CNN CNN


 

Return to Transcripts main page

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

Zimmerman's Attorney Speaks Out; Martin Family Attorney Speaks Out; Famous Defendants, Famous Acquittals

Aired July 12, 2013 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NELSON: The jury would like to adjourn tonight. Its 6:00 P.M., the jury would like to begin tomorrow at 9:00 A.M. as possible. Anybody has any objections?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, Your Honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Well, the jurors got the case about 2:30 Eastern Time. Two hours in, they asked for and got a list of the evidence in the case. The judge and her instruction saying it's up to them to decide which of it to believe. Now, tonight we'll look at what they'll be weighing, who they are and what goes on during deliberation.

Well get reaction from a Martin family attorney to the allegation of the defense counsel Mark O'Mara made exclusively to CNN's Martin Savidge. He says this case never would've made it to court had it not been for publicity campaign, a smear campaign by the Martin legal team.

First though, Martin's report, oh Martin's report, Martin Savidge's report as each side made it's final pitch today to the jury.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Defense attorney, Mark O'Mara began his closing argument by reminding jurors the prosecution had to prove its case against George Zimmerman and pointed the prosecutors own words lacked conviction.

MARK O'MARA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: How many could have beens have you heard from the state in this case? How many what's ifs?

SAVIDGE: Then Mark O'Mara said he would do what he was not obligated to do, prove his client innocent. What followed was a three our summation using a soft-spoken matter of fact style but not without some courtroom theatrics of his own.

O'MARA: If I were to walk in today and let's say and I just -- as an example, walked in like this. Just walked in the courtroom as a lawyer, you would just have an impression, "What, in God's name, is he doing with his sunglasses on and who does he think he is." You might have an impression of George Zimmerman.

You may have an impression of him because he's sitting at the defense table and that maybe as we talked about, he's not just a citizen accused but maybe he is a defendant, maybe he has something he have to defend.

SAVIDGE: O'Mara asked the jury not to judge Zimmerman by their first impression but to instead use common sense.

O'MARA: Then if it hasn't been proven as the instruction tells you, it's jut not there. You can't connect the dots to the state attorney's office.

SAVIDGE: It may have taken three hours for O'Mara to deliver his argument to the jury but part of those three hours was just pure silence.

MARK O'MARA: We're going to sit aside and we're not go talk.

SAVIDGE: Four minutes of silence ticking by to show the jury the length of time he said Martin had to escape after he spotted George Zimmerman watching him.

O'MARA: That's how long Trayvon Martin had to run, about four minutes.

SAVIDGE: Instead of running O'Mara said Martin decided to confront Zimmerman that night and he used a 3-D animation that shows Martin punching Zimmerman in the nose.

O'MARA: Here is the shot to the nose we contend.

SAVIDGE: A repeated tactic by O'Mara in the courtroom outright disbelief at the prosecutions case.

O'MARA: Seriously? Really? Really? Come on? Really? I almost wished the verdict had guilty, not guilty and completely innocent because I were to ask you, just check that one.

SAVIDGE: The prosecution delivered a strongly worded rebuttal saying Trayvon Martin's blood is on George Zimmerman's hands.

JOHN GUY: That child had every right to be afraid of a strange man following him, first in his car and then on foot. And did that child not have the right to defend himself from that strange man.

SAVIDGE: A child according to the prosecution, but a dangerous teenager according to the defense.

O'MARA: We'll that's the cement. That is the sidewalk and that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but Skittles trying to get home and the suggestion by the state that that's not a weapon? That that can't hurt somebody? That that can't cause great body injury is disgusting.

SAVIDGE: Martin Savidge, CNN, Sanford, Florida.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, let's bring in or panel, legal analyst and former Federal Prosecutor Sunny Hostin and Jeffry Toobin. Also Criminal Defense Attorneys ,Danny Cevallos and Mark Geragos. Mark's latest book is "Mistrial, The Inside Look of How the Criminal Justice System Works and Sometimes Doesn't". Mark, let's start with you. How do you think Mark O'Mara did today?

GERAGOS: I think he did well. I think he did exactly what I expected primary a low-key, methodical going through the evidence kind of a folksy style and talking as opposed to theatrics. And I think there was some theatrics to it or some drama to it but it was pretty much what I expected. I thought he did a nice use of the chart with the degrees showing what is not reasonable doubt and what is reasonable doubt, the conversely.

So, I thought all in all was effective and he hit all the points he needed to hit.

COOPER: Sunny you were in the court room today, how do you think he did?

