Return to Transcripts main page


Jury Deliberates in George Zimmerman Case; Zimmerman Lawyer Opens Up about Trial; NSA Leaker Speaks Out in Moscow; Study Discovers Possible Fish Oil, Prostate Cancer Connection; Sharks + Tornado = Surprise Hit

Aired July 12, 2013 - 18:00   ET


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now: the verdict watch in the George Zimmerman trial and a question from the jury. The NSA leaker, Edward Snowden, emerges from hiding and announces he's seeking asylum in Russia.

Plus, concern about a popular supplement and a possible cancer increase. Our own Dr. Sanjay Gupta investigates.

I'm Wolf Blitzer, and we want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

The fate of George Zimmerman is now in the hands of the jury. Deliberations in his second-degree murder trial began a few hours ago after the defense, the prosecution and the judge got in their final words. About 90 minutes ago the jury asked a question about seeing a list of the evidence, fairly common according to our senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Earlier, the defense attorney Mark O'Mara made the closing argument to acquit Zimmerman.


MARK O'MARA, ATTORNEY FOR GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: You look at these facts, you look at all this evidence, and you have to say I have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the state convinced me he didn't act in self-defense. That's all you have to do. You don't have to write innocent on the bottom of the verdict form.


BLITZER: The judge is now coming back into the courtroom. Let's listen in.

JUDGE DEBRA NELSON, 18TH CIRCUIT COURT OF FLORIDA: The jury would like to adjourn tonight, 5:50 -- or the note is at 5:50. Let me reread it.

The jury would like to adjourn tonight at 6:00 p.m. The jury would like to begin tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. if possible.

Anybody have any objections? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, Your Honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Thank you, Your Honor.

NELSON: OK. What I'm going to do is bring them in here and give them their admonishment and release them until 9:00 a.m.

Let's go ahead and bring them in.

BLITZER: They have ended their work for the day. So there you have it.

You just heard the judge say the jury is ending its deliberations for the day. They will resume at 9:00 a.m. Eastern. The attorneys for both sides had no problem with that. She's bringing the six ladies, the six members of the jury back in. She will admonish them as she does every day. We will listen to that admonishment.

We have got our legal experts who are standing by, Sunny Hostin, Page Pate, Jeffrey Toobin.

Let's hear what she's saying right now. She's still waiting. She's still waiting for the jury to come in.

Quickly, Jeffrey, are you surprised that they have wrapped it up for the day?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Not at all. If they were asking for a list of the exhibits, that means they're just getting started.

So it was quite clear they were not going to wrap things up today. And 6:00 p.m. is a reasonable time to start, and 9:00 a.m. is a reasonable time to start tomorrow. They're doing their work.

BLITZER: Yes, they certainly are.

I always like listening to the judge.

NELSON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to go ahead and adjourn for the day. So will you be going into recess overnight.

I just want to give you my admonitions before you recess for the evening. During the overnight recess, you're not to talk about the case amongst yourselves or with anybody else. Although you are in the deliberation stage, your deliberations are only going to occur while you're here in court in the jury room.

So 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. Your notes will be locked up in the jury room. You will not be allowed to take them back with you. They will be there available for you in the morning. We will recess until 9:00 a.m. At that time, I will bring you back into the courtroom so we can begin court and then have you go back in recess. Will all of you abide by the instructions that I have given you?

JURY: Yes, Your Honor.

NELSON: OK. With, that, please follow Deputy Jarvis.

OK. Is there anything -- please be seated.

Is there anything else that we need to take care of before we recess for the evening?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, thank you, Your Honor.

NELSON: OK. Thank you very much. We will see you at 9:00 a.m.

BLITZER: No-nonsense Judge Debra Nelson. They have recessed for the day, the jury and the courtroom.

They deliberated, by the way, if you're interested in this -- and you should be if you're interested in this case -- they deliberated for three hours and 33 minutes today and they will resume deliberations tomorrow morning 9:00 a.m. Eastern. But they're done for the day.

Earlier this hour, we heard Mark O'Mara deliver a little bit of his closing argument. He's the defense attorney for George Zimmerman. The assistant state's attorney John Guy he had the last word. He rebutted and he spoke about Trayvon Martin's -- spoke, involving Trayvon Martin's name for a final time.


