Return to Transcripts main page


Trayvon Martin`s Mother Testifies in George Zimmerman Trial

Aired July 5, 2013 - 19:00   ET


JOEY JACKSON, HOST: Tonight, a dramatic and emotional day in the Zimmerman courtroom as the prosecution rests. For the first time since the trial started, we saw tears in George Zimmerman`s eyes as both families displayed their pain right on that witness stand. But which side will the jury believe?

A pleasant good evening to you. I`m Joey Jackson, filling in for my friend, Jane Velez-Mitchell, who is on her way to Sanford, Florida.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You certainly hope that your son, Trayvon Martin, would not have done anything that would have led to his own death, correct?

SYBRINA FULTON, TRAYVON`S MOTHER: What I hope for is that this wouldn`t have never happened and he would still be here.

DR. SHIPING BAO, MEDICAL EXAMINER: I look at Trayvon Martin`s body everywhere, everything.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t know why he`s yelling for help. I don`t know.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That screaming or yelling, do you recognize that?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And who do you recognize that to be, ma`am?

S. FULTON: Trayvon.

JAHVARIS FULTON, TRAYVON`S BROTHER: As I was listening to it, I was clouded by shock and denial and sadness.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, your honor.


JACKSON: Right before the prosecution rested, they played a gut- wrenching 911 call from the night George Zimmerman shot unarmed teen Trayvon Martin. You can hear someone shouting in the background. Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does he look hurt to you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can`t see him. I don`t want to go out there. I don`t know what`s going on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tell them to call the cops.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think he`s yelling "help"?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. What is your...



JACKSON: A critical point in this case centers on who was yelling for help. Trayvon`s mom and brother took the stand, saying they are certain the person screaming is Trayvon.

But George Zimmerman`s mother says it`s her son, George, shouting for help. Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ma`am, that screaming or yelling, do you recognize that?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And who do you recognize that to be, ma`am?

S. FULTON: Trayvon Benjamin Martin.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you recognize any voices on that tape?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whose voice do you recognize?

J. FULTON: My brother.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know whose voice that was screaming in the background?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And whose voice was that?



JACKSON: We got the lions ready, and I`m sure they`re champing at the bit. Straight out to that Lion`s Den. How will those mothers and the other relatives impact this jury?

Joining us tonight for the defense, attorney Anahita Sedaghatfar, and George Zimmerman`s friend and supporter of the family, Frank Taaffe. For the prosecution, actress and author of "Redefining Diva," Sheryl Lee Ralph, and attorney Midwin Charles.

So let`s get right to it. And let`s get right to it, Midwin; going to you right off the box. Testimony from the relatives, how does that play? Does it help the prosecution?

MIDWIN CHARLES, ATTORNEY: Well, I think it helps the prosecution, because one of the things that Sybrina, as well as Trayvon`s brother, was able to show, it kind of blows this myth out of the water that Trayvon comes from this family that is unprofessional or that are thugs or what have you. So in that regard, it gives us a picture of Trayvon that is counter to what the defense wants everyone to believe.

Secondly, I thought that Trayvon`s mother, Sybrina Fulton, was very credible in the way in which she described the voice that she heard on the audiotape.

And while George Zimmerman`s mother may have said that she thought that was George`s voice on the tape, you have to ask yourself why would the guy with the gun, the guy who was familiar with the surroundings and the guy with training in mixed martial arts be screaming for help?


CHARLES: So those are the things that I wonder whether the jury is going to consider when they start to deliberate.

JACKSON: Anahita, let me go to you. Does not Midwin have a point here? Or do you think maybe it didn`t have the impact that it should have had on this jury?

ANAHITA SEDAGHATFAR, ATTORNEY: I think she makes a little bit of a correct point, and that is that, of course, the testimony of Trayvon Martin`s mother is going to have an impact on those jurors. I don`t care what side you`re on. That`s a mother who lost a child. And having her sit on the stand and listen to the last moments of her son`s life on that tape, of course it`s difficult. Of course it`s going to impact those jurors.

But Joey, what was the prosecution thinking by putting the mother on before she put on that medical examiner? I think the impact, whatever impact that testimony may have had on those jurors is now gone, because those jurors are now left thinking about this medical examiner, Dr. Bao, and now the emotional testimony of Trayvon Martin`s mother. And also...


JACKSON: Frank, we`ll get to you, I promise.

TAAFFE: All right.

SEDAGHATFAR: A second point, let me just address...

JACKSON: Go ahead, Anahita.

SEDAGHATFAR: Let me just address the second point made by Midwin is that, yes, we now have reasonable doubt. Again, the prosecution in their case in chief is building the defense case, because they have -- now we`ve seen, OK, Trayvon`s mother and brother saying that`s Trayvon screaming on the 911 tape, of course.

And then we have George Zimmerman`s family members saying that it`s George Zimmerman. Well, what does that mean? Reasonable doubt. And that`s a victory for the defense.

