George Zimmerman Trial Day Seven; Zimmerman Trial in Black and White; From O.J. to Trayvon; Interview with J. Cheney Mason; Family's Memories of Fallen Firefighter
PIERS MORGAN, CNN HOST: This is PIERS MORGAN LIVE. Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. Tonight, who is the real George Zimmerman?</s>MARK O'MARA, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Do you know a person by the name of George Zimmerman?</s>MARK OSTERMAN, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN'S FRIEND: Very well.</s>O'MARA: And would you consider him a very good friend?</s>OSTERMAN: Best friend I've ever had.</s>BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: In your opinion, calling somebody in reference to them as -- pardon my language --</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is ill will and spite.</s>DE LA RIONDA: It is?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.</s>MORGAN: Well, the dramatic day in court. My experts break down today's testimony. Also the man who defended Casey Anthony was in court today. He joins me exclusively. Plus a case that divides America, issues of race, class, media excess, not on Trayvon Martin. O.J. Simpson, he was acquitted 20 years ago. Have we learned anything since then? The man who tried O.J., Christopher Darden, joins me exclusively. I'll also ask former homicide prosecutor Star Jones why she says you'll never get a perfect witness in any case, especially this one. But I want to begin with day seven of the trial America is talking about and debating. CNN's Martin Savidge is live for us outside the courthouse in Sanford, Florida. Martin, another day, another dramatic series of witnesses, testimony. What is your overview of how today went?</s>MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, exactly right. I mean, it was a day that had something for everybody in this particular case, whether you're the defense, the prosecution or sitting on the sidelines rooting each. I think one of the highlights had to be the medical examiner that came and went on the stand. That's Dr. Valerie Rao and she has some very interesting exchanges, both with the prosecution and with the defense. But I want to start off with when she was being asked by the defense about were there any injuries to Trayvon Martin, his body, that were found. This was a particular point for the defense. Were there injuries to his hands? Listen.</s>VALERIE RAO, MEDICAL EXAMINER: Those are not cuts, those were abrasions. So, because cut suggests sharp force injury and they are actually where the skin is rubbed off on Trayvon Martin's hand, correct.</s>O'MARA: Are those consistent with striking somebody?</s>RAO: Yes.</s>O'MARA: The only injuries, as a matter of fact, you saw is the gunshot wound, two injuries on his knuckles, correct?</s>RAO: Correct.</s>O'MARA: Any other injuries on Trayvon Martin at all?</s>RAO: No.</s>O'MARA: Any bruising injury?</s>RAO: No.</s>O'MARA: Any laceration injuries?</s>RAO: No.</s>SAVIDGE: Now the medical examiner actually spent a lot of time not talking about the victim in this particular case but talking about the injuries to the defendant, and that's George Zimmerman. And she basically said that the injuries that she saw -- now remember she never actually physical saw him, she's looking at photographs, some medical records, she said they looked insignificant, was the word that she actually used. And that she said she really didn't believe his head had been slammed onto the concrete as severely as George Zimmerman had said, which a key point for the defense.</s>MORGAN: The other interesting witness was Mark Osterman who was purporting to be George Zimmerman's best friend. Now he wrote a book in which there was pretty glaring inconsistencies, not least of which the fact that he claimed George Zimmerman had told him that Trayvon had actually grabbed the gun.</s>SAVIDGE: Yes, right, and we should point out it was Osterman who encouraged Zimmerman to buy that gun in the first place, but you're right. In his testimony on the stand today Osterman says, quoting his book, that at one point George Zimmerman told him that Trayvon Martin not actually just went after the gun but physically got his hand on the gun. That's crucial, again, from the court today.</s>DE LA RIONDA: You didn't refer to the holster when you wrote it down in the book, correct? You just put gun?</s>OSTERMAN: Correct.</s>DE LA RIONDA: Right?</s>OSTERMAN: The holster is -- that's exactly the place where the holster holds the firearm in place. So whether it was the actual firearm or holster, I didn't see a difference if someone grabs a hold of the holster and grabs a hold of the gun during intent is probably the same.</s>SAVIDGE: Well, the prosecution sees a big difference because what they're going to point out is that there was no DNA of Trayvon Martin that was found on that gun and no fingerprints of Trayvon Martin found on the gun. Hence, he didn't touch that gun which means George Zimmerman, once again, is caught in this not quite telling the truth or not quite getting it straight.</s>MORGAN: And very quickly, Martin, what can we expect tomorrow?</s>SAVIDGE: Tomorrow, I think we're probably going to hear from the person who actually did the autopsy. But the most interesting person is going to be a professor who taught law enforcement law to George Zimmerman. In order words, the prosecution is going to try and point out George Zimmerman knew a lot about law enforcement, thereby he might be able to foil the investigators. That could be very fascinating.