JOHN GUY, FLORIDA DISTRICT ATTORNEY: To the living, we owe respect, but to the dead, we owe the truth. What do we owe Trayvon Martin, 16 years and 21 days forever?

He was a son, he was a brother, he was a friend, and the last thing he did on this earth was try to get home. This is the dead. The self-serving statements, the lies from his own mouth and the hate in his heart, words that they can't now take back, the physical evidence, which refutes his lies, and the law that Her Honor is about to read to you, the law that applies to all of us and the law that applies to each of us, this is the truth.


BLITZER: Judge Nelson had the final words as she instructed the six women on the jury.


NELSON: Your verdict finding George Zimmerman either guilty or not guilty must be unanimous. The verdict must be the verdict of each juror, as well as the jury as a whole.


BLITZER: That's a strong admonition.

Let's go to Sanford, Florida. CNN's Martin Savidge has been watching this from the very beginning.

It's got to be 6-0. Can't be 3-3, 5-1 -- 6-0, either guilty or not guilty. That's the charge this jury has. There are six members of the jury. They're deliberating. They will resume tomorrow.

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. And there's two considerations they have, which is, of course, second-degree murder or manslaughter.

And I think it has been the concern for the defense that the manslaughter charge could possibly be considered as a compromise charge, at least again in the minds of the defense. They worry that the jury could perhaps say, well, OK, it's not going to be murder but we have a young person who is dead and thereby manslaughter seems like a way to sort of compromise.

Of course, what Mark O'Mara said in his summation self-defense works for everything. Self-defense is what they say. Self-defense would apply whether it is murder or whether it is manslaughter. That's what he has argued so strongly. But it's interesting. We have now, as Jeffrey pointed out, gone into deliberations and it appears that this jury is now looking at maybe the long haul.

Maybe it's tomorrow, maybe not. But they certainly are asking now for a list of the evidence. They want a description of all the evidence. I would have thought by now they probably had polled amongst themselves and maybe there is some division so they realize they have got a long haul and they should get some rest, pick it up at 9:00 tomorrow morning.

BLITZER: They have been doing it for a while, they want to do it right. They don't want to take any chances at all. Martin, don't go too far away.

Let's assess what's going on with CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin, CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and the criminal defense attorney Page Pate.

Let me bring you into this controversy, Page. First of all, what was your bottom line assessment on, this the final day of arguments?

PAGE PATE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It was a long day for the jury and I'm not at all surprised they were ready to go home at 6:00.

I think the lawyers did a great job. I think the state, the prosecution had to try to bring emotion back into this case. They certainly tried to do that. Mr. Guy's rebuttal closing argument was fantastic. For the first time in a long time the jury was asked to step into the shoes of Trayvon Martin.

Up to this point in the trial, everybody's been focused on what was George Zimmerman thinking, where was he, what was he doing? I think it was important for the state to remind the jury that we are here because Trayvon Martin is dead. I think that was very effective.

BLITZER: And, listen, Sunny, to Mark O'Mara, because he also had this message to the women of the jury. Listen to this.


O'MARA: A dead person on a slab has an impact on you. I would say that maybe one of you, maybe, have looked at a picture like that before this trial. Maybe one. It has an impact.

The other thing about autopsy photographs is that there's no muscle tone, because there's no nerves, there's no movement. He lost half his blood, we know that. So, on that picture that we have of him on the medical examiner's table, yes, he does look emaciated.

But here's him three months before that night. So it's in evidence. Take a look at it, because this is the person and this is the person who George Zimmerman encountered that night. This is the person who all of the evidence was attacked -- or attacked George Zimmerman, broke his nose or something close to it, and battered him on something.

And the state now may say, oh, maybe it was just a drain box and it was no intent to hurt there by Trayvon Martin because it was just coincidence that he was bashing his head on something hard and it was a drain box. Really? Come on. Really?


BLITZER: What did you think of that argument, Sunny?

HOSTIN: Well, you know, I think Mark O'Mara is a fine lawyer. I didn't see a lot of reaction from the jury. You did see Sybrina Fulton walk out in the middle of it. She seemed very upset. She seemed offended.

I'm not so sure that it resonated that much, but it was an appropriate argument to make. I don't think it was inappropriate to say this is what he looked like not being on a slab, but, again, you know, he was killed by George Zimmerman. Whether or not it was murder or justifiable homicide is the question. So I think to call attention to the fact that Trayvon Martin was, you know, on an autopsy slab, I don't know that it was that effective.