JACKSON: Gotcha. Sheryl Lee Ralph, is she right? Does Anahita have a point here?

SHERYL LEE RALPH, ACTRESS/AUTHOR: Listen, no matter what anybody says, we can talk and talk. It`s going to really come down to what the jury decides in the final end.

But did they do a great job today? They absolutely did a great job. And for those of us women out there who are mothers, who have children, we know that that`s going to be a hard image to fight there, because we all know and believe that a mother knows the sound of her child.

And I`ve said from the beginning that that sounded like a young person`s voice to me. So I believe that they`ve proved pretty much, by the powerful presentation of Trayvon`s mother this morning, that that was Trayvon`s voice that we heard.

So I do believe that they did an incredible job today. And they did what was needed to be done. And also the family was presented so that we saw a true American family of color and, in this case, black.

JACKSON: So now listen, Frank, I`m certain that you have something to say about that. Do you?

TAAFFE: I do, Joe.

JACKSON: She makes a great point, though. But what do you say, Frank?

TAAFFE: Well, you know, today was like kissing your sister. I mean, of course when Mrs. Zimmerman got up there, she`s going to say that`s George, and when Sybrina got up there, I mean, was there really a surprise?

I mean, the only surprise came for me today is with the medical examiner said that Trayvon could have lived up to ten minutes. And we know that`s erroneous and false. Because within a minute, the police arrived at the scene, and they pronounced him dead within two minutes after the shooting.

And it also gives rise to the fact that it`s consistent with George`s statement, because if he was still alive, that he spread his arms out and he got on the back, which all the eyewitnesses said. His story is consistent, and here`s where I`m going to go with this even further.

JACKSON: Tell us.

TAAFFE: You know, George stated at that point that he heard Trayvon say, "You got me." Well, that`s consistent, if you`re shot in the heart, not in the vocal chords. And according to...

RALPH: Hold on, hold on. He was shot in the heart through the lungs.

TAAFFE: Right.

RALPH: Everybody knows that when you`re shot through the lungs, that is deflatable. You`re not able to have the power to speak, Mr. Taaffe.

TAAFFE: Anyway -- anyway, it`s consistent with...

RALPH: Don`t start with that "anyway." As you would say, I`m greater than that. Cut it out.

TAAFFE: I just said it, anyway.

JACKSON: It`s not surprising that you disagree.

The Lion`s Den -- the Lion`s Den is far from over, trust us. A lot more from the Lion`s Den.

You know, today, the state rested its case, but not before they dug up some key witnesses to try and show inconsistencies in Zimmerman`s story about what he says happened that night. Listen to this.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said the man looked creepy?

JEANTEL: Creepy white.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who was on top?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I believe it was Zimmerman.

JEANTEL: I asked him how the man looked like. He looked like a creepy (EXPLETIVE DELETED) cracker.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any of those abrasions life threatening?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I really felt like it was a boy`s voice.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And who do you recognize that to be, ma`am?

S. FULTON: Trayvon Benjamin Martin.


JACKSON: Back out to our Lion`s Den. They`re champing at the bit still.

Now listen, Anahita, I`ll start with you. Did the prosecution prove their case? All the evidence is in. You heard the arguments today. From the totality of the evidence, Anahita, what do you say?

SEDAGHATFAR: Absolutely not, Joey. They have utterly failed to meet their burden of proof that this is a murder two case beyond a reasonable doubt. OK?

So putting aside the fact that the prosecution essentially put on the defense case in their case in chief, aside from the fact that their witnesses, one by one, set forth George Zimmerman`s defense, self-defense defense I should say, the fact of the matter is, they are unable to prove malice, ill will and spite.

And you know, don`t take it from me, don`t take it from Mark O`Mara, don`t take it from George Zimmerman, who incidentally gave statement after statement that was consistent. Take it from the prosecution`s key witnesses.

TAAFFE: Without a lawyer. Without a lawyer.

SEDAGHATFAR: ... investigator. Exactly. The police investigators stated there was no malice, no ill will, no racial motivation here. There`s no -- there`s no way this meets the high burden of proof that the state...

TAAFFE: Having taken a criminal justice course, wouldn`t he know that they read him Miranda and he was an "A" student? Wouldn`t he say, "Hey, you know what? Maybe I need to get a lawyer?"

JACKSON: But you know what, Frank?

SEDAGHATFAR: They advised him of that. They advised him of that.

RALPH: Are you saying he wasn`t a good student at all?

TAAFFE: No, I said...

RALPH: So what are you trying to say?

TAAFFE: I say according to the state he was an "A" student. And if he was an "A" student, excelled in criminal justice, when he -- when he was read his Miranda rights three times, he made four statements without an attorney present.

JACKSON: But Frank, let me...

RALPH: That means that...

