Return to Transcripts main page
Brett Seacat Trial
Aired June 6, 2013 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, Jodi Arias trial secrets exposed. Insults, personal attacks, put-downs, once private made public, today.
Plus, Brett Seacat takes the stand.
BRETT SEACAT, SUSPECT: They inquired what I had done. I said hard drive`s out of the computer. I want to make sure that nobody ever looks at it again. And I think that`s when somebody suggested the torch. And I think that`s a pretty good idea.
PINSKY: What does the accused killer`s mother have to do with this? Someone who knows is here. The behavior bureau will make sense of it all.
Let`s get started.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Good evening.
My co-host tonight is clinical neuroscientist and jury consultant, Michelle Ward, host of "Stalked" on Investigation Discovery.
Coming up, Brett Seacat is on the stand. And what attorneys in the Jodi Arias case said about one another during those sidebars that were so irritating. But first, you`ve got to look at what people who knew the Seacats are saying.
Take a look.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you initially heard that Mr. Seacat was being charged with this, were you surprised?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why were you surprised?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, I guess I was surprised, just because that`s, that`s something that, I don`t know. You`re not supposed to do.
LISA FLAMING, VASHTI`S BEST FRIEND: I met Vashti when I was taking classes at Wichita State University.
PINSKY: Do you believe this death was a suicide?
FLAMING: Absolutely not.
PINSKY: One day before she died, could you describe her demeanor? Did she seemed like somebody who would be suicidal?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was the same as she always was.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She had injected HCG to my knowledge. Did I read that right? What she said was, she had injected HCG to my knowledge, right? Because that`s what you said, right?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: If you were a member of this jury, do you think you`ve heard enough evidence to convict Brett Seacat?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. They`ve got to be able to prove that he did it.
PINSKY: CNN`s Ted Rowlands is still at the courthouse. Ted, we are going to hear from Seacat in a moment. The reason why we`re just going to hear from him is because he didn`t allow his face to be on camera. I think that was an interesting choice.
What was that all about? And what did you see in the courtroom?
ROWLANDS: Well, it was his choice not to have his image broadcast. Apparently he made it just before he took the stand, and I took from that that he wanted to control the situation.
And on the stand, I wish you could have seen him, Dr. Drew, because he seemed to try to control his testimony and put everything in a good light for himself.
And he`s one of these guys that has either a nervous smile or he was trying to day upbeat, because he had a grin on his face for a lot of his testimony. I don`t think it went well for him because of that. He tried to tell a few jokes.
At one point, he said when he was talking to Vashti at Panera, they said, how long were you there, and he was pensive for a while, and he said, about 90 minutes, which that`s pretty long in Panera time, and it went over like a lead balloon. Jurors were very attentive, taking notes, watching him intently as he continued to talk and tell histories.
People started to fade-away. The notebooks dropped. And some jurors didn`t even look at him as he continued his testimony.
PINSKY: Thank you, Ted. Stay with us.
On the panel, Sirius XM host Jenny Hutt, attorney at speaktomark.com, Mark Eiglarsh, and attorney Areva Martin.
I`m going to play a clip for you, guys, of Brett Seacat recalling a conversation he had had with Vashti. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was that discussion all about?
SEACAT: All about divorce, reconciliation, staying together. And at a lot of points in the conversation, I didn`t know what we were talking about, because every 10 minutes, it seemed like Vashti was pursuing a different angle.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: It seems to me, Mark, that he`s trying to make some kind of case that Vashti was unstable, was flipping and flopping even during a simple -- well, not a simple conversation, but an intense conversation. Is that what they`re building to?
MARK EIGLARSH, ATTORNEY: That`s what they`re trying to do. That`s like pulling off the triple lindy dive. It`s not going to happen.
And, again, if the physical evidence somehow proves as it does that what he`s saying makes absolutely no sense, how is he going to dig his way out of that?
AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY: I can`t see the show, and I can barely hear you.
PINSKY: Michelle -- Reva, I heard you there. I`m sure we`re going to take care of that technical problem in just a second here.
Michelle, flipping and flopping cognitively in a stressful situation is very different than flipping and flopping with ones mood, which is what he`s alleging was the problem.
MICHELLE WARD, CO-HOST: And he`s just trying to feed into this whole idea that she was the unstable one. But I`m -- what`s frustrating about this is I`m hearing a male version of Jodi. He`s out there smiling and making jokes on the stand. He`s just nothing take it seriously. Again, that weird affect, just behaving totally differently than he should be.
PINSKY: And, Jenny, I know you`re dying to ring in here. Go ahead.
