PoliticsNation, Tuesday, June 25, 2013

June 25, 2013
Guests: Faith Jenkins, Lisa Bloom, Ken Padowitz, Terri Sewell; Jeffrey
Rosen, Zachary Carter, Kendall Coffey

REV. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: A dramatic day in the George Zimmerman
murder trial. For the first time, the jury sees graphic photos from the
crime scene. And hears about the moments after police arrive on the scene.
We will bring you all today`s news on the trial.

But we start with the other big legal story of the day, the Supreme Court`s
5-4 decision to gut a key part of the voting rights act, one of the
signature achievements of the civil rights era. The conservative majority
ruled that Congress has to find a new way to decide how states get federal
permission to change their voting rules, or if they have to get permission
at all.

Chief justice Roberts wrote that, quote, "things have changed in the south,
and that after 50 years, things have changed dramatically."

But millions of Americans know firsthand that is simply not true. Yes, the
country has changed. But not enough. President Obama said he was deeply
disappointed. Quote, "for nearly 50 years, the voting rights act enacted
and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress has helped
secure the right to vote for millions of Americans." Attorney general Eric
Holder also condemned the decision.


ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: This decision represents a serious
setback for voting rights and has the potential to negatively affect
millions of Americans across the country. These problems have not been
consigned to history. They continue to exist. Their effects are real.
They`re of today, not yesterday, and they corrode the foundations of our
democracy. Our country has changed for the better since 1965, but the
destination that we seek has not yet been reached.


SHARPTON: He is right. Our destination has not been reached. For
Congressman John Lewis, beaten within an inch of his life while marching in
Selma, Alabama, in 1965, today`s ruling was personal.


REP. JOHN LEWIS (D), GEORGIA: These men that voted to strip the voting
rights act of its power, they never stood in unmovable lines. They never
had to pass a so-called literature test. Come and walk in our shoes. Come
and walk in the shoes of those three young men that died in Mississippi.
Come and walk in the shoes of those of us who walked across the bridge on
bloody Sunday, March 7th, 1965.


SHARPTON: No question about it. This ruling is a direct blow to the
heroes of the civil rights movement, a blow to all those who were beaten
and bloodied on the march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965, a blow to the
legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks, who were in the room
when President Johnson, as he signed the voting rights act into law.

And as if to mock justice Roberts` claim that things have changed
dramatically, right after the ruling today. The state of Texas implemented
its voter id law, a law that a federal court has already said intentionally
discriminates against black and Hispanic voters. This was ruled by federal
court last year showing that we`re not talking about just 1965 abuses.
We`re talking about things that are going on right now, that still needs
preclearance by the justice department to protect voters today, which is
why this decision is so egregious in the sight of so many of us.

Joining me now is Congresswoman Terri Sewell, Democrat from Alabama`s 7th
congressional district which includes Selma and Montgomery, and Jeffrey
Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center.

Thank you both for coming on the show.

REP. TERRI SEWELL (D), ALABAMA: Thank you, Reverend Al.


SHARPTON: Jeffrey, give me your reaction to today`s ruling.

ROSEN: I think it`s a remarkable act of judicial activism. As justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her passionate dissent, this is an
attempt to overturn the considered decision of Republicans and Democrats in
Congress, of President George W. Bush, who signed the law, and of more than
two decades of settled expectations.

And Justice Ginsburg produced lots of empirical evidence of how voting
discrimination continues in places like Texas and Alabama and all the
states that are covered under those jurisdictions. She showed that the law
has actually worked in preventing discrimination. And she had an
incredible line. She said the fact that section five has worked in
stopping discrimination means that throw it out is like throwing out your
umbrella in a rainstorm, because you`re not getting wet. I mean, she
really understood how significant the affect of this decision was and how
active it was to strike down this law.

SHARPTON: No, it was devastating.
Congresswoman Sewell, you know the importance of section five. In the last
two decades, the justice department has used section five to block more
than 2,000 proposed voting changes because they were discriminatory. So
we`re not talking about a `60s problem. We`re talking about all the way
through the last election. Now with this gone, it only enables people to
discriminate according to the courts now.

SEWELL: Exactly, Reverend Al. You know, this is a sad day, not just for
this nation, but especially for Alabama. You know, the very case, the
Shelby case, actually points to the discriminatory effects of what happened
when we don`t have preclearance.

