Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Interview of Zimmerman Juror B37

Aired July 16, 2013 - 20:00   ET


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: More exclusive insight into a six- woman jury in Florida reached a not guilty verdict in the killing of Trayvon Martin. Part two of my interview with the woman known only as Juror B37 and is no less revealing than part one was last night.

She never served on a jury before and says she never wants to again. She also has plenty to say about the instructions the jury was given, instructions she says that virtually guaranteed George Zimmerman would go free. They reminded jurors that self-defense does not include a duty to retreat from danger if possible.

Today in nearby Orlando Attorney General Eric Holder addressing the NAACP National Convention spoke out against these Stand Your Ground laws.


ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety. It is our collective obligation. We must stand our ground.


To ensure --


We must stand our ground to ensure that our laws reduce violence and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent.


COOPER: Now again, for all the sympathy that the juror appears to show for George Zimmerman, Juror B37 says the judge's instructions tied their hands and again that's not all she said when we sat down yesterday. We spoke for nearly an hour with an unexpected interview, frankly. We had planned to meet only -- to meet her but not conduct an actual interview.

That all changed late in the day when, to our surprise, she said she agreed to talk on the record. We did the interview, rushed, just minutes before air time last night and as I said, we spoke for nearly an hour. Too much to fit into the program last night so you'll be hearing the rest of it tonight, part two.


COOPER: Did you cry in that jury room?

JUROR B37: I cried after the verdict. I didn't cry out when they were reading the verdict out in the jury room because we were all crying before we went in, and then --

COOPER: What do you mean you're crying before you went in?

JUROR B37: Well, we were in a separate room when the foreman handed the bailiff our verdict and then we were crying back there before we went into the jury room. So they gave us about 20 minutes to try and get everything together.

COOPER: What do you think you were crying about?

JUROR B37: The pressure, the pressure of all of it and everything just kind of came to a head because I kind of tried to keep everything out, emotionally out during the whole process, and then it just flooded in after it was done.

COOPER: But you want people to know and the reason you're speaking is you want people to know how seriously you took this?

JUROR B37: I do. I don't want people to think that we didn't think about it and we didn't care about Trayvon Martin. Because we did. We were very sad that it happened to him.

COOPER: And you wanted his family to know that, as well?

JUROR B37: I do. And I feel bad that we can't give them the verdict that they wanted, but legally we could not do that.

COOPER: Do you think Trayvon Martin played a role in his own death, that this wasn't just something that happened to him, that this is something he also --

JUROR B37: I believe he played a huge role in his death. He could -- he could have -- when George confronted him and he could have walked away and gone home. He didn't have to do whatever he did and come back and be in a fight.

COOPER: And the other jurors felt that, as well?

JUROR B37: They did. I mean, as far as I -- my perspective of it, they did.

COOPER: So you think based on the testimony you heard, you believe that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor?

JUROR B37: I think the roles changed. I think -- I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there, but Trayvon decided that he wasn't going to let him scare him and get the one over up on him or something, and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him.

COOPER: You called George Zimmerman George. Do you feel like you know him?

JUROR B37: I do. I feel like I know everybody.

COOPER: Do you call Trayvon, Trayvon, as well?

JUROR B37: I did. Trayvon wasn't as well-known by us because there wasn't as much said about him. All we really heard about Trayvon was the phone call that he had and the evidence they had found on him. We basically had no information what kind of a boy Trayvon was, what he did. We knew where he went to school and that was pretty much about it, and he lived in Miami.

COOPER: What would you say to Trayvon Martin's parents, to Tracy and Sybrina?

JUROR B37: I would say I'm terribly sorry for your loss. It's a tragedy. That's pretty much all I can say because I don't -- you know, I didn't know him, but I felt their pain because of his death.

COOPER: What do you hope for for George Zimmerman now?

JUROR B37: I hope he gets some peace because I'm sure he's going to be on slot by media for months at a time. I hope his family can live a normal life after awhile. I don't know how he's ever going to do that, but I hope he can. He'll never forget, but I hope he can.


COOPER: Before we hear more, I want to bring in our panel, veteran prosecutor Paul Henderson, criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos, senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and defense attorney, Danny Cevallos.

COOPER: Jeff, it's interesting listening to her talk. She said she didn't really get a sense of who Trayvon Martin was. Do you think that could have made a difference?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I might have but probably not. And you know trials are not really about the defendant, and I don't know how --


COOPER: But she's clearly got a sense of who George -- she believes George Zimmerman was because she felt she could say what was in George Zimmerman's heart.