JENNY HUTT, RADIO HOST: Yes, that weird affect. I mean, this guy is so bizarre. First of all, if you`re going to allege in your defense that she wanted the divorce and you didn`t, then wouldn`t you be broken up over your wife`s supposed suicide?
HUTT: That suicide for which you are being blamed.
PINSKY: You would be a mess.
HUTT: What do you in making jokes? He`s like calm and laid-back and making these poor jokes. He`s a terrible comic and a horrible guy.
PINSKY: Now, in 2008, when Seacat was working for the sheriff`s department, he apparently -- now, it`s being reported -- was sued for a wrongful death. Seacat allegedly slammed a 50-year-old suspect against a concrete wall. This is telling us a little something about this guy. Now, things can happen in an engagement with a police officer, but he actually caused a skull fracture and brain damage, and the man died.
Seacat was reportedly was cleared by the D.A.`s office and the Kansas Bureau of Investigations as well. It was widely reported, though, that the victim`s family dropped the lawsuit against Seacat because they ran out of money.
We had asked Seacat`s attorneys for a comment, but have not heard back.
Mark, what is that all about?
EIGLARSH: Well, first, in total fairness, he was cleared by the state attorney`s office, not just by the police force, which, you know, usually kind of slips a lot of these things under the rug, but the prosecutors found no wrongdoing.
That being said, I really felt for the victim`s family in that case, because they had spent $13,000 on legal fees and just couldn`t go any further. They feel today if they had just been able to get justice in that case, maybe this wouldn`t have happened.
PINSKY: Ted, is this new information? Have you heard anything about this on the street?
ROWLANDS: Yes. This was reported, and this is something that the judge did not allow, as you can imagine, to come into this trial because of the prejudice and the fact that he was cleared by the state investigator.
But, boy, in hindsight, when you look at that, when you look at the video of him subduing the client, the family of John Myers (ph), that`s 50- year-old man who died on custody, they call him a loose canon. In retrospect, now in hindsight with his dead wife, boy, it sure does paint a little different picture.
PINSKY: Areva --
MARTIN: Dr. Drew --
MARTIN: What really bothers me is the kids. For you to believe the story about suicide, you have to believe that she set her own house on fire knowing that her 2-year-old and 4-year-old were on the home and to die in the fire.
And I just don`t believe -- we don`t have any evidence that this mother wanted her beautiful kids to die. So, even if she was depressed and wanted to kill herself, which is what Seacat is saying, I`m not convinced that this woman wanted to kill her kids. And that really bothers me about this case.
PINSKY: And, Areva, are we going to see experts on the stand talking about HCG and it`s potentially because they`re -- but I`m telling you, they`re going to have a hard time getting that. I just think -- I notice they don`t seem to be on the schedule. That`s kind of interesting to me.
MARTIN: I hope we see experts talking about the lack of a link, the lack of a correlation between taking some medication to lose weight and then committing suicide and burning down your house and threatening the lives of your two children.
EIGLARSH: Drew --
PINSKY: Yes, Mark.
EIGLARSH: Drew, they`re going to have a hard time getting an expert to say X, Y, and Z. What did we learn from Arias? There were experts that say that she was in a fog. She had post-traumatic stress, she doesn`t remember, the brutal killing -- you can find somebody out there to say that.
EIGLARSH: Big red nose, flower on the lapel.
MARTIN: Any testimony, credibility is important in this case.
EIGLARSH: Rainbow wig.
PINSKY: Maybe -- rainbow wig, Mark. Nice touch.
But I`m not sure they`re going to put somebody up there to talk about the medicine because it can be so easily shut down by a true credible expert. I want to show you guys something else here.
Bret Seacat tried to make a joke, as Ted was saying, a couple times. We`ll play it for you. Listen, again, we don`t have him on camera. He wouldn`t allow it. Interesting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEACAT: Hour and a half, maybe a little longer. But quite a while.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right.
SEACAT: Quite a while by Panera standards.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was the date you purchased that new hard drive for one of these computers?
SEACAT: Looks like September 7th, 2010. I guess my spring cleaning comes around fall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Go ahead, Jenny. You`re spring cleaning in the fall. You have Panera time, too?
HUTT: Yes, I can`t take it. Yes, I do. Often.
I can`t take it, Dr. Drew. I think this guy is so glib. And just the nature of why he`s there is the reason why he should not be making any jokes.
Either -- it`s one of two thing, Dr. Drew. Either he killed his wife and he has to defend himself or he`s broken up about his wife. What is he doing it?
PINSKY: Yes, I completely agree.
MARTIN: And there`s still the children. I got to keep talking about those two kids.