JACKSON: I want to ask...

SEDAGHATFAR: That works against the defense.

JACKSON: Just one second. Midwin, I want to get to you, because on that point, it really cuts both ways. If you`re someone who`s taken a course, maybe you know how to get around the "stand your ground" law. So what say you as to that, Midwin?

CHARLES: Exactly. I mean, one of the things that that professor testified to that I thought was huge for the prosecution is it showed that George Zimmerman lied. Whether he knew a lot about "stand your ground"...

TAAFFE: He didn`t lie. He didn`t know about "stand your ground." They covered it afterward.

CHARLES: ... at the end of the day, he lied when he gave that interview to Sean Hannity.

SEDAGHATFAR: Being a liar doesn`t make you guilty of second degree murder.

CHARLES: No, but if you lie about that, what else are you lying about?

RALPH: I love this, because all that this proves is doubt, doubt, doubt. And all...

TAAFFE: That`s what the defense wants. Doubt, doubt, doubt.

JACKSON: Could we have some order in the courtroom?

CHARLES: It proves that he lies about that, what else is he lying about?

RALPH: Exactly!

CHARLES: Because he`s the only one that`s going to tell us what happened that night. So if he`s lying about whether or not he had ever heard of "stand your ground"...

SEDAGHATFAR: You don`t have to take it from George Zimmerman`s mouth.

CHARLES: ... What else is he lying about?

SEDAGHATFAR: Here`s the thing.

CHARLES: That`s the problem.

SEDAGHATFAR: You don`t have to...

TAAFFE: Joey, Joey, Joey, how is the state...

JACKSON: Hold on a second. Order in the court! Order in the court! Anahita, getting to you on the issue, let me ask you -- Frank, I`ll get right to you, but I want to ask Anahita this question.


JACKSON: What about all those inconsistencies? Do you think, Anahita, that the inconsistencies are relevant, that they`re material that they`re significant? Don`t they assist the prosecution and hurt the defense?

SEDAGHATFAR: That`s an excellent point, Joey. And of course, there are going to be minor inconsistencies.

RALPH: They`re major.

SEDAGHATFAR: Any time anybody tells a story more than one time.

RALPH: They`re major.

SEDAGHATFAR: We had the police investigation...

JACKSON: We`ll get to you, Sheryl.

SEDAGHATFAR: ... the state`s witnesses, the state`s witnesses said they believe George Zimmerman to be truthful.

And look, I was trying to say this earlier, that -- and Joey, you know this -- as defense attorneys we do not want our clients to talk to the police. And it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It has nothing to do with lying or telling the truth. But the fact of the matter is, when you`re telling a story more than once, there are going to be inconsistencies.

So here on every material point...

RALPH: I don`t agree with that.

SEDAGHATFAR: ... George Zimmerman was entirely consistent. And again, don`t take it from me; take it from the state`s star witnesses. The police investigators who interviewed him repeatedly, who tried to trip him up, who tried to use every technique to get him to lie, to get him to show that he`s not telling the truth. It didn`t work. They believed him. And I think the forensics support his statements.

JACKSON: So Sheryl -- not surprisingly Sheryl disagrees with you, Anahita. Why do you disagree, Sheryl?

SEDAGHATFAR: Surprise, surprise.

RALPH: I disagree...

JACKSON: Go ahead, Sheryl.

RALPH: I disagree because I believe that there`s one thing that people who are telling the truth do is they say the same thing over and over and over again.

TAAFFE: He did. He did.

RALPH: What we have seen is so many inconsistencies. We have seen so many missed truths. We have seen so many things that we said, "Well, wait a minute."

TAAFFE: Name two of them. Name two of them. Name two.

RALPH: "You said you didn`t do this." They`re not minor mistakes. They`re large. And those are the thing that I believe are going to stick in the jury`s minds.

JACKSON: Frank, I can`t wait to hear what you have to say, but we`ll do it after the break.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any children?

S. FULTON: Yes, I do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And can you tell us who they are and their names?

S. FULTON: My youngest son is Trayvon Benjamin Martin. He`s in heaven. And my oldest son is Jahvaris Lamar Fulton.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know whose voice that was screaming in the background?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And whose voice was that?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And are you certain of that?

GLADYS ZIMMERMAN: Yes, because he`s my son.


JACKSON: Conflicting messages about voices. Today, a medical examiner gave his opinion about Trayvon`s final minutes. Listen to this.


BAO: I believe Trayvon Martin was alive for one to ten minutes after he was shot.

BERNIE DE LA RIONDE, PROSECUTOR: His brain is still alive?

BAO: Yes.

DE LA RIONDE: OK. He can still feel pain, in other words?

BAO: Yes. I don`t believe he can move. It is my opinion that he was still alive. He was still in pain. He was still in suffering.