HOSTIN: You know I think he did fine, I don't think it was great, I don't think it was -- I don't think he knocked it out of the park, but I thought it was efficient, I thought it was effective, I thought it was good, some of the theatrics fell a bit flat like the cartoon that we've all been talking about, I expected more out of it, I don't think it was use that well, but the slab of concrete that he brought in, that the jurors didn't stand up to look at it in -- well the way they had looked at other things. But I did like his style in terms of the -- his manner. He did seen to be folksy, he was very approachable, he had a interesting speaking style and I think that's a good style for him because I think that is who Mark O'Mara is, he's a nice person, he's a folksy-type person, he's an honest person in his delivery and I think he stay true to who he is and that's you need to do when you're a your trial lawyer.

COOPER: Jeff, effective?

TOOBIN: I thought it was a good. It surprised me in two ways, one is he didn't talk much about the man slaughter charge, I thought he would be really focused on trying to get the jury, don't compromise. He's devoted almost all his time to the murder and the other thing that surprised me is the prosecution spends so much time talking about Zimmerman statements and he supposed lies.

O'Mara almost blew it off, he said, you know, that -- yes, he didn't say things, you know, the same way every time, but you know, you can't call those lies. That was just an interesting allocation of his argument.

COOPER: Danny? CEVALLOS: I actually thought that was effective. He left all the inconsistencies alone because I think he's having faith in this jury that they'll realize, look it can go one of two ways. Inconsistency is just our inconsistencies or inconsistencies are liar, liar pants on fire, and that's really what this all those transcripts, the tapes. All of those things come down to whether you think he's lying or whether you think he just can't tell the same story many times.

The way he did address it that I thought was effective is he said, "Look, the lead investigator, he believe that it was credible because of his experience and the state didn't call him. Look at all the things the state didn't call. I had to call Tracy Martin, I had to call the lead investigator." That is a really, really, damning indictment against the prosecution.

COOPER: When John Guy did the prosecutions rebuttal close, he repeatedly referred to Trayvon Martin as a child, but the defense painted him as a dangerous teenager. Sunny, how do you think the jurors reacted to that?

HOSTIN: Oh, I can tell you that while Mark O'Mara did good, he did a good job on his closing, John Guy hit it out of the park, he did great. If people were calling him "Mcdreamy" before Mark Geragos, they're calling him "Mcbrilliant" now. It was one of the best closing rebuttal arguments I have seen.

The jury was riveted, they did not take their eyes off of this man and what was so important about it, Anderson is that now I understand why the state was OK with having those six women on the jury because he specifically just sort of homed-in on what every mother's nightmare is. Her child walking alone in the dark, in the rain being followed by a stranger and being afraid, that resonated with every single mother in the room and it was so effective, it was excellent.

COOPER: I got to go Mark Geragos because he's grinning like a Cheshire cat. Mark?

HOSTIN: Yes, Mark.

GERAGOS: Yes, I've predicted it last night, it's just shocking isn't it? That Sunny thought that he was Mcbrilliant, that he was MCdreamy, didn't you tweet today, Sunny that he had them at hello, wasn't that yours?

HOSTIN: He did, he did Mark.

GERAGOS: I mean, Sunny please you need to dump it down so that Sunny, you are seeing this -- you've got a school girl crush on this guy?

HOSTIN: You didn't see an excellent closing? You didn't see an excellent closing?

GERAGOS: No, I did not, I thought it was trite. HOSTIN: Wow.

GERAGOS: And frankly, and frankly Sunny, I guess the only way we will ever know, the only way we'll ever know when I will stand corrected and, you know, worship at your psychic, you know, feats of wonder...

HOSTIN: You should do that now.

GERAGOS: ... is when we get a verdict. Well, I'll been await -- I think I'll wait and see what the jury...

COOPER: OK. Did you guys think he was effective?

CEVALLOS: Yes. Here's the thing that this case is inverted so many of the normal paradigms. Here is why, normally I feel that the defense attorneys who are asking the question, "Why did this happen?" Or saying, "This doesn't make sense." And it's not the defense attorney, it's not Mark O'Mara, the defense council who's building this foundation brick by brick and it's not usually the prosecutors who were chipping away and pulling away bricks, it's usually the other way around but that's what happened in this Mark O'Mara methodically built a -- went through each and every witness and built a wall.

In the meantime both prosecution attorneys on the front end and on the back end, just pulled away at those bricks and said, "It doesn't make sense. Use your common sense." And Mark O'Mara is right, if you have to use your common sense and as he said, "Fill gaps," and the prosecution has not met it's burden.

COOPER: And Mark O'Mara basically pointed out that the prosecution hasn't explained what actually happened.

