Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Zimmerman's Fate Now with the Jury; Seminole County Sheriff and Sandford Police Chief Make Statements to the Press

Aired July 12, 2013 - 14:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: The jury is now deliberating in the George Zimmerman murder trial. Let's bring in our legal expert panel, Sunny Hostin, CNN legal analyst. We have Faith Jenkins, a prosecutor, Trent Copeland, a criminal defense attorney and Richard Gabriel, a jury consultant.

Before I get to you guys, I just want to go over who these jurors are. A little different than other juries you may know about. There are only six jurors on this panel. There are five white women. There is one Hispanic or black woman. I misspoke earlier. I said it was one Hispanic woman. It is a Hispanic or a black woman.

The range in age here is considerable, from 30s to 60s, and most of the women in this jury are married. So, Richard Gabriel, jury consultant, first to you, this is a process that could take hours, could take days. What's happening right now in this first half hour?

RICHARD GABRIEL, JURY CONSULTANT: Well, the first thing that the jurors usually do is sit down and go, who's going to be the foreperson? Usually this can be established even during the trial because a couple of components happen with forepeople. One is sometimes the most gregarious person becomes the foreperson, sometimes the person in the highest authority position.

You have a safety officer. You have a woman who was a director of a call center who directed 1,200 employees. These are obviously viable candidates for the foreperson. So usually the first thing is who's going to sort of direct this? And then the decision is usually made, OK, how do we go through the evidence because there's two typical scenarios?

One jury is let's go to the verdict questions and let's vote or it's shall we go through the evidence and pore over the evidence. If they go to the vote quickly, then usually you have a quicker verdict. If they spend a lot of time going through the evidence, obviously it can take a lot more time.

KEILAR: Now I want to bring in Trent Copeland. Let me ask you this. Because we watched closing arguments today coming from the defense and then we saw the sort of secondary closing arguments from the prosecution. When you listened to those jury instructions that we heard today, when it comes to second degree murder and it comes to manslaughter, sort of looking back over this entire case, where do you think if there is any the deficit in this case that the prosecution has built that would make it difficult for this jury to find George Zimmerman guilty of either second-degree murder or manslaughter?

TRENT COPELAND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, look. Brianna, first of all, I think the difficulty in the case began with how the case was filed. First of all, I think this case was filed way overcharged. I think the case never should have been filed as a second degree murder case. I think the case probably should have been filed as a manslaughter case if it was filed at all.

So I think right there at the root is where the problem began for the prosecution. I think, though, under Florida law, what we'll have to assess as this jury goes into that jury room is when does the case really start? The case really starts factually when the confrontation starts. That's where the issues for the prosecution really are the most manifest. What they can't establish is when did the confrontation start? How did it start? Who started the confrontation?

At that point really the prosecution's case begins to break down because we just don't know. We just don't have the answers to it. So no matter what you think about George Zimmerman, I've got strong feelings about George Zimmerman and what he did and how he should have behaved that evening. I think a lot of what he did put all of this in motion.

Strictly as a legal matter, strictly as a legal matter, the case begins when the confrontation starts. Who started it, who ended the confrontation, and who responded aggressively in that confrontation? We simply don't have facts to support that. The prosecution's case really falls, I think, in that area tremendously. I think that's where this jury is going to hang their hat and probably find reasonable doubt in this case and not convict him on either charge.

KEILAR: That's right, Trent. Who was the aggressor and is there reasonable doubt or reasonable certainty as we heard Judge Nelson explain to the jury there. Right after a break, we're going to be talking about that very powerful rebuttal closing argument that we heard from Deputy Prosecutor John Guy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: The jury is deliberating in the George Zimmerman murder trial. We're back now with our legal panel. We want to discuss what we saw before the judge gave out those jury instructions and the jury went back to begin deciding George Zimmerman's fate. Today, we saw closing arguments by the defense and then we saw a rebuttal closing argument by Deputy Prosecutor John Guy. Very dramatic, I thought, closing argument that he gave. Let's listen to part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN GUY, DEPUTY PROSECUTOR: This case is not about race. It's about right and wrong. It's that simple. Let me suggest to you how you know that for sure. Ask yourselves, all things being equal, if the roles were reversed, and it was 28-year-old George Zimmerman walking home in the rain with a hoodie on to protect himself from the rain, walking through that neighborhood, and a 17-year-old driving around in a car who called the police, who had hate in their heart, hate in their mouth, hate in their actions, and if it was Trayvon Martin who had shot and killed George Zimmerman, what would your verdict be? That's how you know it's not about race.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Imagine, he was saying, if their roles were reversed here. Sunny Hostin, you were in the courtroom during this time. Did you get a sense of how the jury was reacting to what Guy was saying to them?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, he had them at hello. He had already established a rapport with them because he gave a very forceful opening statement. His cross-examinations were very colorful. Remember, he was the one that was straddling the mannequin on the floor in front of the jury with many of the jurors standing up to see him. So he already has this rapport with the jury.