TOOBIN: Absolutely.


COOPER: That his heart was in the right place. TOOBIN: I mean, her identification with Zimmerman is really very striking and I think somewhat unusual. I mean, the degree to which she feels sympathy, even almost a kind of affection for Zimmerman is striking.

You know, trials are about defendants, and his -- Zimmerman's intent, Zimmerman's background, Zimmerman's intent, that's what -- that's what the case was about and Trayvon Martin, there really was not much of an opportunity to present a human face on him or was there or --


TOOBIN: I don't know.

MARK GERAGOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Look, if you were the prosecutor in this case and you had not been used to putting away young black men for the last 20, 30 years, you -- you might have painted a picture where they would resonate with Trayvon as opposed to Zimmerman. What was masterful by the defense is the defense made this about George. They made those jurors want to help George and they -- I thought that that one witness besides the detective, the one witness who talked about the black males trying to get into her house, that resonated with this jury.

TOOBIN: At the very end.

GERAGOS: At the very end and that's exactly -- that plays into the archetype of what, you know, I hate to say it, the kind of racial archetype of black males as predators.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Something to think about in this case, the prosecution explicitly decided to make George Zimmerman's life in the months leading up to this an issue, and when they did that, I think the defense exploited that and they were able to humanize George Zimmerman.

Part two of that is the defense's own witnesses I thought were just brilliant because they served multiple purposes. You might have a guy coming to testify, this is -- I'm a medic. I know what screaming sounds like, and then backdoored in this character evidence about George Zimmerman.

Hey, a combat medic in Vietnam is the kind of guy that hangs out with George Zimmerman, and you learned -- they used these witnesses for multiple purposes strategically? Just sublime.

COOPER: Paul, do you think it would have been possible to present evidence about who Trayvon Martin was, or would that have opened them up to challenges by the defense about bringing in tweets and stuff from Trayvon Martin's past?

PAUL HENDERSON, VETERAN PROSECUTOR: Well, it depends on what they used and how they introduced it. But I would agree that the defense I feel did a masterful job of introducing those little throwaway lines that matter, that talked about George Zimmerman being a good friend and a nice guy and the best friend that anyone could have and we didn't hear testimony like that or comments like that from the witnesses that were put on by the prosecution, but it's those little nuggets that I think would have helped or could have painted a better picture about Trayvon, because you heard them saying that they didn't know anything about him.

They didn't know what kind of kid he was, other than what school he went to, and I don't know that it would have made a difference, but I certainly would have tried to put that information in there with the witnesses I had.

GERAGOS: The most competent prosecutors would have. Most competent prosecutors would not have put on an African-American male professor who was going to say wonderful things about him so that they could get in the tidbit that he learned about Stand Your Ground and then get decimated on the cross-examination by the guy saying yes, he was a great student, wonderful guy, blah, blah, blah.


COOPER: It's so interesting, I mean, I read this study recently about -- by a number of economists and they looked at trials in Florida from 2000 -- I think it was 2010 and with all-white juries when there was a black defendant, they convicted that black defendant 16 percent times more than if it was a white defendant, and if they had -- if the reverse was if they had one African-American juror instead of an all-white jury, that inequality in sentencing between the black defendant and the white defendant it went down to a negotiable difference.

GERAGOS: Right. Because it's -- it's no longer an elephant in the room. And it's not group thinking and everything else. That's why it's so important in jury selection. That's why there's the whole developed body of law that you can't -- the prosecutors can't and defense now what we call reverse Batson, can't strike people or cognizable class. That is the most important part of the trial. I'm saying until the --

TOOBIN: Mark, I mean, you know, you said from the very beginning that this case was over in jury selection. I'll tell you one thing that's just odd about this whole situation is the six-person jury. Now that's unusual. It's constitutional and some states have it and Florida is one. But if this had been 12 people --

COOPER: Their chances of having an African-American on the --


TOOBIN: It seems -- it certainly would be much higher. And frankly, you know, this county is -- it's not heavily African American but there is a substantial African-American presence and I just -- I think the six-person jury hurt the prosecution here.

CEVALLOS: It's important for a lot of viewers to understand. I mean, hearing a lot about a jury of his peers and jury of his peers. It's important for people who know that you can't have any constitutional guarantee to the -- a final jury being representative or a peers, whatever that may be. Really all that requires is that the jury pooled be cold from a reasonable cross section of the community. Your ultimate jury as long as it satisfies Batson, can be just like what we saw. Six females.