BLITZER: Jeffrey, listen to this. This is John Guy, one of the prosecutors, making an important point before the jury. Let me play the clip.


JOHN GUY, FLORIDA DISTRICT ATTORNEY: And if there was ever any doubt about what happened, really happened, was it not completely removed by what the defendant said afterwards, all of the lies he told, all of them?

What does that tell you? There's only two people on this earth who know what really happened, and one of them can't testify and the other one lied, not about little things like his age or whether or not he went to the hospital, but about the things that really, truly mattered.


BLITZER: Jeffrey, how effective was that?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, this was the biggest contrast between the prosecution and the defense. Both yesterday and today, the prosecution spent an enormous amount of time on the statements of George Zimmerman and saying his lies prove that he knew he was guilty.

Today, Mark O'Mara sort of blew the issue off. He said, look, these aren't significant lies. They are somewhat different tellings, and as you heard from witnesses, people always tell things slightly different each time.

I did not think these lies were so dramatic that they proved George Zimmerman was guilty, but the prosecution put a lot of stock in it and the jury certainly will remember that the prosecution claims the lies prove that he knew he had a guilty conscience.

COOPER: Page, were the lies significant?

PATE: Not necessarily. But many times a jury will look at a potential witness, a defendant, and believe that if they lied about little things, there are minor inconsistencies, then maybe they're lying about the big stuff, too.

I think the state had to do this. This is the whole reason they put Mr. Zimmerman's prior statements into evidence. And that was, I think, a mistakes, because then the state did not have to call him. I think if you're attacking Zimmerman's credibility, it would have been much more effective if you are cross-examining him at trial.

But at this point, all they can do is reference those statements and try to get the jury to think if he's inconsistent about some minor things, you can't believe any of his story and that's not the way it went down.

BLITZER: I'm going to have our legal analysts all stand by. We have much more to assess in this Zimmerman trial that wrapped up today. The jury began three-and-a-half-hours of deliberations. They're going to resume deliberations tomorrow morning 9:00 a.m. Eastern. There's other news though we're following, including an airplane fire closing one of the busiest airports and raising new concerns about Boeing's troubled 787 Dreamliner.

And officials concern that a victim of that Asiana disaster was hit by a fire truck. We're going to go live to San Francisco, new information coming in.


ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BLITZER: Disturbing news coming out of that Asiana plane crash that occurred last Saturday.

Let's go out to San Francisco. Dan Simon is standing by.

What's the latest, Dan?

DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, sadly we just found out that a third victim has in fact died as a result of this plane crash.

This is a girl. She's said to be a minor. She was pronounced dead earlier today. She had been at San Francisco General Hospital since the time of the crash. She had had critical injuries and unfortunately she is dead. That brings us now to three victims who died.

We also know that one of the girls, one of the Chinese girls who also died in this crash was in fact run over by an emergency vehicle, authorities confirming that today. It's not clear if that's what caused her death or she died as a result of the crash. The coroners still need to make a determination.

Meantime, Wolf, we can tell you that the area on 28 runway left where the crash occurred here at San Francisco International Airport has been entirely cleaned up. We just took a tour of that area. The fuselage has been removed. And, in fact, San Francisco authorities tell us that runway could be open as early as tonight so operations resuming back to normal here at San Francisco International Airport.

As for the investigation itself, Wolf, we know that authorities have not found any mechanical issues with that aircraft. That's going to lead to a lot more speculation that the pilots are somehow to blame for this crash -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Disturbing news indeed, a third death in that plane crash. Dan Simon reporting, thank you.

Meanwhile, a fire broke out today on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner parked at London's Heathrow Airport. There were no injuries. But this could mean a new crisis for Boeing. While the cause of the fire is not clear, the Dreamliners were grounded this year because of a fire risk tied to the plane's batteries.

Boeing had to make changes before the planes could return to the skies. In a separate incident today, a Thomson Airways Dreamliner flying to Florida returned to England as what is being described as a precautionary measure after what the airline called a technical issue. Boeing shares by the way sank 5 percent today on Wall Street.