You know, the Shelby county case was brought because of a redistricting
plan that the effect of which actually ousted the African-American elected
official. And this, as you said, wasn`t in the `60s or `70s or `80s. This
was in 2006. You know, I can`t say what the intent was of the
redistricting plan. But we can all agree that there was discriminatory
effect on that plan.

And so for the Supreme Court to rule, to strike down the coverage formula
in the Shelby county case I think is not only ironic, but it`s really
tragic. And I really hope that we in Congress will act quickly to make
sure that we protect the right to vote for all Americans.

SHARPTON: Well, you know, Jeff, when you look at the fact that the chief
justice Roberts, he wrote a majority opinion, quote, "our country has
changed. And while any racial discrimination in voting is too much,
Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem
speaks to current conditions."

Well, that sounds to me like, well, the patient is not all the way healed.
So find out how to heal the patient in total, and we`ll withdraw the
medicine that has been keeping the patient going while you`re looking for
that. It seems like a crazy way to do something, unless you really don`t
care about the patient.

ROSEN: Well, I think your metaphor is even better than Justice Ginsburg`s
metaphor about the umbrella and the rain. So, I think you should be on the
Supreme Court, Reverend.

But I think you`re absolutely right that according to the dissenters, this
was just completely unrealistic. Chief justice Roberts basically said you
know what? In 2009, we told Congress that we thought these preclearance
formulas were a problem, and we gave Congress an opportunity to change
them. Since they didn`t do that, we`re going to have to strike the law

But in practice, and the congresswoman knows better than anyone, it is very
hard to persuade majorities in Congress to single out some states and not
others for special federal preclearance. So it`s an unrealistic decision.
Although chief justice Roberts held open the possibility that Congress
could act to resurrect these formulae, in practice it`s going to be very,
very tough. And that`s why already we`re seeing things like voter ID
requirements which are being resurrected in Texas after the Supreme Court
approved them earlier this week. Those are going to proliferate throughout
the country. And the truth is, it`s not enough to challenge these
requirements after they`re already implemented. You need preclearance to
prevent them from happening in advance.

SEWELL: Exactly.

ROSEN: And that`s exactly what is going to be much, much harder to do
after today`s decision.

SHARPTON: But Texas, for example, Congresswoman, the federal court there`s
said it was discriminatory. Not in 2006, last year, in the last election.
And had not the justice department had this section five, the ability to
stop it with a preclearance, that section four, which was overturned today
had named Texas, Texas, South Carolina, Florida.

SEWELL: Right.

SHARPTON: We would have had those discriminatory things in place where a
lot of people couldn`t have voted last year. And tonight they don`t have
that protection.

This night we`re sitting somewhere where we were a long time ago where
there is no protection in those areas, states, or districts, including some
in New York that have a history of discrimination and as late as last year
in Texas and other places that is named in section four now that the green
light has given, change and do what you want, and Texas has already run
through that green light, Congresswoman.

SEWELL: And you know, Reverend, I have to tell you this that in this, the
50th year of so many pivotal events in the civil rights movement, I`m a
daughter of Selma, I grew up in Selma, Alabama, and now representing the
civil rights district. I think that it`s appalling that the Supreme Court
threw out 12,000 pages of evidence that Congress used in order to uphold
the current formula. It`s as if the will of the people doesn`t matter.

And so, I think that while it will be hard-pressed to actually come up with
a new formula, I think that it is incumbent upon all of us to rally and
really make Congress institute a better formula. So I just think that we -
- on the cusp of the 50th anniversary of the march on Washington, I really
hope that the march on Washington will be about voter rights as well as
about jobs and freedom.

SHARPTON: I guarantee you it`s going stop about that this year. We
announced it yesterday. It will definitely be about voter rights since
this August.

Let me go back to you, Jeff. President Obama talked about the potential
impact of the Supreme Court ruling that set back section five in an
interview with Joe Madison. Listen to this.


see less protection before an election with respect to voting rights. And
people could keep coming up with new schemes each election, even if
ultimately they were ruled to violate the voting rights act, it would be
hard for us to catch those things up front to make sure that elections are
done in an equitable way.


