Return to Transcripts main page


George Zimmerman Trial

Aired June 28, 2013 - 21:00   ET


MARK EIGLARSH, HOST: Tonight, neighbors thought they heard animals.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sounded like grunts. We thought at first it was a couple of dogs barking.

EIGLARSH: One described it as a mixed martial arts fight.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Explain what ground and pound is, in your mind.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The person on top being able to punch the person on the bottom, but the person on the bottom also has a chance to get out or punch the person on top. It`s back and forth.

EIGLARSH: Eyewitness views from the night Trayvon Martin was killed. Plus, George Zimmerman`s best friend joins the Behavior Bureau.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m a cracker. And you know, that language, I`m wondering in that scenario who had the depraved mind.

EIGLARSH: Is he still defending the man who is accused of murdering an unarmed teen? Let`s get started.


EIGLARSH: Good evening, everyone. I`m Mark Eiglarsh, sitting in for my dear friend, Dr. Drew. My co-host tonight is attorney and Sirius XM Radio host, the lovely and slightly opinionated Jenny Hutt. Later, I`ll be speaking with George Zimmerman`s friend and defender, Frank Taaffe. We`re going to drop him into the Behavior Bureau, and I`m certain you`re going to see some fireworks. Also, I am going to ask him if he`s had any contact with Zimmerman since the shooting.

But first, neighbors who lived in the area testified today about the night Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman. One thought dogs were fighting, and another described an MMA-type struggle. Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: State versus George Zimmerman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Want to draw your attention back to February of last year.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She just said that there were two people fighting.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I cracked the blinds to see if I could see anything going on outside.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It sounded like grunts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It looked like a tussle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We thought at first it was a couple of dogs barking.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think I described it possibly being some type of dog attack.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One guy on top in the black hoody was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy, kind of MMA-style.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever see the person on top pick the person from the bottom and actually slam him into the concrete?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you yourself hear that gunshot?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On that tape, there is a time when you say--


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m pretty sure the guy is dead out here.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was he moving at all, or did he say anything when you came upon him?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This guy was beating me up. I was defending myself, and I shot him.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your husband was involved in a shooting, and he was handcuffed and he`s being held for questioning at the police department. He kind of cut me off and he says, just tell her I shot someone.


EIGLARSH: Joining me to break all this down, attorney Areva Martin. Samantha Schacher, social commentator and host of "Pop Trigger" on the Young Turks network, and Sonnie Johnson, contributor to the Breitbart News Network. But first, we`ve got some breaking news in the Zimmerman trial. Defense attorney, Don West`s, daughter, posted this Instagram photo of herself, her father, and her sister. The caption that reads quote, "we beat stupidity celebration." It looks like the picture was taken earlier this week. CNN has obtained a statement from the defense team. It reads, "sometimes we are deeply disappointed by the things our children do, but we love them anyway and we must move on." Jenny?



HUTT: Yes.

EIGLARSH: Look, you know what, I don`t have a problem with taking your kids out for ice cream, beautiful ice cream, I want some right now, but what do you make of this caption?

HUTT: Yes, I think it`s completely uncool. And if my teenage children did this, I would go a little berserk on them. It`s inappropriate, it is just inappropriate on every level.

EIGLARSH: Let me ask you, Samantha, what do you think that was meant by that caption?

SAMANTHA SCHACHER: Well, I mean, obviously she is trying to support her father and their case, and she is trying to celebrate the fact that you know what, the defense has done a better job than the prosecution in the last couple of days, but I have to say, Mark, I didn`t get to see the picture. I am sitting in a room right now with no monitor, so can you describe it to me?

EIGLARSH: Well, the bigger issue, Sonnie, here is what I want to ask you, the bigger issue is the daughter is posting during a murder trial that her father essentially did wonderfully is how I am interpreting it. Is that appropriate with a dead teen?

SONNIE JOHNSON, DIDSHESAYTHAT.COM: OK, with everything that everybody else posted on Twitter or Facebook, I would ask if any of it is appropriate. If we were to respect the wishes of Trayvon`s parents, then we would let the justice system play this out and not advocate on both sides all the hatred that is coming from social network and on both sides.

AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY: Mark, you know what, can I just say, what is so ironic about this photo, is, you know, just a couple of days ago everyone was, you know, slamming Rachel, the 19-year-old, you know, teen --

EIGLARSH: They still are.

MARTIN: For her testimony, so now we look at the daughter, the teenage daughter of the defense team, and you have to ask, double standard here. Not cool at all.