</s>MORGAN: Yes. Could be fascinating. Martin Savidge, as always, thank you very much. Terrific job you're doing down there on what is a dramatic court case. Joining me now to break down all the twists and turns in this case so far, Marc Lamont Hill, HuffPost Live host and Columbia University professor, also Jayne Weintraub who's a defense attorney. Welcome to you both. Marc Lamont Hill, it's very, very difficult to assess this case, despite everybody's efforts to try and say it's not about race without bringing the race element into it, isn't it?</s>MARC LAMONT HILL, HOST, HUFFPOST LIVE: Oh, absolutely. This case has been shot through with race from the very beginning. We saw the way the police responded to the killing of Trayvon Martin. We saw their failure to investigate, we saw the slow investigation, the fact that they tested Trayvon and not George Zimmerman for toxins in his body. All those things were drawn on racial lines. This became a racialized conversation. And since the trial has started, it's only gotten worse when Rachel took the stand, when the term cracker comes up, that become as racial conversation. When -- I mean, it's unimaginable that this trial isn't about race. The question, though, is can the jurors make an objective determination not from a place where they don't -- where they pretend race doesn't exist, but from a place where they can hold it at arm's length and make a fair judgment.</s>MORGAN: I mean, let me ask you one thing, Marc. We've heard George Zimmerman in his own words from the various interviews that he gave at the time using phrases like A-holes, effing punks and so on. The one thing we haven't heard from him is any racial epithet. And if you study his background in terms of other people that he had reported and so on, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he's being a serial racial profiler in that sense. You know, is it -- is it unfair to him --</s>HILL: Yes, I don't think he is.</s>MORGAN: To suggest that he is a racial profiler?</s>HILL: You know, I think those are two different things. There is no evidence that he's a serial racial profiler. George Zimmerman seems to be somebody who takes -- who self-deputizes. Who makes himself a law enforcement agent and who decides who is dangerous and who isn't. And we -- when he saw a young African American male armed with nothing but Skittles in a hoodie, he saw that as dangerous and that is in it of itself a racial profile and that racial profile turned into a killing. That's the problem. So no, he shouldn't be let off the hook for this. This was racialized determination. Whether it's legally guilty or not, we don't know yet. But it's certainly racialized determination.</s>MORGAN: OK. To Jayne Weintraub, difficult question for you is if Trayvon Martin had been white, would George Zimmerman have gone to all this trouble to follow him, report him and generally treat him like a criminal suspect. He's been called a suspect even through the attorneys in the courtroom?</s>JAYNE WEINTRAUB, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think that he would have, Piers, and the reason that I say that is based on who George Zimmerman is. He's the want-to-be cop. He's the guy who wants to be the neighborhood watchman. If he saw somebody in a hoodie on a rainy night, he didn't see the Skittles, he didn't see anything in the person's hand, and I don't think it's about race. I think it's about what was in his mind at the time that they came into contact with each other and sure, racial profiling, if that happened, is wrong. It awful. It's even a crime. It's a civil rights violation, but that's not what he's charged with. He is charged with second-degree murder, with hatred and ill will, and even the first speaker just now said he doesn't think he's a serial racist. So he doesn't evince the hatred and ill will that's necessary for a murder conviction. Look the state is trying to prove --</s>HILL: No, no, again, that two different things. I said he wasn't serial. I didn't say this wasn't serious. Right. He did it the first -- he did it this time. I'm just saying there is no evidence that he's done it many other times.</s>WEINTRAUB: Look, there was --</s>HILL: And you're right, I don't think he said.</s>WEINTRAUB: Look.</s>HILL: There is a black guy. He said there is a dangerous guy but there is nothing inherently dangerous about a hoodie. There's nothing inherently dangerous about his --</s>WEINTRAUB: And the only people that are talking about race are the prosecution witnesses to evince a motion. Let's remember what the evidence was. You know, I was a former prosecutor --</s>WEINTRAUB: I was a prosecutor, hold on. The police determined after a full investigation that there wasn't sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what they need to prove a case. So two weeks later, the prosecutor giving, I think, outside pressure, decided on her own to make the charge of murder, and I believe that she succumbed to the apparent pressure. Remember that in Florida, we have a grand jury. If it was the community pressure, she could have given this case to a grand jury and decided what, if any, charges to bring. But she did not do that. She's an elected official and we have to put this all in perspective --</s>MORGAN: But Jayne, Jayne, Jayne.</s>WEINTRAUB: The --</s>MORGAN: Let me jump in. Let me jump in.