the jury asked whether it could have a discussion with the court regarding t ining the jury inst and the court said it would be willing to address any specific question the jury might have but could not engage in a general discussion. i think obviously it is within the court's discretion to do that but i think it should be at this point at least the extent of any communication would be simply ladies and gentlemen if you have a more specific question there is a possibility we can answer it or something like that. >> it sounds like an agreement. i think a couple cases and i don't know if you have all these. >> if you have some kind of agreement can you tell me what kind of response? i left the jury question in my chambers but i can write out a response on a separate sheet of paper. >> certainly. it seems like those cases including haggard, a very recent florida supreme court case about three months ago vs. state 109, 730-735 and diaz, might have been cited by the state. 57 2nd 104 is significant to the extent it references perriman, florida supreme court case of 1999, 731, 1243. it says

she asked for 15 minutes to see how the jury responded to the note that she sent the jury. again, i want to reset here and tell our viewers exactly what happened. so just over an hour ago, the judge in this george zimmerman trial came out and said that the jury had a question about manslaughter. they needed some clarification. everyone convened including the attorneys, george zimmerman, his family. all of the court watchers, all of the reporters came in and then she spoke to the attorneys and she said, i want to find out specifically what they need and give me 30 minutes. took a 30-minute recess. she came back into the court to find out, found out what they needed. and then met -- there you see them earlier. every one of the attorneys approached the bench. and then they after that all talked about some case law, exactly what they needed, what have you, and then they decided after this that they needed to tell the jury that they couldn't talk in general about manslaughter but they could talk specifics. if they had specific questions or a specific question about manslaughter,

the jury asked whether it could have a discussion with the court regarding jury instruction on principle. the court responded it could not engage in a general discussion with the jury but would address any specific question the jury might have. and i think that obviously, it's within the court's discretion to do that, but i think that should be at least at this point the extent of any communication, would simply be, if you have a more specific question, there's a possibility we can answer it, or something like that. >> it sounds like an agreement. i think a couple cases -- >> if you have some kind of agreement, can you tell me what kind of response? i left the jury question in my chamber. but i can write out a response on this sheet of paper. >> it seemed like those cases -- the most recent supreme court case three months, diaz is significant to the extent that it references terriman, florida supreme court case of 1999. it says that where there are questions of law, the court can get clarification on their confusion and then can actually answer specific questions of law with a sort of st

respectfully, that's up to the jury, not mr. west. so the issue is i think the provocation language should be included. the only issue that i hear is whether or not it also ought to on top of the issue of provocation include the phrase force or threat of force. and again, carrying a firearm or grabbing or accosting to the point that someone hears let go and a physical struggle, that is evidence of force or threat of force. it doesn't say -- gibbs certainly doesn't say deadly force because of course gibbs is itself a nondeadly force case in the first instance. so the state's argument is the against is arguing what is credible, not what is actual. >> i understand both arguments. >> as a matter of law, following someone on foot or by car is not against the law. you are absolutely allowed to do that if you want to. and especially if you want to tell police where the person is. that cannot be considered provocation under the law just like because you happen to have a concealed weapons permit and have a licensed firearm on your person, that

respectfully,'s up to the jury, not mr. west. the issue is, i think, the provocation language should be included. the only issue i hear is whether or not it also ought to, on top of the issue was provocation, include the phrase force or threat of force. and again, carrying a firearm or grabbing or accost iing to the point that someone hears, let go, and a physical struggle. that is evidence of force or threat of force. it doesn't have to -- it doesn't s say -- gibbs certainly doesn't say deadly force because, of course, gibbs is itself a non-deadly force case in the first instance. the state's argument is the defense is arguing what is credible, not what is actual. >> i understand both arguments. >> let me point out, as a matter of law, following someone on foot or by car is not against the law. you are absolutely allowed to do that if you want to, and especially if you want to tell the police where the person is. that cannot be considered provocation under the law, just like, because you happen to have a concealed weapons permit

the law is like mud. this jury is going the hear this law from the court and they're going to be like every jury. they're going to have a hard time going through it because the lawyers can't even agree what that gobbledygook means when the judge reads that law to the jury. >> faith, having said, that and about seeing the gun or grabbing for the gun, let me show you some of what john guy laid out in terms of the inconsistencies, and tell me whether that addresses some of that from the prosecution's standpoint. >> sean noffke told me to get an address. that didn't happen. listen to the tapes. listen to the walk-through. and listen to the non-emergency call. sean noffke never said that. why? why lie about that? it's so important. that's why. because he wasn't going back to the car. he was going back to trayvon martin. trayvon martin covered his mouth and nose. really? you really think if that were true there wouldn't be george zimmerman's blood on these sticks that they pried under his fingernails? do you really think