EIGLARSH: Let`s talk about today. Hold on. Last night first I asked this question. I said, what has happened now? Are we all 100 percent clear based on the testimony what happened the night of the killing? Sonnie, I will start with you. It`s crystal clear, now, right, and certainly I am being sarcastic?

JOHNSON: Exactly. I like to always put -- I can only put myself into the situation, so I am a big Second right Amendment advocate, so please don`t follow me if I am walking home. And if you are following me, please don`t get out of the car, OK, because there is going to be a problem between us. And I think that there is no eyewitness to say what actually happened, but with the way it`s set now, and if you look at the cultural differences in America, these two men might have saw the situation from totally different points of view. Like if you are following me home, if you are following me home, I am going to be looking at you like you are a problem, I don`t care if you are neighborhood watch or not. And right now the only thing I can say is we have to respect his parents, and the parents said let the judicial system play this out.

EIGLARSH: I am glad they are saying that.


EIGLARSH: Let me say, I am glad they are saying that, but Areva, I wanted to ask you about, well, what are the facts? Before we start lecturing, we need to know what the facts are. Did we get them today?

MARTIN: You know what, Mark, you know, in trials, you can have eyewitnesses and they see divergently different things. So nothing different in this case. We have those witnesses, the three women that said they looked out their windows and they saw what appeared to be Zimmerman attacking Trayvon, so today we have the gentleman come forward and he says the opposite, that Trayvon is on top of Zimmerman. And as in every trial, the issue of credibility of these witnesses, their demeanor, the issue of bias is going to be so important as these jurors have to sift through now what appears to be contradictory testimony. Because today was the first time we heard somebody say Trayvon was throwing punches, and we also heard this witness say he did not see Trayvon slamming Zimmerman`s head into that concrete, which, as you know, is a big part of Zimmerman`s defense.

EIGLARSH: But Areva, isn`t that the problem, now? Let me shift to you, Jenny. We are in the state`s case right now. It needs to come out kind of clear as to what happened for the jurors to then go back and deliberate and understand what the facts are. What are your thoughts?

HUTT: This is a huge problem, Mark. I watched today, and I have been quite outspoken that I felt that all the evidence was really clear that Trayvon was not the initial aggressor, that it was all Zimmerman all the time, and today`s testimony from Good really did trip me up a bit, and I am completely uncomfortable about it, because he was a phenomenal witness for the defense.

EIGLARSH: Samantha, what do you think?

SCHACHER: I agree with Jenny 100 percent, and to Jenny`s point, and actually a question to you, Mark, how common is it -- you are a defense attorney -- how common is it to have conflicting ear and eyewitness testimonies in court where they conflict? Is that -- should we not be putting too much weight in this? Is it trustworthy, is it reliable?

EIGLARSH: It happens all the time, all the time, because again, it`s not necessarily that people are lying, but they have different perceptions. I always say there`s a difference between believability and accuracy. Someone could believe something, but be completely inaccurate about it, and that could be a problem for the prosecution.

MARTIN: We have to also say, this guy, he said he saw ten seconds. We can`t lose sight of that. It was ten seconds of this altercation that he witnessed.

EIGLARSH: I want to get Sonnie in here, you wanted to say what?

JOHNSON: You can`t also actually pretend that the media does not effect -- what the media has done is affecting these witnesses as well. We have this thing coming up in our culture now that says don`t snitch, and like this is the reason that people take that to heart so much, because if all you want to do is come up and tell the truth about what you see and to actually participate in the justice system and making things go forward, then you can be targeted as a victim, and a lot of these witnesses, I am thinking that if you look at their body language and how they are, not just racial, but the two witnesses today, the two neighbors today, they are scared to death. Like if they say the wrong thing, then they are going to have just the biggest target on their back as George Zimmerman has on his.

EIGLARSH: All right, Jenny, I will give you the last word before we go to break? Go ahead.

HUTT: I don`t feel that any of these witnesses are intimidated. I think that this is such a polarizing case, that I think equally both sides have a lot to say and believe each other`s principle. I don`t think this is an intimidation worthy case.

EIGLARSH: The consensus seems to be that we are not clear on what the facts are. We are going to talk more about that, next it`s time for Drew`s report card. I am usually in the small box doing this, and I am very excited to be in the big box doing this. This witness for the prosecution says he saw Zimmerman on the ground while Trayvon Martin truck him repeatedly. We will give him a grade. And later, an outspoken supporter of Zimmerman joins the Behavior Bureau to defend comments that some say are flat out racist. We`ll be back after this.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- how he was when you first saw him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You would have to go all the way to the ground.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (inaudible) what, like that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. It was more just flat on flat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. So one person horizontal on top of the other? You are trying as you are here, testify here today, to be extraordinary literal, aren`t you? You are being very careful about what you say, it`s only what you saw?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That would have been through the whole thing, because that`s the same thing I said in the deposition.