TOOBIN: Exactly. I thought the most effective part of his summation - of O'Mara's was when he started -- when he talked about saying, "The prosecution says it could have and what if and," that's not how you prove something beyond unreasonable doubt. Now, the other thing that I thought was interesting about the rebuttal summation by the prosecutor is again, he spent so much time talking about the false, you know, a ledge false statements and, you know, I'm sure, Sunny can correct me, but I just don't know if those false statements are so dramatic or so false.

COOPER: What do you make...

SUNY HOSTIN: Oh, and...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Go ahead, Sunny.

GERAGOS: There are the most...

HOSTIN: I though that they certainly showed that they weren't just silly, little mistakes. I mean, he -- there was a PowerPoint there and he pointed, by my count at least 13 inconsistencies that were significant, significant inconsistencies.

COOPER: But the police, didn't think so, right?

HOSTIN: So, he point.

GERAGOS: Yes, that seems to be a significant problem

HOSTIN: Well, you know the police where...

GERAGOS: ... that the lead investigator thought at that time.

HOSTIN: ... the police will have the investigation torn from them.

CEVALLOS: I mean, that's a hard a thing to get around, the lead investigator.

(Crosstalk)

GERAGOS: Sunny, I don't dispute that.

HOSTIN: And the lead investigator was going to recommend manslaughter by the way.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Let Mark finish, Mark go ahead.

GERAGOS: Well, we know that -- we know that, but you've got to assume that the sequester jury knows that. And why don you think that the sequester jury is going to assume some of the things that we know or we've seen, or I've watched Anderson's interview with the police chief who got to throw under the bus or claims he got thrown under the bus. I mean the amazing thing about this, echoing what Danny was saying is, as I watched that today. I wonder how many times your MCbrilliant has gotten up there and argued that some 17 year old black youth was the trouble maker and blah, blah, blah. It really is an inversion. It's really it just...

COOPER: You made the point.

GERAGOS: ... at, it really knows (ph) at -- those of us who do criminal defense for a living when you watch this prosecutors trying to embrace 17 year old boys now who they normally...

HOSTIN: They're victims.

GERAGOS: Who thinks nothing of...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Mark, made that point yesterday. And I do think it's an interesting point that I mean, the prosecution is now calling him, you know, boy, you know, playing down his age where is if the role is well reversed, they've been trying him as an adult in some other case. TOOBIN: Yes, they would have but I mean, he was killed here. So, I mean he is the victim and he was unarmed. So, you know, I think it's not surprising that they have treated him this way. I still don't understand -- Sunny, maybe you can help me. What did he lie about? What did...

HOSTIN: Sure.

(CROSSTALK)

HOSTIN: Do we have enough time?

COOPER: No, let's take a quick break.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Let's take a quick break. And then we'll take a quick break. We'll talk more about that when we comeback. A lot more to talk about and we're going to go dig deeper also into.

There is only six individuals who matter now, the women on the jury. We're going to take a look at who they are. How did they reacted to the case now. Their background may affect in their decision.

And later, Martin Savidge has exclusive interview with Mark O'Mara, and O'Mara's claims they racially (ph) loaded publicity campaign, a smear campaign as he said as why his client was arrested and tried and a Martin family attorney is here to answer that charge.

You can follow me in Twitter, @andersoncooper. Let's talk about the case during the break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, Zimmerman and jurors have a lot to think about obviously tonight as they prepare for the weekend's deliberations.

Think about, they're probably not talk about, talking is a no-no outside the jury room and it's not the only one. Judge Nelson today reading them a long list. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NELSON: Do not discuss the case amongst yourselves or with anybody else overnight. Do not read or listen to any radio, television or newspaper reports about the case. Do not use any type of an electronic device to get on the internet to do any independent research about the case, people, place, things or terminology. And do not read or create any e-mails, text messages, tweets, blogs, social networking pages about the case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, in addition while they spend the night at a local hotel, their notes remain locked up in the jury room. Still as Randi Kaye reports now, these six women are carrying plenty around in their heads.

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: For weeks, the jury of six women has been a captive audience as prosecutors and defense lawyers try to sway them. From the moment it started, fewer drama.

Prosecutor John Guy's opening statement.

GUY: Good morning.

(Bleep) punks. These (bleep), they always get away. Those were the words in that grown man's mouth as he followed in the dark a 17- year-old boy who he didn't know.

KAYE: CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin has been in court everyday.

HOSTIN: The inference is, yeah, these are shocking, ugly, hateful words and that wasn't lost upon the jury. I looked at them very, very closely and some of them did seem shocked and offended almost by the words.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to follow up on...

KAYE: At other times, the jury seemed to be captivated by the defense, especially when defense attorney pulled down a dummy in court to help illustrate the confrontation.