question about the jury instructions. we all heard them on live tv, they're available online but they're confusing. they've gotten better but they're still confusing for lay people to understand all the terminolo terminology. jury instructions or decided by a form in the state and the judge can change them a little bit. we saw that in the charge con presen -- conference yesterday. but if there's a question about jury question, the judge will tell them use your own interpretation and go back there and do your best. >> is it possible, though, that they're either trying to decide between manslaughter and second degree murder or manslaughter and not guilty? >> you know, anything is possible. as i've said, the only thing this they really have to do is choose a foreperson at the beginning and come to a verdict at the end if they can. in between they can do what they want to do, they can discuss the issues and the topics and the evidence in the order that they see fit. there's no question that it's a bad sign for the defense that

how did they react in the jury box today? l go live to the courthouse where they're deliberating in sanford, florida. copd makes it hard to breathe... but with advair, i'm breathing better. so now i can help make this a great block party. ♪ [ male announcer ] advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator working together to help improve your lung function all day. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function. [ male announcer ] advair diskus fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder. get your first prescription free and sa

the jury is deliberating right n now. on thursday and friday they sat quai l quietly as the lawyers presented their closing arguments. we have some highlights for you right now. >> a teenager is dead. he is dead through no fault of his own. he is dead because another man made assumptions. he profiled him as a criminal. he assumed certain things, that trayvon martin was up to no good and that is what led to his death. why is he able to yell if the defendant claims the victim -- how is he going to talk? or is he lying about that? look at the gun. look at the size of this gun. how did the victim see that in the darkness? but you see what he is saying now? he's saying that -- how does he get the gun out? he profiled a 17-year-old boy that had skittles. that's the crime he committed that evening. oh, he's skipping away, la, la, la. this innocent 17-year-old kid was profiled as a criminal. >> how many could have beens have you heard from the state in this case? how many what ifs? but that's cement. that is a sidewalk. and that i

are we ready to bring the jury in? is there a chance of finding out who the rebuttal witnesses are? >> we have to at some point in time deal with the mr. donnelly issue. we could do that after we've talked about it. who's the witness you're going to call next? >> first one will be adam pollack. >> all right. can you tell us who the second one is going to be? >> david lee. >> david? >> lee. >> thank you. >> okay. they had a third witness. >> they didn't know if they were going to call that person tomorrow or not. >> i have to ascertain his certain availability. i just haven't. >> when you find out tonight, would you please e-mail the defense and let them know so they can be prepared for that in the morning? >> yes, your honor. >> i know the state understands they are bound into rebuttal. mr. pollack testified before. i want to make sure this is not a re-examination of him but it is a rebuttal to a particular fact we presented in our case. >> if it's not, you're free to object and i'll rule. >> yes, your honor. >> are we

the jury deliberating their verdict right now. y of second degree murder, manslaughter, or acquit him of all of the charges? they are deliberating and they're not on a schedule. they decide how long they go. they'll be doing it all weekend long and could render their verdict at any time. so keep it right here. that's it for us now. >> you're looking live at the florida courthouse. on the left where the jury is deliberating on the fate of the man on the right. if we get word of a verdict or any press conferences are being held, we'm be on it. >> they are some of the president's biggest backers but when it comes to the healthcare law, some unions now want out. this is "your world." remember when the head of the international brotherhood of electrical workers said this? >> the ibew has joined in the majority of the labor movement to support the bill. the final product is one i personally believe is

are we ready to bring the jury in? nd if there are discovery issues. >> we have to at some point in time deal with mr. donnely issue. we could do that after we talked about it. who is the witness that you are going to call next? all right. can you tell us who the second one is going to be. >> david lee. >> shep: so george zimmerman will not testify in his own defense. courted ruled the case should go on after hearing all the witnesses. we'll hear two more witnesses in the state's rebuttal case and then it sounds like a charging conference and explain all of that coming up right after this. this day calls you. to fight chronic osteoarthritis pain. to fight chronic low back pain. to take action. to take the next step. today, y will know you did something for your pain. cymbalta can help. cymbalta is a pain reliever fda-approved to manage chronic musculoskeletal pain. one non-narcotic pill a day, every day, can helpeduce this pain. tell your doctor right away if your mood worsens, you have unusual changes in mood or behavi