EIGLARSH: It`s time for Dr. Drew`s trial report card. Welcome back. I am Mark Eiglarsh, sitting in for Dr. Drew.

I love this segment, and I am usually not the one that is dishing it out. My co-host is Jenny Hutt. And today we saw some explosive testimony, Zimmerman`s neighbor, Jonathan Good, may have had the best view of the fight that took place between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. He testified today for the state, and I thought he did a fantastic job. But for the defense, now, that`s just my opinion, I am going to have a panel grade his performance, but now we are going to talk about it. I want to get everybody`s opinion. Save your grades until the end. Jenny, this was a prosecution witness who I think helped the defense. How do you think he did?

HUTT: He helped the defense dramatically, which means he didn`t do so well for the prosecution. And I was confused, because I didn`t expect that he was going to be in a way a hostile witness, Mark. He gave all the wrong information, I felt like, for the prosecution.

EIGLARSH: Maybe he gave, wait, Jen, maybe he gave the right information, because aren`t the prosecutors supposed to seek the truth, isn`t that what this is about?

HUTT: Yes, Mark, and in the interest of justice, if this is the truth, I am super glad it`s coming out.

EIGLARSH: Right, but they want a guilty verdict, right, Jen?

HUTT: But they want a guilty verdict and they are the prosecution. And if we are watching it in that way, and suspending the idea of what this is really about, which is horrific and makes me want to cry, of course, but I thought he did a terrible job for the prosecution, great for the defense.

EIGLARSH: Areva, what do you think?

MARTIN: I agree with Jenny. This was not the kind of witness you expected to see for the prosecution. His testimony about Trayvon being on top of Zimmerman and throwing punches, that`s the first time we have heard this testimony in this trial, and it was not good for the prosecution. But I remind, I just think it`s so important to remind folks that trials are rarely won or lost on the basis of one witness. We have got to stay the course, we`ve got to be patient, we`ve got to listen to all the testimony, and the jurors may not believe this witness because it contradicts his testimony, contradicts the testimony of the other neighbors who were also eyewitnesses. So we have to see what the jurors think about this guy`s testimony.

EIGLARSH: Yes, wait a second. They may disregard his testimony, Samantha, but why? Didn`t he look compelling? They didn`t impeach him, did they?

SCHACHER: I thought he looked compelling. In fact, yesterday I was absolutely convinced that Trayvon was the one on the bottom, that Trayvon was the one that called out help. And then today when I heard this testimony, like Jenny stated earlier, I was confused. But again, I had to remind myself that we have conflicting ear and eye testimonies, and as far as the prosecution today, yes, I think it was a fail for the prosecution, I think it was a win for the defense. But at the same time, Mark, was this a strategy for the prosecution? Because was it better that they called this witness to the stand rather than the defense?

EIGLARSH: Of course, no, no, no, there is no question there. I prosecuted cases when you know there is a witness who is going to stink for your side, you are throwing them up there before they do. So the defense doesn`t get to say as I do now, why didn`t they present that witness if they are really looking for the truth? Sonnie, what are you thinking?

JOHNSON: Like, everybody is an expert, and I don`t consider myself to be an expert on this. I am just saying about how I grew up, and I think it pretty much it mirrors that of Trayvon`s, of Trayvon`s upbringing. I want to put it out there like this, because Trayvon was on the top, doesn`t mean that he initiated the fight. It could mean that he was getting the better of the fight. And this is the point where when we were growing up, we were always told that you jump into somebody`s face, if you get your butt kicked, you take the butt kicking, you don`t then go and run and get a gun.

EIGLARSH: Wait a second, Sonnie, you just said that Trayvon was on top. Are you now accepting that as fact? Can we lock that in? If Trayvon was on top, this is huge.

JOHNSON: Either -- no, it`s either or, whoever was on top, does that mean who initiated it from the very beginning? I don`t believe that it does. Because even if Zimmerman initiated it from the very beginning, then Trayvon had a right to defend himself. And if he happens to get on top in the process, you can`t cry foul because you started it. And we don`t have the facts right now, but I am telling you to look at the fight and see who was on top.

EIGLARSH: But Sonnie, hold on.


EIGLARSH: Sonnie, you are saying we don`t know. Did Jonathan Good convince you as he did me that Trayvon was on top of him, throwing blows at Zimmerman? I am not saying that makes Zimmerman guilty of anything or Trayvon, I am just throwing that out there. Do you accept that as fact? Because we`re grading his performance.