MARK NEJAME: I was very impressed that when they all stood up to get a bird's-eye view when the actors, the lawyers were atop those dummies and they were trying to replicate or reproduce what was going on between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doing this.

MARK NEJAME: I think that was very telling. It showed how into this they were, how they followed it. They were looking like they were watching a tennis match.

KAYE: Jurors were especially engaged when the mothers of both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman testified.

Five out of six jurors are married and almost all of them have children.

Prosecutor John Guy keyed in to that hear.

JOHN GUY: Was that child not in fear when he was running from that defendant? Isn't that every child's worst nightmare to be followed on the way home in the dark by a stranger? Isn't that every child's worst fear? That was Trayvon Martin's last emotion.

HOSTIN: I looked directly at the jury when he said those words and their eyes didn't leave his face. And so, I think that it couldn't have been more powerful for the make up of that jury.

KAYE: Juror E-6, a blond with two children put down her pen during that very moment and stared intently at the prosecutor. Her children are 11 and 13. She's a proud member of her church. Her husband is an engineer.

Other specifics on the women deciding Zimmerman's fate.

Juror B-29 is originally from Chicago. She's been married for 10 years. She's the only minority on the jury, either Black or Hispanic. She has eight children, only one older than 18.

Juror B-76 has a son who was an attorney. She is unemployed now, but used to run a construction company with her husband. She loves animals.

Juror B-37 is the daughter of an Air Force Captain. One of her children is a pet groomer. Another, a student at the University of Central Florida.

Juror B-51 is the only juror who isn't married. She's a retired real estate agent and a transplant from Atlanta.

And Juror E-40 is married to a chemical engineer. She has one son. In her spare time, she watches football, reads and likes to travel.

This jury took lots of notes, copious notes, while George Zimmerman's reenactment at the scene was being played in court, also, when the medical examiner and DNA expert testified. It seemed as if they wanted to be sure they understood what was being said. They didn't want to miss a thing.

ASHLEY MERRYMAN: Someone in...

KAYE: Ashley Merryman is an expert on jury behavior. She predicts these all women jury will exhaust every alternative and locate every piece of evidence.

ASHLEY MERRYMAN: Women's social circles are based in pairs, telling that best friend all of your secret and having no hierarchy. Everyone has agreement and avoids conflict. And they've really continued to apply that even in that group setting.

KAYE: Merryman says, "Don't expect any yelling in this jury room, but don't expect a quick verdict either." Randi Kaye, CNN New York.

COOPER: As you saw on Randi's report, panelists on the (inaudible) spending extensive time in the courtroom watching these six women's reactions, back on with Jeffrey Toobin, Danny Cevallos and Mark Geragos.

So now, I mean, as I said, you've been observing these jurors every single day. We've already seen the master list of all the evidence. What do you think is going on? I mean, how do you see their deliberations going? How methodical based on their behavior during the trial that you've watched?

HOSTIN: Well, based on their behavior and their first question, I think two minutes into deliberations we're asking for a list and inventory list of all of the evidence. This is going to be a jury that is going to methodically look through all of the evidence. I don't know that I've ever seen a jury take notes the way this jury took notes. And it's also clear to me that they've jolt. I mean, they have been sequestered together.

Remember, there was no jury, no courtroom on July 4th. They were able to go out together, they eat together. I've recently seen some of them offer mints to each other. One of them put a shawl on the shoulders of another. I mean, this is a group of women who are getting together and getting along quite well.

And so in that kind of situation, I think you do have that collaborative type of deliberation as opposed to some of these deliberations rather that you see where everyone is butting heads. I do not get that sense from this jury.

COOPER: Mark, in terms of sequester and what exactly does it mean? I mean, they're OK, they stay in hotel room. There's 10 people, six jurors, four alternates. Are they able to stay in contact with their family, with their friends? You know, they can't watch reports like this on the news, but they can watch regular TV?

GERAGOS: Yeah, they've -- normally what happened in the old days when there were newspapers, they would cut out articles and give them the newspaper and they sometimes will tape record or give them movies some things like that. I think today, the reason that they wanted to be recessed at 6:00 is so they could go up back to the hotel and have a nice break, open a couple of nice bottles of wine after watching this trial and doing everything else. It would not surprise me if they get into a couple of cups tonight or a couple of glasses tonight.

I think the fact that they were sequestered is one of the reasons you don't see a Friday verdict. A lot of times, in my experience in doing hundreds of these cases, if you have your closing arguments on a Friday and you finish in the morning, you can expect the verdict by 3:30 or 4:00 on a Friday afternoon.