SHARPTON: Now, this was in February of this year, an interview. He
released a statement today. What can be done? Clearly we`re talking about
rallying and marching and people going to congress. What can be done
legally to deal with this supreme insult?

ROSEN: Well, the most important thing that can be done, as you`ve been
discussing, and as the congresswoman said is for Congress to pass new
formula. And that requires that she also said mobilizing citizens.
President Obama was a community organizer organize originally and Congress
is not going to have a chance at passing these new districts unless
mobilize citizens recognize these matters. They`re not going to be able to
cast ballots because of discriminatory voter ID requirements and other
attempts to change where polling places are located. Attempts to not allow
voting over the weekend, for example, which happened before the last
presidential election. This is really about the right to cast a vote, and
citizens have to care about it in a very visceral way.

SHARPTON: Congresswoman --

SEWELL: Right. I don`t see how my Republican colleagues can actively seek
to try to restrict voting rights in the face of evidence, overwhelming
evidence that while progress has been made, we have not arrived to the
destination as attorney general holder said. And so, I just think that we
have to hold everyone`s feet to the fire and hold us all accountable to
making sure that we protect the right to vote and not seek to
disenfranchise the least of these among us.

SHARPTON: Congresswoman Terri Sewell and Jeffrey Rosen, thank you both for
your time tonight.

And clearly, we are going to keep fighting and mobilizing. This is clearly
something that people gave their lives for. We can certainly stand up and
protect it.

Still ahead, heart-wrenching testimony in the George Zimmerman trial. The
cop who tried to save Trayvon Martin`s life takes the stand.

Plus, Mr. Zimmerman`s past calls to police about suspicious characters.
What do they say about his frame of mind? And will the jury be allowed to
hear them?

And remember, I want to hear from you. Send me your e-mails. "Reply Al"
is coming.

Stay with us.


SHARPTON: Have you joined the "Politics Nation" conversation on facebook
yet? You will bet, we glad you did.

Today, our audience was talking about all sorts of topics, from the Supreme
Court ruling to the Zimmerman trial. In fact, thousands of you watched the
Zimmerman hearings live today via our facebook page. But if you weren`t
one of them, don`t worry. We`ve got all the latest news from the day`s
developments coming up next.

But first, we want you to join the "Politics Nation" facebook page. Please
head over to facebook and search "Politics Nation" and like us to join the
conversation that keeps going long after the show ends.


SHARPTON: Powerful testimony in day 12 of George Zimmerman`s second-degree
murder trial as the case went right to the crime scene on that terrible

The jury heard from five witnesses, a neighborhood watch liaison, the
homeowner association president for Mr. Zimmerman`s neighborhood, a Sanford
police sergeant, a crime scene technician, and a resident of the gated

The most emotional testimony came when the police sergeant recounted about
how he administered CPR to Trayvon Martin after he was shot in the chest.
The prosecution showed graphic photos of Trayvon Martin`s body after he had
been killed, most of which we have decided not to put on TV.


SGT. ANTHONY RAYMONDO, SANFORD POLICE: Mr. Martin was lying face down with
his head oriented generally towards the north and his hands underneath his
body, sir circumstances.

JOHN GUY, ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR: Is that a fair and accurate depiction of
the way Trayvon Martin`s body was positioned when you approached it?

RAYMONDO: Yes, sir, it is.

GUY: Did you see any movement from Trayvon Martin`s body as you approached

RAYMONDO: No, sir, I did not.

GUY: Did you hear any sounds coming from Trayvon Martin when you
approached him?

RAYMONDO: No, sir, I did not.

GUY: Did you attempt to see if Trayvon Martin was still alive?

RAYMONDO: Yes, sir.

GUY: How did you do that?

RAYMONDO: I attempted to get his pulse, sir.

GUY: Did you hear anything when you were performing CPR on Trayvon Martin?

RAYMONDO: Yes, sir.

GUY: What was that?

RAYMONDO: Bubbling sounds, sir.

GUY: And what did those bubbling sounds indicate to you?

RAYMONDO: It meant that either air was getting into or escaping from the
chest in a manner that it was not supposed to, sir.

GUY: All right. And what did you do upon hearing those bubbling sounds
from Trayvon Martin`s chest?

RAYMONDO: I called out to the crowd that was gathering nearby and I asked
for saran wrap and Vaseline, sir.