JACKSON: So Trayvon could have been alive, conscious and suffering but unable to move for ten whole minutes. These are graphic and disturbing images of the crime scene that we`re going to show you that night. Oh, boy.

You know, let`s go back to the Lion`s Den. That medical examiner unleashed a flood of controversy.

Midwin, I want to start with you. Anahita said before, if you recall, that the impact of the testimony of Trayvon`s mom was lost with this medical examiner, who set off this flood of controversy. Was this a good move for the prosecution, Midwin?

CHARLES: Yes, I actually agree with her on that point. She`s right. Why end your case with one of the worst witnesses I have ever seen? I mean, he was just a hot mess.

JACKSON: Why did they?


TAAFFE: I haven`t seen a worse performance...

SEDAGHATFAR: Joey, your question goes to their entire strategy.


RALPH: I like that man.

JACKSON: Hold on. Wait, Sheryl, you like that man? Can we hear more?

RALPH: I am the only one that liked that medical examiner. He was consistent. He paid attention. He laid it out. When he talked about the difference between two minutes of his being -- two minutes originally to the ten minutes was based upon two different shock to the hearts that he had seen. The first...

TAAFFE: But that`s inconsistent with the police report.

RALPH: But Trayvon being shot through the heart through the lungs. Out, body out. The other one, the 10-minute shot through the -- not the kidney, through the liver, pain. That`s what he`s talking about. He`s telling you as an expert...

JACKSON: Sheryl -- Sheryl, I want to go to Frank on this point. The reason I want to go to Frank, and you can say this: This expert, though, was, it seemed to me, couldn`t remember things. Had his notes in front of him. Was inconsistent, was changing opinions. Frank, what say you?

TAAFFE: Joe, I having seen a worst performance since Dennis Fong at the O.J. trial. Anyway -- anyway, yes, I mean, I was like in awe that they actually put a paid employee of the state on there. And to refute his testimony today, we know for a fact that, in the police report, that they pronounced Trayvon dead two minutes after the shooting. So I don`t know where he came up -- as a matter of fact, I don`t think he read the police report.

JACKSON: Sheryl, doesn`t Frank have a point here?

RALPH: He`s talking about two different things. And we have to keep in mind -- you are talking about somebody...

TAAFFE: What are you talking about?

RALPH: ... speaking a different -- when somebody is speaking a different language, that he is doing everything...

TAAFFE: Wasn`t he speaking English?

RALPH: ... to try...

SEDAGHATFAR: Joey -- Joey, I can...

RALPH: Don`t be unkind. It`s not nice when you`re unkind. It doesn`t look good on you.


RALPH: Be nice.

JACKSON: Take it away, Ana.

SEDAGHATFAR: This is the same individual -- this is the same individual, this medical examiner, who incidentally is perhaps the worst expert witness I`ve ever seen in my career. He`s the same guy who goes on the stand and says, "I change my opinion every hour." I change my opinion every hour. So...

CHARLES: It was bad.

SEDAGHATFAR: Let`s forget the fact -- let`s forget the fact that he was completely not prepared, which I blame the prosecution for failing to prep him a little bit better.


SEDAGHATFAR: He was combative. He was inconsistent in his statements. He was evasive. But Joey, he brought his own personal notes and was reading them while he was testifying on the stand.

JACKSON: That he did not show to the prosecution.

RALPH: To make sure he got it right. To make sure he got it right. And communicated it correctly.

SEDAGHATFAR: He needed to have shown that...

RALPH: He also said he changed his mind often based upon what was brought to him in the morgue. He said he changed his mind...

TAAFFE: Don`t get me started (ph).


JACKSON: Let me go to Midwin. Let me go to Midwin, because I want to ask the following question.

SEDAGHATFAR: He was entirely ineffective.

JACKSON: With regard to Anahita`s point, Midwin, now listen, this -- this is a medical professional, the likes of which I have not seen in a while, but I...

SEDAGHATFAR: Twenty trials, Joey, 20 trials! He`s testified in 20 trials.

TAAFFE: Three thousand homicides.

JACKSON: Can the prosecution overcome this particular evidence?

CHARLES: I couldn`t hear you, Joey. There was five people talking at the same time. Could you repeat that, please.

JACKSON: Can the prosecution -- can the -- absolutely, Midwin. Can the prosecution come -- overcome the deficiencies in this medical expert`s testimony? It`s their last witness. What did we learn in law school, Midwin? Travesty (ph) and recency.

CHARLES: I actually think that they can. I mean, what Ana is talking about is accurate. He was a horrible witness. But so what? He doesn`t get the witness of the year award.

RALPH: Right.

CHARLES: At the end of the day, there are certain facts here that are irrefutable.

TAAFFE: Historical (ph). Convolute. It was convoluted.

CHARLES: If Zimmerman says he was pummeled and punched several times -- I believe he said 25 to 30 times -- at the end of the day, Trayvon had small abrasions on his left hand, and he`s right-handed. It doesn`t add up to the story that Zimmerman has been giving in terms of self-defense.