COOPER: It's interesting, Paul, that you hear that Juror B37 say that she believes Trayvon Martin played a role in his own death, that -- I mean, she sort of --


HENDERSON: Yes, she --

COOPER: -- only view them as equally part of this.

HENDERSON: She's very judgmental about that and the part that stood out to me was when she said when confronted by Zimmerman he could have walked away, he should have left or he could have done something and we wouldn't be here which to me raises the whole of issue of well, what about his self-defense rights? What if he did, in that confrontation, used the only thing that he had, which was his fist and then he ended up getting shot when he was confronted by this man with no color of authority?

With no representation of being police officer, was armed and came at him. We don't really know what happened but I find it very interesting that she is completely judgmental about Trayvon Martin and says that he was probably angry. We don't have any of that information. She's filled in the gaps and adopting the defense's perspective.

COOPER: And clearly --

TOOBIN: But that's the defense, I mean --

HENDERSON: That's why we are where we are with this verdict. Yes.

TOOBIN: She didn't make it up. I mean, she didn't sort of invent this. When she accepted what the defense argued --

COOPER: Right. That Trayvon was --


TOOBIN: Trayvon threw the first punch, he was on top during the confrontation. So I don't think you can condemn her for, you know, making up some scenario just out of bias or something else. She looked at the evidence --

GERAGOS: No, if -- I agree with that --

HENDERSON: But nothing else -- nothing else got presented to her.

GERAGOS: Well, but you know, the problem is remember -- Paul, you know this. We're talking to jurors after they reach a verdict. They then go into that -- you know, they retrench and they're going to -- they're going to say whatever they need to say. I mean, this is why talking to jurors afterwards, it's great when you win and it drives you insane when you lose.

COOPER: We've got to take a quick break. Our exclusive interview continues. There's a lot more you haven't heard yet.

Let us know what you think. Follow me on Twitter. Let us talk about it during the break, @andersoncooper.

Next, Juror B37 answers two key questions -- excuse me. Did she want George Zimmerman to take the stand and this.


COOPER: When you lay your head tonight on the pillow, in your heart and in your head you are 100 percent convinced that George Zimmerman in taking out his gun and pulling the trigger did nothing wrong?



COOPER: More now of our 360 exclusive interview with Zimmerman Juror B37. At the top of the program she said that Trayvon Martin played, in her words, a huge role in his own death. Now her thoughts on the elements that in her mind added up to a not guilty verdict and what makes her so certain, even though she never had a chance to see the defendant testify and face cross-examination.


COOPER: George Zimmerman, obviously, did not testify but his testimony essentially was brought into the trial through those videotapes, a number of videotapes where he walked police through a reenactment of what he said happened.

How important were those videotapes to you?

JUROR B37: I don't really know, because I mean, watching the tapes, you could -- there is always something in the back saying is it right? Is it consistent? But with all the evidence of the phone calls and all the witnesses that he saw, I think George was pretty consistent in what -- and told the truth, basically.

I'm sure there were some fabrications, enhancements, but I think pretty much it happened the way George said it happened.

COOPER: Would you like have to have heard Zimmerman testify? Would you like to have seen him on the stand so he can be cross- examined?

JUROR B37: I don't think it would have done any -- been any different. I don't -- I don't think he -- I think he would have told the story the same exact way.

COOPER: So you don't think him being on the stand, being cross- examined would have made any difference?

JUROR B37: I don't think it would have, I really don't.

COOPER: Do you think the state overcharged by going for second- degree murder? Do you think if they had gone into it, started off opening statements saying manslaughter, it might have made a difference in terms of the end result?

JUROR B37: It wouldn't have made a difference if they would have given us the same paperwork they gave us. They gave us the laws and we went by the laws, and that's how we found him innocent. If they would have given us manslaughter and everything that was attached to it, it would have come out the exact same way.

COOPER: You hope you never serve on a jury again?

JUROR B37: I told them that. After -- after we had polled and gone down stairs, they said is there anything that anybody wants to add to this? And I said, can I get out of jury duty for the rest of my life? And the one girl said well, you can for a year. I think I should get out of jury duty for the rest of my life.

COOPER: Can you tell me just a little bit about that last day in the jury room deliberating? I mean, you went for so long. Did you know you were close?

JUROR B37: We knew we were close. We knew we were close five hours before we got to where we were because we were slowly making progress the entire time. We didn't come to a stumbling block. We were reading and reading and reading and reading and knew we were progressing.