GUY: And what would be the purpose of saran wrap and Vaseline?

RAYMONDO: I was going to try to seal the chest wound, sir.

GUY: After Trayvon Martin was pronounced dead, did you or anyone else put
anything over his body?

RAYMONDO: Yes, sir.

GUY: And what was that?

RAYMONDO: I put an emergency blanket over Mr. Martin`s body, sir.

GUY: And what was the purpose of that?

RAYMONDO: Well, one, it was respect for the deceased. Two is to mitigate
trauma that witnesses or family members may be exposed to if they arrived
on scene. And then, three, was to preserve any physical evidence on the
body, sir.


SHARPTON: Trayvon Martin`s parents were in the courtroom during his
testimony. His father, Tracy Martin, walked out as the photos were
displayed. Trayvon`s mother, Sybrina Fulton remained, but looked away as
the photos of her son`s body were shown to the court.

Jurors were also shown multiple photos taken on the night of the shooting.
The jury`s first look at some of the crime scene evidence in this murder

Joining me now is former prosecutor Faith Jenkins, MSNBC legal analyst Lisa
Bloom, and Florida defense attorney Ken Padowitz. Thank you all for being



KEN PADOWITZ, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Thank you for having me.

SHARPTON: Lisa, how does this crime scene evidence, including these photos
of Trayvon Martin`s body, affect the jury at this point in the trial?

BLOOM: You know, I think it`s very powerful. I have analyzed many murder
cases. And yet when I saw these photos on any monitor today, I`m watching
the entire trial. I had to gasp. I mean I know this is a case about a
young man whose life was taken. I knew it was coming. But still, it`s
very disturbing to see the photos of a young man, 17-years-old, with a
bullet hole through him. It has to affect any human being.

SHARPTON: "I knew it was coming", you said. Faith, we all knew it was
coming, but it got real today. This is about a real life lost, all of what
goes with that. The scene of him dying, the scene of the bullet wound, and
there is mothers on that jury, Faith.

JENKINS: And this is now not just a charge on an indictment on a piece of
paper anymore. It`s not a movie. This is real life. The jurors, they saw
Trayvon Martin`s father get up and leave the courtroom. They know he is
not going to the bathroom. They know it`s because he is in pain from
seeing these photos. All of the emotion in this case is on one side. It`s
on the prosecution side. And they`re going to use that. The defense,
they`re going to in return try to be as technical as they possibly can,
minimize that emotion. But, it is absolutely undeniable here.

SHARPTON: Now, Ken, let`s talk about some of the technical stuff. Because
a crime scene technician identified several pieces of evidence she came and
collected and processed through the crime scene. Here is that technician
with the prosecutor John Guy. Listen to this.


GUY: Could you hold up the firearm for the jury, please. Tell the members
of the jury what it is and how you progress it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This would be the Arizona tea can, shown in the

GUY: Package of skittles.


GUY: And the headphones.


SHARPTON: Now, she showed the skittles. She showed the actual gun. Ken,
she also took photos of Mr. Zimmerman`s injuries when he arrived at the
police station. And you get the exchange between her and Mr. Guy about the
possible blood injuries. How effective is this to the jury?

PADOWITZ: This is extremely effective, Reverend Al. I mean what we`ve
done is, what`s happened in this trial is it went from an academic exercise
in justice to the jury getting the actual evidence in this case, hearing
about a young man dying on the ground while a detective is trying to save
his life. They`re seeing this skittles. They`re seeing it in person.
They`re seeing the gun, the murder weapon. This was a tremendously
powerful exercise in front of this jury. It brought that jury there to the
murder scene, there to the evidence, and it had a powerful impact on the
jury. It`s exactly what the prosecution was attempting to seek when it
presented all this evidence that went before the jury today.

SHARPTON: Now, Lisa, something interesting. You kept saying last night
it`s got to be about the evidence. It has to be about what we see with the
forensic evidence and the other evidence.


SHARPTON: Not just emotion.


SHARPTON: We heard today, though, that they had done all they could at the
scene to preserve any of the evidence and all that happened. If that is
so, then how will the defense explain there was blood even under the nails
of Trayvon Martin, or any bruises when the technician said they tried to
protect the integrity of the scene?