In a case like this, they're aware that the country is looking at this case even if they had a verdict tonight. And I have this happen in Susan McDougal's first trial in Santa Monica. The jury later told me that they had a verdict on Friday, but they did not want to be seen as an O.J. jury. So they actually waited until Monday and came back and then delivered their verdict on the following Monday.

So, they're aware of...

TOOBIN: This is a real thing.

GERAGOS: ... they're always aware of that (inaudible).

TOOBIN: This is a real thing that Mark's talking about. The legacy of the O.J. Simpson Jury which as many people probably remember came back with a not guilty after just one day of deliberation. A lot of people criticized them giving the complexity and length of the case.

GERAGOS: Four hours or so.

TOOBIN: How -- how could you possibly decide a case that quickly? And ever since then, I mean, I think I'd probably covered most if not all of the high profile cases instance certainly all with sequester juries. None of them have come back that quickly even when there was a lot of agreement on the jury. Here, I think given this first note, they're going to be much more meticulous. I expect tomorrow we'll probably hear some of the exhibits that they want to see. They'll check off the ones they want to see. They're going to be -- they're going to be pretty...

GERAGOS: You know, there will be a verdict (inaudible).

TOOBIN: I would be very surprised, really, yeah.

COOPER: For this research just because there's so much steps to go through.

TOOBIN: I think that if -- if you get a list of all the evidence, that means you're going to want to see some of the evidence. That becomes time consuming. One's you start getting into read-backs of testimony, that's really time consuming because the lawyers have to agree what's responsive to the note. I just don't see a verdict tomorrow. Sunday, Monday, we'll see. The notes will give us a hint on how they're doing.

COOPER: During his closing argument, Mark O'Mara, the defense attorney asked the jury to consider only the facts while deciding the case and shortly then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'MARA: I don't think you should do is fill in any gaps at all. Connect any dots for him either, any fact put on since it's really a witness. If the decision was made by the state not to present additional evidence to you, do not presume, do not assume and do not give anybody the benefit of any doubt except the chosen men.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Danny for the defense, that's essential to make that point.

CEVALLOS: I love it and it's very important. I mean, like I said, this case is inverted. The prosecution's asking the jury to fill in gaps where in literally you'd say that, but they're asking them to use common sense and make -- make assumptions and fill in where they really I believe failed to really create a narrative, a concrete narrative. And I understand that the main person who would contribute to that narrative is no longer with us.

However, unfortunately, for the prosecution, that doesn't lessen their burden. And Mark O'Mara did a very good job. I thought it very dispassionately without acquiring (inaudible), walking through where the state came up short and admonishing the juries to not fill in those gaps and not jump in, fill in any gaps that they forgot to fill. COOPER: Yeah. All right, Senator Danny, we're going to see you. There are 10 Eastern Special -- special hour long to look at the trial. Jeffrey and Mark are going to check that with you a little bit later on this program.

Up next, defense attorney Mark O'Mara. He believes that Zimmerman was ultimately charged because of what he calls a smear campaign, a publicity campaign to paint his client as a racist and a murderer. Well, here who he blames for that. We'll also hear from the attorney for the Martin family about these charges and later look at high profile cases where the defendants were acquitted, but their lives were still changed forever.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, we saw in his closing argument today, Defense Attorney Mark O'Mara told jurors he wishes they also had the option to find George Zimmerman in O'Mara's words completely innocent. He firmly believes he says that Zimmerman never should have been charge, that his client was basically railroaded and for that O'Mara puts it the blame squarely on Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Trayvon Martin's parents. He made his comments in a sit-down interview with our Martin Savidge.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Do you think that George Zimmerman would have even been charged had Ben Crump not been pulled into this?

MARK O'MARA, ZIMMERMAN'S DEFENSE LAWYER: No. Ben Crump or someone like him because Ben Crump not got involved in the case maybe for some good reasons to begin with. If he believed there was something being swept under the rug then get on to it. I'm very OK with that --

SAVIDGE: But you didn't quite see it that way. You made it sound like it was Ben Crump, George Zimmerman, would be free and we wouldn't be in a trial.

O'MARA: That's correct. I think it was a made up story for purposes that had nothing to do with George Zimmerman and that they victimized him. They complain about Trayvon Martin being victimized and George Zimmerman was victimized by a publicity campaign to smear him, to call him a racist when he wasn't and they call him a murderer when he wasn't.

SAVIDGE: So Angela Corey and the governor and all of those that had a hand in bringing about this prosecution, they were all manipulated by Ben Crump?

O'MARA: I don't know that it was Ben Crump doing all that manipulation, but I'm very surprised that the prosecution team decided not to take this case to a grand jury when one was sitting and empanelled and ready to take on the case, the state of Florida versus George Zimmerman and determine whether or not there was enough evidence and enough information to charge him with any crime.