PINSKY: Yes. And, by the way, the kids -- who is taking care of the kids now? Why isn`t he fighting his way back and the kids are so important to him? There`s so much about this where it just does not add up.
WARD: We have to remember one thing -- this glibness we`re seeing, that is so typical. If he`s like Jodi, he`s learned to manipulate. And he`s thinking, I`m going to get on the good side of these jurors and they`re going to see what a good guy I am. It just falls flat.
PINSKY: You`re absolutely right. We remember seeing that with Jodi, that she believed -- it`s them, it`s the defendant with this narcissistic behavior, we`re speculating, seeing reality on their own terms. They deny reality as it exists. They want reality to cooperate with them. And it begs no alternative.
Next, thank you, guys -- Brett Seacat`s fog. That`s right, the fog is back. Maybe it`s Jodi`s fog. You`ll see the moment. He couldn`t quite recall an important life event. I bet my buddy Mark Eiglarsh will have something to say about fog, particularly when there`s something very critical, you forgot in that fog.
And later, we know what attorneys in the Jodi Arias case said about one another. What do the jurors -- we`re going to talk to one juror -- think about what was released today.
Back after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEACAT: I just said, "Am I getting served?" She nodded. And I think I just said, "So it`s divorce then?"
ATTORNEY ROGER FALK: At that point, what did she tell you?
SEACAT: That I -- I -- I don`t remember the specifics of the conversation. I know I -- I know I asked her something, and I know she answered. But I don`t remember the specifics now. It wasn`t relevant, I guess I don`t remember.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: It seems like Jodi Arias` fog is a contagious illness. He, before entering the fog, he had illustrated in glorious detail every move he had made, what street he had turned on, how he signaled his car. He remembered every detail until that fog.
Michelle, you`re a neuroscientist. Maybe there`s some contagious illness out there.
WARD: Well, that would be cooler. But what I think it night be -- and I know, everyone is gong to hate me for this and I`m sorry, but when you have a stressful event like that, you have the adrenaline and the cortisol. And that can make you forgetful. So, I mean, it`s not totally believable. You all know immediately following something traumatic that we do forget things.
PINSKY: He remembered a lot -- OK. All we need is that one juror, Michelle. Maybe if we had you on the jury maybe you could convince them.
It is the behavior bureau.
Joining us, clinical psychologist Cheryl Arutt, criminal investigator Danine Manette, author of "Ultimate Betrayal," psychologist Wendy Walsh, author of "The 30-Day Love Detox", and our human lie detector and author of "You Can`t Lie to Me", Janine Driver.
Is the Jodi fog contagious? Danine, what do you think?
DANINE MANETTE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR: Absolutely not. This is no fog. This is a typical man response to a woman talking and all he hears, just like in the old "Peanuts" cartoon, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I mean, my husband does this to me, I have to admit. If I`m talking about bills or something at work, and I can just see him gloss over and he tuned out and have to insert the word boobs or something to bring him back. So, I don`t think this is any fog. I think this is any psychological thing. I think this is a man who just, you know, tuned out to, when his wife was talking. That`s all I think.
PINSKY: I`m sorry, I think I just heard Charlie Brown`s teacher again.
Janine, did you want to say something too?
JANINE DRIVER, HUMAN LIE DETECTOR: With all due respect I disagree. We remember negative events twice as more powerfully as a positive event. Research has shown that if you make more friends, you earn more money, that you will remember losing $50 instead of gaining $50. Losing a friend, being betrayed, you will remember those details. So, this is someone saying you are going to be divorced. This is not someone being murdered, it`s not watching a crime. He is a police officer who is trained under stress, under fight or flight to remember details.
Cops always -- what do they do? Scan and look for the negative. I`ve dated plenty of cops, and they always find the negative in everything.
For him not to remember, this is not some type of denial, this is not a typical guy thing. This is a man lying.
PINSKY: OK, hold your horses. On the phone, I have April. She would prefer we do not use her real name. She grew up in the same small town as Brett Seacat and his family.
And for, April, for the behavior bureau, she has some interesting detail about Brett`s family of origin, where he grew up, his mother and father.
April, now, tell me about his brother. You would see her once in a while?
APRIL, GREW UP WITH BRETT SEACAT: Yes. She worked at an appliance store there in town. And we all thought she was a little odd. You would go in, and it was all business. There was no little chitchat like what`s normal in a small town about asking how the family is or talking about kids.
It was all, what do you need? Here it is. There you go.
PINSKY: And, April, how about the dad?
APRIL: The dad was a highway patrol trooper. He was -- I don`t know, like military style. We were sure that he ruled his house with an iron fist, was very strict.