SEDAGHATFAR: But what if...

RALPH: Thank you.

CHARLES: And that`s what matters. That`s what matters. I mean, the defense said -- the defense said all day...


JACKSON: You guys -- you guys can go on forever.

Next, much more from the Lion`s Den. And we`re talking to a body language expert. You don`t want to miss it.


GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, ON TRIAL FOR TRAYVON MARTIN`S SHOOTING: I passed here, I didn`t see anything again. And I was walking back to my truck, and when I got to right about here, he yelled from behind me, beside me, and said, "Yo, you got a problem?"




GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he`s up to no good. He`s on drugs or something.


GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: He kept looking around. He kept shifting.


JACKSON: George Zimmerman walked the cops through what he says happened the night that he shot Trayvon Martin. But is he telling the truth or is he lying? Let`s watch.


GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: He was about there, but he was walking towards me. And he said, "You got a problem now." And then he was here and he punched me in the face.

That`s when my jacket moved up and I had my firearm on my right side hip. My jacket moved up and he saw -- I feel like he looked at it and he said, "You`re going to die, mother (EXPLETIVE DELETED)." And he reached for it, and he -- I felt his arm going down my side. And I grabbed it, and I just grabbed my firearm and I shot him.


JACKSON: Straight out to Tonya Reiman. She`s a body language expert.

And Tonya, I have to ask you. It`s great to see you, but do you think George Zimmerman is lying or telling the truth?

TONYA REIMAN, BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT: You know, it`s hard to tell at this point, because we really don`t have a baseline. We`ve seen him now being -- he`s speaking to the police, and he doesn`t have an attorney. And he looks like he`s genuine and authentic.

And then take it fast forward now to the trial, and you see, as other people are speaking, the difference in how he reacts. So at certain points you see the jaw tightening, a slight head negation. You see his respiration go up, his eye blink rate go up.

So it`s hard to tell at this point because we don`t have a base line. But here when you look at him here, he does look authentic.

JACKSON: Now, let me ask you, Tonya, because you know, what the prosecution is saying is that there`s so many inconsistencies here. He told the story once. Then he told Hannity something again, and then said something to the police.

Does that affect or impact your analysis of whether he`s being truthful, or do you think these inconsistencies are not so large?

REIMAN: I think it goes back to what everyone else has said, which was if the inconsistencies are slight, listen, that`s going to happen. When they become bigger, that`s when the questions become bigger.

I haven`t seen anything that`s been a humongous deviation that would make me really shake my head and say, "Wow, that`s a big red flag."

However, seeing things as he was listening to the recording of his Miranda rights being read to him or even watching it on video, you could see his blink rate really went up. And that to me is a red flag. Because that shows you that when he was being told, OK, this is the real deal, he does become really nervous.


REIMAN: So those are some of my red flags. So I need to see the rest of this play out.

JACKSON: Well done and play out it will. I`ve got to get my Lion`s Den opinion on it. The rambunctious group that they are.

Now listen, let`s talk about this. He has -- he has his demeanor in court. The demeanor in court, of course, could be construed as that he`s serious, he`s engaged, and he`s truthful. Sheryl, I think you might have something to say about that. What do you think about his in-court demeanor?

RALPH: You know what? The in-court demeanor makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. I don`t like what I see. But then again, you know, I`m trying to look at it through the eyes from the beginning.

Also I think about the way he moves, you know, the tearfulness that he had with his mother and what she said. And that was painful to watch. Any time you see your mother up there in court, that is awful. But then you look at him and he`s going up and wait, down and wait. He`s stiff, he`s rigid. Then he`s crying. I`m like, dear God, what is really going on here? I don`t feel comfortable.

JACKSON: Frank, I take it you disagree with that?

TAAFFE: Joe, let`s go back to the night when he was taken into custody by the Sanford Police. They brought him down to the station, and then they asked him questions, and had a voice print analysis done.

So your other guest said that we don`t have a baseline. We do got a baseline. We got it. It`s called voice print analysis. It clearly showed no deception and no fraud or any undulations in his voice or different inflections or his eyelashes were going crazy. It clearly show...

RALPH: When he says baseline, she means what was he like...

TAAFFE: That night -- please, please.

RALPH: In terms of what he was like before...

JACKSON: Order in the court.


JACKSON: Let`s be nice to each other. Let`s be nice.

Let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a question. He talked about -- Frank talks about this voice analysis, but we didn`t hear about it. Is it scientifically reliable? Is it acceptable?

TAAFFE: Joe, it`s something that they use...

JACKSON: I`m asking Midwin.


CHARLES: I don`t know that -- yes, I don`t know that those are scientifically reliable.