JOHNSON: No, I accept that what I saw out of those witnesses today was petrified people. And you can say there is no effect and there is no outside influence on them, and I dare you to go and check any of their --


EIGLARSH: Here is what we are going to do.

JOHNSON: I am sorry if you don`t believe them to actually mean --


EIGLARSH: Jenny wants in. Hold on, Sonnie, we are going to go to Jenny and Areva. Go.

HUTT: Let me just say the following, that I had believed all along that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, and let`s say he was the initial aggressor, and then they get into it, and then he actually in reality does in fact fear for his life, in the--

JOHNSON: You take your weapon.

HUTT: The defense of self defense -- actually fears for his life and then uses lethal force. Now, I don`t know if this is how it went down, but Mark, correct me if I`m wrong, isn`t that where self-defense works as a defense?

EIGLARSH: Well, let`s keep that as a tease. We`re going to talk about that later in the show. I want to get Areva in before we get grades. Go.

MARTIN: Real quickly to that point of self-defense, that`s going to be a big issue in this case in terms of the reasonable force. Because the law says you get to use reasonable force to defend yourself, and the question is, could Zimmerman have done something else other than shoot Trayvon, who was unarmed, even if Trayvon was on top of him. That`s still a very important part.


EIGLARSH: To the viewers, let me just say this, I promise we are going to address that issue throughout the show, to break down what the law is in Florida. And we`ll take it from there. Now, we are grading. This is the report card segment. Jenny, it`s time. What is your grade?

HUTT: Well, for the prosecution, I give John Good an F for the epic fail today in court.

EIGLARSH: OK. Areva? What is your grade?

MARTIN: I give Jonathan a B for his demeanor. He was very composed in his testimony.

EIGLARSH: OK. Samantha? What is your grade?

SCHACHER: Mark, you love this segment way too much.

EIGLARSH: Yes, I do.

SCHACHER: I love it.

EIGLARSH: Mainly because I don`t get to do it. I am always sitting there giving the grade, this is fun for me.

SCHACHER: I would say Jon Good is an A for the defense, and like Jenny, an F, epic fail, for the state.

EIGLARSH: OK. And Sonnie?

JOHNSON: I would give an incomplete to all of them.


JOHNSON: I will give an incomplete. Because I`m not--

EIGLARSH: I heard you, but why?

JOHNSON: I am not going to grade -- I am not going to grade on what I saw today. What I saw today on that witness stand was fear, and that`s what I saw. And I think that`s --


EIGLARSH: Go ahead and let her finish, Jenny. Why aren`t you giving a grade to Good? Wasn`t he good?

JOHNSON: For one thing, it`s not over. And he put a lot of this (ph) information into the middle of the trial, and I don`t know if that was for it to be buried and forgotten about later, so I will just give it an incomplete.


EIGLARSH: I was told to give it a grade. I am going to give Good an A for the prosecution. Why Mark, didn`t he do great for the defense? Yes, because you know what, prosecutor`s job is to seek the truth, and to seek justice, and they brought it out today. So that is why I gave him an A.


EIGLARSH: OK. Yes. Curveball.

Crazy. Next, you don`t want to miss this, I can`t wait for this segment. George Zimmerman`s most outspoken supporter takes on the Behavior Bureau and defends his controversial comment.

And later, an attorney for Trayvon Martin`s family gives her own grade for the prosecution`s case, and that`s after this.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You also, though, told Mr. Delariondo (ph) that you had gone into the hospital, but you knew that was a lie?

JENTEAL: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She lied under oath to the state.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don`t think that creepy-ass cracker is a racial comment?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Her testimony is contrived.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You described him as a creepy-ass cracker.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So it was racial, but it was because Trayvon Martin put race in this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am a cracker, and you know, that language, I am wondering in that scenario who had the depraved mind. There were seven burglaries in 11 months. All of them were committed by young black males.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One black man represents all of them in his mind. That`s what is frightening.


EIGLARSH: It`s time for the Behavior Bureau. I am Mark Eiglarsh, sitting in for Dr. Drew tonight. I am back with co-host, Jenny Hutt. Jen, I have been looking forward to this segment all day.

Joining us is Samantha Schacher, host of "Pop Trigger" on the Young Turks network, psychotherapist Tiffanie Davis Henry, criminal investigator Danine Manette, author of "Ultimate Betrayal." And this is why I am excited, we have a guy on the Behavior Bureau today, Frank Taaffe, who is George Zimmerman`s former neighbor and outspoken supporter. And I say outspoken, because, Frank, you are everywhere, OK? Frank, welcome.