i've been told by my producers the jury finished dinnish. shed their and are back to deliberating. >> they've been deliberating 15 hours. >> 15 hours. >> sunny, that goes past your one hour per day. we had 14 days of trial. so if you go to an old adage which we know isn't locked in anything, but if we're using, you know, a yardstick to measure this by, we're past the normal one hour per day of -- >> one hour of deliberations per day of trial. that's sort of the standard. so they're at 15 hours instead of 14 hours, but i've got to tell you, i mean, i would agree with jeff, a jury that ordered dinner at around 6:00 or 7:00, ate dinner, it's now 8:30, they have continued deliberating. that tells me they think they can reach a resolution tonight. >> we said thereat hoat hours a they still work through the night, they're getting closer to a verdict. >> i've been told by my producer, there's nothing in teleprompter. i'm going it to reset here. it's past the bottom of the hour, it's 8:31 eastern time. 8:31 eastern time. don lemon live, in sanford, f

that's what the jury will decide, were his actions reasonable? the actions don't start in the middle of a struggle. they start from the beginning of him getting out of the car armed with a .9 millimeter following and running after someone run away from him. >> thank you both very much indeed for joining me. >> thank you. >>> this case will soon be in the hands of six female jurors. defense attorney and hln contributor mel robins was there. mel, it's very -- getting very heated, very emotional now, both sides now realizing this is it. reaching crunch time, the jury likely to go out as early as friday. what are you detecting if you can from the mood of this jury right now? >> well, today was fascinating, piers. you had the defense witness last name of root who was the use of force expert. he wasn't really giving testimony. he was giving a warmup for the closing argument for the defense and what was fascinating about his testimony, piers, is that he would constantly look at the jury and you know what they were doing? looking back at him. it was like

the jury is not in the courtroom right now. this is being -- taking place without the jury there. dge will make some decisions and then the jury will be brought back in at which time they'll learn the prosecution rested and then we'll hear the judge's decision on the judgment of acquittal, asking the judge to toss out the against against zimmerman. take a listen. >> if you looked at evidence in the light most favorable to the state you have equivocal statements, jahvaris fulton, who says i'm not sure, and then miss fulton, who, though she did testify that is her son's voice, you have to take it in context. you have to understand reasonably why she would say that, how she would say that and the circumstances under which it was done. that piece of evidence in and of itself, mom saying this has to be my son, has to be my son, nice other possibility means he caused his own death. you could consider that as evidence, however you have to tike it in cop text and take in the reality of the other up deniable circumstances that existed that night. and here's what existed that night. my clien

he's playing on the jury's emotion. quite frankly, this is going to be -- besides the judge's instructions, his words will be the last words that the jury will hear before they start their deliberations. and that is one advantage that the prosecution has because they get the first and they get the last word when it comes to deliberations -- when it comes to closing arguments. so they sort of get -- they get to put a period on it. but it was very emotional. now, of course, this morning you heard mark o'mara saying, listen, you cannot come to -- do not use your common sense. do not connect the dots. what you have to do is weigh all the evidence. the evidence only. then john guy comes back and says, listen, use your common sense. brianna, something i'm sure you can -- you'll want to weigh on here as well. some of the things were very powerful. he said it was every child's fear that what trayvon martin experienced. to be followed. then when he said trayvon martin is is not a cardboard cut-out. talking about the defense using

what is going on in the jury room at this moment? plus new details in the crash of asiana flight 214. police are saying now what they think happened to that young girl found dead on the runway. stick around, we'll be right back. walmart's education benefits to get a degree, maybe work in it, or be an engineer, helping walmart conserve energy. even today, when our store does well, i earn quarterly bonuses. when people look at me, i hope they see someone working their way up. vo: opportunity, that's the real walmart. every day we're working to and to keep our commitments. and we've made a big commitment to america. bp supports nearly 250,000 jobs here. through all of our energy operations, we invest more in the u.s. than any other place in the world. in fact, we've invested over $55 billion here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger. [ babies crying ] surprise -- your house was built on an ancient burial ground. [ ghosts moaning ] surprise -- your car needs a new tra

you're on the jury. nothing? 's funny. >> a lot of people didn't find it funny, and defense attorney don west ended up apologizing later. other key moments, testimony from neighbors who witnessed part of the fight and called 911. we heard screaming in the background and the gunshot that ended trayvon martin's life. >> i can't see him. i don't want to go out there. i don't know what's going on. >> so you think he's yelling help? >> yes. >> all right. what is your -- [ gunshot ] >> there's gunshots. >> there's two guys in backyard with flashlights. >> okay. >> and there's a black guy down. it looks like he's been shot and he's dead. >> okay. >> he's laying and there's multiple people calling right now i'm thinking. >> and, of course, the star witness for the prosecution, rachel jeantel, trayvon martin's friend, who was defiant and later criticized for her attitude in court. we want to warn you, some of the language you're about to hear may be offensive. >> describe iing the person is t made you think it was racial?