Rather than do that, which was the default position that could have happened, they decided have a press conference, pray with the victim's family and announce second-degree murder charges.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: It's obviously, a strong position on Mark O'Mara's part. A short time ago, I spoke to Martin family attorney, Daryl Parks, Ben Crump's law partner who is also an attorney for Trayvon Martin's parents.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Daryl, I want to start off with this interview Mark O'Mara gave with Martin Savidge. He basically accuses your co- counsel, Ben Crump, of manipulating facts, making up stories, victimizing George Zimmerman to use his words in a smear campaign, a publicity campaign and he said that without his actions, Zimmerman would have never been charged. How do you respond?

DARYL PARKS, MARTIN FAMILY ATTORNEY: Well, let's take our time and go through it because I think it's very important. Remember and I remember when Ben first came back to our firm. This guy had killed Trayvon Martin and the Sanford Police Department were getting ready to close the investigation.

And they indicated that they were not going to arrest this guy, and we believed whole heartily that if you killed an unarmed teenager, you had a minimum of at least being arrested. Mr. O'Mara may have philosophical problems with that, but in our business, we're civil rights lawyers.

When someone kills someone who is unarmed, that person should go into our justice system and go through that process. That's not a decision that should be made by one or two people. It's a decision that should be made by the process, and that's what we argued for, and so we have not done anything to talk about anyone, but to make sure that this process works.

COOPER: O'Mara also says that the smear campaign, the publicity campaign labeled George Zimmerman a racist, labeled him a murderer, but racist and used that word. Do you think that is true at all? Do you believe at the time that --

PARKS: No, not at all.

COOPER: You or your client or you and Ben Crump were trying to introduce race as an element in this?

PARKS: Well, let me say, we don't know George Zimmerman and the fact I heard Ben say today when asked that same question, we don't -- we could never call that man a racist. Now we believe this case in its totality has a racial under tone to it. So that's a huge difference -- Anderson.

COOPER: I want to play something that you said back in March of last year for our viewers.

PARKS: Whether or not Trayvon was a perfect student is irrelevant to whether Zimmerman's conduct that night was justified. Trayvon was a kid. He was another unarmed black boy whose life was lost because of unfounded stereotypes suspicions and fears.

COOPER: During the trial, the idea of racial profiling wasn't -- wasn't talked about. Profiling was talked about, but not racial profiling. Do you think that -- that there is an under pinning of race throughout this that wasn't brought into the trial?

PARKS: No, what he was charged with, Anderson, is very important, criminal profiling, and I think we heard it time and time again from the beginning of this case where George Zimmerman talked about all these people who had committed crimes and to talk about the crime and the black youth involved in this case. The problem in this case, though, is that Trayvon was not one of those people.

COOPER: What happens next? I mean, if -- if George Zimmerman is not found guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter, do you pursue a civil case against George Zimmerman, regard less of whether he is found guilty or not, do you pursue a civil case against George Zimmerman regardless of whether he is found guilty of not? Do you pursue a civil case against him?

PARKS: Well, obviously, we have the right to do so because he killed Trayvon Martin and that's a negligent standard, right? We have every right to do that, if we choose do it. We have not made that decision yet. Obviously at some point my clients will make that decision, but we won't make in the public light.

COOPER: And how are you feeling and your clients feeling about the case, about the wait?

PARKS: Well, we're feeling very strong. We -- my clients had an opportunity to listen to the closing that the state did today. The state's closing was very powerful. They did an excellent job of bringing all the evidence together and putting it before the jury and making that jury have a very, very deep thought about the whole concept of judging George Zimmerman for a situation that he created, causing the death of Trayvon, and as much as they tried to portray Trayvon in a negative light. He was scared and did nothing to cause his own death.

COOPER: All right, Daryl Parks, appreciate your time as always. Thanks.

PARKS: Thank you, sir.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: All right, coming up, George Zimmerman's defense attorney said even if he is acquitted, Zimmerman will probably have to go into hiding and his life will never be the same. We'll have to talk about other high-profile acquittals.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: George Zimmerman's Defense Attorney Mark O'Mara said today that even if Zimmerman is acquitted, he won't be able to have a normal life, but probably have to live in hiding because of the notoriety of the case. It's certainly true that in high-profile cases and not guilty verdict doesn't necessarily mean smooth sailing ahead.

Probably the most famous example is O.J. Simpson. He was acquitted of murder after jurors deliberated for less than four hours as we mentioned following a trial that lasted for more than eight months. But for him, the acquittal wasn't the end of the trouble. Gary Tuchman reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Moments so well-known you likely remember where you were when you heard them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant O.J. Simpson not guilty of the crime of murder.