FRANK TAAFFE, ZIMMERMAN FRIEND AND SUPPORTER: Well, Mark, thank you for having me, and hello, Jenny. Glad to be here.

HUTT: Hello.

EIGLARSH: Are you ready? All right, Frank, I am going for it.

TAAFFE: Yes, I want to get ready to balance this bureau out.

EIGLARSH: All right, here we go. The woman on that tape accused you of lumping all black men together. Your reaction?

TAAFFE: It is what it is. In our community, we had seven burglaries in 11 months, and all of them were perpetrated by young black males. That`s documented. Also on the night of February 2nd, George was on his way out walking his dog, and there was a young black male prowling my house and getting ready to burglarize it, and due to his diligent effort that burglary was stopped in progress. So therefore, henceforth, we forward it to February 26th. George is on his way out to Target to pick up lunch items to make lunch that week, and lo and behold, he sees Trayvon Martin up in my house on private property.

EIGLARSH: What are we saying about young black males? Frank, address the question. What are we saying? Are you lumping them all together?

TAAFFE: You know what, Mark, it had a tendency to be all black males that were committing these burglaries, so I am not lumping all black males, just particularly the ones that were robbing my neighborhood.

EIGLARSH: Tiffanie, your reaction?

TIFFANIE DAVIS HENRY, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Is it not all over my face? I mean, I don`t feel like --


EIGLARSH: Share with the world. Go.

TAAFFE: Bring it. Let`s go.

HENRY: Yes, it feels like you are. To be honest, it feels like you are lumping all black males. And that was the question you really still have not answered directly--

TAAFFE: I just said I am not lumping--

HENRY: Are you saying that all blacks males are going to rob you? If you see a black male in your neighborhood, are you saying that that black male is going to break into your house, and that we should assume such? And that he has every right to go after him?

EIGLARSH: Let him answer. Let him answer. Go, Frank.

TAAFFE: Let me share this with you. If our house, if our homes had been burglarized by Asian rainbow handicapped people, all seven of them in 11 months--

EIGLARSH: Whatever that means.

TAAFFE: I -- it`s a melange. OK, it`s a melange, it`s a combination. It`s a mixture. If, you know, if you plant corn, you get corn. OK? I used to say that --

EIGLARSH: Frank, you are losing us with the metaphors. Can you just tell us what you`re thinking?

HUTT: -- because it does not make any sense. It really doesn`t.

EIGLARSH: Jenny, go.


TAAFFE: I`m not lumping all of them together.

EIGLARSH: Jenny, go.

HUTT: This is outrageous, OK? Let me start with that. It`s outrageous --

EIGLARSH: What is?

HUTT: It`s an outrageous an assertion to make that all the Black males that go to your neighborhood might be want who are going to rob you. That is a great concern to me that you would have that mentality regardless of how many --

TAAFFE: I didn`t say all --


TAAFFE: I said the ones that rob us.

HUTT: It`s just a dangerous mentality to have about anyone.

TAAFFE: Don`t take my words out of context. Don`t take my words out of context. I didn`t say -- I didn`t say all.

EIGLARSH: Samantha, what did you hear?

SCHACHER: OK. I`ve heard, because I watched a number of interviews with you, Frank, and I have heard you state over and over that you and George Zimmerman are not racist, and I`m not saying that you are, but you stated that and that George Zimmerman did not racially profile Trayvon Martin.

However, when you make a statement such as a young Black male wandering in neighborhood, it`s suspicious because a group of Black males in the area committed crimes. That comes off as racist and that you`re racially profiling. You see the contradiction here.

TAAFFE: I can understand what you`re saying, but he did not racially profile him. Number one. Number two, let`s stick to the facts in this. OK?


EIGLARSH: Frank, Frank, let me ask you this, and I`m going to get Danine in here for one second. Do you think, then, any Black, African- American should be stopped going through you neighborhood no matter what?



DANINE MANETTE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR: Because if he`s in a suit it`s OK?

EIGLARSH: Hold on. Danine, go ahead.

MANETTE: Where is this guy`s white hood and burning cross? That`s what I want to know. Where is his white hood?

TAAFFE: Oh, that`s bad.

MANETTE: Because this to me is really goes to the crux of the problem. I`m sorry, but that`s just what -- that`s what I`m hearing from you. I have two sons --

TAAFFE: No. That`s bad.

MANETTE: My sons have straight A`s, and for you to sit up here and make a statement like that, and just because of what`s been going on in your particular neighborhood or what you see, I have a problem with that.

TAAFFE: Where is my hood?


TAAFFE: You said where is my hoodie?