But what got me was the way his mother acted. She would never make eye contact. Whenever she would walk, she had her head down looking down at the sidewalk and would like scurry from one place to another.
PINSKY: Did you ever have any suspicion that there was aggression in the home, that maybe that`s why the mom was beaten down? Or was it more of a --
APRIL: Well, I thought something was going on, but really wasn`t sure whether it was going to be verbal, emotional, mental or physical abuse. Something was going on, strange in that family.
PINSKY: All right, April, thank you very much.
Now, go off to the behavior bureau, Cheryl, there we go. We have an aggressive dad, a seemingly downtrodden mom, maybe with some cold features about her. What do you make of it?
CHERYL ARUTT, PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, what I make of it is that it sounds like she was beaten down. It sounds like his mother was somebody who was walking on eggshells, trying very, very hard not to make anybody mad, not to attract any attention and maybe trying to conceal what was going on inside her. This doesn`t sound like someone who felt safe, who enjoyed connecting with people.
And with a dad who was so abusive in an overt way and mom who felt so disempowered, I have to wonder what was Brett`s childhood like? What was he able to do? He certainly wasn`t getting protected from dad if mom couldn`t stand up even in this kind of situation.
And I don`t think this is somebody who really got a lot of attunement.
ARUTT: And it would create a full self and probably someone who took after his dad and became that same iron-fisted kind of guy.
PINSKY: Wendy, go ahead.
WENDY WALSH, PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, we have to remind our viewers that this alleged domestic violence, whether it existed or whether it was abuse that we`re speculating about --
PINSKY: We`re speculating.
WALSH: -- is not, it`s very much intergenerational, and it may not have started with his parents. In o in other words, she may have -- his mother may have had the personality type that she was abused in her childhood, if in fact she was, and therefore she became the perfect target for a controlling husband. So, then, it gets passed on intergenerationally that way, that Brett would go out and try to find someone who would be unassuming as easily controllable as perhaps his mother was.
PINSKY: And you guys are very focused on the interpersonal relational patteren. But there`s also the effect of being in that kind of family has on personality development.
Michelle, do you have anything to say about that?
WARD: Just add to the layers. Of course.
So, this is his environment and it`s also his genes. So, he`s related both environmentally and genetically to this man. So, I`m not surprised at all that he has an aggressive father.
JANINE DRIVER: I`m all about detecting deception as you know. And I believe I agree with Cheryl here. But he`s not only being trained by the mom on the behavior but by the mother on how to keep secrets, on how to kind of keep things quiet, maybe even hearing what mom is saying to the local person at the store and watching that behavior.
When it comes to looking for truthful statements, Dr. Drew, you know what you look for? My husband says, Janine, get out of the house, I said to him, I`m not leaving. Literally we use the dialogue of what I said, of what the other person said, that`s what we look for in law enforcement, for someone who`s indicatively telling the truth, we don`t see it here.
PINSKY: Danine, do you have something here?
DANINE MANETTE: Yes, bottom line, hurt people, hurt people. You either go away from something that you have in your home that bothers you or you emulate it. And it seems to me if this is the case, this is what happened with his parents, it seems that he may have emulated that same sort of a hostile, angry environment.
April, you knew this family, you`ll ask you straight out: do you believe Brett would be someone capable of murder?
PINSKY: Oh my goodness.
ARUTT: No hesitation. She just went right out there with that.
PINSKY: Is there any other -- again, we`re speculating, we`re trying to understand this here in the media. We`re not the court of law. But is there something about what you knew or heard about him that perhaps leads you to that categorical statement?
APRIL: No, I think he was just a very controlling person, and with Vashti filing for divorce and gaining back her own control, he decided to take it back by controlling on how she left him.
PINSKY: Wow. Wendy, I feel like you have something to say there.
WALSH: I do. I just want to quickly go back to that fog thing. Remember, Dr. Drew, there are two ways to lie. One way is to give way too much information, remember how I described in great detail everything that lead up to it, and the other is to give too little information.
PINSKY: He did both.
We`ll just call it Jodi Arias effect of the Jodi Arias fog.
Thank you, ladies. Very good. Thank you, April.
Next up, what were the attorneys in the Jodi Arias case saying during those sidebars? It wasn`t very nice. A juror is going to ring in and tell us what we may have learned.
And later, we`ll be speaking about Trayvon Martin`s death. George Zimmerman attorney made a couple last ditch pleas today. We`ll talk about that.
Stay with us. We`ve got a lot more to go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Basically, what they`re doing is wasting everybody`s time, it`s a waste of everybody`s time, except maybe the defense counsel. Perhaps they can add a couple more pennies to their kettle.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Improper, argumentative, that relates to counsel. I`m sorry that our interest in fulfilling our duties as counsel and protecting Ms. Arias` rights interfere with his desire for stardom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Ooh, nasty.
