Return to Transcripts main page


Murder Charges Dropped Against Andrea Sneiderman; Juror: Zimmerman Got Away with Murder

Aired July 26, 2013 - 19:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Breaking news tonight, as the alleged suburban black widow scores a huge victory in court today. Just a little while ago.

Good evening. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell.

A short time ago, Andrea Sneiderman showed up to court, still sporting her wedding ring, to hear news that must make her dead husband`s family furious and outraged. Murder charges against her have officially, formally been dropped. But why?

Prosecutors had accused Andrea of conspiring with her boss and alleged lover to murder her husband, Rusty Sneiderman. Andrea`s trial is still set to start on Monday, but she only faces 13 lesser counts like perjury. So could she walk?


CRAIG KUHLMEIER, EYEWITNESS (via phone): Somebody has been shot and killed out in front of Dunwoody Prep.

ANDREA SNEIDERMAN, WIDOW OF MURDER VICTIM: They said there had been an accident.

KUHLMEIER: This guy is bleeding to death out here.

SNEIDERMAN: My friend didn`t say, "I think Hemy Neuman killed your husband."

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Didn`t Tammy Parker tell you that she thought the whole idea was ludicrous?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did the defendant ever express his feelings for you?

SNEIDERMAN: Yes. Up to that date, he (ph) and I didn`t exactly have the best working relationship. He murdered my husband.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hemy Neuman serving life in prison as we speak. He executed Rusty Sneiderman in broad daylight, four gunshots, one bullet fired right up against the poor man`s jaw. All moments after the victim had dropped his 3-year-old son off at daycare.

The night before the murder, Andrea, that lady right there, exchanges three phone calls with that guy, her husband`s killer. And then right after the murder, she tries to contact this killer six more times as she drives to see her bullet-riddled husband in the hospital. That`s a lot of phone calls to a man she called her stalker. And she denies any sexual affair with him.

Maybe the best thing she has going for her is that Hemy, the killer, crazy, cuckoo. Guilty but mentally ill. That`s what he was found. Even a jury said that.

So when investigators confronted her with evidence against her boss, she got very defensive. She told them, "Oh, he`s just some crazy guy who`s in love with me."


SNEIDERMAN: I`m sure he told you that he thought I was in love with him or something along those lines. He`s crazy. I don`t know what he told you, that he was in love with me, that he was infatuated, that he stalked me. I don`t know. You tell me. I don`t know what he said. That he wanted to be my husband?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Straight out to the Lion`s Den. It`s now official, the murder charges against Andrea dropped. But why? Why did this happen now, Eric Schwartzreich?

ERIC SCHWARTZREICH, ATTORNEY: You know, sometimes, Jane, a bird in the hand is better than two in a bush. But why? There were multiple, multiple indictments in this case. Perhaps they`re taking a lesson from these high-profile cases. They want to get something.

She might not get life in prison, but with all these counts that are left, Jane, with all these counts, on the perjury charges alone, she`s facing five to ten years. She could effectively end up with 35 years in prison, and the prosecution will get something. Whether she`s in trial for the actual murder charge or for the perjury, which depending upon the judge`s ruling, because they`re going to have this hearing where the judge is going to determine if they`re going to let hearsay statements come in. If the state`s going to have a good case, they`ll have a better case on those charges. The murder case was pretty weak.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Holly Hughes, criminal defense attorney, former prosecutor, let me say this: The way they got Al Capone wasn`t on murder; they got him on tax evasion. Could this be the Al Capone gambit?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Go ahead, Holly.

HUGHES: And let`s remember, Jane, what did they get Casey Anthony on, right? Lying. They know what they can prove. They`ve reviewed their evidence.

And I think that, you know, your last guest had it exactly right. They`re taking a lesson from these high-profile trials. They`re looking at it and saying, "Let`s not go for the overcharge. We don`t want the jury backlash. Let`s give them what we think we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Let them return a guilty verdict."

And Judge Adams is a tough jurist. He may go ahead and run each one of these sentences consecutive.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Areva Martin.

AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY: Jane, this is so troubling. Jane, this is so troubling. This woman has been under house arrest for nearly a year. Imagine if she didn`t have the money to make bail and she had been sitting in a prison or a jail cell for a year waiting for this trial, only for the prosecutors to say, "Hey, guess what? We don`t have enough evidence for murder."