TUCHMAN: O.J. Simpson cleared of charges of murdering his ex- wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman. Then there's this, two years ago this month in the same state as the Zimmerman trial.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We the jury find the defendant not guilty so say we all.

TUCHMAN: Casey Anthony, a jury saying she was not guilty of murdering her daughter, Caley. Go back to 1991.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We find the defendant, Theodore (inaudible) not guilty of the crime of assault.

TUCHMAN: Four Los Angeles police officers caught on videotape accused of assault with a deadly weapon and use of excessive force on man named Rodney King. And also in California, pop icon, Michael Jackson accused and cleared of child molestation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We the jury in the above entitled case find the defendant not guilty of elude act upon a minor child.

TUCHMAN: These are some of the most well-known acquittals in American judicial history.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

TUCHMAN: But what happened to these people? Did they re-enter society and reclaim the lives they once had? In the case of O.J. Simpson, the answer is definitely no. Sixteen months after his criminal acquittal, he was found guilty in a civil court to pay $33.5 million to the families of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

Then in 2008, he was convicted on 12 counts including kidnapping and armed robbery. He's now 66 years old and serving up to 33 years in prison. He's scheduled for parole hearing later this month, but it's only for the kidnapping charge. He will not be getting out of prison any time soon.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She immediately grabbed Caley and began to cry and cry and cry.

TUCHMAN: Casey Anthony is a different story. She was acquitted of the famous serious charges in the murder case against her. Though she wasn't famous before the trial, she became infamous during it. Her life of parenting and partying was dissected in court.

And while there is no evidence she's living this type of life any more, she is living as a free woman in an undisclosed location and staying quiet. Rioting broke out in L.A. following the acquittal of the officers in the Rodney King case. King made a public statement after the disturbances broke out that was praised by people all over the country.

RODNEY KING: Can we all get along?

TUCHMAN: King won a large settlement from the city of Los Angeles, but for many years he had brushes with the law. He died in June of 2012. His fiancee finding him at the bottom of a swimming pool after he had accidentally drowned. Another man with a tragic end, Michael Jackson's antics were unusual as he went through his legal proceedings. He was accused of seven counts of molestation involving a 13-year-old boy.

After found not guilty in June of 2009, four years to the month of his acquittal, the world was stunned when the king of pop was found dead of a drug overdose. All these people acquitted in famous trials, all of them also with serious challenges in life after they walked free. Gary Tuchman, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Joining me now is CNN senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin and Criminal Defense Attorney Mark Geragos who represented Michael Jackson in the early stages of Jackson's child molestation case. Jose Baez, Casey Anthony's defense attorney will join us shortly. It is interesting to look back and see all these cases and kind of how people ended up. I mean, people do have to go into hiding, Casey Anthony, for one, because people get invested obviously in these trials.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right, and O.J. Simpson is, I think the classic -- is perhaps the most extreme example because look, I wrote a whole book saying I thought he killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, but then he gets prosecuted in Nevada on what I thought was a very weak case, got an extremely excessive --

COOPER: Take back his memorabilia.

TOOBIN: Take back memorabilia where someone else had a gun, but the guy who got the gun had no prison time. O.J. Simpson who didn't have the gun gets this enormous sentence. So it's -- it's karma, you know, caught up with him, but it was really, I thought, a very questionable case.

COOPER: Mark, as I said, you initially represented Michael Jackson in the early stages of the child molestation case. When you're in a high-profile, notorious case like that, I mean, how do you counsel somebody after it's done about trying to resume life? Are you -- obviously not the Michael Jackson case, but other cases are you involved in sort of the after care or does your role finish when the case is done?

MARK GERAGOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I will tell you. The one that she was kind of -- she changed my career trajectory was Susan McDougal. I tried two trials with here, one in Santa Monica and the other one in Little Rock, Arkansas. She was acquitted in both. At that time, she was penny less and really had no skill. She'd been in custody for 22 months.

TOOBIN: You should say who Susan McDougal is. I don't people remember anymore.

GERAGOS: Susan was caught up in the White Water investigation, and Jeff did, by the way, Jeff, a very nice book about White Water actually a series of books and was prosecuted by the Office of Independent Counsel and literally just strafed.

I mean, her ex-husband Jim who she went on trial with the first time when I didn't represent her ended up cooperating and dying in prison, so there was her ex-husband dead and she ended up after two trials, which is more than most federal prosecutors ever try, she ended up in Arkansas kind of penny less.

So there was a lot of counseling to be done and I'm happy to report 14 or 15 years later she's doing well living in Arkansas and become a chaplain at a hospital or kind of a hospice care place. It is a devastating thing.