Back with my co-host, Michelle Ward.
Now, we knew the Arias trial attorneys didn`t like one another, certainly didn`t seem to be getting along. We saw all that stuff at an open court. But now, we have proof of worse. Private comments from sidebar conversations were just made public.
Joining us to discuss, Mark Eiglarsh, Areva Martin, Jenny Hutt and Shanna Hogan. Hold on a second, Shannon has got, of course, the forthcoming book, "Picture Perfect."
Speaking of the picture, Mark, are you OK? Mark, are you --
EIGLARSH: Drew, I`m fine. I was, I was listening to your last block. And just when I thought I was done with the fog, Seacat has pulled me back in.
PINSKY: Good. Thank you, thank you. I think we`re going to dedicate this entire block to maybe what we should call DR. DREW ON CALL Theater, which you`ve made the first overture. Thank you so much, Mark.
I want to get the latest from Shanna.
Shanna, what`s going on?
SHANNA HOGAN (via telephone): Yes, Dr. Drew, we knew we going to get these tapes, we knew once the verdict were in, the record would become unsealed. We have no idea what would be on them, how explosive they would be. These unsealed records are pretty explosive.
PINSKY: Now, we are actually -- thank you, Shanna. Did you personally have a thought about them? Were you surprised?
HOGAN: It just kind of confirms the tension and animosity that you knew was in the room. That you knew existed between these two. So, it`s pretty interesting to see what was actually said when the white noise machine was on and we couldn`t hear what was going on.
PINSKY: My understanding is there much more to come, and we will keep providing that to our jurors. But now, what I want to do is, in keeping with Mark Eiglarsh`s stage effects, we`re going to continue the theatrics with a reenactment of one of the contentious sidebars.
My cast, Mark as Juan Martinez. Areva is Judge Sherry Stevens. And Jenny is Jennifer Willmott.
Now the side bar was called over a disagreement over Alyce LaViolette`s testimony. Mark, what do you say as you approach the bench?
EIGLARSH: First of all, wait a second, was there no reprieve from the governor? Do I really have to do this? Do I really? Just asking.
PINSKY: It`s tough for you my friend.
MARTIN: Counsel, please make your point.
EIGLARSH: OK, all right. Fair enough.
All right. Here we go. One, I apologize. There`s a lack of trustworthiness there. She`s a liar. So I`m having a difficult time seeing how she can say that Mr. Alexander attempted suicide. But the thing is, if Ms. Willmott were married, I certainly would say I bleeping want to kill myself. That doesn`t mean I want to kill myself. It just means there`s a bad relationship, and I want you to leave me alone.
HUTT: Judge, just for the record, I think that that was an insult, because he`s trying to say that if he and I were married --
EIGLARSH: That was a compliment. A bad joke.
HUTT: I don`t see it as either.
MARTIN: All right, counsel, we`ve had enough of this. Let`s move on.
PINSKY: Let`s do. Let`s move on. I think the satellite delay screwed you guys up. It would have been great on the stage if we were all in the same room. But that satellite -- well done, though. Nonetheless, I laughed, I cried --
MARTIN: Thank you, Dr. Drew.
EIGLARSH: Drew, now, now, now you know I love you. That`s why I did this. And now, my own dog won`t respect me, but thank you.
PINSKY: OK. Listen, two days after the explosive sidebar you just heard, there was a follow up that included this. Martinez to Wilmott will then maybe you ought to go back to law school. The judge didn`t step in, so Nurmi did and asked the judge to admonish Martinez at which point she said, quote, "I understand some of this is tongue-in-cheek," as we are attempting (ph) to be tonight. But let`s try to be as professional as possible. Mark, that is meant towards you (ph). Judge, Areva, should this judge have been tougher with the lawyers (ph) is really the question here.
MARTIN: No. Dr. Drew, this happens in every trial, particularly -- you know, this is a capital murder case. Intense, you know, lawyering is - - these are zealous advocates. These are gladiators going that -- you`re going to hear, you know, some offensive comments. When it gets to the point of being so unprofessional that, you know, a judge has to step in, sometimes, yes.
I think the best trials are when both lawyers get to have their day in court. They get to, you know, put their cases on without a lot of, you know, restrictions from the judge. So, I`m glad to see this judge wasn`t, you know, jumping every time an offensive comment was made. If you can`t stand the heat, you should not be in the kitchen in a capital murder case.