</s>HILL: But that argument --</s>MORGAN: Mark, let me just ask Jayne a question. Do you accept, though, having said all this that had George Zimmerman simply stayed in his vehicle -- he'd already rung the authority. They had already told him not to pursue Trayvon Martin. If he just stayed where he was, did as he was told, the police had turned up. They would quickly have established Trayvon Martin was unarmed and harmless --</s>WEINTRAUB: Then we wouldn't be here.</s>MORGAN: Minding his own business.</s>WEINTRAUB: Nobody should be armed.</s>MORGAN: Exactly. So why -- why should George Zimmerman not be punished --</s>WEINTRAUB: Because he's not --</s>MORGAN: -- for ignoring the advice he was given, getting out of the vehicle, following Trayvon Martin, and then getting into some altercation, pulling out a gun and killing him in cold blood?</s>WEINTRAUB: I'll tell you what.</s>MORGAN: Surely there has to be --</s>WEINTRAUB: I'll tell you what.</s>MORGAN: Whether it's murder or not, doesn't there have to be some accountability?</s>WEINTRAUB: Piers, Piers, I'll show you why. Because he didn't get out of his car to go kill him. He went out of his car to investigate, to follow him and to check it out. Those are not crimes.</s>HILL: Against police orders.</s>WEINTRAUB: That's not what he's charged with. Should he not have had a gun?</s>HILL: Against police orders.</s>WEINTRAUB: Of course, he shouldn't have a gun. I don't think anyone should. As a parent of a -- you know, of a 14-year-old and 21- year-old I look at this and what a tragedy, but I'm looking at it as a lawyer analyzing evidence, Piers, and that's what we have to do. We have to look at the evidence. We don't make a moral judgment to punish people.</s>HILL: Well, let's look at the evidence.</s>WEINTRAUB: The -- the state -- excuse me.</s>HILL: He wasn't going for --</s>WEINTRAUB: Excuse me, the state is trying to refute a case --</s>HILL: -- from central Florida.</s>WEINTRAUB: The state is trying to refute a case that they cannot even prove. That is what's going on in this case.</s>HILL: No, no, no, they're not -- actually, no, that's not -- actually that's not -- that's actually not what's happening. The state is making a case and the defense is attempting to refute it by saying --</s>WEINTRAUB: Really?</s>HILL: -- that it was self-defense. The fact --</s>WEINTRAUB: Really they're making a case?</s>HILL: The fact of the matter, though, is -- well, let me finish -- let me -- let me finish the thought before you disagree with it. The fact of the matter here is that George -- is that George Zimmerman got out of his car against police orders. It's not as if he was just going for a leisure stroll.</s>WEINTRAUB: That's not a crime. Excuse me.</s>HILL: He made a decision to do --</s>WEINTRAUB: That is not a crime. That's not --</s>HILL: No. That part isn't a crime. You're absolutely --</s>WEINTRAUB: That's not even a factor to consider.</s>HILL: But he's not being --</s>WEINTRAUB: The factor to consider is at the moment --</s>HILL: No, no. I'm simply responding to your -- no, no, no.</s>WEINTRAUB: You want to talk about the law or morals?</s>HILL: No. Let me -- let me --</s>WEINTRAUB: This isn't a court of public opinion. We're talking about --</s>HILL: No, no. This was -- we're --</s>MORGAN: OK, let me -- let me jump in.</s>HILL: You make --</s>MORGAN: Let me jump in. Let me jump in.</s>HILL: Your argument is --</s>MORGAN: Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this, Jayne. Let me ask you this, Jayne. You mentioned you had children. If this had been one of your kids when they're a bit older, who had been killed in these circumstances, would you really have been happy that the person that did this walked away without any accountability whatsoever for effectively killing your child in cold blood?</s>WEINTRAUB: Piers, would I be happy? I mean, imagine the question. The question really behooves the answer, is this is a tragedy. There is nobody that's not going to say this isn't an awful, horrible tragedy, and you're right, that shouldn't have happened. However, however, we have laws to abide by in this country and we have laws that keep us in check with one another. For example, let me tell you about a Florida law, that is a jury instruction that this jury won't listen to when evaluating testimony. Rachel's, the police officers, Valerie Rao, who I've had as a medical examiner on the witness stand many times, and others, this is what the judge will tell this jury in weighing the evidence. Did the witness have an opportunity to see and hear what they are testifying about? Think about the witnesses that have testified. Did the witness have an interest in the outcome of the case? Think about that. Do you think Rachel had an interest in the outcome of the case sitting next to Trayvon's parents? I'm not saying it's a racial issue. I'm saying it's a plain credibility issue.</s>MORGAN: OK.</s>WEINTRAUB: You have to examine what the law is.</s>MORGAN: OK. Jayne, got to leave it there. Marc, thank you both very much indeed.</s>WEINTRAUB: Thank you.</s>MORGAN: We'll bring you back. This debate will keep going. This is going nowhere until the end of this trial. There are aspects of this case that may sound eerily family to my next guest. He was a prosecutor in the O.J. Simpson case. A case that of course ended in acquittal 18 years ago. Christopher Darden joins me now exclusively. Chris, you heard the debate there. It's impossible to talk about this case without it turning into a race debate. You had exactly the same thing in the O.J. Case.