When he got back up, I've got to tell you. A few times they looked at some of the exhibits he was referencing. But every other time, their eyes were fixed on him. They did not look away. I hadn't seen that kind of reaction with any of the other attorneys during any of the other statements or arguments. So I think that they really, really honed in on what he had to say. It was very, very impressive.

Yes, he did argue from an emotional standpoint in some ways. But he also, also argued the evidence as well. And so I think this jury certainly seemed to connect with him. In particular, we know that there are five mothers on this jury out of the six women that are on the jury. When he described a child's worst nightmare being followed in the dark in the rain by a stranger, I'm a mother of a boy. It resonated with me. I cannot imagine that it didn't resonate with the mothers on the jury.

KEILAR: And so he -- he said that, use your hearts. That's what he -- certainly we didn't hear that coming from the defense when we heard their closing argument. Let me bring in Faith Jenkins. You're a prosecutor. You've served in this capacity. He said there, something that struck me because he said this isn't about race.

And yet what -- to me, that sort of belies that the prosecution is concerned that perhaps it is about race and that jurors may not necessarily identify with Trayvon Martin. Or, as we heard from Bernie De La Rionda, they may not identify with what you could argue is their star witness, Rachel Jeantel. Do you think that's a concern? Is that the right way to read that?

FAITH JENKINS, PROSECUTOR: I think they're being very careful here with their phrasing to not make it that issue in front of this jury and just look at the facts and the evidence and what they've presented and base the case on that. John Guy's presentation, we're taught as prosecutors in order for a jury to believe in your message, they have to believe in the messenger, and he stood there with such conviction, you could tell he really believed what he was telling these jurors today. And when he talked about that one particular issue, they've used the word "profiling" a number of times in this trial without using racial profiling but the words profiling, these jurors know what that means. They know that when they say Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin, he didn't profile him because he didn't like the kind of candy he was carrying. But it was because of how he looked and how he was dressed.

But at the end they came back and they told this jury, look at the evidence, look at the facts. It doesn't matter if it was George Zimmerman, if it was Trayvon Martin. Right is right and do the right thing.

KEILAR: Don Lemon, I know you have some thoughts. How effective do you think this closing argument was?

DON LEMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well -- well, listen. I'm just going to be honest here. As someone who I haven't watched this from gavel to gavel as you say. I'm a layperson here. I'm watching all the legalese and hearing all of you talk about this. To pretend that emotion is not part of a trial or jury is, I think, just completely disingenuous, as someone who has been a juror before, who has served jury duty and decide on certain things.

People go into a jury room and they decide based, yes, upon facts, but human beings are not devoid of emotion, and so they also base their decisions on emotion as well. There is a reason that there are six women who have children, six mothers on this jury. There is a reason that the parents on both sides have testified here about whose voice they're hearing, about what kind of child they have. There is a reason for all of that.

And that is emotion is a big part of that reason. There is a reason that the prosecution at the very end relied upon emotion to give the jury in the end. To pretend that emotion doesn't play into this I think, again, is disingenuous. I'm not a legal expert. But I know when those people go into that room there's going to be emotion in their heart. They're going to weigh their decision on the facts, of course. But they're going to weigh their motion on being a human being. Part of that is being emotional.

KEILAR: The defense certainly knows in that capacity they are at a deficit. One of the ways we saw Mark O'Mara, the lead defense attorney, trying to combat that is by using a block of cement in his closing argument. He was saying that is a deadly weapon basically saying that Trayvon Martin had a deadly weapon in addition to George Zimmerman. We'll see how effective our panel thinks that was right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Now, we've obviously long heard, we're going to put this to our panel. That George Zimmerman had a gun and he was up against an unarmed 17-year-old, the defense very sensitive to this, trying to make the jury think about this in a different way. Listen to what Mark O'Mara said this morning during his closing argument.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK O'MARA, ZIMMERMAN'S DEFENSE LAWYER: Now, I'll be held in contempt if I drop this. So I'm not going to do some drama and drop it on the floor and watch it roll around but that's cement. That is a sidewalk and that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing, but Skittles trying to get home. That was somebody who used the availability of dangerous items from his fist to the concrete to cause great bodily injury. Not necessarily for self-defense, but great bodily injury against George Zimmerman. And the suggestion by the state that that's not a weapon, that that can't hurt somebody, that that can't cause great bodily injury, is disgusting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: The defense clearly sensitive here to what we have heard from the prosecution. That George Zimmerman was armed with a gun and Trayvon Martin was armed only with iced tea and Skittles. Tanya Miller, a former prosecutor, current defense attorney, do you think this was effective or was this too much?

TANYA MILLER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I thought it actually fell a little flat. The problem with this demonstration was, one, the state never said the cement couldn't hurt you. What they said was George Zimmerman is exaggerating the extent of his injuries and that Trayvon Martin didn't use the concrete and the cement in the way that George Zimmerman says he did.

I think the state effectively pointed out in their rebuttal all of these lies and inconsistencies in his statements, including the injuries and the defense did not effectively deal with that in their closing argument. I think this was a feeble attempt to do it. It just sort of fell flat. Of all the things you can show sort of righteous indignation about and be disgusted about, that just didn't seem to be one of them.