MANETTE: I`m talking. I think if the prosecution put you on, you would prove the case that this was a racially motivated crime. And I one who`s taken race out of this crime, but you, you put it back in.

EIGLARSH: All right. More with Frank in a second. Hold on. He`s going to clarify his controversial comments regarding the state`s star witness. Will our behavior bureau buy it? I doubt it.

And later, how did the Martin family feel about today`s testimony? That`s after the break.



TAAFFE: Jeantel was very good for the defense. She created so much doubt in that jury`s mind. She was precious. Those are the words I can use. She was just precious for the defense.

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN ANCHOR: Are you making some kind of joke there? Because if you are, it`s not funny to me. Are you making a reference to the movie?

TAAFFE: No. Not at all. I thought her testimony was precious. It was priceless --


EIGLARSH: I`m Mark Eiglarsh sitting in for Dr. Drew tonight. I`m back with co-host, Jenny Hut. The behavior bureau and Frank Taaffe. He`s been very vocal in support of George Zimmerman. Our behavior bureau received this tweet, "Did you guys see Taaffe call Rachel precious. This guy has hatred. No?"

Frank, we`re going to let you set the record straight. Were you comparing Rachel Jeantel to "Precious," the character in a 2009 film famously played by Gabby Sidibe?

TAAFFE: No at all. I thought her testimony was priceless and precious. Listen, I don`t like being called a liar on the air. And furthermore, you made a racist comment earlier where my hoodie was and a burning cross. I don`t appreciate that.

MANETTE: I said white hood.

TAAFFE: The FBI -- let me finish. The FBI did a thorough investigation of George Michael Zimmerman and they found him not to be a racist. Now, try to refute that --

EIGLARSH: Wait, wait, Frank, we`re talking about you right now.


EIGLARSH: Wait, everybody stop. The issue right now, Frank --


HUTT: -- is him!

EIGLARSH: Hold on. Everybody stop. Frank, everybody is going to get to speak or else we`re going to make this like a deli and everyone is going to get a number. Wait. Frank, hold on.

TAAFFE: I`m going to tell you something. I`m going to tell you, Mark. The state asked me that same question, and you know what my response was?

EIGLARSH: Which question?

TAAFFE: Everybody has an opinion as to whether I was a racist.

EIGLARSH: All right. Well, Frank, here`s the question right now. Here`s the question, back to precious, your reference of precious, people are not buying it. Of all the words in the English language, he uses precious. Danine, what are your thoughts?

MANETTE: You know, I just think that he`s not telling the truth, and that`s a problem that I have with a lot of people.

TAAFFE: Who are you to tell me I`m not --


MANETTE: I am Danine Manette and I`m telling you. And I`ll be the first to admit that I have called George Zimmerman an overzealous Barney Fife on steroids. But you know, you put it out there. Once you say it, just own it. You`re not the first person that`s made that comparison with her. Just own it.

People who put the bout there and then try and retract it because they don`t like the fallout. Get some integrity. Own it. Own your statement. What`s the big deal?


EIGLARSH: Frank, are you familiar with the character Precious. I mean, do you know who that is? Did you see the movie?

TAAFFE: I don`t recall.

EIGLARSH: Samantha, go.

SCHACHER: I agree 100 percent. Listen, Frank, I`m sorry. I`m just not buying it. Frank, I`m not buying it. I wish you would own up to it. And you know what, Frank, you`re not the only person -- I read the forums last night. A lot of people have made that comparison. I think it`s mean spirited. I think it`s ignorant. I think it`s cruel. And you repeated that word over and over and over again.


EIGLARSH: I`m going to get Jenny in a second. Go ahead.

SCHACHER: That word is derogatory. That really.

TAAFFE: That`s retarded, ma`am.

SCHACHER: Wow. You`re helping your case. Bravo.

SCHACHER: And now, we`re making fun of disabled people, great.

EIGLARSH: All right. Jenny, we`re going to go to you and then Tiffanie. Go.

HUTT: I just -- Frank, here`s what I want to say to you. You tried to make an assertion about whether or not Zimmerman is a racist. Right now, this minute here, that`s not who we`re talking about, we`re talking about your statement. So, let me be clear. What you said the precious comment is definitely because of precious, A.

TAAFFE: It`s crystal clear I have no inference to the movie --

HUTT: Well, here`s why it did. Here`s why it did, because for you to say tonight --


HUTT: Let me finish what I`m saying.

TAAFFE: You want the truth?

HUTT: For you to just say that you didn`t even know who Precious is is a complete fabrication, because everybody here knows who Precious is.

SCHACHER: And you repeated that word over and over and over again.


EIGLARSH: Frank, you wanted to say something and respond?