members of the jury, have you reached a verdict? >> would you please poll the verdict form and hand it to deputy jarvis? thank you. okay. if you'll please publish the verdict. in the circuit court of the 18th judicial circuit in and for seminole county, florida, state of florida versus george zimmerman, verdict, we the jury find george zimmerman not guilty. so say we all foreperson. >> ladies and gentlemen, i mean, ladies. as your juror number is being called, please answer whether this is your verdict. jury b, what is your verdict. >> jury b, 76, this is your verdict. yes. >> juror b, 37, is this your verdict? >> he y juro juror b51, is thisr verdict. juror e6, is this your verdict? >> yes. >> juror e40, is this your verdict? >> yes. ladies, i wish to thank you for your time and consideration of this case. i also wish to advise you of some very special privileges enjoyed by jurors. no juror could ever be required to talk about the discussions that occurred in the jury room except by court order. for many centuries, our society has r

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

>> we have tremendous respect, greta for the jury system. up until last night, i was of the opinion that the jury was offlimits. the jury should be respected. when you listen, though, to what that lady said last night, i was so disheartened as i drove back up to tallahassee, i got on the phone with my client and said, i can't believe what she's saying. >> who are you saying -- >> the juror. >> you're not talking about your colleague on this team, you're talking about the juror? >> right, right, and let me explain what jasmine was saying, is that there's a point, certainly as lawyers we try cases, we respect what the jury does, we also respect that the fact that law evolves. and so -- the issue may be with the law itself. not necessarily with the jury itself. the jury was following the law, the law has a kink to it that needs to be addressed. >> let me talk to you first. i was so disheartened with her. i expected so much more from lawyers. she said -- i would think she would have profound respect for the jurors. i was disappointed with her. as

the fate of george zimmerman is in the jury's hands now. this morning is, george's attorney mark o'mara made his closing argument emphasizing he acted in self-defense and the state had not proved otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. then state attorney john guy asked jurors to bring common sense to bear in deciding this case and pointing out what he says was in zimmerman's heart on the night of the shooting. the jury had a question requesting evidence by number and description. the jury has finished deliberating for today and will resume tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. craig melvin has been following this case closely and joins me from outside the florida courthouse. it was an active day. now i guess quiet. >> yeah, you know what, very active. 3 1/2 hours, three hours, 30 minutes. that's how long the jury spent deliberating this afternoon into evening. shortly after they received the evidence and informed judge nelson they were done for the day. they'll go home until tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. and will begin deliberating once again. we shou

the jury was river vetted. they did not take their eyes off of this man and what was so important about it, anderson, is that now i understand why the state was okay with having those nay mire alone in the dark in the rain being followed by a stranger and being afraid. that resignated singl it was so it was >> i got to go to mark geragos because he's grinning like a cat. mark? >> yeah, i predicted it last night. it's just shocking, isn't it, that sunny thought that he was mcbrilliant. didn't you tweet today sunny he had them at hello? wasn't that yours? >> he did, he did, mark. >> you need to damp it down, sunny. you're seeing this, you got a school girl crush on this guy. >> you didn't see an excellent closing -- >> no, i did not. i thought it was trite. >> wow. >> and frankly -- >> wow. >> and frankly, sunny, i guess the only way we will ever know, the only way we'll ever know and i'll stand corrected and worship at your psychic feet of wonder -- >> you should do that now. >> i'll wait and see what the jury --

a jury of six women. we know the alternates have all been dismissed, so we're talking about a jury of six women at this point that will make that decision. let me tell you a little bit about their professions. we know some information about that. one is a certified nursing assistant. one owns a construction company with a spouse. one is a former chiropractor. another a retired from real estate and a former financial services worker. we also have some information, kate, about these jurors when it comes to weapons. one has a family member who owns firearms. one used to carry a concealed weapons permit. and another, her husband has a handgun, her son owns a rifle. this jury is, you know, for some of these women are well-versed and understand what it means to own and carry a firearm. they also, you know, spent time listening to all the evidence in this case and they will apply their own knowledge, also the evidence, the facts they learned in this case to make a decision on george zimmerman. >> all right, joge. we'll be c