BLOOM: Well, that`s true. And she did say that. But the defense did make
some good points on the cross-examination of the crime scene technician.
It was raining that night. That is undisputed. And it took a couple hours
for some of this evidence to be photographed and bagged. We know from the
defense opening statement that Trayvon Martin`s hands were not bagged. And
that`s important because that`s of course where the blood would be, blood
on his hands, blood under the fingernails. So I think that`s going to be
the defense argument.

The defense also got the crime scene technician to say on cross-examination
there was no chemical testing for blood, commonly known as luminal testing.
So, it`s only what the eye could have observed. And since it was raining,
some of that blood could have been washed awe away.

SHARPTON: Wouldn`t they have needed a lot of rain, Faith, to wash away any
DNA, any blood even under the nails if there was the fight that we were
told at one point by the defense that they would need a lot of rain,
wouldn`t they?

JENKINS: Right. And here was even testimony today there was no blood on
the concrete where George Zimmerman his head had been bashed. But the
defense, all they need to do is plant a seed in the jurors` mind that
somehow this crime scene was compromised. Somehow, someone did not do
their job, plant a seed of reasonable doubt in one of those jurors to try
to get an acquittal or a hung jury.

SHARPTON: Now, Ken, reasonable doubt is clearly something that helps the
defense. But the point is going to be what is reasonable if you cannot
answer some of the questions that are going to be raised. And I think that
no one knows that in any case.

The real point I think here today is what? That they want to show the
actual murder, the actual life that was taken and what it really means not
on paper, as I think faith says, but a real life, a real live human being,
a 17-year-old kid, unarmed, doing nothing wrong.

PADOWITZ: Exactly. That`s what they`re trying to paint here. And the
prosecution is doing a fantastic job of doing that. They are not only
communicating to this jury through words, they are doing it through
pictures. They are doing it through testimony. They are doing it through
emotion. And that`s going to have an impact on these six women as they sit
there and they absorb all of this evidence.

It`s no longer an academic exercise. This is a real human being, a young
man who was gunned down and died. And this is the aftermath and some of
the evidence that is significant to the prosecution. And I think that they
hope it`s significant to this jury.

SHARPTON: One of the things that I noticed today, Lisa, is that the
officer talked about giving CPR to Trayvon. But no one said at the scene
that Zimmerman showed any kind of emotion, any kind of remorse, and he was
not saying the guy tried to kill me, none of this was heard today.

BLOOM: That`s true. Contrast this sergeant, who was trained to always use
a mask when giving CPR to an unknown person. But he didn`t because he said
this was an extraordinary situation. I didn`t have time for a mask. I had
to administer CPR. He put his mouth directly on Trayvon Martin`s mouth and
breathed into him in an attempt to save his life. And we haven`t heard yet
from these witnesses, but we know they`re coming from the opening statement
that Zimmerman was calm to the point of detached at the time that some of
the lay witnesses saw him at the scene.

JENKINS: And that goes towards the prosecutor`s argument here of second-
degree murder. That ill will, depraved mind. That he had some kind of
attitude towards Trayvon, because this is a man who essentially watched a
17-year-old die right in front of him and did not try to render aid.

SHARPTON: Well, Faith, Lisa, and Ken, stay with me. We have a lot more to
talk about.

Still ahead, the neighborhood watch coordinator takes the stand. What she
told George Zimmerman about taking matters into his own hands.

Plus, Mr. Zimmerman`s past calls to police. The prosecution wants them
heard in court, but will they be allowed?

Stay with us.


SHARPTON: Up next, the defense says that George Zimmerman`s past calls to
police do not show ill will. So why are they trying to block them from the
case? That`s next.


SHARPTON: This morning before witnesses began testifying, the judge in the
George Zimmerman murder trial held a hearing on whether the jury should
hear calls Mr. Zimmerman made to police before the night Trayvon Martin was
killed. The defense wants the calls kept out of the trial, arguing they
are irrelevant to what happened that night. But the prosecution argued
they`re crucial to the case.


RICHARD MANTEL, PROSECUTOR: I think the states should be allowed to
establish through relevant evidence like prior calls whether or not the
defendant`s allegation that he is suspicious simply because he is walking
around in the rain is one thing, or if he considers a lot of other things
to be suspicious in and of themselves. We`re going back again.