A horrifying crash today just South of Paris, at least six were killed, 22 others severely injured when a regional passenger train derailed. The train was passing through a station at high speed when four cars left the tracks. Part of the mangled train ended up on the station platform. The cause of the plane is unknown. The French president, Francois Hollande, went to the scene in the midst of the rescue operations and announced three investigations are being opened.

Up next, first on CNN, the Zimmerman defense attorney, Mark O'Mara, he is speaking out about the prosecutor's style and about the jury. We have the interview.

And the world gets a fresh look at the NSA leaker, Edward Snowden. He's still holed up at a Moscow airport -- what he hopes to do next.


BLITZER: Happening now: George Zimmerman's defense attorney Mark O'Mara tells CNN what he thinks about the prosecutor and the jury.

For the first time in weeks we're getting a look at the NSA leaker, Edward Snowden, as he emerges with a dramatic change in strategy.

And do fish oil supplements actually raise the risk of prostate cancer? A new study raising some serious concerns.

I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Day one of jury deliberations in the George Zimmerman trial now over. The jury asked to be dismissed around 6:00 p.m. Eastern after deliberating about three-and-a-half-hours. They will resume tomorrow morning, 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

And first on CNN, George Zimmerman's attorney speaking candidly about his client, the trial and some of the key players. He sat down with CNN's Martin Savidge in Sanford, Florida.


MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Bernie de la Rionda, what do you think of him?

O'MARA: He's a career prosecutor who I have never been up against before, and he handles his caseload different than I ever did as a prosecutor.

And I have concerns about the discovery perspective. I think that my view of things like Brady and other information that we're supposed to get from prosecutors is at the very least a much different definition that he has.

SAVIDGE: So is that he's a snake? He's a liar?

O'MARA: I think that he has a -- I think he's probably more used to running against public defenders in cases that he gets to cherry- pick and that he has overwhelming evidence, and that some of the nuances of how he handles discovery don't come to light.

I don't think that Don and I have presented ourselves as couple of young public defenders.

SAVIDGE: Judge Debra Nelson, there are people who watch -- and these are just people watching on television -- would say that he hates you or hates the defense.

O'MARA: She doesn't. And she doesn't hate me or the defense or Mr. Zimmerman.

SAVIDGE: So, what goes on, on the sidebars? People look at that.

And, of course, we don't hear it. We only see.

O'MARA: Right.

SAVIDGE: It seems terse, it seems awkward, it seems like many of the rulings went against the defense. So it would be wrong to say that the judge doesn't like you personally?

O'MARA: No, it would be wrong.

Actually, I have known Debra Nelson for years and years, Judge Nelson for years and years. She's been on the bench for a long time. She's known to be stern and strict and to know the law. I will tell you -- and I'm just not placating her -- you will note that even though the rulings didn't go our way like I would like them to, she was always well-prepared, she does her case law research, she does her homework.

You mention a case, she knows the case. Those are the signs of a very good judge.


DON WEST, ATTORNEY FOR GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: We have had full days every day, weekends, depositions at night.


SAVIDGE: The walkout?

O'MARA: Frustrating at 10:00 at night -- frustrated at 10:00 at night. I think a lot of people were acting out of frustration at that 10:00 hearing. So, you know, she's human.

She's got a jury out there, she's got a high-profile case, she's got a lot of animosity between the parties that is fairly apparent, and she's trying to do everything she can to keep the peace and to protect her jury from undue influence. So she's got a very tough job.


BLITZER: Let's bring back our experts, our legal analyst Sunny Hostin and criminal defense attorney Page Pate.

Page, what do you think about the relationship between the attorneys on both sides and the judge?

PATE: In this case, I really think the relationship has been fairly good. They have all been professional.

I think we can expect a certain amount of stress to go along with almost any criminal trial, especially one like this, where everyone in the world is literally watching. So it's a fine line. The judge has to keep things moving along, and I certainly think she's done that in this case, but also be fair, let both parties present their case and give them every opportunity that they need within the law. And I think she's done that.

BLITZER: Give as you little flavor, Sunny. What's it like living and breathing in a high-profile case like this over not just a few weeks, but months and months and months?

HOSTIN: It's really something. I mean, I will say that being in the courtroom, you feel the pressure. I also remember feeling tremendous pressure.