I think this is totally irresponsible on the part of the prosecutors. These are seasoned attorneys. They should have known what they had, what they could prove.


MARTIN: And to now say, "We don`t have enough to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt" is irresponsible.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me say this. Jay Apt, attorney for Andrea Sneiderman`s former BFF, the one that she kissed in court with that kind of "Godfather" move, here`s what I`m getting in my tweets. Because this is a late breaking story.

New evidence caused the district attorney to re-interview witnesses. He can`t go forward with malice murder, felony murder. What the heck is this new evidence, these new witnesses? Do you have any idea what could have changed this?

JAY APT, ATTORNEY FOR SHAYNA CITRON: I just met with Robert James today. And...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And that`s the prosecutor.

APT: Yes, the district attorney, Robert James.


APT: I just met with him today. He believes that -- that after re- interviewing witnesses, he doesn`t have the same case that he thought he had 18 months ago, which you know, I disagree with.

But I think it`s important to note that the murder charges are not dismissed yet. Mr. James, as the D.A. ...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s over, it`s over.


APT: The judge hasn`t consented. The judge hasn`t consented.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Prosecutors had insisted Andrea engineered the murder of her husband, convincing her alleged lover, her ex-boss, to pull the trigger. Andrea says nonsense. She denies even having an affair with her boss, Hemy Neuman. And she even calls him a stalker.

But Andrea`s action, well, didn`t exactly support that claim. Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How often did your bosses send you e-mails like depicted in 4869 with attached flowers?

SNEIDERMAN: Never. But I`ve never been stalked by anyone either.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The stalker that you`ve now testified about, you picked him up at the airport?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You flew home with him.

SNEIDERMAN: That`s correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You changed seats to sit next to him.

SNEIDERMAN: That`s how we always traveled.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You took the limo to your house with him.

SNEIDERMAN: That`s right, and I drove him home.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Eric Schwartzreich, a lot of people have said, oh, they saw them dirty dancing, and there is evidence that they were canoodling, nobody seeing them in bed having intercourse, but when does that happen, really, unless they make a video of it?

But here`s the point. I wonder if the reason they dropped the charges is that Hemy Neuman, the shooter, is still in love with her, even though he`s serving a life sentence behind bars, and it`s clear that he refused to flip and testify against her, and implicate her in the plot. Was the killer, her alleged lover, the real smoking gun?

SCHWARTZREICH: Jane, you hit -- you hit the nail on the head there. Specifically, he`s not going to testify. He`s in prison. In fact, as you`re aware, Jane, there`s another lover that they`re claiming that she convinced or manipulated Hemy to do this before, and the prosecution tried to do that out there. The theory is, is to aggravate him.

But we`ve got two sayings that criminal defense attorneys are fond of. First, a fish doesn`t get caught if it keeps his mouth shut.


SCHWARTZREICH: The more you talk, as a defendant, the more you get in trouble. And the old joke, you know, Jane: how do you know when a defendant is lying? When their lips are moving.

The problem for her has always been is how her testimony is, how she`s come across in court. It`s not a strong case. There`s not a lot of evidence, but she just was not very credible when she took the case, and they probably had stronger charges. They just should have never brought the murder charge. But it`s got no proof. And they`ve got no evidence.

APT: Jane, Hemy`s lawyers won`t let him testify because he has pending appeal. So he`s not legally allowed to testify for either side.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. But I mean, the fact is that, if anybody could implicate her, it would be him. And A, he`s crazy. He said he heard Olivia Newton-John and Barry White giving him differing instructions as to what to do. And he seems to be very mentally unstable. He was found guilty but mentally ill. He`s in a mental institution. Need I say more? A, he`s a weak witness no matter what.

And b, he may very well -- if you`re in love with somebody enough to kill somebody over them, you`re not necessarily going to betray them, no matter what, and then get up there and say something that`s going to hurt them. I mean, this simply could be that the only person who really knows what she told him to do is him. And he`s a nut job -- Jay.

APT: Well, that`s true. That`s all very true. But his lawyers will preclude him from getting on the stand, because they have a pending appeal for him. So he can`t really afford to testify for either side.

And, you know, there`s this discussion about how he could still get 35 years or whatever. But as a matter of Georgia law, for parole guidelines, Andrea is over the age of 40. She`s college educated. She`s got no prior criminal history. So as a practical matter, even if he gets 35 or 40 years after trial, she probably would only serve about 18 months in actual prison.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And that makes me so angry.