</s>CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, O.J. SIMPSON PROSECUTOR: True.</s>MORGAN: What is your take on the Zimmerman-Trayvon court action we're seeing?</s>DARDEN: I think it's a race case without question. It was made a race case prior to the case being filed. And the defense played the race card just the other day when they introduced a statement supposedly made by Trayvon when he referred to Zimmerman as a cracker. And so race is -- race is the case.</s>MORGAN: How do you see it playing out? I mean, obviously, Florida has a particular set of laws, which are pretty supportive of what George Zimmerman did. If you believe his version of events.</s>DARDEN: Well, how do I see it playing out?</s>MORGAN: Yes.</s>DARDEN: Well, I think that -- I think this is a case for the defense to lose. I think the prosecution has an uphill battle. I'm not sure that I would have filed this case had I been the prosecutor, whether there was political pressure to do so or not. I mean, we do have laws. We do have rules. And the right to self-defense is a law that has existed in this country since the beginning.</s>MORGAN: But we only actually have George Zimmerman's word for it --</s>DARDEN: True.</s>MORGAN: -- that he was truly acting in self-defense.</s>DARDEN: True. And that's the problem. We only have George Zimmerman's word --</s>MORGAN: Right. We can't hear from Trayvon Martin and the incontrovertible evidence, him getting out of the vehicle, ignoring the advice he's been given on the phone by the police to not follow him, all that stuff we know is true does not lend itself to a guy who's trying to avoid trouble.</s>DARDEN: But it doesn't lend itself to murder, either. I mean, the problem here is, as you say, the only person that really knows what happened, who can really speak to what happened and speak the truth, one would hope, is Zimmerman who has every reason not to be truthful and not to be honest.</s>MORGAN: Right.</s>DARDEN: And I think that as the prosecution picks away at his stories and his prior statements, I think you see that he has not been entirely honest in his description of what occurred, but all the defense has to do is raise a reasonable doubt. The prosecution, on the other hand, has the burden of proof. They have to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt.</s>MORGAN: Have you seen anything evidentially that proves that to your satisfaction?</s>DARDEN: That proves murder?</s>MORGAN: Yes.</s>DARDEN: No, not yet.</s>MORGAN: What about manslaughter? What about the possibility</s>DARDEN: Well, I think if a jury concluded that his so-called belief in the need to use deadly force was unreasonable, then, yes, so you get to manslaughter. A compromise verdict, and that's what it would be, a jury compromising. You know, the prosecution has thrown down the gauntlet. They filed murder, they want murder. And I don't know that a jury would necessarily come back with manslaughter --</s>MORGAN: Let's talk about the jury. In your case, you had a jury that was predominantly female and predominantly black. Here you have a jury which is predominantly female but predominantly white.</s>DARDEN: Yes.</s>MORGAN: How much of an impact will that have potentially, as we saw in the O.J. case where many people believe there was a miscarriage of justice there, could we see a similar situation here?</s>DARDEN: It's hard to say, and I've actually given some thought to that issue. The jury makeup in this case and why the lawyers chose these particular jurors. And it's hard to say. Now, to sit in the courtroom and be a lawyer in that trial and even though you're not speaking to the jurors directly, to have an interaction, see them, how they interact with others, you get a sense of who they are and what their views are and how they react to the evidence. We can't really see that -- I can't really see that. So I'm just not sure. I mean, why these six individuals I suppose to some others, you know, a lot of people will say if the case is lost by the prosecution, that, you know, the racial makeup of the jury was a factor.</s>MORGAN: One key aspect also could be a lot of people in Florida have guns. I think at least four members of the six-woman jury have family members that have guns and they may believe if you own one, you have the right to defend yourself in that situation.</s>DARDEN: Well, having a family member who owns a gun is a lot different than owning a gun oneself.</s>MORGAN: Final question about O.J. Simpson -- obviously got into a whole new heap of new trouble after the trial that you were involved in. What are your thoughts on him today and what's happened to him?</s>DARDEN: When the trial ended and when I wrote a book about the trial called "In Contempt," on the back cover I wrote this little thing, and I said that we all get ours in the end, you know. And he -- he has certainly gotten his. I mean, he is very lucky --</s>MORGAN: Do you believe he's serving the punishment he should have served for the case you brought against him or --</s>DARDEN: No, no he was found not guilty of double-murder in L.A. And there shouldn't be penalty for that. He is serving for what he did in Las Vegas, which was stupid.</s>MORGAN: Chris Darden, fascinating to talk to you. Good to see you.</s>DARDEN: Good to see you.</s>MORGAN: When we come back, my exclusive with Casey Anthony's attorney. He was in the courtroom today for Day 7 of George Zimmerman's trial. I'll be asking him where he thinks it's all heading.