It's a very difficult thing to try a criminal case with someone's liberty at stake. It's just -- it's a pressure cooker. And you could see that playing out as the trial went along. And I will say now on verdict watch for me, this was the worst part, because everything is out of your hands as an attorney. There's nothing that you can do. So you're doing this should have, would have, could have in your mind, could I have done this better, should have I done this, I maybe should have done this, but there's nothing else that you can do but wait.

So, you know, it certainly is a difficult thing. I will say what was surprising to me with Mark O'Mara's interview is that he mentioned that there was real animosity between the parties. And, yes, you're adversaries as attorneys, and, yes, you get into it and you argue points of law, but it seems as if these folks don't really like each other.

So it's gone beyond just the adversarial process and there is a real discord there. So, I thought that that was interesting.

BLITZER: And they did have some words at the exchange in the closing arguments.

So, here's a little bit more of the interview that O'Mara gave Martin Savidge. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SAVIDGE: Let's talk about the makeup of the jury.


SAVIDGE: This is -- first of all, it's six people.

O'MARA: Yes.

SAVIDGE: It's six women.

O'MARA: Yes.

SAVIDGE: One person of color and five who are mothers, correct?

O'MARA: Yes. Interesting because, of course, the jury selection process is very intriguing to me. I enjoy the process.

ZIMMERMAN: Is that the jury you wanted?

O'MARA: Yes. In this way: When we were going through it, I was surprised that the state struck the first black male that they struck. I was surprised by that. Once they had done that, then they seemed to be moving down the path of just getting rid of a bunch of white women, and I think that's inappropriate. And I challenged them on that, and the judge agreed with me that they were removing women, white women, because they were white women.

So we ended up having two more on. So that sort of brought us up to four. And then we went further down the list.

So in my perfect jury, I would like more of a demographic switch, maybe more males, but I'm very OK with the six people that we have now for reasons that we talked about, because I think they're very attentive and all listening.

SAVIDGE: Do you think that maybe a man might take the self- defense, hear that differently than say five women or six women, five of whom are mothers?

O'MARA: It's so hard to say. I have been batting about zero in picking what jurors are going to do and how they're going to do it and what they're thinking. And my greatest failing is I wish I could get inside a jury room just once.

But having said that, you know, I think the women are going to be very sensitized to the fact that a son has been lost; Trayvon Martin has been lost. And that's going to be a sensitivity they have. On the other hand, I think they're going to be very aware of what it's like to be in a situation where you might be being victimized and have to react to that. So I think that they're -- they're a good panel.

SAVIDGE: They have been very attentive. I can see that from seeing that myself.

O'MARA: Yes. Very engaged. They jump up when we walk towards them. That's interesting, you know. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: And Sunny, I think you can confirm that. You've spent a lot of time inside that courtroom. Those six women seem to be very engaged.

HOSTIN: Among the most -- among the most engaged I've seen. I mean, oftentimes you always get one or two jurors that are kind of nodding off and closing their eyes, especially during some of the really wonky kind of testimony that comes in with experts. I never saw that, Wolf.

And I mean, I had my eyes on them. They were just from the very beginning alert, listening, taking notes, looking at exhibits, leaning in. I just -- I never saw one juror not paying attention to the evidence. And that's unusual.

This wasn't a long, long trial like some of the trials we've covered, but it was long enough with long enough days. And I think what was also interesting is they always wanted to keep on going. They always wanted to go forward. So I was very surprised today when they said at 6 p.m., "I've had enough. I'm going to start off fresh tomorrow morning." I thought this was the kind of jury, given what they've been doing all throughout, that maybe would stay a little bit later. So that may be telling.

BLITZER: Well, they were deliberating for three and a half hours -- three hours and 33 minutes, to be precise -- this after spending all morning and the early afternoon listening to closing arguments, a half hour listening to the judge provide instructions. Maybe they want to get some sleep, get a good night's sleep and then resume tomorrow.

HOSTIN: Maybe.

BLITZER: It's interesting, Page. We did some checking on amount of time in major cases, high-profile cases, recent ones, the juries deliberated before they reached the decision.

In the Jodi Arias trial, the jury took nearly 15 hours, guilty of first-degree murder. Casey Anthony trial, the jury took more than ten hours, acquitted of first-degree murder. Back in 1995 in the O.J. Simpson trial, the jury took less than four hours, acquitted of two counts of murder.

The longer -- is there a rule of thumb among lawyers, criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, the longer a jury deliberates, the more or the less likely of acquittal or a guilty verdict?