COOPER: And did the jurors, did you-all get along well? I mean, was there conflict? Was there -- how did the deliberation process? How was being together this long?

JUROR B37: The deliberation was -- it was tough. We all pretty much get along. It's hard sometimes to let other people talk, you know, at one time and then have somebody else talk instead of adding your comments to whatever they were saying trying to help figure it out what we were trying to figure out.

At times, I thought we might have a hung jury because one of them said they were going to leave, and we convinced them that you can't leave. You can't do this. You have been in this too long to walk out now.

COOPER: They were going to leave for personal reasons, family reasons?

JUROR B37: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

COOPER: When you lay your head tonight on the pillow, in your heart and in your head you are 100 percent convinced that George Zimmerman in taking out his gun and pulling the trigger did nothing wrong?

JUROR B37: I'm 101 percent that he was -- that he should have done what he did except for the things that he did before.

COOPER: You mean he shouldn't have gotten out of the car, he shouldn't have pursued Trayvon Martin but in the final analysis and 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.


COOPER: I'm back with the panel. Paul Henderson, Mark Geragos, Jeffrey Toobin and Danny Cevallos.

Paul, what stands out to you as you listen to this juror?

HENDERSON: The fact that she starts off with saying that testimony from the actual defendant would not have made a difference, and I've been doing this a long time. I don't think I've ever heard a juror say that before, but they were so convinced by the presentation, that that's what she believed and the fact that she tied it to the instructions that were given to them, saying that if those same instructions were given, that it wouldn't have made a difference, so there is no issue of overcharging.

There's no issue about the child endangerment and what difference that would have made, at least according to her, but to me listening to that, what that tells me from a lawyer's perspective, is that I think the lawyers -- especially from the prosecution should have done a better job and focused and concentrated on those instructions more to make them more clear because it's very clear that she didn't understand or she didn't like, because clearly she rejected that perspective as presented from the prosecution and ended up with the verdict that they ended up with.

TOOBIN: But the key strategic decision --

HENDERSON: Very interesting. (INAUDIBLE) testimony.

TOOBIN: -- that the prosecution made is underlined by her testimony which is they decided to introduce all those tapes of these police interviews, these interviews with FOX News.


TOOBIN: They put his story in front of the jury. Now their theory was they were so contradictory, it would show he was a liar. I never bought that to start with. But I think the fact that she sort of developed this affection for Zimmerman through these tapes underlined what a bad decision that was.

GERAGOS: And it was not only a bad decision to do it, they knew because they have pretrial depositions that their lead investigator was going to get on the stand and say he didn't think those differences were material. So this could never --

COOPER: I -- I was told that in the pretrial depositions he was not quite as favorable to the defense. He didn't speak about the defendant in such glowing terms --

GERAGOS: Right but he did.

TOOBIN: Mark O'Mara took a -- Mark O'Mara took a gamble, yes.

GERAGOS: He took a gamble on that thing.

TOOBIN: Sure paid off.

GERAGOS: But he did say in the pretrial depositions that there were no material inconsistencies.

COOPER: Right.

GERAGOS: And he also, to Paul's point, they never had to introduce any of those things. That's what we've said here.

COOPER: Right.

GERAGOS: All of that could not -- I mean that was a defense lawyer's dream. I fight in every case to get my client's statement in and it's itself serving hearsay. You can't get it in. The prosecution can because they are the adverse party but I mean every -- at every step of the way and then Paul also says they should have concentrated on the law, remember the argument I had with Sunny about the closing arguments when he got up there, McDreamy or McLoser, whatever his name is. And did that final closing argument?

I said that was an abortion in terms of an argument. He didn't talk about the law he was pounding the desk. They didn't -- and remember, they said they were back there struggling with the law. Jurors, you know, emotionally go so far with jurors. You have to explain the law to them.

As she said and one of the things you tell jurors is there is no guide book as to what you do so I'm going to suggest this, having been a lawyer and trying cases, I'm going to show you what you have to do and you will lead them through the law. They didn't get anywhere near there.

CEVALLOS: If you go back to Mark O'Mara's final the thing that struck me in the way I was just scribbling notes in my head was his conversational tone and he spoke almost as if he was one of the juror, as if you could picture him in the jury room as one of the -- the 7th juror walking through the decision-making process.

And I have to believe when that door closed and they started to deliberate they could hear that conversational tone as he just casually walks through each juror. There was no question he structured the closing that way.