Some calls within about anywhere between two weeks and six months prior to
show the building level of frustration this defendant had with calling
about suspicious people not following them and having them get away.


SHARPTON: The calls are recordings from five times Mr. Zimmerman contacted
the police from the summer of 2011 through early 2012. Most calls focused
on people he said were suspicious, or who matched descriptions of burglary
suspects. The one call was prompted by an open garage door.


GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, SHOT TRAYVON MARTIN: I have the key. My name is George
and I live at the retreat at Twin Lakes subdivision.


ZIMMERMAN: I`m part of the neighborhood watch. And I just wanted to let
you guys know that somebody left -- we`ve been plagued with robberies and
burglaries. And somebody did leave their garage door open.


SHARPTON: The judge says, she`ll review the tapes before deciding if the
jury can hear them. Back with me are Faith Jenkins, Lisa Bloom and Ken

Faith, why does the prosecution want the jury to hear these past police

FAITH JENKINS, LEGAL ANALYST: They`re arguing that this goes directly to
George Zimmerman`s state of mind the night he shot and killed Trayvon
Martin. Here is why. Trayvon Martin was walking alone on that night.
George Zimmerman calls the police and refers to him as these a-holes, more
than one person. An expletive punks, more than one person. He has this
attitude towards Trayvon as if he is walking with a group of people when it
is just him by himself.

So he has grouped Trayvon and has an attitude towards him based on his past
experiences of seeing people who he thinks does not belong in his
neighborhood and who he thinks are suspicious. That`s why the prosecutor
is saying, this is directly relevant to show his state of mind that he had
increased frustration. And it`s part of the reason why he decided to
follow Trayvon, because he did not want yet another one to get away.

SHARPTON: Now, he said, we`ve heard on tapes, "they always getaway", they
being others I guess that Faith is referring to.


SHARPTON: Is that important, Lisa, to what you need to prove in this case
to the jury?

BLOOM: First of all, I really like Faith`s point. And I think it`s a very
good point, because it shows that Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin as a member
of a group, of some group. A group of criminals, maybe something worse.
Maybe he racially profiled him right, rather than just an individual, just
a guy that`s walking down the street that he didn`t know.


BLOOM: But I think the defense is wrong to fight this. I think the
defense should want to get these priors in, because it does to some extent
undercut the idea that Zimmerman was out to get Trayvon Martin. In fact,
it shows context. If I`m on the defense, I would argue he was a neighbor
who was concern about crime for some legitimate reasons because there had
been break-ins. His own wife was afraid. And so, he had been told by the
neighborhood watch liaison to call when something suspicious happened. And
he had done it a half a dozen times. And this was just another time that
he was calling in.

SHARPTON: Now, Ken, what do you think? Is it important, is it not? Does
it show something that the prosecution should use or something the defense
could use?

KEN PADOWITZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER: Well, it`s very powerful, and it`s
very relent. That`s why the defense is objecting to the prosecutor using
this evidence. And I really call it strike two, because not only did the
defense make a mistake in their opening by telling a joke, but here they
didn`t do any motion before the trial to prevent this evidence from coming
in. They allowed the prosecutor to talk about it in opening statement.
And then they have no objections to it coming before the jury, only after
the calls are starting to be played is there an objection by the defense.

So I really think that was an error strategically on the part of the
defense. Now they`re waking up and deciding that wait a minute, this
evidence really does hurt us. We`re going to object and ask a judge to
prevent this from being heard by the jury any further. I think that was in
error. And it`s the second mistake in my mind. I think it`s powerful
evidence, and the prosecution wants to use this evidence.

SHARPTON: Now, Lisa, you say that the defense could use this to say that
he was not after Trayvon, but there had been burglaries. But there are
witnesses that testified today about what police told volunteers in the
neighborhood watch program that Zimmerman was part of. Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MAN: What do you tell volunteers about following someone they
believe might be involved in criminal behavior?

That`s the job of law enforcement.

DONALD O`BRIEN, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: Since day one, the neighborhood
watch, it was said at that meeting and said every meeting we had after
that, do not get close to anybody. Stay at a safe distance and call 911.
And let the police handle it.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: So under any circumstances were you to follow somebody?