ultimately it is the interpretation of the law by the jury. it's what rules. so of course without changing the meaning or legal impact, should some laws be rewritten to make them easier to understand? >> potentially, and that's the age old question. there always is, as i said, are written by lawyers and committee well before the trial. each state has their own set of jury instructions, but then the lawyers, the prosecution and the defense in criminal cases, grapple over a negotiated overwording because somebody's life is at stake in criminal cases and every word matters. i think, however, that this judge, judge nelson, did a reasonable job taking the previously drafted jury instructions by the legal committee, which are on the books, and crafted them to apply to this case. again, i'd be very curious to see what question the jurors had with regard to seeing what clarification the jury had with regard to the man slaughter charge. >> as i recall from yesterday, it was very simple. can you explain what that means? what is the manslaughter option? break it down for

respectfully,'s up to the jury, not mr. west. issue is, i think, the provocation language should be included. the only issue i hear is whether or not it also ought to, on top of the issue was provocation, include the phrase force or threat of force. and again, carrying a firearm or grabbing or accost iing to the point that someone hears, let go, and a physical struggle. that is evidence of force or threat of force. it doesn't have to -- it doesn't s say -- gibbs certainly doesn't say deadly force because, of course, gibbs is itself a non-deadly force case in the first instance. the state's argument is the defense is arguing what is credible, not what

. >> they're now debating the instructions that will go to the jury. >> it is certainly consistent with the way the case has proceeded. >> don west is using strong language there. >> closing arguments today in the george zimmerman trial. >> closing arguments later this afternoon. >> it is coming up on decision time. >> once we get to the closing and final chapter. >> let's talk about the trial of george zimmerman. >> state versus george zimmerman. >> who was the aggressor. >> are any of those abrasions life-threatening? >> mark osterman. >> rachel jeantel. >> we should plan at least a couple of hours. >> he needs to tell her whether he is going to testify or not. >> mr. zimmerman not taking the stand. >> george zimmerman has pled not guilty and claims he fatally shot trayvon martin in self defense. >> state versus george zimmerman. >> twenty-three days after the state versus george zimmerman, the state began his closing argument. here is how attorney de la rionda began his closing argument today. >> a teenager is dead. he is dead through no fault of his own. he is dead because another m

now of course the jury has to believe that. ave to believe that taking everything together made his actions unlawful. he went just a step too far. >> let me interrupt, sunny. even if the 911 operator said don't follow, would it be illegal if he then still followed? in other words, would it be an unlawful activity to disobey what the 911 operator said? >> i think it would depend on what his state of mind is, what the jury believes his state of mind is. if the jury believes, wolf, this he got out of his car with the intent that trayvon martin, one of these f'ing punks would not get away, yeah, that's very different from just following and observing and not confronting. that's a different set of circumstances. >> the other stipulation that judge nelson, and i'll bring mark in this, was he in a place when all this happened where he had a right to be? and the answer? >> the first one the answer was no, he was not breaking the law. and the second answer is, yes, he was legally allowed to be there. sunny's argument goes into the deprav

>> you can either tell the jury to disregard that witness' testimony. the most drastic remedies, the dreaded "m," just like mr. geragos' book -- "mistrial." >> love that plug. >> jeff, you wanted to mention the oath, as well? >> right, the oath. >> jeff, do you think the defense is going to rest tomorrow? do you think this is ending tomorrow? >> i do. i think the judge has had it. they're going to start at 8:00 in the morning, which means it's going to be a long trial day. this judge is desperate to get this case to the jury and let these jurors return to their normal lives. i think it's over tomorrow. >> all right. thank you. randi kaye has a "360" bulletin. >>> anderson, investigators have questioned the four pilots aboard the asiana airways jet that crashed in san francisco. they were said to be cooperative and realized the jet speed was too close. as it approached the airport. they were not tested for drugs or alcohol. >>> now to canada. a criminal investigation is under way into the runway train that crashed and burned over the weekend. police say

of the jury should be respected. u listen, though, to what that lady said last night, i was so disheartened as i drove back up to tallahassee. i got on the phone with my client and said i can't believe what she's saying. >> what are you saying? >> the juror. >> i'm talking about your colleague on this team, right? talking about the juror. >> let me explain what jasmine was saying. there's a point, certainly as lawyers we try cases. we respect what the jury does. but we also respect the fact that law evolves. and then the issue may be with the law itself, not necessarily with the jury itself. the jury as they see it was following the law. the law has a kink to it that need to be addressed. >> let me talk to you. i was so disheartened with her. i expect so much more from lawyers. she said -- i would think she had profound respect for the jury system and these jurors who we drafted to do that. i was profoundly disappointed with her. as to the law evolving, this is one of the most ridiculous discussions about the stand yo