Listen, when this guy walked into that station to give that statement, if anything is apparent, it`s that he was cool, calm, and collected, like he had just come from shopping, not like he had just come from shooting a 17-year-old kid. And that`s something that I think should weigh on the juror`s minds when they listen

Not to mention the fact that he was (inaudible) possible with the police --

SEDAGHATFAR: He was in shock.

RALPH: Right.

TAAFFE: Have you seen it? Let me share this with you. George --

JACKSON: We`re going to get to you guys. The viewers love you. We love you. We`ll get to you after the break.

A huge day in court as the state rests -- so much more to talk about on the other side.


RICHARD MANTEI, PROSECUTOR: Did you discuss specifically self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws in connection of violent crime such as murder?


SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Prior to this night, this incident, had you even heard of Stand Your Ground?


HANNITY: You never heard of that before?




ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he`s up to no good. He`s on drugs or something.

And I grabbed it and I just grabbed my firearm and I shot him one time.

I thought he was going for my firearm. And I just pulled out my firearm and shot him.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This guy is a wannabe cop.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He has applied to be a police officer before. He still wants to be one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It states here, "solidify my chances of a law enforcement career".

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He shot the person. He just said he shot the person.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why would this man just shoot him?


JACKSON: Earlier today, George Zimmerman`s uncle testified that he was working on his computer at home when he heard a scream on the television. It was the 911 calls being played, and he claims that he immediately recognized it to be the voice of his nephew. Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That voice just came and hit me. It hit me in a way that I heard that but more than I heard that, I felt it inside of my heart. I says that is George. I have had George play with my sons, my own sons. It is a unique way that you recognize your family members when they laugh or when they cry. And this was the moment that I recognized George as screaming for help.


JACKSON: But before he testified, earlier today Trayvon`s mom and brother said that they were sure it was Trayvon screaming on that 911 call. So who will the jury find believable? Or could these witnesses end up canceling each other out?

Let`s go right back -- yes, you guessed it -- to "The Lion`s Den". Anahita I want to start with you. We heard, of course, from Trayvon`s mom, very credible, very dignified, very believable. Then, of course, we hear from who we just heard his uncle, and he seemed to be, of course, believable. So I have a two-part question, Anahita. A, will they cancel each other out? And D, what will the defense do to keep buttressing that story that it was George Zimmerman and not Trayvon?

SEDAGHATFAR: Of course, the witnesses are going to cancel each other out. I mentioned this earlier today. The fact of the matter is, anyone that listens to that tape, even us sitting on this panel, can hear it and disagree as to who we think it is. At the end of the day, that is built in reasonable doubt and who does that benefit? That benefits the defense.

And we already saw in this case the judge made a devastating ruling to the prosecution by holding that the prosecution could not introduce their expert, their voice recognition expert to opine that it was Trayvon Martin screaming. So that basically leaves it up to the jurors to listen to these witnesses, the family members of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, and they`re going to, of course, take that tape into the jury room, listen to that tape again and decide for themselves.

And I think it`s going to be very difficult to get six people to agree who they believe that voice is, because we`ve seen over and over just us, people in the public can`t agree. So when there`s doubt that benefits the defense.

JACKSON: Now, Midwin though, of course, the jury is comprised of women, right? And many of those women have children, one in particular has, I believe, eight children. Do you think, of course, because of that composition the mother may, for example, have a little bit more sway than the uncle or will, of course, it not matter and cancel each other out?

CHARLES: I think it may matter. I mean your life experiences always kind of dictate how it is that you think about things. And obviously women have different life experiences than men. So I think they`re going to bring that to the table.

But one of the things that I think the jury is going to do when they get in that room and start to go through the evidence is they`re going to dig deeper. They`re not going to just figure out whose voice it is. I think they`re going to start thinking about who had a reasonable fear that night, the guy with the gun, the guy who followed, right, because if you follow someone, you are by essence saying you`re not afraid of that person. And you have a guy with Skittles and iced tea and by the way, on the phone with a girl. So who has the propensity at that moment to be fearful?

And those are the things that I think this jury is going to kind of decide.

JACKSON: Frank, I see you rolling your eyes. And I want to get to you -- Sheryl, do you agree with Midwin?


RALPH: I`m just a regular person watching this.

TAAFFE: Look at me, I`m average. I`m average.

RALPH: I`m looking at all the things that we want to say but when those six people get into that room and start --

TAAFFE: I thought it was my turn.

RALPH: -- learning the law --

TAAFFE: Not my turn?

JACKSON: Frank, we`re going to get to you momentarily.

RALPH: And yet can be very -- something very different than we believe it to be. And state to state, laws are different. So now listen, Frank -- behave yourself, because I know you want to go off.

TAAFFE: I will.

RALPH: But listen.

TAAFFE: No, no, no -- you`re a little out of line but it`s ok.