GERAGOS: Which is why -- which is why closing arguments are not to convince people. That's the biggest misnomer. A closing argument is so that you can give the jurors already with you the arguments --

TOOBIN: The road map.

GERAGOS: To road map and what they're going to do when they go and deliberate.

COOPER: Thanks for saying that.

GERAGOS: You walk them through it. You're not turning anybody around at that point. They may lose their minds --


COOPER: At that point their minds are made up.

GERAGOS: Their minds have already been made up?

COOPER: Do you agree with that, Paul?

HENDERSON: Yes. Yes, I do agree. And you know the other thing that stood out, Anderson, was until you referenced that there was an individual that all almost walked out, that couldn't deliberate that was done and to hear that I know the prosecution is like grasping their heads feeling like we could have had a mistrial if we could have explained to that one juror that was frustrated how she could have must held out, we might have been in a different place. So I think it's interesting.


COOPER: I should point out prior to the interview of the juror B37 told me that some of the details of why that one juror thought about leaving and it wasn't necessarily related to the trial, from my understanding. It was related to her personal family issues, a child care issue. That's at least the understanding that I was given before the interview began.

GERAGOS: Yes, but you never know is that a pretext or anything else. The fact she said it was split to begin with is exactly --

TOOBIN: Right.

GERAGOS: Paul has got to be as a prosecutor thinking, I cannot believe what these guys did. They took this case and they -- I will say it again. I think they threw it. I just think they threw the case.

TOOBIN: That's so ridiculous.

COOPER: All right. Everyone, stay where you are. GERAGOS: How else could they be so lame?

COOPER: We're going to have next, more of the interview of Juror B37, stuff you haven't heard before. She says t the jury was split when they first started deliberating, we talked about that, three not guilty, two manslaughter, one second-degree murder.

Next, you're going to hear how they got from that initial vote to acquittal.


COOPER: Can you talk about the process of the other jurors changing their minds?



COOPER: Now more of my exclusive interview with Zimmerman Juror B37. Parts you have not heard. She takes us inside the jury room telling me what she and other jurors found compelling, what they didn't and whether there were any holdouts on deliberations.


COOPER: Do you have any doubt that George Zimmerman feared for his life?

JUROR B37: I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time.

COOPER: So when the prosecution in their closing argument is holding up the Skittles and holding up the can of iced tea and saying this is what Trayvon Martin was armed with, just a kid who had Skittles and iced tea, you felt George Zimmerman -- did you find that compelling at all, or did you find Mark O'Mara with the concrete block compelling?

JUROR B37: Mark with the concrete block. Definitely. The Skittles and the Arizona can were ridiculous to even put it up and compare the two. I mean, anybody can be armed with anything. You can bash somebody's head against a tree or a rock or this concrete.

COOPER: So you believe that Trayvon Martin was slamming George Zimmerman's head against the concrete, without a doubt?

JUROR B37: I believe he hit his head on the concrete. I think he was probably trying to slam it. I don't know how hard George's head hit on the concrete. It hit enough to get damage, bruising, swelling. I think it was definitely enough to make you fear when you're in that situation.

COOPER: And the photos of George Zimmerman, the photos of his injuries, to you those were all -- were those something you also looked at in the jury room (inaudible)? JUROR B37: We did. We did. We did all the -- that kind of evidence first, and then we listened to all the tapes afterwards.

COOPER: And that was important to you because that also made you believe George Zimmerman was legitimate in fearing for his life?

JUROR B37: I believed it. I believe because of his injuries.

COOPER: Can you talk about the process of the other jurors changing their minds? You talked about the first juror went from second-degree murder to manslaughter, then put out the question to the judge for manslaughter.

JUROR B37: Uh-huh.

COOPER: And then it was basically because of the jury's reading of the law that everybody finally decided manslaughter doesn't hold?

JUROR B37: That's exactly why.

COOPER: Was there any holdout?

JUROR B37: There was a holdout, and probably -- well, we had another vote, and then everybody voted -- put it in the little tin. We had a little tin, folded all our little papers and put it in to vote, and she was the last one to vote. And it took probably another 30 minutes for her to decide that she could not find anything else to hold George on, because you want to find him guilty of something. She wanted to find him guilty of something, but couldn't because of the law, the way the law is written. He wasn't responsible for negligible (sic) things that he had done leading up to that point.

COOPER: Did you also want to find him guilty of something?

JUROR B37: I wanted to find him guilty of not using his senses, but you can't fault anybody -- I mean, you can't charge anybody for not being, I guess, I don't know, you can't fault him -- you can't fault -- you can't charge him with anything, because he didn't do anything unlawful.