and the jury is trying to decide the truth. with regard to 29 year old zimmerman, second-degree murder, which would bring a possibility of 25 to life in prison. or the lesser charge of manslaughter, still decades in prison. or the jury could acquit him altogether and he could go free immediately. within the past hour, the court zimmerman returned and shaking hands with the lead attorney and smiles there and then the side-bar, the first one and we heard this from the judge. >> we have a jury question. may we please have clariction on the instructions regarding manslaughter. phil coating is live for us in sanford, florida. the judge called a recess and how long and then what? >> the recess was about an hour and ended up being the time the judge called everybody in there5 but the judge and attorneys just wrote down a note that said, the court cannot engage in the general discussions but may be able to instruct if you have a specific question. please submit. and so the judge asking the six women to be more specific about what your

i respect the jury. sk you this, if the situation was reversed and if you were the brother of trayvon martin and -- or say you are the brother of george zimmerman and he had been killed in the same situation reversed. trayvon got out of the vehicle, had got a gun, got involved in an alter indication and pulled out the gun and killed your brother dead, how do you feel on a human level and emotional level about that? >> two things, that is tragic. and if trayvon were my brother and he was the one armed and legally armed and you know, able to carry that firearm in a legal way, and my brother blind sided him by breaking his nose and pummeling him into concrete and continued to punch him. i would find and the jury has found that unfortunately he had the greater hand in his own demise, which was causing by his own hand, his death. that is unfortunate, but that is what i believe. >> you believe that a 17-year-old boy armed with a bag of candy. >> look, we can be synical about it to the end of time. >> no, i want

the six- person jury made up of all women. d the case last night and they are currently taking a lunch break after three hours of deliberations this morning. once that verdict comes in. many people are wondering how the community of sanford plans to react to the decision. a small crowd is gathering outside of the seminole courthouse and sheriff deputies are on hand and everyone is hoping to cope the peace following the verdict. the mayor is on the phone with his thoughts. >> thank you for having me. >> let's talk for a moment about the mood in the community at this time. i know the sheriff publicly talked about the verdict once it comes in and saying that the community will not tolerate violence after the verdict is in. it is absolutely true. that is our top law enforcement officers and there is plans in place. last year we saw demonstrations and every one of them was peaceful and there was no arrest or violence. we expect people to be around waiting for the verdict and you know, we expect that it is going to be peaceful, that'

evidence that the jury didn't hear. >> the evidence that the jury didn't hear? >> i don't think that they properly considered the evidence. if they had listened to the evidence and they had followed the law, then george zimmerman would have been convicted of murder. he got out of the car with a loaded gun. he followed -- >> you're a lawyer, right? >> yes. >> the whole point of the jury is we assign them the job to weigh the facts, we make them sit there. a lot of times they don't want to be there. we present the evidence and the judge says here's the evidence, here's the law, instructs them on the law. it's your duty, not mine, yours, or anybody els, it's the jury's duty to weigh the evidence. afterwards you say they can't do their job? >> i have a greater job and that's to be a social engineer. and when the law doesn't get it right, i think we have the right to peacefully object to the decision of the jury. that doesn't mean we believe it will be overturned or that it will. there are millions of people out there who don't agree with that decision. >> you know wh

you're on the jury. nothing? that's funny. >> remember, that is how it all began for the defense, clearly, they won't be telling knock knock jokes in the closing statements. tomorrow mark o'mara will do the close, not don west. what do you think, mark, is the most important thing that o'mara needs to convey to the jury tomorrow? we know he's going to be using that, what jeff, calls a cartoon, that animation. >> right, the -- he's going to use the rekeyuation and animation, but i don't think you'll see him yelling at the jury. i don't think you're going to see him getting into or trying to play on a motion. i think what he's going to try to do is he's going to try to emphasize, this is what the facts are, this is the law, and if you follow the law and do what you're supposed to do, you will find mr. zimmerman not guilty. and i think he's going to just passionately for a large portion of this, what it is to have reasonable doubt. i think he's going to detail exactly what the facts show, and i think he's going to do

when could the jury get the case? >> reporter: jury could get the case as early as midday friday. could be afternoon friday. but at 1:00 this afternoon, bernie de la rionda is scheduled to make the closing states for the state. and the defense tomorrow. and after that the state will have an opportunity for rebuttal up to one hour. judge nelson has given the state and defense up to three hours to make their initial closing arguments. right now in court, we should note judge nelson going page by page over the jury instructions each side made some notes, suggested changes if you will. and they're trying to merge those to. at issue of course you indicated earlier at issue is whether the jury will be allowed to consider lesser charges. manslaughter charge, perhaps assault, as well. just a few moments ago, the first order of business, the defense indicated that it wanted the word defendant replaced with george zimmerman throughout all of the charging documents, throughout all of the jury instructions. and judge nelson agreed and george zimmerman -- word defendant, rather, will be replac