TAAFFE: Mark --



EIGLARSH: Go ahead.

TAAFFE: It came from a former spouse of mine that used to tell me when I would say something quirky, she would say that`s just precious. And that`s where it came from.

EIGLARSH: Well, there we have it, right? Danine, right?

MANETTE: Oh, yes, exactly. I just need some integrity here. I just need people to mean what they say and say what they mean.


MANETTE: But don`t lie.

TAAFFE: You want to make the inference to the movie. You guys want to make the inference to the movie. It never came into my --


EIGLARSH: I`m going to give Tiffanie the last word on this one. Tiffanie, go.

TIFFANIE DAVIS HENRY, PH.D., THERAPIST: Here`s what I`m going to do. Frank, I`m going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

EIGLARSH: Ooh, a defender. A frank defender.

HENRY: I am. I am.

TAAFFE: I feel privileged. Oh, thank you.

HENRY: Not that I agree, but I have called many a person precious, and right now, I think there are a lot of people that are not nodding their heads with you and saying you know what, he is precious, he is a precious lamb, and we need to pray.

EIGLARSH: Tiffanie, you`re bringing love. You are bringing peace and love for the behavior bureau.


TAAFFE: I`m a free man, America.

EIGLARSH: We`re going to end with this.

HENRY: And you know what, I`m a free woman. And I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that, OK, maybe he didn`t mean that.

EIGLARSH: We`re going to end on that. Listen, thanks for all your questions and comments to the behavior bureau. Please keep them coming. You can send it to @DRDREWHLN #behaviorbureau.

Next, we`re shifting gears. An attorney for Trayvon martin`s family weighs in on whether today`s testimony helped the prosecution or the defense. Back in a moment.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The boys screaming for help however many times that you heard it, it was just one person`s voice?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When I heard it outside, I believe it was just one person`s voice, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you now believe that that was George Zimmerman`s voice, correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I never said that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, "this guy was beating me up. I was defending myself and I shot him" is what he told you?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Without hesitation?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And from what you could tell at the moment, it seemed completely true?



EIGLARSH: Welcome back to DR. DREW ON CALL. I`m Mark Eiglarsh sitting in for Dr. Drew tonight. And my co-host is still Jenny Hutt. Joining us, Attorney Lauren Lake, TV judge, Samantha Schacher, and welcome Jasmine Rand, attorney for the Martin family. Jasmine, welcome.

My first question to you is --


EIGLARSH: Thanks for being here. What is the reaction of the family to John Good`s testimony today? And I`m wondering if that -- if that`s the same reaction that you`re having?

RAND: I think the family is not concerned about John Good`s testimony. We`re not afraid for different truths and some people are going to have different versions of what happened, but I think that we need to focus on the most important elements of the case. And George Zimmerman is still the one that got out of the car.

He pursued Trayvon, and we found out this week that Trayvon had absolutely no blood on his hands and I think that that`s a key piece of evidence and that`s what we need to focus on.

EIGLARSH: Well, Jasmine, let`s focus just for a second on Good`s testimony. It now appears, does it not, that Trayvon was on top of him. If you believe Good`s testimony, he was allegedly punching Zimmerman in the face, MMA style, ground and pound. Doesn`t that cause the family some concern at all about this case?

RAND: Well, first, I think we need to clarify something. I never heard John Good testify that he was punching Trayvon Martin. I think he clarified it and said that he never saw anybody`s fist come into contact with George Zimmerman`s face?


EIGLARSH: Jasmine, I didn`t see it snow last night, but there was snow when I got up if hypothetically I lived anywhere other than Florida. You know, you can make reasonable inferences. Are you not saying that the jurors believe that Trayvon was punching Zimmerman`s face?

RAND: Well, I think he`s -- first of all, he`s the only person we`ve heard say that he was on top of Trayvon. Everyone else has heard that -- I`m sorry, that Trayvon was on top of him. Everyone else has said that George Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon Martin. So, it depends on whose version --


RAND: And I think what we also need to focus on is that Trayvon Martin had the right to self-defense the entire time. He says, at all times, George Zimmerman had a loaded gun with a live bullet in the chamber.

EIGLARSH: All right. Let me go to Lauren. I mean, don`t you think that the jury is going to accept what he said, that Trayvon was on top slamming his head? What do you think?

LAUREN LAKE, ATTORNEY: You know what, Mark, this is where I`m at. And I`m hoping that there`s at least one member of the jury that in that room can talk about this. I don`t care who was on the top and who was on the bottom at the time anybody saw it, because in a fight, you`re tussling, you`re struggling.