PINSKY: It`s convincing, Areva, but it`s interesting you were -- I`m surprised, actually. Well, no, I think that`s -- I`m glad to hear her say that.
MARTIN: I`m glad I have some layers, Dr. Drew.
PINSKY: Joining us now --
PINSKY: Hang on Mark, I want to bring in another --
PINSKY: What? Go ahead, Mark. Go.
EIGLARSH: Well, I just want to make it clear. Trial is war. I mean, I`ve tried over a hundred jury trials, and the other person either wants to send my client away for decades, or in this case, kill my client. In which case, it`s war. And you`re going to be fighting and you`re going to say some nasty things, and you make up at the end, hopefully, and then you`re closest of friends or not.
MARTIN: Everything is on the line in the case like this. Everything.
PINSKY: I want to bring in those that were doing the judging in this particular case. I have a Jodi Arias juror. She joins us again, Diane Schwartz. Sorry about all the goofing around. What do you think about these newly released sidebars? Is this what you thought they were saying up there? Do you have any sense that this what was going on?
VOICE OF DIANE SCHWARTZ, JODI ARIAS JUROR #6: I don`t think I had any sense of what was going on, but I have to say that you guys were pretty entertaining.
PINSKY: Thank you.
SCHWARTZ: You know, we only saw the white noise. There were times that we could tell by a person`s demeanor or the way they were standing or holding themselves that they were upset, but other than that, it didn`t really matter to us other than it was a down time, and some of those went on rather lengthy.
But had no inclination that that was what was going on. I`m not surprised, though. I think exactly what Mark said, it is a war out there.
PINSKY: Mark, do you have a question for Diane?
EIGLARSH: Yes, Diane. It`s related. Did you ever get the sense that he, Juan, was being too combative with some witnesses and maybe too lengthy? We speculate that might have been the feeling of some jurors.
SCHWARTZ: There were a few times that he was very hard on them, however, saying that, the witnesses were not answering either. And they were not necessarily what I would consider a good witness. They couldn`t come up with an answer. They`re kind of like me. They talk on and on and on. So, that issue, I think, was very frustrating to him. So, it didn`t bother me, but I think it could have bothered some other individuals.
MARTIN: Dr. Drew, can I ask Diane a question?
PINSKY: Please. Areva, go right ahead.
MARTIN: Diane, did you ever get a sense that the judge favored one side over the other, because sometimes, after a trial, jurors will say the judge was particularly hard or harder on one side than the other. Did you get that sense during this trial?
SCHWARTZ: No, we never -- I don`t think any of us ever had a sense that the judge favored -- there were times that we felt that she went overboard in supporting all of the delays, the length of witnesses being on the stand, that type of thing. But, having said that, I heard earlier that, you know, the capital case, you`ve got to live leeway and not to create appellate issues.
Yet, they have to have their say, so to speak. So, that`s understandable. But if anything, I think she gives the defense the benefit of the doubt all the time. At least, that`s my perspective.
PINSKY: Jenny, hold your thought until after the break. I want you guys to know, your first review is in. I`ve got a Twitter. I`ve got a tweet. I`ve got something from Twitter. It is a tweet that`s from @poolbabe. This is sort of nom de plume (ph), I`ll have you know. All of us are there. All of our Twitter handles. "You outdid yourself, we want more of this, LOL." Very sophisticated review. Thank you. You guys should be proud of yourselves.
Next up, Diane does stay with us. And we`ll hear more from the sidebars and the put downs from the jodi arias case.
And later, will expert testimony regarding the 911 call in Trayvon Martin`s death be heard in a trial of George Zimmerman? We will discuss.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RYAN SMITH, HLN ANCHOR: A big today. George Zimmerman back in court. Powerful hearing. Lawyers going back and forth, but also talking about who said "help" on that phone call.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely. And remember, we have Brett Seacat testimony. He is the former cop accused of killing his wife and then lighting the house on fire with their two little boys.
SMITH: We`ve got our in-studio jury with us. We`re talking about those cases and the Arias case tonight on "After Dark."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The question was, isn`t it true, ma`am, that you discussed with Mr. Brewer before the trip that you took, that you were needed the gas cans to go and visit friends in Mesa, Arizona. What is your answer to that?
JODI ARIAS, CONVICTED MURDERER: The answer is no, I told him Utah.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I`m asking you, whether or not you think I`m asking you what you told him. Am I asking you what you told him?
ARIAS: That`s kind of my interpretation of it. It`s a yes or no question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Back with my co-host, Michelle Ward. We have been speaking about the sidebars in the Jodi Arias case that have been private but now have been made public. With us, Mark, Jenny, Areva, and the Arias juror, Diane Schwartz. Jenny, it`s your turn.