I don't think -- I think if you had Susan on, she would tell you listening to the prosecutor in a closing argument kind of just characterized or mischaracterized you and demonized you as something she said you never get over. It's somebody that takes you and makes a charter of you and seers you in your soul. I remember Ray Donovan, Jeff?

TOOBIN: Yes, the secretary of labor under Ronald Reagan.

GERAGOS: Reagan came onto the steps after he was acquitted and said where do I go to get my reputation back? It's -- the old expression you can beat the wrap, but you can't beat the ride.

COOPER: I want to bring in Jose Baez. Jose, you obviously represented Casey Anthony. After her acquittal, I know you were escorted away from the courthouse by a SWAT team. People were extremely invested in that case, overwhelmingly felt she was guilty. In something like that, do you stay in touch with the client? Do you prepare a client for what happens after the case is over? How does that work? JOSE BAEZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: First of all, it was a very scary thing to be escorted out by a SWAT team. I didn't want to stand too close thinking maybe somebody was a bad shot. You know, it was really a crazy situation. I don't stay, you know, she's just like any former client. You don't really stay too much in touch with them. They have to go live their lives and we have to go fight on for the next case.

COOPER: In terms of is there like preparation, though? Do you -- I mean, I know you're focused on winning the case but once it's done and I know you said you don't stay in touch. Do you put them in touch with somebody who has advice for how they actually live their life? Someone like George Zimmerman, if Mark O'Mara is correct and he has to live in hiding or never feel completely safe, how do you prepare for that?

BAEZ: Well, you know, you sit down and talk to them and explain to them, look, listen, this is what is going on why you've been locked up and this is -- this is the reality of your future, and that is that you really need to keep a low profile. There are people out there, will not respect the rule of law and will attempt to harm you.

And it's a shame that we live in a country where we really have -- we really believe in our constitution. We have men and women dying for it, but when it's applied, sometimes they don't agree with it, and want to take law into their hands.

COOPER: Jose, do you find people take it out on you because I get tweets from people when you're on the show saying how can you have this guy on this show, he represented Casey Anthony. My position is everybody deserves a defense. You're an attorney. This is what you do. Do you find that one on one people take it out on you?

BAEZ: You know, it's amazing when I run into people in the street, I find much more support than I do online. So you know, when you have -- when you have the internet, I think that adds a whole new element to things. But the fact of the matter is the defense lawyer is not the client. They are there, but they are their advocate.

So a lot of times they see them arguing and see how hard you're fighting for your client and I believe in that. I think someone needs to stand in front of a defendant who can't speak and say listen, if you want to convict this person, you have to get through me and you have to work hard and have the evidence to prove it.

COOPER: That's our system. That's what the constitution is, that's what makes the system, you know, to the extent that it works at all --

BAEZ: It's what prevents --

GERAGOS: It's amazing -- you know what is amazing about what Jose says is you tend to be identified with whoever your client is at the time. I mean, when I had Scott Peterson 500,000 people prayed for me to get cancer and at the same time I had Michael Jackson, 500,000 people were cheering me on. It really depends on the client and whether they are famous or infamous.

COOPER: Jose Baez, Jeff Toobin, Mark Geragos, guys, thanks very much.

Coming up, a grand jury indicts Ariel Castro on new charges related to allegedly holding three women captive in that home of his for about a decade. He's now charged with many, many more than the 329 counts he was initially charged with. Details ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Let's check in with Randi Kaye for the other stories we're following in the 360 Bulletin -- Randi.

RANDI KAYE, CNN INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, a third victim from Asiana Airline Flight 214 has died. The girl had been in critical condition at San Francisco General. According to hospital spokeswoman, 304 other survived Saturday's crash and just moments ago, the runway at San Francisco's International Airport reopened.

Cleveland kidnapping suspect Ariel Castro now faces 977 counts including aggravated murder related to allegations he caused the term nation of a pregnancy. The new grand jury indictment triples the charges and covers a decade when Michelle Knight, Amanda Berry and Gina Dejesus were allegedly raped in his Cleveland home.

And an anonymous bidder bought a rare vintage Mercedes race car for $30 million. Five-time Formula One world champion, Juan Manuel Fanjo, won two grand prix races in the 1954 Mercedes Benz W196R, which now has the distinction of being the most expensive car ever sold --

COOPER: Cool car.

KAYE: At public actions. Isn't that cool looking?

COOPER: That is cool. Randi, thanks very much. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Ran out of time for the "Ridiculist." Tonight, a reminder, we'll see you again one hour now at 10 p.m. Eastern for a special edition of 360 "Self-Defense or Murder, The George Zimmerman Trial." "PIERS MORGAN LIVE" starts now.