are we ready for the jury to come in? e, your honor. >> yes, your honor. >> let's bring them in. i will remind everybody in the courtroom that there is to be no outburst upon the reading of the verdict or afterwards. >> please be seated. members of the jury, have you reached a verdict? if you'll please fold the verdict form and hand it to deputy jarvis. thank you. okay. if you'll please publish the verdict. >> please stand. in the circuit court of the 18th judicial circuit, for seminole county, florida, state of florida versus george zimmerman, verdict, we the jury find george zimmerman not guilty. so say we all. foreperson. >> does either side want to poll the jury? >> we would, your honor. >> ladies and gentlemen -- ladies, i'm sorry. as your juror number is being called, please answer whether this is your verdict. >> juror b-25, is this your verdict? >> yes. >> juror b-76. is this your verdict? >> yes. >> is this your verdict? >> yes. >> juror b-51, is this your verdict? >> yes. >> juror e-6. is this your verdict? >> ye

poll the jury? > we would, your honor. >> okay. ladies and gentlemen -- i mean, ladies, sorry. as your juror number is called, please answer whether this is your verdict. >> is this your verdict? >> yes. >> jury b-76, is this your verdict? >> yes. >> juror b-37, is this your verdict? >> yes. >> juror b-51, is this your verdict? >> yes. >> juror e-6, is this your verdict? >> yes. >> juror e-40, is this your verdict? >> yes. >> thank you. >> now, as you saw right there, zimmerman barely showing any emotion as the jury's decision came in late last night. he did smile slightly, calmly shook hands with his attorneys, but really remaining stoic, just as he has throughout the trial, as everyone, the nation has watched him so closely. zimmerman's wife, though, was seen clearly emotional, wiping away tears after the verdict -- after the jury had revealed its decision. shel shel shellie zimmerman smiled broadly and hugged supporters by her side in the florida courtroom. >> nationwide protest! nationwide protes

it. >> but the jury won't know about the sentencing guideline guidel. >> correct. >> the jury won't because there was a gun involved, that it can affect the decision. stand by, we're going to continue our conversation. the fireworks that the jury didn't see. you will see some of those fireworks. the judge and one of zimmerman's attorneys got into a real battle today. will it affect the final outcome? stand by. ♪ [ 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. [ 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 it's not a candy bar. 130 calories 7 grams of protein the new fiber one caramel nut protein bar. >>> the start of the closing arguments today, there were serious fireworks in the courtroom after prosecutors threw a curveball at george zimme

sunny says the jury was captivated. okay, the jury was captivated. maybe they were captivated by what is this guy on. i don't understand why he's yelling at us. >> danny, do you think it was effective? >> there were a lot of theatrics. he's maximizing what he has. a good example is the skittles and the iced tea. it's not an element of any crime. they should. have anything to do with the case. but the prosecutor uses these because we think of skittles as a child-like thing to eat and the fruity iced tea. i guarantee if trayvon martin had been buying a pack of smokes and motor oil, it doesn't capture the child-like imagination. but the prosecutor takes that and instead of it being a nonissue he shows it to the jurors. this is what this child was buying. like i said, i think he's doing a terrific job with to have facts and that's an example of the style points he gets for using something that's irrelevant and turning it into a plus. >> we have to take a break. we'll have more from our panel. a lot more about the closing arguments, including the way the

all of this happened without the jury in the room.defense closing argument tomorrow, could it have any impact on the outcome of the case? marcia clark, wow, what do you have to say about these exchanges? >> well, you know, things take place in a court of law. i can say that i've actually been in more fiery exchanges than those myself, and i've seen other defense attorneys who were more on the hot seat than don west was, though not often. look, here is the thing. number one thing is the judge is right about the fact that once the court rules, you've already made your objection, you've made your record. that's what you have had to do. once you have done it, the court has ruled against you, move on. unless you have a new point to assert that no one has considered, different story. but that's not what has happened here. don west keeps going after the same thing over and other and over again. and she says i ruled, stop repeateding yourself. she has a sequestered jury that is waiting in the wings every time they do this kind of stuff. and t