RALPH: All we have to know that these six women are very much going to learn the law and take everything that they have heard into consideration. So we can talk and talk and talk all you want but it`s going to be --

TAAFFE: I`m glad you brought that up. Beautiful segue.


JACKSON: Take it away, Frank. Take it away.

TAAFFE: You got it man. Bam, hey, you know, when Judge Nelson gives the instructions to the jurors, even in the lesser charges, it`s going to state exactly in order to prove manslaughter, the lesser of the two charges, they can`t prove ill will, spite and I`ve got a problem with that ill will. Who has ill will when someone calls somebody else a rapist to their girlfriend on the phone?

Anyway, I feel that it`s going to go strictly to the jurors and they`re going to get the instruction. The state has yet to disprove self- defense, Joe.


JACKSON: Midwin, I want to ask you on Frank`s point, the point about ill will and spite, do you think the prosecution can meet that standard or did meet that standard, Midwin, on the issue of ill will, depravity, spite?

CHARLES: Of course they did. One of the first things the prosecution did --

TAAFFE: Where?

CHARLES: -- when they came out the gate -- excuse me but don`t interrupt me, I`m still speaking.

TAAFFE: Where? Please.

CHARLES: When the prosecution came out of the gate and talked about how George Zimmerman staid, "F-ing funks. They always get away."

TAAFFE: That`s ill will?

TAAFFE: That`s ill will? How about calling somebody a cracker? Rapist?


JACKSON: Frank, Midwin has the floor. We let you go, Frank. Let Midwin go.

CHARLES: That is ill will.

TAAFFE: How about calling somebody a rapist.


TAAFFE: Who has the ill will.

CHARLES: I`m still speaking.

RALPH: Look at him.

JACKSON: Order in the court.

CHARLES: It is ill will because you already have in your mind -- you already have in your mind a built-in perception about someone who is simply walking while black.

RALPH: Right.

CHARLES: And so those are the things that I think the prosecution did a very good job of pointing out. Why did he even notice him? He wasn`t lurking around. He didn`t just come from breaking into a home. He didn`t observe him do anything that was illegal. Instead he saw a young, black kid --

SEDAGHATFAR: But Midwin he didn`t say anything that was --

CHARLES: -- and automatically assumed that this kid was up to no good.

JACKSON: Much, much from our "Lion`s Den". See they`re talking even on to the break. When we get back next.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Self-defense or murder?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Passion spills into the streets. Support spreads online. The nation is divided.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You know, if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now the story plays out in court.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In that grown man`s mouth.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Neighbors, investigators, family relive that rainy night. Who saw what? Who heard what? Who do you believe? If you`re not watching it, you`re missing it on the only network with the most coverage, HLN. America is watching.




BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, PROSECUTOR: Ma`am, that screaming or yelling, do you recognize that?


DE LA RIONDA: And who do you recognize that to be, ma`am?

FULTON: Trayvon Benjamin Martin.

DE LA RIONDA: Do you recognize any voices on that tape?


DE LA RIONDA: Whose voice do you recognize?

J. FULTON: My brother.

DE LA RIONDA: Trayvon`s?



JACKSON: Powerful testimony today. You know, before the state rested its case today, Zimmerman`s attorney, Mark O`Mara, not surprisingly argued a judgment of acquittal. Listen to this.


MARK O`MARA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: My client was attacked by Trayvon Martin. That violent act in and of itself I would suggest to you is sufficient for immediate response with deadly force. You have to look at the entirety of the evidence before the court and therefore the jury. And what is before the court is an enormous amount of information that my client acted in necessary self-defense.


JACKSON: O`Mara explained why he thinks the state did not present enough evidence to prove the case that Zimmerman committed a crime. But was he acting in self-defense? The judge denied the motion, as we knew the judge would, but from what we`ve heard so far, do you think the defense can win?

Let`s go right back to "The Lion`s Den". Lion`s den members -- I`ve got to ask you. Anahita, I want to go straight to you on this point. You knew he was going to do the judgment of acquittal. You knew -- well, you sort of assumed the judge would deny it and leave it to the jury. What does the defense have to do now, Anahita, to drive home the point that it was self-defense and not murder two?

SEDAGHATFAR: Well, of course, I knew the defense was going to bring this motion and I assumed that the judge would deny it. But they had to do that. That`s part of what they have to do as defense attorneys.


SEDAGHATFAR: Quite frankly, I think the job of the defense just became a lot easier, because like I said over and over today, the prosecution essentially put on George Zimmerman`s defense in their case-in- chief. They laid out George Zimmerman`s self-defense claim.

Look at the testimony of John Good. Ok. John Good was one of the neighbors that walked out and he had the best vantage point of the altercation that took place between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. And what did he say? And again, this is a prosecution star witness. He said that he saw Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman punching him MMA style. And that it was George Zimmerman that was likely the one screaming out for help. That proves the self-defense claim right there.