COOPER: You are saying he overreacted or maybe was too eager, made bad choices, but it wasn't against the law.

JUROR B37: Exactly, that's exactly what happened.

COOPER: You're saying maybe it wasn't right -- it wasn't right getting out of that car, but it wasn't against the law?

JUROR B37: Exactly. He started the ball rolling. He could have avoided the whole situation by staying in the car, but he wanted to do good. I think he had good in his heard. He just went overboard.


COOPER: Good in his heart he just went overboard. That's what she believes. I'm joined by our panel, Prosecutor Paul Henderson, Criminal Defense Attorney Mark Geragos, senior legal analyst, Jeff Toobin and Criminal Defense Attorney Danny Cevallos.

Paul, it is so interesting how this juror and I assume the other jurors, as well, felt that they knew what was in George Zimmerman's heart.

HENDERSON: I agree. I mean, there is a complete adoption of the Zimmerman presentation from his defense team. Again, she goes back to the jury instructions and says they poured over it trying to find something, which to me raises the flag of it's the prosecution, the road map was not given to them clearly enough so they could understand a pathway to find accountability.

And to hear that, I know the prosecution is listening saying they were looking, pouring through the papers to try and find some level of accountability with the rules that they were given, and couldn't find any. That to me is a big loss in your presentation that you did not give them those tools.

That you didn't prepare and ever it clear to them this is how you find accountability with the charges given to you in this room and that's what really stands out to me, that she keeps saying again, and again and again.

COOPER: Was there a way to find accountability, given the laws?

TOOBIN: I don't know --

COOPER: She said it was bad judgment to get out of the car, but you can't convict of bad judgment.

TOOBIN: Sure, and you know, Mark especially is very critical of the prosecutors and I think it was a mistake to introduce the videos of the interviews, but the evidence is what the evidence is. And I don't think there was, you know, some secret witness out there that they should have called.

There is one issue in this case is what Zimmerman's intent. This was not a "who done" it? Everybody knows who shot whom. Everybody knows when the crime took place. The issue was what he was thinking and intending when he did it and when you only have one survivor of the encounter, the person whose telling the story has a tremendous advantage.

COOPER: Is she correct and the jury correct that it didn't matter that he was the one to get out of the car? It didn't matter what happened up until they were in a struggle and that's all that mattered once the struggle began, what George Zimmerman felt?

TOOBIN: Absolutely. She is right about that. There is no crime. There is not even -- there is nothing unlawful about him getting out of the car. Of course, in retrospect, we wish he stayed in the car but he gets out of the car. He is on the phone. That 911 call, he's actually outside during most of it.

And remember, the dispatcher is saying to him, what does he look like? So he's -- you know, we all focused on the dispatcher saying, you know, we don't need you to follow him, but the dispatcher is asking questions what is going on.

COOPER: Which this juror is zoning in on.

TOOBIN: Right, so this was not a -- I mean, her view of the evidence is not crazy.

GERAGOS: It's not only not crazy, it's completely defensible based on what was presented, I, frankly, there is no other verdict based on what was presented. I know that people will -- that polarizes people, but the way this case was presented and was argued --

TOOBIN: What could they have done differently?

GERAGOS: I will -- Paul, do you want me to jump in here --

HENDERSON: Please, please -- please let me jump in.

COOPER: Paul, let's talk about things.

HENDERSON: Let me say, there is a couple things like the first thing that jumps out to me is that there was a road map to convict and have a different version of events and we raised that issue earlier. When the witness says that Trayvon was saying get off, get off. There you have it there the fight wasn't according to the version that Zimmerman gave them, but then again I know this issue comes up and we dance around it. I think the race issue is really important. I feel like it was important and I feel like the defense used race.


HENDERSON: I feel the prosecution needed to address race, even if that would not have changed the juror's mind, I think the viewers and the audience and America would have felt like well, you raise the issue and let them know -- speaks to the intent.

GERAGOS: Paul --

HENDERSON: Let's talk about --

GERAGOS: Wouldn't you say when the prosecution because I don't know about you, but I never had two jurors on a Batson motion re- seated and then you end up with an all-white jury. At that point you say, okay, if I've run out of pre-emptory challenges, will I go straightforward with the same case or retool? If you're going to retool --

HENDERSON: You have to --

GERAGOS: You have to retool. It's prosecutor incompetence not to and too to keep going forward with the same case with that jury is absolute malpractice.