the jury was river vetted. they did not take their eyes off of this man and what was so important about it, anderson, is that now i understand why the state was okay with having those six women on the jury, because he specifically just sort of homed in on what every mother's nay mire is, her child walking alone in the dark in the rain being followed by a stranger and being afraid. that resignated with every single mother in the room, and it was so effective. it was excellent. >> i got to go to mark geragos because he's grinning like a cat. mark? >> yeah, i predicted it last night. it's just shocking, isn't it, that sunny thought that he was mcbrilliant. didn't you tweet today sunny he had them at hello? wasn't that yours? >> he did, he did, mark. >> you need to damp it down, sunny. you're seeing this, you got a school girl crush on this guy. >> you didn't see an excellent closing -- >> no, i did not. i thought it was trite. >> wow. >> and frankly -- >> wow. >> and frankly, sunny, i guess the only way we will eve

we are waiting to hear from the jury. they have been having dinner and that doesn't mean they have stopped talking. let's talk about the lawyers, though, over the last hour. they don't know what the question is going to o be but what have the conversations been like? >> what i would be doing is what i have been doing which is going over the manslaughter instruction and trying to figure out what they have been confused about to try to anticipate. it is only a page and half. here is an example of language that i think is confusing. in order to convict of manslaughter by act it is not necessary for the state to prove that george zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only commit an act which was not negligent, justifiable or cause death. >> you are not a hour, right. >> each one of the words is confusing and each one of them has a standard definition and it you can't expect lay people to know what intent is or what is excusable in the law or what is justified. >> or negligent. >> or negligent. >> negligent is about two or th

but we're waiting for the jury. so, i guess what they were doing was feeding tape -- no, they switched from one camera to the other. they're now moving the jury in, arthur is back and mercedes is back. what looseneds to tie up? first the prosecution goes, that's their case. then the defense goes, we're nearing the end of the defense's case. what do they have to wrap up? >> if i'm the prosecutor you have to highlight every possible inconsistency in george zimmerman's story, from what he said on videotape to what he said on -- >> shepard: a lot of them. >> what he said to the public and what his friend writes and you say, lamp you have two people here, one is no longer here to tell you what happened and one is and he has told so many different stories, we can't believe anything. >> shepard: phil keating, what is next? >> it's unclear whether the next witness will testify like some sort of skype technique leak the one that didn't go so well the other day 0, or perhaps have some witnesses be shielded from the view of the

this was not in front of the jury. and when he was talking and talking and talking the other night, and she got up and walked out of the courtroom while he was talk, that was also not in front of the jury. she has given some tough rulings on objections that he has made in front of the jury. i'm of two minds about it. frankly, i like don west a lot. i think he is an outstanding courtroom lawyer. he has had some bad moments, the knock-knock joke. but i watched almost every minute of this trial, and i think he has really honed in on some details and shown high levels of intelligence and aggressiveness for his client. but the bottom line is right. when the judge is talking, you have to stop. when the judge issues a ruling, you have to live with it. you don't get to keep arguing. and you certainly don't get to object to things that the judge is saying. >> judge alex, here is the moment that lisa was referring to on tuesday. don west complained about the long hours and the lack of time the defense team has had to go over evid

and now we wait for the jury. now the question is where is the jury, what's happening right now. let me tell you what we know about the alter gnats. there were four initially, one had to leave. the three alter gnats have been released. they're no longer here necessarily on the premises. they're hot going to tell us where they are. the judge has been an aenon i amity order in place for all the jurors, including the alter gnats. we don't know who they will, we just know they've been release from their duty. if they want to talk we'll invite them out here to get their opinions, but at this point, they're gone. the other question is what if the jury comes back with a decision. how are we going to know? the initial plan was that the court was going to tweet out and give everybody an hour's notice. they say now ha it appears that the attorneys and family members and those who are so closely connected to the outcome of this are going to remain inside the courthouse. they're not going to do that hour long wait. they just are going to say the jury's coming back to the courtroom. >> does th

in a matter of hours, his fate will be in the hands of the jury. the prosecutor made plain what he wants. he wants a conviction. >> a teenager is dead. he is dead through now fault of his own. >> he bought a skittles and some kind of iced tea. that was his crime. the defendant claims the victim was -- how is he going to talk? or is he lying about that? you hear what he's saying now? he is saying that armpit, how does he get the gun out? the defendant realizes, oh, that doesn't look good, that means i'm chasing him. that means that trayvon martin is the one that's scared. what does he say? oh, he's skipping away. la, la, la. that's what he's claiming. unfortunately, because his assumptions were wrong, trayvon benjamin martin no longer walks on this earth. it's good citizens get along, but he went over the line. why does the defendant get out of the car if he thinks trayvon mart sink a threat to him. why? why? because he's got a gun. he's got the equalizer. he is going to take care of it. a want to be cop. he brought a gun to a struggle to a fight, th