HUTT: Yes. So, Diane, you are so super lovely. I can`t get over you, frankly. But -- so I don`t think that would have impacted you had you heard the sidebar conversations out loud during the time it happened, but do you think any of the other jurors would have been impacted by how condescending Martinez was to Wilmott?
SCHWARTZ: Boy, that`s a hard to say, you know, because it is an individual perception. No, I wasn`t offended and I wouldn`t be offended. And part of that is my work experience and what -- how I have lived my life and various negotiations, presentations, et cetera that I`ve had to do. So, no, I wouldn`t have been offended.
But, you know, it`s very, very possible that others would have and that it would have bothered them significantly.
PINSKY: Let`s get a call from a viewer. Patti in Ohio -- Patti.
PATTI, OHIO: The four holdouts, can you tell me, were they male or female?
PINSKY: Or do you feel comfortable answering that, because I don`t want people to be sort of feel --
SCHWARTZ: No, we`re not answering it. And that is mainly because it was an individual decision.
SCHWARTZ: Our -- it was not gender specific. It didn`t make a difference whether it was male or female. And none of our jurors are answering that.
PINSKY: OK. So, that should tell you all something. I wondered the same thing. But Diane, you`ve given us really what we wanted to know was that somehow men or women that were affected, but the fact that it didn`t seem to make a difference is important information -- Michelle.
MICHELLE WARD, PH.D., PSYCHOLOGIST: I`m dying. I`m dying. First of all, the reason why Diane wasn`t affected is because these jurors are so much more professional and elegant and handled the situation with so much more aplomb than these attorneys did. I have done a decade of trials, and I have never seen anything like that.
I`ve done capital cases. I`ve done televised-type profile cases. And I think it`s horrifying and embarrassing what they were doing. You can be an advocate for your client. You can believe in the case. You can fight the war and act like a grown up.
PINSKY: Michelle, who do you hold accountable? Is it the judge? Is it Martinez? Is it - who`s -- is it all three of them?
WARD: Well, I think it`s a combination. I think you get these people who are happening to be working on this high profile case and a judge who`s really concerned about appellate issues. I mean, this judge has a very good reason to handle all this with kid gloves. You don`t want to see the case go into appeal.
PINSKY: Areva, you had a different -- yes, go ahead.
MARTIN: I think we have to be honest about trials, Dr. Drew. Everybody wants these high profile cases to be televised. They want to see everything that the attorneys are doing, and attorneys are human. So, you`ve got cameras in there, in a courtroom, what do you expect? The lawyers are going to perform, just like anyone else that`s being televised. So, I don`t think anyone would sit there and watch Jodi Arias` trial if it was, you know, boring, if it was mundane.
It is the action. It`s the mixing it up that Martinez did that had this whole country mesmerized by this trial.
MARTIN: -- attorneys immature or, you know, unprofessional, I just think is a low blow shot.
PINSKY: We have to hold it right there, but let`s just agree this. It`s really people that are professionals in high stress circumstances. Their backstage behavior can be a little unsavory sometimes, and we`re getting a peek of that. Look, if we`d seen you guys backstage before the DR. ON-CALL theater, disgusting. That`s all I`m saying.
PINSKY: Thank you, guys. Next up, George Zimmerman`s --
MARTIN: I need a lawyer.
PINSKY: -- had their last chance in court today before the trial begins next week. How they do? Some answers after the break.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The operator said, "are you following him," and I said "yes." They said, "we don`t need you to do that." He ended up on top of me. And he just kept punching my face.
That`s when my jacket moved up and I had my firearm on my right side hip.
And he sat up and looked and said, "you`re going to die tonight (EXPLETIVE DELETED)."
I felt his arm going down by my side.
And I just pinched his arm and I grabbed my gun.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Back with my co-host, Michelle Ward. You were just watching an edited version of George Zimmerman`s comments about the death of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman was back in court today. His attorneys are trying to keep several things out of the trial, which is set to begin on Monday. Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder in the death of an unarmed teen. He claims self-defense.
Joining us, Mark Eiglarsh, Danine Manette, Jenny Hutt, and Martin family attorney, Natalie Jackson. And Natalie, the judge ruled -- by the way, thank you so much for joining us.
NATALIE JACKSON, ATTORNEY FOR MARTIN FAMILY: Thank you.
The judge ruled against Zimmerman`s attorneys regarding some trial witnesses who had hoped to remain anonymous. What`s going on there? Why are they being required to show their faces?