PATE: You know, that's a great question. I've been trying criminal cases now for 20 years, and I can't figure it out. You know, I've had juries come back and find my clients not guilty and they've done it very quickly. Then I've had jurors come back -- or basically stay out days, stay out longer than the trial lasted.

You know, what it does indicate to me, though, is they're spending a lot of time with the case. In my experience, talking to jurors after a trial is over with, you normally find that they want to do their job, and they want to do it the right way. I think that's why they asked for this inventory list. They're going to go through this stuff. They're going to be me methodical. They know everybody's watching them. They know Trayvon Martin's family has been in the courtroom every day. This case matters. It matters to them; it matters to the parties, the lawyers. So they're going to take their time. But I don't think how long they stay out is really indicative of their ultimate verdict.

BLITZER: Yes, I think you're right on that.

Sunny, the judge also told them it has to be unanimous. It has to be a 6-0 decision by these six jurors. It can't be 5-1. It can't be 4-3. This is not a majority kind of issue. It's got to be unanimous.

What happens if they go on and on. Five people let's say hypothetically, they think he's guilty of one of these charges, either manslaughter or second-degree murder, but one holds out and holds out and holds out, and it's a hung jury. That's possible, isn't it?

HOSTIN: Yes, it is possible, especially with a case like this, given the facts. If -- if they go in front of this judge, and they say, "Listen, you know, we've reached an impasse," generally what the judge will do is charge them again. And the charge goes something like this, you know -- I know it's been hard. I know it's been long, but please go back, try to deliberate again; try to reach a consensus. Don't be so firmly rooted in your opinions that you can't see other people's opinions. Keep an open mind, listen to your fellow jurors and sort of -- we called it an Allen Charge. You just send it back and ask them to try again.

If they come back and they say, "Listen, we can't reach a verdict," then most judges will dismiss them, call this hung jury, and the state tries it is again. I think that's almost the worst-case scenario for a case like this, because you're talking about another trial, more jury selection. Wolf, we'll be talking about it again.

BLITZER: But, Sunny, if not -- the state doesn't have to -- the state doesn't necessarily have to try it again. They can forget about it if they want, right?

HOSTIN: That's true. I don't think that that would happen in a case like this, not in a second-degree murder case. No way.

BLITZER: Quickly, Page, what do you think?

PATE: I just wanted to add one thing that's unique about this case. If this case were being tried in federal court or in many other states around the country, we would have 12 people in that jury box for a murder case. So the possibility of the mistrial, the deadlocked jury, much higher when you're talking about 12 people than six people and much higher when you're talking about people that are not sequestered. I think these six jurors are tight. They're close now. They've been through a lot. I think we're going to see a consensus verdict here.

BLITZER: Page Pate and Sunny Hostin, we'll see what happens tomorrow. They resume the deliberations 9 a.m. Eastern. Of course CNN will have live coverage of all of this. We're all anxious to know what these six ladies on the jury decide.

We're going to have more on this story, of course, here on CNN coming up. But also, other news we're following. He's been in hiding for weeks. Now the former contractor who leaked details of government surveillance programs emerges, and Edward Snowden is speaking out.


EDWARD SNOWDEN, NSA LEAKER: A little over one month ago, I had a family, a home in paradise and I lived in great comfort.



BLITZER: President Obama today called Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, and the status of the NSA leaker certainly was high on the phone call agenda.

Meantime, the world got a fresh look today at the leaker, Edward Snowden, appearing publicly for the first time since he's been holed up in a Moscow airport's transit zone. Looks like he may be there for a while longer, despite asylum offers in Latin America.

CNN's Phil Black is in Moscow.

PHIL BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, it was a surprise move by Edward Snowden to call this meeting at the airport, and it had a surprise outcome, a dramatic change in strategy that perhaps shows Edward Snowden is running out of options.


BLACK (voice-over): This is the first video of Edward Snowden since he fled Hong Kong and arrived at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport.

SNOWDEN: A little over one month ago I had a family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort.

BLACK: After camping out somewhere in the transit area for almost three weeks, he invited a group of Russian human rights activists to meet him. Those activists listened, asked questions and returned after less than an hour, announcing that Snowden had significantly changed his intentions. He now officially wants political asylum in Russia, but only temporarily.