APT: It makes me angry, too.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What you just said...

APT: She`s getting away with murder.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What you just said...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know what, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... is an example of our two-tiered justice system. If you`re rich...


VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... and you live in a big house and you`re white, you could be a black widow and, you know, nothing happens. And here`s the thing: that`s not right. Why is she under house arrest? Guilty or innocent, she`s accused -- there`s people doing time for having drugs in their pocket.

More on the other side.


HEMY NEUMAN, CONVICTED OF MURDERING RUSTY SNEIDERMAN: I can`t tell you whether it was my imagination that she felt the same way about me and she actually gave me signals. I don`t know.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At this point, the state would make a motion. Make a motion and cross out counts one, two and three of the indictment.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is accurate, yes.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. That`s the district attorney saying, "We`re taking the top charges off the table." But still, jury election will begin on Monday for the lesser charges. Will they get her on the lesser charges?

And given that she doesn`t have a criminal record, she has a big house, will she get off in a few months anyway? That`s sad, that our two- tiered system of justice encourages us to ask that kind of question.

Now look, the convicted killer, Hemy Neuman, said repeatedly that his employee/alleged lover, Andrea, the one we`re talking about here, told him she would never leave her husband. Is it possible that she didn`t really orchestrate her husband`s murder, but she said something that this guy took as a cue to kill?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He also told me that Andrea was adamant, that she would not leave her husband and her two kids.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She made it very clear that was not going to happen.

NEUMAN: That`s what you`re saying, but that`s what she said from the beginning.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He continually asked me what I thought he should do.

NEUMAN: I said, in the future, I would -- you know, I`d like to continue to develop a relationship and she said, "No. I`m committed to Rusty."


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Straight out to the Lion`s Den. Is it possible that she simply unintentionally planted the seeds by saying things like, "Well, listen, I`d love to get together with you, honey, but I`m married and I`m not going to leave my husband," so -- and then he took that as, I know what to do now. Holly Hughes.

HUGHES: Yes. Unintentional, or he`s the perfect patsy. Who better than somebody who`s mentally unstable to goad, to poke, to constantly use that kind of language with?

Basically, she`s being rewarded for being a good criminal. I mean, she didn`t go get (ph) a gun to off her husband. She chose a man that she then takes the stand in his trial and says, "Well, he`s crazy. He`s unstable. He stalked me." Well, then you should have known better to be involved with him in any way.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Final word, Eric Schwartzreich?

MARTIN: Jane, I don`t think this woman -- I don`t think anything is unintentional about this woman. Everything we`ve seen about her, all the evidence suggests she`s very purposeful, very specific in her actions and all the lies that she`s told, I think if she wanted her husband killed she picked this guy...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Eric, last word: ten seconds.

SCHWARTZREICH: Jane, is it possible? Absolutely. People stalk; people pick patsies all the time. But the problem for Andrea Sneiderman, her lawyers, is every time she opens her mouth, she`s a train wreck. Her testimony in Hemy`s trial was just -- it was fascinating to watch. That`s why everyone is interested in this case, Jane.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jury selection starts on Monday. And we will be right there. Thank you, fantastic panel.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dropped his son off, said -- gave his son a kiss, said, "Son, I love you, and I`ll see you later," just like we do every day, and he never got that opportunity to see him again. That bothers me.




SNEIDERMAN: I didn`t know what happened to Rusty until I got to the emergency room.


SNEIDERMAN: No one told me what happened to Rusty.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, they pretty much tried to hang their hat on the fact that she knew her husband had been shot before anybody told her, which is very odd.

Now, this lady is her former best friend, who said some things on the stand that weren`t favorable to her, and then take a look at this infamous kiss where it seemed like she was getting the "Godfather" hug there right before -- well, you`re the attorney for that former BFF, Jay Apt.

I think there`s a danger if they try to convict Andrea Sneiderman of cheating. That`s not a crime.

APT: That`s right. Adultery, while technically is a crime on the books in Georgia, no one has been prosecuted for it in the last 100 years. It`s not a crime.

The crime would be if she lied about it on the stand. That would be perjury. And she obstructed justice and prevented the prosecution from properly investigating their case.