KEILAR: What do you think, Trent? Do you agree with that? I mean, you heard from the state, they pointed out Zimmerman said he was hit dozens of times, 25 times. But they say the injuries on the back of his head were not consistent with that.

COPELAND: You know, look, I couldn't disagree more, frankly. With regard to what Tanya said, you know, with regard to all these inconsistencies we keep hearing people discuss I'm not sure what they are. To the extent they exist they're really minor. In fact, even the chief lead detective in the case said that the inconsistencies from George Zimmerman's statements have all been minor.

When we talk about these injuries, look, let's call it what it is. I don't know that I'd want to have the kind of bruises on the back of my head and the gash that George Zimmerman had on the back of his head, I wouldn't want to have that -- have someone call that insignificant. Remember this. If a woman, for example, walks into a police station and she presents with those injuries on the back of her head to a police officer, she will by definition that will be considered great bodily injury. And the police will go out, they'll arrest whoever did this, if it's her husband, it's domestic violence. That's the standard. So we can't take the standard in this case and look at it and say that George Zimmerman's injuries weren't severe. They weren't significant. And then in another kind of case, I do this every day, those kinds of injuries and less, and Sunny will attest to this, those kinds of injuries and less will present in any court of law, in any police station, in every county in this country, as great bodily injury.

So the reality is you may not consider those kinds of injuries to be enough for George Zimmerman to have reacted with a gun, to have shot Trayvon Martin. But strictly as a legal matter, he had the right to do that under Florida law because he presumed that he was going to face even greater injury, even more significant injury.

Remember, the law doesn't require that there be any injury at all. So whether you like George Zimmerman or not, I certainly understand folks who won't, the fact of the matter is that this is a significant injury and it presents as such.

KEILAR: And as we heard the jury will consider, did Zimmerman respond reasonably? That is very much at the heart of this. The jury continuing to deliberate in the George Zimmerman trial. We'll be right back in just a moment to answer the question of how long it might take them to come to a verdict.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Let's get straight now to the Seminole County Sheriff and Sanford Florida police chief holding a press conference.

SHERIFF DONALD ESLINGER, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA: -- not disrupt operations. We encourage all residents that -- to live their lives normally. We will not tolerate anyone who uses this verdict as an excuse to violate the law. I am proud of the efforts of the men and women of our organization and we're going to continue to work hard to provide the best possible service to the people of Seminole County. And now I would like to introduce Chief Smith.

CHIEF CECIL SMITH, SANFORD, FLORIDA POLICE: First, I want to thank you all for being here today and taking the time to be here. Seventeen months ago a tragedy took place here in the city of Sanford. One which has changed the mind set, the perception, what we see in our country today. It also took the opportunity to bring some things to light that may have taken place many, many, many years ago.

Fifteen months ago, 30,000-some-odd people showed up here. During that same time, they requested that several things take place. They wanted an investigation. They asked for an arrest. They asked for charges to be made. They asked for a trial. Each of those things had taken place.

Additionally, they asked for an investigation into the police department, and they asked for a review of the things that have taken place in the police department through the Department of Justice. Each of those things had taken place. But also during that time, a blue ribbon panel was developed to look at issues and concerns not only in the police department, but throughout the city.

Community meetings have been held to talk about issues and concerns that affect the people in Sanford and how we as a community can work together to resolve those. There's been training done with law enforcement. Through the Department of Justice, within the police department, to talk about issues based on biased based policing and ethics.

We've gone out into the community and talked, spoke to people about what their issues, by knocking on their doors, introducing ourselves, to say, let's see how we can improve the relationship between the police department and the community. We've also developed what's called Sanford's pastors connecting where we've connected with the pastors throughout the entire city.

And those pastors, regardless of their religion, their beliefs, set those aside so that they get a good feel for the things that are happening, communicating with each other, talking about the things that are going on within the community because in this case, they are the ones who have the opportunity to unite, to have that vision, to see the direction that the police department working through the pastors, how our community can move forward.

And as we await this verdict, we want to remind everyone that the city of Sanford has been a peaceful location since that time 17 months ago and it remains a peaceful location. An example of that is when you come into this -- the building here today, the number of people who are in the area for free speech, we've learned some lessons through this past 15 months.

Many of which we're going to move forward with in seeing how we can band together to make Sanford a much better place. But part of that is communications and being able to talk to each other about the issues and how we can improve upon the things that need to be done in our community. More needs to be done.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that everything is peachy keen in the city of Sanford. I'm not going to do that, but what I will tell you is this. Our community is working together to be a better community, to be an example for the other people throughout -- throughout Florida, throughout the nation. To be the example to talk about issues, to put things on the table, to see the direction that we can do better.

We can do more. And as a community, it becomes our responsibility to work together to talk about what the issues and things that are out there. It's our community. And when this trial passes, it will still be our community. When everyone is gone and the cameras are gone and the light is no longer shining on Sanford, it will still remain our community. An example of how community can come together in a crisis to work together to resolve issues, to be peaceful, to put their things on the table, to talk about what is out there and how we can move together.