TOOBIN: The judge also did something weird here. The judge said the prosecution could say profiling but not racial profiling. I don't even know what that means. COOPER: We got to take a break. It is interesting. At 10:00 we have a special on race and justice in this country, both related to this case and our history and Angela Corey, the sister attorney for California is -- for Florida will be there. She -- and I ask her about race and she really goes out of her way to try to not say that race was part of this. I mean, she says race was not part of it --

GERAGOS: Watch and it see if you feel if that was a genuine response.

COOPER: Exactly. We'll be right back.


COOPER: More now of my exclusive interview with Zimmerman juror B-37. A lot was made of the animation that was played in court. Some called it a cartoon -- Jeff called it that -- showing what may have happened in the fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin. And in this part of the interview, I got the juror's take on that animation.


COOPER: And the defense, in their closing argument, played that animation of what they believe happened. Did you find that credible?

JUROR B37: I found it credible. I did.

COOPER: Do you think that's what actually happened? Because in that animation, Trayvon Martin throws the first punch.

JUROR B37: I think there were maybe some other issues and stuff leading between that, like what exactly -- where George went exactly, and where Trayvon went exactly, because nobody knows where the two of them went to, but they both met in the back, and I think that's where it started.

COOPER: What did you think of the testimony of Trayvon Martin's mother and father? Did you find them credible?

JUROR B37: I think they said anything a mother and father would say, just like George Zimmerman's mom and father. I think -- they are your kids. You want to believe that they are innocent, and that was their voice, because hearing that voice would make it credible that they were the victim, not the aggressor.

COOPER: So in a way, both sets of parents kind of canceled each other out in your mind?

JUROR B37: They did. Definitely.

COOPER: Was that true for the other jurors, as well? They felt those testimonies kind of canceled each other out?

JUROR B37: I can't speak for the other jurors, but I believe with the feelings and the indications that they also -- testimonies just kind of canceled each other out. COOPER: Do you think any of the witnesses lied?

JUROR B37: I can't think of any witnesses that lied. I really can't pick out any that lied. I think some might have heard things that weren't there because of their perspective, the stress. Like when somebody is stressed from hearing a gunshot, people react differently, and so people -- ask 10 different people 10 different things and you get 10 different answers.

COOPER: The prosecution didn't use the word racial profiling during the case.

JUROR B37: Uh-huh.

COOPER: They used the word profiling.

JUROR B37: Uh-huh.

COOPER: And that was something that was worked out between the judge and the lawyers when the jury wasn't in the room.

JUROR B37: Right.

COOPER: Do you feel that George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin? Do you think race played a role in his decision, his view of Trayvon Martin as suspicious?

JUROR B37: I don't think he did. I think just circumstances caused George to think that he might be a robber or trying to do something bad in the neighborhood, because of all that had gone on previously. There were unbelievable, a number of robberies in the neighborhood.

COOPER: There is talk of the Justice Department perhaps filing civil rights violation charges against George Zimmerman. Do you think George Zimmerman violated Trayvon Martin's civil rights?

JUROR B37: I don't think he did. I don't think he did at all. I don't think he profiled him as a racial thing. I think he profiled him just as somebody in the neighborhood that was suspicious.

COOPER: So when he said "these f-ing punks, they always get away with it," he wasn't referencing race. He was referencing young people who had broken in --

JUROR B37: I think he was referencing frustration because of everything that had been happening in the neighborhood. I think he was -- he was down to the point where he wanted -- he wanted somebody to take -- you know, get blamed and get caught, so maybe some of this would stop.

COOPER: And, as you know, there have been demonstrations in a lot of cities in the last day or so. I don't know if you've seen images of some of them. There are people holding up signs saying that African-American males are unsafe on the streets, or that, you know, what -- one columnist who was on my program last night said, who was African-American, said that he had to have a conversation with his sons about what speed is it OK for them to walk. You know, is too slow suspicious, too fast is suspicious, as well.

Do you think any of that is -- do you understand what that is, where that comes from? Or do you think race had nothing to do with this, and therefore this doesn't say anything about African-Americans and--

JUROR B37: I don't think race had anything to do with this trial. I mean, just because he was black and George was Spanish or Puerto Rican, I don't think it had anything to do with this trial, but I think people are looking for things to make race play a part in this trial.


COOPER: Back with our panel, Paul Henderson, Mark Geragos, Jeff Toobin, and Danny Cevallos. I should also point out. There had been a lot of tension. In fact, yesterday, this woman and her husband had a book agent and were said to be shopping around about the idea of writing a book about her experiences. Today, she put out a statement saying they are not proceeding with that. She has no intent with trying to proceed to get a book deal.