And then the other crime would be if she was complicit or in on the murder. But Robert James doesn`t want to pursue those charges.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s the prosecutor. Thank you, fantastic panel. George Zimmerman on the other side.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I feel bad that we can`t give them the verdict that they wanted.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We thought about it for hours.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No justice, no peace.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No justice, no peace.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No justice, no peace.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It just went terribly wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Imagine, they`re white.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He could have walked away and gone home.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Trayvon is not a thug.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You can`t charge him with anything.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I put Trayvon in that casket.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight, breaking news: A George Zimmerman juror steps forward for the very first time and shows her face to the entire world and says she believes George Zimmerman got away with murder. Listen to this from ABC.


MADDIE, JUROR B-29 IN ZIMMERMAN TRIAL: George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can`t get away from God, and at the end of the day, he`s going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with. The law couldn`t prove it, but, you know, the world all goes in circles.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Known only as Maddie, juror B-29 says it got heated and painful as the six female jurors argued behind closed doors over George Zimmerman`s innocence or guilt.

Maddie, the lady that is being interviewed right there, states that she and most of the jurors wanted to find the former Neighborhood Watchman, George Zimmerman, guilty of something in the killing of an unarmed 17-year- old teen, Trayvon Martin, but the laws of the land made it impossible for them, especially when they took into account stand-your-ground. The stand- your-ground law that is right here in the jury instructions that I`m holding in my hands. And Zimmerman`s injuries.

But was this juror actually pushed into the decision of not guilty, against her will? Listen to this from ABC.


MADDIE: I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. Oh, I was. I fought to the end. I mean, it`s hard for me to sleep. It`s hard for me to eat. Because I feel that I was forcefully included in Trayvon Martin`s death. And I carry him on my back. I`m hurting as much as Trayvon Martin`s mom is, because there`s no way that any mother should feel that pain.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Straight out to the Lion`s Den. Was juror B-29, the woman who is now speaking out on camera, fairly or unfairly pressured into voting for "not guilty"? And we begin with J. Wyndal Gordon, attorney out of D.C.

J. WYNDAL GORDON, ATTORNEY: I say no. She had the opportunity to deliberate with all of her fellow jurors. She had an opportunity to consider their position and to express her position.

One of the things that she said is that she never read the jury instructions. She said she -- she listened to the jury instructions as they were read to her. So if she was a holdout, if it did violence to her moral convictions, she should have continued to hold out and let the case hang or at least get the other jurors to come on her side of the fence. So I don`t think she...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Easier said than done, though. You ever see that movie the "12 Angry Men." It`s so easy to say, "Oh, I`d hold out. I`d be the one holdout" if you`re not sitting in that room being the one holdout.

And I`ll throw it to Frank Taaffe, former neighbor of George Zimmerman, and a friend of Zimmerman`s, and a supporter. I mean, this woman said your buddy, she feels, committed murder, but she just didn`t think there was anything in the law that would allow her to vote that way.

FRANK TAAFFE, FRIEND OF GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: Well, I commend her for upholding her verdict and the fact that it was merely based on the facts and the evidence presented by the state, which the burden of proof was on the state. It was not on the defense.

The only problem I really have with this juror is that she might have post-verdict remorse. You know, we can parse and dissect everything after a case. And you know what? She`s a mother of eight. I don`t believe she was bullied. I think, you know, she really could stand her own, if she wanted to. I`m not buying into that.

And the only thing I believe is that she was after the dinero, and not the Robert kind.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Whoa. Oh, my God. She`s not getting any money. Somebody, jump in. Areva, Janet -- go ahead.

JANET JOHNSON, ATTORNEY: Jane, Janet here. After the verdict, the judge says does anyone want the jurors polled? And the state did, which they do when they lose. And they went through, and each and every juror was asked, is this your verdict as an individual? Is this your verdict as a whole? And they all said yes.

So she`s not saying she was bullied that she went to the side she didn`t want to be on. She`s saying morally, this is isn`t what I want, but legally, it`s what I had to do.


MARTIN: You know, Jane, I have to disagree with the panel. I think this woman is definitely saying that she felt a tremendous amount of pressure to acquit George Zimmerman, and in fact, she`s saying that the jury instructions were very confusing to her.

And I think what`s important about this juror, Jane, this is the mother. We kept talking for weeks about how we thought these six women were going to embrace Trayvon Martin. This is the first time we`re hearing a mother come forward and say she believes this teenage boy was wrongfully murdered, and he got away with it. George Zimmerman got away with it. So we can`t discount the pressure that she felt in that jury room.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, all right. Hold on a second. Go ahead.