TANYA LOKSHINA, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: His plans are to move on. He wants to move on to Latin America, but he feels the only way he's going to be safe in Russia is to get an asylum in this country. That's what he's planning to do.

BLACK: He told them he's changed his plans because he has little chase.

VYACHESLAW NIKONOV, RUSSIAN LAWMAKER: He says that the United States -- the U.S. government will do whatever it takes not to let him go to Latin American countries.

BLACK: Those at the meetings say Snowden asked them to lobby the Russian government to grant his asylum application. Some of them have promised to do so.

FEODORE LUKIN, RUSSIAN HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN: He wants to be free. It's nature and he is not -- he is not a criminal now.


BLACK: Edward Snowden withdrew an earlier application for asylum in this country because president Putin said he would have to stop all political activity aimed at harming the United States. Now the people who met with Snowden here at the airport say he's promised to live up to that condition -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Phil Black in Moscow. Thank you.

Russian weapons were apparently the target of Israeli strikes in Syria last week. U.S. officials telling CNN a series of explosions at a Syrian port on July 5 resulted from air strikes by Israeli warplanes. The officials say the target was a cache of Russian-made anti-ship missiles that the Israelis believe pose a threat to their naval forces. Israel's government has declined comment to CNN.

For the first time the United States is calling for the release of the ousted Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsy. As tens of thousands took to the streets of Cairo today in support of Morsy, the State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said that the detentions of Morsy and other Muslim Brotherhood members are politically motivated. This week dozens died when a pro-Morsy rally ended in a serious clash with Egyptian security personnel.

Up next, a new study raises deep concerns about a very popular supplement. But can it raise the risk of prostate cancer?

Plus, a deep blue planet that rains liquid gas in 2,000-degree heat. That's coming up.


BLITZER: Millions of Americans make a point of eating fish or taking supplements to get their Omega 3 fatty acids. But a new study is raising some concern about a risk of cancer. Let's get some more from our chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, you're absolutely right: this certainly has a lot of people talking, basically talking about Omega 3 fatty acid and its potential correlations to prostate cancer.

Now, a couple of things I want to point out. For a long time, people have been taking Omega 3 fatty acid, advised to do so, even by their doctors, to lower their risk of developing heart disease, although even that has been under some question as to how much a benefit it provides.

But what this study was looking at is a relatively small study, looking at several hundred people who did not have prostate cancer, comparing them to just more than 1,000 people who had prostate cancer and trying to find out what was different, specifically with regard to these Omega 3 fatty acids.

Let me show you what the study found here, Wolf. I'd like to talk about it. They found that there was a 44 percent increased risk of low-grade prostate cancer in those men who had the highest amounts of those Omega 3 fatty acids in their blood. You can see the numbers there: 71 percent increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer, and a 43 percent increased risk of prostate cancer, overall.

Now, the surprising thing, I think, for a lot of people is that it made no sense to understand exactly why Omega 3 fatty acids might be causing this. We know that Omega 3 fatty acids typically reduce inflammation in the body and in the blood, and that should reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

And the other, Wolf, very important point, is that there is no cause and effect relationship here. It's unclear to say that people who take Omega 3 fatty acids, that it's causing the prostate cancer. But, according to the study, it does appears to be something going on here. What exactly that is, is probably going to be worthy of more study.

A lot of doctors now are saying looking at studies like this, looking at previous studies about Omega 3 fatty acids and heart disease concerning the question of just how much Omega 3 fatty acids that people should be taking, if at all. And maybe relying on the strategies that we've been talking about for so long, Wolf. Just basically maintaining a normal body weight, exercising, and a healthy diet.

But Wolf, there's going to be probably more coming in on this in the weeks and months to come. As it comes out, I'll certainly bring it to you.

Back to you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Excellent advice from Dr. Gupta, as he always gives us. Thanks very much. We'll stay on top of this report.

And a response to the study, by the way, a supplement industry trade group says, and I'm quoting now, "The numerous benefits of Omega 3 fatty acids are well-established for men and women in all stages of life."

Just ahead, what if hungry sharks got swept up into a tornado and unleashed bloody havoc on Southern California? Well, someone else already thought of that. They turned it into a movie, and the Twitter world can't get enough of it.


BLITZER: Checking quickly with Mary Snow. She's got some other top stories we're watching right now in THE SITUATION ROOM -- Mary.

MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, a coffee shop was the setting for a shocking act of terror today. At least 33 people were killed and more than two dozen others hurt when a suicide bomber in an explosive vest blew himself up in a cafe in northern Iraq.

President Obama will soon have a cabinet post to fill. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced today she's resigning to become president of the University of California system.

Astronomers using the Hubble Telescope have found a deep-blue planet 63 light years away. Unlike Earth, the blue color does not come from oceans. Instead, NASA says the planet is a gas giant with a daytime temperature of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. And get this: it may rain liquid gas sideways with winds of 4,500 miles an hour.

And its Twinkies comeback day at Wal-Mart. The world's largest retailer is rolling out the first batch of new Twinkies in 1,500 stores. A new company has revived the brand after bankruptcy.

Shoppers in Washington may have to buy the Twinkies elsewhere. Wal-Mart has said it will halt plans to build stores in the district after the city council voted to make it pay workers 50 percent more than the minimum wage.

And as for the Twinkies for the rest of the country, Wolf, they go on store shelves on Monday, just in case anybody was keeping tabs.

BLITZER: I have a Twinkie or two once in a while. All right, thanks very much.

Shark movies apparently haven't jumped the shark yet.


BLITZER: So what do you get when you combine sharks and a tornado? Here's CNN's Jake Tapper.


JAKE TAPPER, CNN CORRESPONDENT/ANCHOR (voice-over): In a way this madness all started decades ago, with these few notes...


TAPPER: ... and this key phrase.

ROY SCHEIDER, ACTOR: You're going to need a bigger boat. TAPPER: The year was 1975. And "Jaws" expertly herded millions of us out of the water and into the world of shark cinema. Nearly 40 years later, a feeding frenzy seems to follow even the tiniest drop of creative blood. Even the Austin Powers films couldn't have predicted how silly it all would get.

MIKE MYERS, ACTOR: You know, I have one simple request, and that is to have sharks with fricking laser beams attached to their heads.

TAPPER: Oh, Doctor Evil, you're going to need a bigger imagination.

MYERS: What do we have?

TAPPER: Well, in the last few years, we've had sharks in a swamp, sharks in 3-D, and sharks on a -- oh, sorry, Samuel L. Jackson, no sharks on a plane thus far.

But last night, the SyFy network lured viewers into the latest bloodbath, "Sharknado." The channel's newest gem combined, you guessed it -- a twister with toothy projectiles.

MATT ZOLLER SEITZ, TV CRITIC, "NEW YORK MAGAZINE": These movies envision a scenario in which may be the victory is not quite as solid as we thought. And in order to do that you can't have normal sharks. You have to have a gigantic dinosaur shark, envisioning a foe that is worthy of us.

TAPPER: It was a full-on cultural phenomenon. The unlikely subject was the top trend on Twitter last night. With help from celebrities and politicos alike, #Sharknado reached more than 5,000 tweets per minute at one point. In a prayer-like mantra, respected actress Mia Farrow even tweeted simply, "OMG, OMG, OMG #Sharknado." While Newark's mayor, Cory Booker, got fired up, tweeting, "There's no room in this fight for guppies."

Now, despite the shock and awe, "Sharknado" was not the first low-budget wonder to throw sea creatures flailing into the air. Surely you remember "Sharktopus"? How about "Dinoshark"? Well, if you haven't seen them you should ask the 5 and a half million people who have. Yes, it's almost as unbelievable as the premises of the films themselves. 2010's "Sharktopus" had nearly as many viewers as the season six finale of "Mad Men."

RICHARD DREYFUSS, ACTOR: I've never seen so many of them.

TAPPER: So how did we get here to this land of film where Ian Ziering is our only hope?

IAN ZIERING, ACTOR: They're coming and coming fast.

TAPPER: Well, profits, of course. With a budget of roughly $2 million each and a viewership more than equal that number, the SyFy Network can't go wrong making campy carnivore films.

SEITZ: These movies are no accidents. These movies are made very deliberately to be the kind of movies that they are, and I think that they succeed for the most part. And I think the unpretentiousness is a big part of the appeal.

TAPPER: So you're going to need to get yourself a bigger DVR. Seems these fins have fans, and they're going to keep popping up everywhere.


TAPPER: Jake Tapper, CNN, Washington.