JACKSON: Well, one of the things that the judge said today was that a trial is public. It`s for the public. So, the judge didn`t want to highlight any of the witnesses by allowing them to remain anonymous. She thought that the jurors will wonder why they were anonymous. And she also thought it was just against public policy to have witnesses who could state something anonymously.
PINSKY: Danine, I want to go to you and ask, you`re an investigator, do you think racial profiling will come up in this court? I know they`re trying to keep it out, but isn`t that inevitable?
DANINE MANETTE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR: I think it`s going to come up. I think that if there was no reason for Mr. Zimmerman to have followed Trayvon, if there were not reports of similarly looking individuals walking through the neighborhood or creating any kind of problem or crime statistics where people looked like Trayvon, then he would have no reason to follow him.
And I think that if that`s the case, if there was nothing in the history of that community which led him to believe that Trayvon was a threat in anyway, then racial profiling will definitely come up, will definitely be an issue in this case.
PINSKY: And Natalie, even if he was sort of following somebody suspicious, when he got out of the van and disregarded the 911 operator, isn`t that where the rubber`s going to hit the road in this case?
JACKSON: Well, I think that`s going to be on the issues. The rubber is going to hit the road with George Zimmerman`s own statements. And it`s also going to hit the road on one of the things that was discussed today in court. Who was screaming on the 911 call?
There`s a 911 call with the actual screams and the gunshot. So, that`s going to be a very important question. And that was one of the hearings that was held today.
PINSKY: Jenny, you have a question?
HUTT: Well, I just had a question about this text message thing. Can somebody clarify this for me? Which -- who doesn`t want the text messages in?
JACKSON: I can clarify that. The state is objecting to the text messages as character evidence. There`s been an effort to bring Trayvon Martin`s character into this case, just as George Zimmerman`s character. In Florida, we have Florida rules of evidence which don`t allow you to talk about someone`s character. It has to be about the case and what happened.
PINSKY: Mark, I know you have a question. We`ll get to it right after this.
PINSKY: Welcome back. My co-host is Michelle Ward. And we`ve been talking about the Zimmerman case which begins Monday and can be seen right here on HLN. Natalie, you want to clarify something, and then, Mark, I`m going to go to you -- Natalie.
JACKSON: I did. I wanted to finish talking about character evidence. So, while Florida rules don`t allow character evidence, they -- character evidence can come in on -- in certain situations.
If someone, either the state or the defense offers someone`s character, they say oh, George Zimmerman is a great guy or Trayvon`s a good boy, now, character evidence becomes relevant to show the opposing counsel can bring in bad character evidence. So, it comes in only under certain circumstances --
PINSKY: Got it.
JACKSON: -- opening the door.
EIGLARSH: I agree, first of all, with what Natalie said before the break and after the break. The judge made the right ruling by not allowing those text messages to come into evidence, because it has nothing to do with what Zimmerman knew about Trayvon at the time. That`s the issue. I do want to talk about the other side of the issue, and that is what Zimmerman`s attorney, O`Mara, said.
He`s getting a really bad beating in the public to some extent and that he said that he wasn`t going to attack Trayvon`s character in the case itself, in the defense case, only in rebuttal, if the prosecution were to open that door as Natalie just referred to. He`s saying that he didn`t put it out for the public to see, that he turned it over in discovery, and that by the rules of evidence, then the media had access to it and put it out for everyone to see.
PINSKY: Got it. Natalie, I have very limited time. I`m just wondering how the Martin Family is doing. Everyone holding up OK?
JACKSON: They are. You know, they`ve taken on a role as advocate, victim advocates. So for them, this will bring some closure as far as what happened to their son, but they still feel that they have a deeper mission and they`re going to fulfill it.
PINSKY: Thank you very much. Thank you, panel. We`ll be back with the last call after this.
PINSKY: Time for the last call. Michelle, you`re the perfect person to have in here with me tonight. However are they going to find a jury in that Zimmerman case that hasn`t been affected by what`s out in the public sphere?
WARD: I have no idea. And that`s actually been a concern of mine. I mean, I try not to be swayed by the court of public opinion and a good juror is going to try that, too, but it`s almost impossible. This is so highly publicized. And, frankly, it looks so bad for the defense. They have a huge hole they`re going to have to dig themselves out of.
PINSKY: And by the way, we`ve just now heard from the Jodi Arias jurors. And yes, as you say, we hope they can find people that are as professional and as poised as, say, Diane Schwartz has been.
WARD: Absolutely. And you know, unfortunately, this is a really heated issue. It`s a heated topic, especially if you get the profiler in there.
PINSKY: Very intense. It`s going to be intense. Thank you, Michelle. Thank you all for watching. We will see you next time. "HLN After Dark" begins right now.