GORDON: The facts certainly supported in her mind a second-degree murder. How do you go from second-degree murder to absolutely not guilty? So she -- she did not -- she did not apply the law to the facts, because if she did, then you would have to assume that no one could ever be convicted of any type of homicide in the state of Florida...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Frank.

GORDON: ... based upon those jury instructions.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Go ahead, Frank, for one second.

TAAFFE: You know, she went on to state that -- she said this was a publicity stunt. So, you know, she`s vacillating between, you know, her heart and...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s a different thing. That`s a different thing. You`re talking about something else entirely, which we`ll get to later.

TAAFFE: Please.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on a second. Let me move on, and we`re going to continue on. There`s so many issues. You`ll get your turn again in a second, Frank.

Obviously, this was an all-female jury of six women with just one minority, who happens to be the one woman speaking out now, the one we`re talking about tonight in favor of Trayvon`s position and against George Zimmerman. Is that a coincidence?


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: What did you think of George Zimmerman?

JUROR B37: I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place, but just got misplaced by the vandalism in the neighborhood and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: So that`s B37 -- the non-Hispanic white juror. Now you have this minority juror say her heart feels that George Zimmerman committed murder. So here we are in "The Lion`s Den". Race has played a complex role in this case.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Why is it that these two women, these two female jurors find their hearts in different places? Could race be a factor there -- J. Wyndal?


GORDON: Because as they applied the law to the facts, they both agreed that they would have found George Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter and second degree murder. She said he went too far. Anytime you go too far and someone ends up dead, that`s manslaughter.

The other juror said -- she said his heart is in the right place so she felt sorry for him, she felt sympathy for George Zimmerman. That`s why she acquitted him because of her sympathy for Zimmerman.

MARTIN: Jane, let me --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on a second. I cut Frank Taaffe off before. You want to say something?

TAAFFE: Jane, you know, I always listen to what your panelists say, but I agree in part and I don`t concur in part. Here`s the deal, the state never really disproved self-defense.

JOHNSON: Exactly.

TAAFFE: So if it was applicable to murder two, it would be also applicable to manslaughter. I don`t buy this that the jury instructions were convoluted. They asked questions. They asked a question -- she was the only holdout. But you know what -- her heart was in one place, but her sworn oath as a juror and to do the right thing was there. She knew the law and the way it was presented that it contradicted what her heart felt.

But you know what? I commend her for that, and the rest of those jurors.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Janet Johnson.

JOHNSON: I agree.

MARTIN: Jane, can I address your question about race?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wait a second. You want Areva -- address it.

MARTIN: You raised the question about whether race played a role. I can`t help but imagine, I think it`s intellectually disingenuous to talk about race not being a part of this. You have this minority woman who embraces Trayvon Martin. You had B37, one of the five non-minority women talking about George Zimmerman in such, you know, affectionate terms towards Zimmerman.

TAAFFE: This wasn`t supposed to be about race, Areva.

MARTIN: But she never had the same empathy --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let her finish.

MARTIN: -- towards Trayvon Martin. If we had had more minorities on that jury, we can`t help but I think believe and conclude that there would have been a different outcome.

TAAFFE: Areva --

JOHNSON: No, but Jane, can I address that?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, Janet, go ahead. Janet, Janet -- let Janet -- Janet go ahead.

JOHNSON: Maddy said, this juror said it wasn`t about race. And let`s face it. The state was there. They picked this jury, but quite frankly, if emotionally they want to protect the 17-year-old, which everybody does, legally they had to follow the law. And Maddy, this juror, said that that`s what she did. Even though emotionally she didn`t feel good about the outcome and I`m sure nobody felt good about the outcome, black or white. But legally this was the right result and she had to follow the law.

GORDON: I respectfully disagree.


MARTIN: We can definitely disagree on that.

GORDON: Because I say this -- I`m sorry.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No Frank, you wanted to make a point, your hand is raised. Go ahead -- quickly.

TAAFFE: Sure. Thank you. You know, I really respect what everybody is saying here tonight, but the bottom line is that during the voir dire, she really felt that strong about that. She had an opportunity with eight children to not be part of this jury. But she did her civic duty. And she made the right decision. So I commend her for that.