And again, the burden is on the prosecution to rebut the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. They haven`t even come close to doing that as O`Mara stated right there in his argument for his motion for acquittal.

So I think the defense case is going to be relatively short. They`re going to probably put on a couple of witnesses. George Zimmerman definitely is not going to take the stand at this point. And I think it should go to the jury probably by the end of the week.

JACKSON: You know, I think it`s a close question. On the issue -- many people bring up the issue of John Good. Why was he called by the prosecution? I think they have to call him, because, of course, if you don`t --


JACKSON: -- what does the defense do? They now call that witness and say aren`t we here about justice? Aren`t we here to do what`s right? Why was the prosecution trying to hide this witness from you?


JACKSON: And the second point is -- right and they can`t afford to do that.


JACKSON: But I do think the prosecution was making a big comeback, we might all agree that they were fumbling initially, but they were making a big comeback. The point that was confounding to me was that they did not end with the mother. So compelling, so dignified --


JACKSON: -- so intelligent, so together. And I think that it took points away from them by having this medical examiner, who is sort of all over the place. I think that sets back the case.

Having said that, Frank, I think you believe that the defense, in putting on the case, will be able to establish that it was indeed self- defense. Do you not?

TAAFFE: Yes, I do, Joe. I think it`s -- it`s for the defense to lose right now, because as the prosecution was putting up the witnesses, we were knocking them down like clowns at a fair. So I mean -- I did not hear anything compelling from the state. I heard there might not be some touch DNA.

But let`s re-examine the crime scene. It was not pristine. It was contaminated. Even the medical examiner stated the clothes came in plastic bags, they weren`t paper bags. Let`s look at the evidence and the jurors will clearly see that the state has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, Joey. Take that to the bank.

JACKSON: I`m sure that Sheryl and Midwin will have a lot to say about that if I`m right. We`re going to talk more on the other side.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ok. Does he look hurt to you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can`t see him. I don`t want to go out there. I don`t know what`s going on. They`re sending.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think he`s yelling help?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. What is your --


JACKSON: The state rested its case today and, of course, they did so with medical examiner Shiping Bao. But let`s whether or not what he said was effective; did it hurt the state? Did it help the state? What type of witness was he?

I want to go straight out to Tanya Reiman -- she`s a body language expert. Tanya I have to ask you, this particular witness, you saw his demeanor, you saw what he had to say. You observed the nature of his testimony. Does this help? Hurt? Do you think he was being deceptive? What would you saw as a body language expert as to him?

TANYA REIMAN, BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT: His words sounded so strong initially when you were listening to him, you determined him to be powerful. But if you were watching him, it was a whole different opinion. You saw his eyes looking all over the place and then obviously looking down at his nose. And then after a while, you also saw a lot of squinting which told us he was frustrated.

So in the end that it hurt more than helped because he found out that you realize he really didn`t have anything in the back of his mind. He was really referring to the notes constantly.

JACKSON: Tanya, on that issue, when you`re doing your analysis of an expert, is that what you do. Do you look for example at the movements of what they say? But then what about the radio? Right. Because you could hear words and you said the voice sounds strong, but it doesn`t necessarily -- it`s not consistent with the way in which they`re appearing. So how do you parse that out as a body language person?

REIMAN: Right. You do both actually. You have to listen and then you have to watch. So what I`m doing, half the time is I`m listening and then I`m watching. At the same time, cutting off the volume to see if his words match, does the anger or the volume of his words match what his body language says and it didn`t.

And the problem really became apparent when you started watching his eye movements. He`s looking to the left, he`s shifting to the right and then he`s looking down so much. And initially I`m thinking, why does he keep looking down? Then after a few minutes you realize, he`s reading his notes. That`s the big issue.

JACKSON: A big issue, a big no-no, those notes came and they played big. We`ll be back on the other side.


JACKSON: Straight out to "The Lion`s Den". You know I want a grade starting with you Midwin, grade the prosecution.

CHARLES: The prosecution gets a C from me because of their failure to prep their witnesses. I mean like I said before, they were out to lunch.

JACKSON: Got it.

CHARLES: They had a strong opening.

JACKSON: Anahita, what say you? Grade?

SEDAGHATFAR: I think they get a big fat F, not because I don`t think they did a good job. They`ve been professional through and through but because the facts are not there for them to --

JACKSON: Sheryl, what say you?

SEDAGHATFAR: -- for them to prove a second degree murder case.

RALPH: I really want to give them an A plus but I can`t so I`m giving them a B plus because they should have put the mother or the brother on last but they didn`t. So, B plus.


TAAFFE: I give them a W to withdraw.

JACKSON: I got you. You guys are wonderful.

RALPH: And there he goes.

JACKSON: Thank you so much, a rambunctious group.

Jane is going to be live in Sanford, Florida starting on Monday. I`m Joey Jackson. A pleasant good evening.

Nancy Grace is next.