well, what it means is that they're being very thorough i

it will be up to the jury. 's a stronger, second degree murder case in my opinion after looking at the evidence that i see in this case. >> all right. i want to take a look at another comment was made. this was from the defense attorney, arguing that no adequate search -- we have been talking about the possibility, presence or absence of a weapon in the vehicle the boys were riding in. let's listen to this. >> how many times did the state ask their witness: was there a weapon in that truck? was there a gun in that truck? was there a truck, truck, truck? never asked about the plaza, never asked about underneath the cars in the plaza, never checked the bushes, never checked the dumpsters. >> what's he getting at here, ken? >> well, the defense attorney is doing the best job that he coan with the evidence that he has available with him. it's going for the weekest link. weakest link would be to have the jury focus on the fact that no other weapon was in the car because there was a number of minutes that went by wher

the jury deliberated about 30 hours. r the shooting that killed 17-year-old jordan davis. the attempted murder charges were for each of the three friends with davis the night of the shooting. this conviction means dunn will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars but his attorney says he is planning to file an appeal. the davis family says they will continue to stand and wait for justice for jordan. kate? >> thank you very much, alina. >> this just in, iran's supreme leader expressing a lack of confidence in the nuclear program. he thinks the talks will go nowhere. talks are scheduled to resume in geneva tomorrow. >> 14 dead and more are injured after an explosion on a tourist bus in egypt. they were on their way to israel after visiting the pyramids in sinai. >> 19-year-old miranda barber not on confessing she and her husband murdered a man they met on craigslist but telling a local newspaper she's killed many more around the country. how many? she can't say claiming she stopped counting at 22. she said it started

i think the jury has to see that and understand that. you can't let someone get up there and lie on the stand and then start looking at a stand your ground and see a self-defense case, because when you impeach yourself, you can't keep saying it's self-defense. >> john phillips, given what we've heard from the jury valerie so far, what we know about inside the jury room, does it -- is it your interpretation that those three who were not willing to vote for a conviction believed that jordan -- that jordan davis -- i'm sorry, that the defendant was actually threatened by a gun? or that he just possibly believed he was threatened by a gun. >> that's the standard. they believed through, which he was impeached over and over and over again, but they gave the benefit of the doubt to the caucasian businessman, and they, i guess, in their minds eye, some of these jurors said yeah, maybe i could see a -- >> how much of that do you think as a courtroom professional was expanded as a result of that judge's instructions that i just read about stand you

why didn't the jury accept his claim of self-defense? >>> also, big developments in the christie bridge scandal. i'll talk to the lawmaker leading the investigation. >>> and my meeting with president obama and civil rights leaders today. what we are doing to advance the dream. it's a big show ahead. stay with us. body pain? back pain? try bayer back and body. it's bayer aspirin plus a special pain relief booster, to relieve sore backs and soothe aching muscles fast. get moving again, with bayer back and body. every second -- we chip away. at advancing safety with technology, like seeing every curve, even when you don't, being a second set of eyes, or having stopping power when you need it most. it's not intuition, it's intelligence. this is the new 2014 jeep grand cherokee. it is the best of what we're made of. well-qualified lessees can lease the 2014 grand cherokee laredo 4x4 for $359 a month. >>> after the michael dunn verdict, americans are looking once again at the stand your ground law. it's confusing, confounding, unfair, and unjus

michael dunn repeatedly tried to convince the jury he acted in self-defense while prosecutors repeatedly ripped into him as a cold blooded killer. this is a case that touches the two classic american hot buttons of race and guns. and nbc's ryan owen has this report for our series "crime and punishment." >> i'm looking out the window and i said you're not going to kill me you son of a [ bleep ] and i shot. >> reporter: in his own words and in riveting detail -- >> it wasn't just my life i was worried about, you know? >> reporter: admitted killer michael dunn recreates for the jury moments that led to the shooting death of 17-year-old jordan davis. >> did you notice any differences about your body physically? >> i'm shaking. i'm quivering like a leaf. >> reporter: prosecutors call it cold blooded murder. dunn maintains it was self-defense. it started when dunn and his fiancee rhonda rower pulled into a jacksonville, florida, gas station in november 2012. they parked in ex-to an suv full of teens. >> body panels on the suv were rattling. my rear-view mirror was shaking. my eardrums were vib

instructions that allowed jury george zimmerman to walk free in the trayvon martin case but it didn't always used to be that way in florida before florida's stand your ground shoot first law was enacted in two thousand and and five. jury in michael michael dunn like case would have been read these jury instructions the defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm in less he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force the fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked can not justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force in other words of michael dunn had been tried two thousand and four he probably would have been convicted of the murder of jordan davis because he didn't do everything within his means to avoid danger before resorting to force after all he could have just driven away but he didn't now that doesn't matter because of the stand your ground shoot firs