What I`m having a problem with is this aftermath. We all have this post verdict remorse that should have, could have, would have. But, you know, in the end --

GORDON: If you made the right decision, you should be able to sleep at night.

TAAFFE: -- they did the right thing.

GORDON: If you did the right decision --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on a second. All right, J. Wyndal?

GORDON: I say if you made the right decision, there shouldn`t be any problem with you sleeping at night. You shouldn`t be all upset about it. I mean if you really feel convicted to your position. But obviously she didn`t. She followed the group. And she let them persuade her --

MARTIN: She felt pressured. That`s what she`s saying. She felt forced. She`s not saying she felt about the verdict.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Her comment to the indictment of Stand Your Ground, we`re going to debate that right on the other side.

But first I want to tell all of my panelists and all viewers at home, I have a brand new book coming out next month. It`s called "Exposed: the secret life of Jodi Arias" and it continues brand new information about why Jodi Arias murdered -- viciously murdered Travis Alexander. Stunning new information from my sources you won`t get anywhere else and a foreword by Nancy Grace. You can preorder the book online right now. Just go to A portion of the sales are going to charity.

"Exposed: The secret life of Jodi Arias", it will be in bookstores all over America August 20 but you can preorder your copy now.

On the other side of the break, we will continue to debate this new juror coming forward and talking about her remorse vis-a-vis the George Zimmerman not guilty verdict.


COOPER: You mean he shouldn`t have gotten out of the car, he shouldn`t have pursued Trayvon Martin. But in the final analysis, in the final struggle --

JUROR B37: When the end came to the end --

COOPER: He was justified?

JUROR B37: -- he was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin.



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: Did you tell them --


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


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right, what is your --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Of course, prosecutors tried to paint George Zimmerman as a cop wannabe vigilante, and it looks like he might still take his self-appointed job as lookout for the neighborhood seriously. Cops say just days ago, George Zimmerman, now free to roam wherever he wants as a result of the not guilty verdict, helped rescue a family from their overturned SUV just miles away from where he killed Trayvon Martin. Some say he`s a genuine Good Samaritan. Others believe that that entire thing was phony baloney.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are people who believe that this was either staged or George Zimmerman was never there in the first place.

MARK O`MARA, ZIMMERMAN`S ATTORNEY: Sure. The facts are this -- deputy sheriffs showed up and identified George Zimmerman as being on scene. The fire department showed up and identified George Zimmerman as being on scene. And the family identified him as being on scene. Those who want to believe it was staged they can go right ahead and believe that. They can believe that the earth is still flat.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And that`s George Zimmerman`s attorney Mark O`Mara. Let`s go right into "The Lion`s Den".

Frank Taaffe, you`re a friend and supporter, is this a wild coincidence that he just happened to find himself at the right place at the right time to be a real hero, or does George Zimmerman have a hero complex and somehow managed to find a way now to play firefighter/paramedic instead of cop?

TAAFFE: No, I don`t believe it was staged. I think that was George just being George. You know, he did it in our community. He looked out for a woman -- he bought a lock for a woman who was burglarized during the day. I think America is still -- if this was staged and people believe that --

GORDON: I think it was staged.

TAAFFE: -- they can`t believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was still the lone gunman on JFK. So, you need to maybe buy into this, think about the coordination it would take, the sheriff`s department, the highway patrol, the paramedics, what did they do?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s true. All right. You`re making a very good point. Yes, I`ve spent my entire life walking around, I`ve never saved anybody from an overturned SUV. It just so happens.

GORDON: He just faced the killing of a kid, you know, when he murdered him. Well, let me say some believe that he murdered him.

JOHNSON: He`s not guilty.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: He has been found not guilty. We have to stress that. He was found not guilty. But your thoughts, J. Wyndal briefly -- your thoughts on this accident and the timing of it?

GORDON: I think it`s not coincidental. I think it was staged. I think George Zimmerman is a phony, and he`s not suffering from a hero`s complex, he`s suffering from the O.J. complex. He just wants to --


TAAFFE: He put himself out there, J. He put himself out there in broad daylight. How do you know he didn`t roll up on the (inaudible)


MARTIN: You know Jane --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s let the ladies talk here -- Areva.

MARTIN: You know Jane -- it would help if the family that he saved would come forward and tell us in their own words --

GORDON: Exactly.