TOOBIN: Every question you asked her, she answered with the defense version. Every question, yes I believe the cartoon. Yes, I believed -- no, he was not profiling -- she liked that. I don't know if that's because she actually did feel that way or once you vote not guilty, you have to --

DANNY CEVALLOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And it just underscores the importance of finding your advocate on each jury who will go in there and fight for you. If it's 3-3, it's not 3-3. If three are wall flowers and three individuals, it makes a huge difference.


COOPER: That's interesting. Paul, you found that, as well?

HENDERSON: I found that, as well. I just wanted to say one thing, I think it's interesting she rejects the whole concept of race because watching the trial I saw race being introduced and heard race when they talk about the neighbors that broke in. They talked about race. Introduction or the attempt to try and bring in text messages that were false, all alluded to stereotypes that were negative and I feel all of that had to do with race.

I never heard race addressed adequately and I do absolutely believe it affected this jury and these jurors own cognitive part is not allowing her to see it or hear it --

GERAGOS: She's not the only one. How about the prosecution's --

COOPER: Our entire 10:00 hour is a town hall meeting on that subject, on race and justice and we got a great panel, Mark is there and Jeff is there. Jeffrey Cannon is there, really an excellent panel and thoughtful discussion at the 10:00 hour. Paul Henderson, thank you. Mark Geragos, Jeff Toobin and Danny Cevallos, thanks.

Another high profile defendant back in front of a judge today working to set a resentencing date.

Also tonight, what killed "Glee" star Corey Montieth, medical examiner has released the cause of death. We'll be right back.


COOPER: Welcome back. Another quick reminder about a program that we're proud of at 10:00 tonight, a special "AC 360" town hall on the vital issues raised by the Zimmerman trial, race and justice in America. What justice means to African-Americans and white Americans. What parents tell their kids about whether the law is there to protect them of not. It's a compelling conversation. Here's a quick sample.


CHARLES BLOW, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I struggle with the idea that my boys have to be divested of innocence, that either I have to do it, the man who loves them or someone else will do it who does not love them.

COOPER: Geoffrey, is this a conversation you've had?

GEOFFREY CANADA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, "THE HARLEM CHILDREN'S ZONE": Anderson, here is what is so sad about this. The very people that you're supposed to turn to when you're scared, those of us who raise boys and I have my 15-year-old here are telling them when you deal with these folks, there is a likelihood they might kill you, right?

That's a horrible thing. So when you're around them, the ones who have state -- the state has given them the authority to protect you. You have to worry because they will probably kill you before they will do anything else.


COOPER: Our man, Geoffrey Canada, is a personal hero of mine. There were so many moments like that one, very powerful voices and different points of view, "Race and Justice in America," an AC 360 town hall. Please don't miss it an hour from now right here on CNN.

I want to get you caught up quickly on some of the other stories we're following. Isha is back with the 360 Bulletin. Isha, welcome back.

ISHA SESAY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thank you, Anderson. Now Jodi Arias is back in court today. The judge setting the stage for her re- sentencing, most likely in late September, previous jurors couldn't agree whether Arias should face the death penalty or life in prison for murdering her ex-boyfriend.

NSA leaker Edward Snowden officially filed his application for temporary asylum in Russia. If the request is granted, Snowden would be allowed to leave Moscow's airport and even travel aboard, but a decision could take three months.

Passengers on board the Asiana flight that crashed in San Francisco are suing the airline along with Boeing, the plane's manufacturer. Flight 214 slammed into the runway killing three people and injuring dozens of others.

Coroners in Canada determined "Glee's" Corey Monteith died from a mixture of heroin and alcohol. Monteith's body was found Saturday at a Vancouver hotel.

Anderson, a group of paleontologists say a newly discovered fossil proves tyrannosaurus rex was a hunter and not scavenger. A T- Rex tooth was found in the tail of a smaller dinosaur that indicates T-Rex was a predator. I would have to say I agree.

COOPER: That's cool. Isha, thanks very much. We'll be right back.


COOPER: Join us one hour from now at 10:00 p.m. Eastern for "Race and Justice in America." AC 360's town hall, Geoffrey Canada, Charles Blow, Newt Gingrich, a great conversation about a really vital issue, especially in the wake of the Zimmerman verdict. "PIERS MORGAN LIVE" starts now.