If Trayvon was on the top and finally got the best of this guy and is holding him down and maybe screaming, help, help, trying to make sure that someone could hear him, that still would mean he`s defending himself.


LAKE: Who`s on the top and who`s on the bottom does not really matter as much as people try to make it out --

EIGLARSH: Samantha, does it matter?

SCHACHER: I agree with Lauren. Amen, Lauren. I loved everything that you said, and I think at the end of the day, who is the one that got out of the car? Who`s the one that admitted to the 911 operator that they were following Trayvon Martin and that Trayvon Martin was running away?

EIGLARSH: All right. Well, Jenny, we`re going to talk some more about this. We`re going to carry this guest over. There`s a lot more to talk about. More with Jasmine Rand right after this.


EIGLARSH: Welcome back to DR. DREW ON CALL. I`m Mark Eiglarsh sitting in for Dr. Drew tonight, my buddy. My co-host is Jenny Hutt.

Jasmine, I`m wondering if the family has said anything to you that they wish that Trayvon would had done differently that night?

RAND: I don`t think the family thinks that Trayvon did anything he shouldn`t have been doing that night. He was an innocent child, walking home from the store with a can of Arizona fruit punch and Skittles. He had every right to be in that neighborhood. He had every right to walk in that neighborhood. George Zimmerman did not have the right to take their son`s life.

EIGLARSH: OK. Fair enough. Lauren, I want to shift gears. Criminal defense attorney. You`ve defended many cases before. I do everything I can to avoid putting my clients on the stands because you never know how they`re going to do. Do you, Lauren, think that Zimmerman is going to need to take the stand, especially after Good`s testimony today?

LAKE: There was a lot of testimony today, Mark, where you could hear a lot of people going, oh-oh, oh-oh, this is getting him off the hook. He`s not going to have to take the stand. But Mark, I`m still a firm believer that there is something about this man`s story. There is conflicting parts of the story that he has to explain to really resonate with that jury. I don`t think the self-defense has really been established the way it should be.

And at the end of the day, this young man unarmed is dead. And let me tell you this at the end, just because you`re in a fight that you can`t win doesn`t mean you get to kill the boy, and that`s the problem. I think he might be getting his butt whipped and he shot, and that was not the right thing to do. There must be reasonable force for self-defense.

EIGLARSH: All right. Samantha, if you`re his lawyer, based upon what we`ve heard, so far, do you put him on the stand?

SCHACHER: Listen, I`m not an attorney, but --

EIGLARSH: But you play one now on TV.

SCHACHER: OK. I play one now on TV. I would be afraid to put him on the stand. And I`ll tell you why. I`m afraid to see what George Zimmerman is going to say. As a viewer, I tell you what I want to see. I want to see George Zimmerman get on the stand and become a real person. I want to see him be remorseful.

I want to hear his account, but I don`t know if we`re going to get that from him. And I just really quickly want to say agree with Lauren. You don`t bring a gun into a fistfight.

EIGLARSH: Jenny, you`re an attorney. Does he need to take the stand at this point?

HUTT: I think there`s so much conflicting testimony right now that he might have to be the one to take the stand to clear it all up --


EIGLARSH: Jen, hold on one second. If there`s conflicting testimony, as you know, isn`t that reasonable doubt?

HUTT: Well --

EIGLARSH: Why would you put him on the stand?

HUTT: Yes. OK. You`re right. I think it is reasonable doubt.


EIGLARSH: Wait. Let Jen go and then Lauren. Go.

HUTT: If it were for today, I do think that he would be found not guilty for sure, but if it continues --

LAKE: I just think even with the conflicting testimony, he`s got to, I believe, just tell what he believes the truth is, withstand that cross- examination, because at the end of the day, this was a child that was unarmed. He wasn`t who he thought he was, and another thing he needs to do today is tell Frank to stop talking for him because he`s making him look really bad.

EIGLARSH: I`ve been relieved of the burden (ph) of judgment, but I agree with you. I don`t think that`s the strongest choice. Listen, thank you, panelists. The "Last Call" is next.


EIGLARSH: Jenny, as we conclude tonight, I`ve got two words for you. Frank Taaffe.

HUTT: Yes, I learned a lesson. He made my blood boil, but I got to try to do the right thing and not name-call, because two wrongs don`t make right. So, got to work on myself, too.

EIGLARSH: Thank you, Jenny Hutt, and thank you to Dr. Drew sincerely. What a wonderful program, letting me sit in tonight.

HUTT: Love that guy.

EIGLARSH: He`s the best.

HUTT: And you Mark.

EIGLARSH: Thank you. Jane Velez-Mitchell is coming up next. Thank you, everyone.