MARTIN: -- that George Zimmerman saved --

TAAFFE: They`re afraid.

JOHNSON: Why would they want to?


MARTIN: -- that this family was going to do a press conference and all of a sudden they weren`t available to talk to the press. All we know is that it`s suspicious.

TAAFFE: I can answer that.

JOHNSON: Why should they do it?

MARTIN: Very suspicious.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Now wait, Frank you wanted to answer that.

TAAFFE: Sure, I can answer that. They`re full of fear and trepidation. We`re still 12 days post verdict. You know, not everybody --

GORDON: Did Zimmerman pull out his gun to save them?

TAAFFE: -- would jump out there from day one to defend this man. Ok, it takes a lot of moxie. And you know, maybe the family will come out later. We don`t know. But you know --

GORDON: Zimmerman is a phony.

TAAFFE: -- this is still festering.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Janet Johnson?

TAAFFE: It`s still festering. It`s still festering out there. It`s like a scab that will never heal.

JOHNSON: I mean it is bizarrely coincidental. You`re right. You know, I`ve never had this happen. I`ve never seen anybody --

TAAFFE: Yes, like UFOs and crop circles.

JOHNSON: But it does seem like a far-fetched thing that he would stage it. And quite frankly, why would the police --

TAAFFE: UFOs and crop circles.

JOHNSON: Frank, why would anybody -- I agree with you, Frank, so you might not want to cut me off. Why would anybody want to get involved? If you don`t have to come forward and say yes George Zimmerman saved my life - -

MARTIN: Money.

JOHNSON: -- yes. But this family just had -- they were in an overturned vehicle. I don`t think they want to come forward now and say --

GORDON: Zimmerman just --

MARTIN: You`re so naive to think people don`t want to get involved. Everybody is looking for 15 minutes of fame, and if you get involved with George Zimmerman, you`re going to get 15 minutes of fame.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Listen, I have met people who happen to come upon things a lot, and there are certain personality types -- I don`t know whether their ears or antenna but I happen to know a couple of people, and it doesn`t mean they`re riding around with scanners in their car listening to police monitors. But they just happen to have this sort of way of constantly being on the lookout for everybody else -- radar.

MARTIN: I`m oblivious, and I bump into people. But they are the opposite.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. GORDON: If you believe that then you believe George Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

JOHNSON: Cory Booker from New Jersey.

GORDON: If you believe this incident, you believe George Zimmerman acted in self defense.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Getting back to the seriousness of this subject --

GORDON: -- after the battle of his life.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: -- a young man dead, just hours ago. That dead teenager`s mother, Trayvon Martin`s mother, Sybrina Fulton, spoke about how she feels about the not guilty verdict and who she really blames for her son`s death. Listen and we`ll continue our debate on the other side.


SYBRINA FULTON, MOTHER OF TRAYVON MARTIN: I speak to you as a parent. In the absolutely worst telephone call you can receive as a parent is to know that your son, your son, you will never kiss again all because of a law -- a law that has prevented the person who shot and killed my son to be held accountable.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Time for Pet of the Day. Send your pet pics to Brutus and Weenie -- oh, you`re making a scene. And Mysti and Sox, you rock my socks. Wow, you knock my socks off. And Bay -- let`s play, Bay. Let`s have a fun day and play. And Leah, you`re sticking your tongue at me, honey. I was playing with Leah.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In your heart of hearts that you and the jury approached it and came with the decision and you stand by that decision to this day?

MADDY, JUROR B29: I stand by the decision because of the law. If I stand by the decision because of my heart, he would have been guilty.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: ABC News getting that exclusive interview with Maddy, B29, the only juror to show her face. And essentially she is saying that she believed Zimmerman was guilty of something but the law and the jury instructions left her and the other jurors without anything to convict him on.

There`s the injuries. And here I`m holding the jury instructions. It`s the Stand Your Ground law. It says that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm. So bottom line, Areva Martin, is her -- are her comments an indictment of Stand Your Ground?

MARTIN: Absolutely. Jane, you know, I`ve been talking for weeks on your show about how horrible Stand Your Ground laws are, particularly for African-Americans. And if you look at the legislative history when Florida was enacting this law African-Americans legislators warned their state government, they warned people in Florida that if the law was passed it would be a license to kill African-Americans.