, what was on the jury's mind since we haven't heard from the jury yet on the dunn case.ust want to say that mr. zimmerman did come forward over the weekend, he did give an interview to another network but he didn't talk about the dunn case. quick listen here. >> i want to professional reply continue my education and hopefully become an attorney. i think that's the best way to stop the miscarriage of justice that happened to me from happening to somebody else. i don't think it should happen to anyone ever again, not one person. >> what was the miscarriage of justice? >> the fact that two law enforcement entities stated that i had acted within the laws of our nation in self defense. >> you don't think it was about the law? >> i know it wasn't, yes. >> i have have to ask you for a quick thought here. what does it say to you that this is what george zimmerman is saying today? >> simply that trayvon martin's parents and myself and many others have chose to focus on bigger things than george zimmerman because we think that he was just a symptom of the problem. the problem is t

the jury came in quickly with a verdict. stingly enough, there was a bus driver and a nonpracticing attorney on the panel. in withays, they come this verdict, and it continues a stunning string of victories for the u.s. attorney's office in more than 80 different individuals charged, all cutting deals, pleading guilty, were being convicted. was in theall avatar courtroom. give us a sense of what the mood was like when the verdict was announced. it wasless to say, somber. i think the matthew martoma camp developed optimism based on the requests coming out of the jury room, but when the jurors filed into the room, it was right 2:00 p.m., and everybody sort of knew the guilty verdict was about to reread just based on the seriousness of the body language. wife, whow martoma's sat in the front row, looked stricken with tears running down her face. >> su keenan was talking about swiftness of the verdict. did that surprise you? >> to be honest, it was taking longer than people expected and part of that is due to the fact that this s

the jury was deadlocked on first degree murder. uts stand your ground law in the spotlight. >> more than 1,000 people have taken to the streets in venezuela. >> today the governor in homs asking for an extension to allow hundreds of resist dents to get out of harm's way. >> it was a busy week in politics. the major news. president obama extending a bill. investors are nerve ourks the date the u.s. treasury would have lost borrowing authority. after a tight vote in the house and a push to get the bill through the senate, a default has been averted. joining us is republican strategist and democratic strategist david jones. >> let's dump into it. let's look at the debt sealing. hos speaker john boehner pushed for a clean bill. pushing it through this quickly, did it help or hurt the go. op. >> it helped the g.o.p. to during this out and repeat the disaster last fall with the shutdown would have hurt our party. we said let's pass this and move on to concentrating on the failures of obama administration, his low approval ratings, during

the jury eager to finish their work. man of the jury said guilty before the judge asked her. you could see this wasn't ap pleasant thing to deliver for anybody. the hearing itself was relatively short. the judge thanked the jurors for their service, shook their hands. talked briefly about some posttrial motions that need to be made, but the entire affair lasted only about five minutes. this is obviously a huge blow to the martomas, also to sac. they would have liked to see, i think, an acquittal in this case. particularly because it hit so close to home for sac founder stephen cohen. he came up numerous times in this trial. said on more than one occasion matthew martoma and the others involved were just people that came up in the process of the government targeting's stephen cone individually. a case they haven't yet been able to make, brian and mandy. so we may see that there's more to come in this investigative work. the u.s. attorney here has had a pretty much perfect record in terms of these insider trading cases. >>

so the jury doesn't get the benefit of that evidence. the jury doesn't get to understand where his mind was at the time. at the same time, this is a systemic issue because you think about the fact that the jury didn't get to hear it, the jury credited his evidence over the other young black teenagers, that the judge didn't have this kind of information come in. the prosecutor didn't try to get this information in. and so you know, this is where we have a problem because our criminal justice system should have the benefit of all of the evidence that is important to making a decision in a case. >> ifill: david weinstein, what about that idea? there were other people who testified obviously, the defendant but also the other teenagers who survived the shooting. what is your sense of what we just heard jute other browne dianis say that there was a different weight put on their testimony. >> i would think so because the jurors are instructed you don't give anymore weight or any more credibility of one witness over the other. you evaluate each

people said you were in the jury room. ou did not like the outcome, you could have done something about it. and you can do something in a book that you can't do in a three minute tv segment and that is tell the complete story. maddy was pulled out of her life, thrust into the jury against her will as all jurors are and she had a very difficult time and i reveal in the book the kind of different treatment that she got. she was demeaned and belittleded by the five white women. >> do you think that was part of what it was? we weren't sure whether maddy was black or hispanic. does it really make a difference? >> some people are very strong and some people are less strong. there is no question when we're talking one person of color and everybody else is white, that person can get worn down. and i think that's what happened in this case. although i want to add that there were three our white jurors who also wanted to convict zichl and they didn't have the facts and the law do it either because the prosecution didn't give to them.