We`ve seen it applied disproportionately to African-Americans. We have the Marisa Alexander case. We have so many examples --

JOHNSON: Marisa Alexander is different.

MARTIN: -- of African-Americans being prosecuted --

TAAFFE: Not even congruent.

MARTIN: Absolutely congruent -- absolutely.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, that case is --

MARTIN: It shows the inequities in the criminal justice system --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re right in a sense -- wait a second. You`re right in the sense that she tried to use Stand Your Ground and she was unable to.


MARTIN: When you have a law like Stand Your Ground law you see how it`s disproportionately applied and negatively impacts African-Americans.


JOHNSON: I`m a Florida lawyer -- I have to answer that because I`m a lawyer in Florida.

TAAFFE: Areva, allow me to retort and debunk your theory. Here in the state of Florida --

MARTIN: Not possible, Frank.

TAAFFE: Well, guess what? These are the facts. The facts are that African-Americans in the state of Florida since Stand Your Ground was enacted --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Listen, guys --

TAAFFE: -- were the -- please let me finish.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok, well, we`re out of time.

TAAFFE: In the latest CNN poll -- African Americans -- please.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We can`t let you finish --

MARTIN: I love it when I have the last point. Thank you, Jane.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We have something called the clock. But I thank all of you --

TAAFFE: African-Americans --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And we can`t continue this conversation.

MARTIN: I love it --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`ll be back after this.


JUROR B37: There was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law and reading it over and over and over again, we decided there`s just no way, other place to go.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Little Rico -- we`ve got some breaking news for you. Billions of cows and pigs in peril on America`s factory farms -- these beautiful animals have hearts and minds just like little Rico here. But now the very few protections those animals have on these industrialized farms could be wiped out by one little-noticed amendment dropped into the Farm Bill just passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. Compassion Americans have been fighting coast to coast for decades to get these poor highly intelligent innocent pigs out of gestation crates where they can`t even turn around and they become psychotic.

California`s proposition 2 insures, mandates that animals have enough room to turn around, extend their limbs, and lie down. But this little-known amendment called the King Amendment, named after Iowa congressman Steve King, also called PICA, we`ll explain in a second, it can wipe out Prop 2 and wipe out many other state laws that have been passed around the country by animal lovers like you.

Critics say if this Farm Bill becomes law as it`s written it would gut all of those state laws that insist animals have enough room to at least turn around and stretch their limbs.

Straight out to Nathan Runkle, executive director for Mercy for Animals, an incredible organization. Nathan, how can this one run-on sentence gobbledygook put everything that`s been achieved for farm animals in peril and make their lives even more hellish?

NATHAN RUNKLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MERCY FOR ANIMALS: Well, it`s hard to imagine a worse fate than animal suffering on factory farms. And this amendment would wipe out the few state laws that have been enacted that protect farm animals from horrific abuse. Nine states have moved to ban the cruel confinement of pigs in crates so small they can`t even move around. California moved to ban the force feeding of ducks for foie gras. Other states have moved to ban the sale of shark fins.

But if this dangerous amendment goes through, those would be eradicated, making animal cruelty on factory farms even worse than it already is. We can`t let this pass.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s hard to imagine. Iowa congressman Steve King released a statement on his Web site about the passing of his amendment, which is called the Protect Interstate Commerce Act, or PICA. Remember, that PICA. It reads, quote, "PICA will ensure that radical organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and PETA are prohibited from establishing a patchwork of restrictive state laws aimed at slowly suffocating production agriculture out of existence."

First of all, the humane society of the United States has something like 10 million members and now all of us who love animals are radicals? That I definitely challenge. But what do you make of his statement, Nathan?

RUNKLE: Well, it`s absolutely outrageous, and it`s offensive to all of the voters and Americans who believe that farm animals like dogs and cats deserve protection from cruelty and abuse. And that`s what these laws have done in the states that have passed them --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What should people do? What should people do?

RUNKLE: People need to contact their elected officials and tell them that they should not pass the Farm Bill with this dangerous and un-American King Amendment attached.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. So congress members, congress members, that`s who you have to call. PICA -- that`s the provision that will wipe out any of the tiny protections that these animals have. Nathan Runkle, thank you so much. Mercy for Animals, Humane Society of the United States -- check it out and get involved because these little guys -- dogs, pigs, cows, chickens, they can`t speak for themselves. We have to speak for them. Nancy is up next.