SHARPTON: Two people were saying that they were told, and Zimmerman was
part of this group.

BLOOM: Definitely.

SHARPTON: Not to follow someone. So does that hurt if these tapes are
played that even if he wasn`t after Trayvon, he was after them.

BLOOM: Right.

SHARPTON: He still did, according to these witnesses, what he was not
supposed to do when he is confronted by them, whoever them may be?

BLOOM: Well, that`s right. And he was following Trayvon because his own
defense attorney said that in the opening statement, which is a little bit
inconsistent with Zimmerman`s own statements that he made that he said he
wasn`t following Trayvon Martin. He said that instead he was going to look
at the street sign. But these witnesses also help the defense, because the
neighborhood watch liaison said that George Zimmerman was told to call if
anything was suspicious. Don`t worry.

Don`t feel like you`re bothering us. Any time, just call. She said he was
very professional, very polite at all times. And, in fact, she had
nominated him for a citizens watch patrol to ride along with the police,
and he declined. So that undercuts a little bit the prosecution`s argument
that he was a wanna-be cop.

SHARPTON: Well, not getting an award doesn`t mean you don`t want to be a
cop. But I`ll let it go.

BLOOM: Not an award, it`s a volunteer program.

SHARPTON: All right. Faith, Lisa, Ken, I`m going have to leave it there.
Thank you so much for your time tonight.

Still ahead, the prosecution says George Zimmerman told a, quote, "web of
lies." We`ll look at that attempt -- at their attempt to prove that, next.


SHARPTON: Up next, to prove second-degree murder, the prosecution needs to
show George Zimmerman was depraved with ill will. How are they building
that case, and what does the defense have to say? That`s next.


SHARPTON: Today the prosecution in the trial of George Zimmerman began
trying to prove arguments they made in their opening statements. Showing
crime scene photos, attempting to cast doubt on George Zimmerman`s account
of events that night. One of the key witnesses today was a police sergeant
who was one of the first to arrive on the scene that night.


JOHN GUY, PROSECUTOR: How was Trayvon Martin`s body positioned when you

face down with his head oriented generally towards the north and his hands
underneath his body, sir.


SHARPTON: Prosecutors claimed that testimony contradicts what George
Zimmerman reportedly told police. Part of what prosecutors in their
opening statements called Mr. Zimmerman, quote, "web of lies."


GUY: He began to spin that tangled web of lies. He said that after he
shot Trayvon Martin, he got on top of Trayvon Martin, on his back, and he
took his arms, and he spread them out. That didn`t happen. You want to
see the pictures of Trayvon Martin by a civilian who went out there that
night before the police got there and snapped off a photo on his phone.
Trayvon Martin`s hands are underneath his chest.


SHARPTON: Joining me now is Zachary Carter, former U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of New York and Kendall Coffey, former U.S. attorney, now
an MSNBC legal analyst. Thank you both for being here tonight.


SHARPTON: Zachary, what do you think about the prosecution`s strategy in
targeting what they called George Zimmerman`s web of lies, and how the
defense is responding?

ZACHARY CARTER, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, I think that the prosecution
appears to -- they prepared very well a case in which they`ll be able to
juxtapose events that occurred on a very definite timeline that is tracked
by cell phone conversation, by 911 calls, various 911 calls, all of which
are going to be able to fix when certain events occurred in time.

And if you think of that as kind of creating kind of the texture, the
background around these events, the challenge for George Zimmerman has been
in making his statements to law enforcement, trying to force his version to
fit within these independently verifiable events that are on a very strict

So he says if he did something at a certain time and you listen to 911
recordings in which certain things actually occurred and you can verify it,
on a different timeline that is inconsistent with what he says, then you
can disparage his story.

SHARPTON: Kendall, you know, in order to go into his web of lies, the
prosecutor`s call, listen to some of the other things that they allege that
he lied about.


GUY: He told the police that the reason he got out of the car was because
Sean Noffke told him we need an address. That didn`t happen. Listen to
his non-emergency call. Sean Noffke never said that. The defendant claims
that while Trayvon Martin was on top of him, Trayvon Martin said to him,
"you`re going to die tonight." Well, ladies and gentlemen, you`re going to
hear from people who were out there. Nobody, nobody heard that.


SHARPTON: How important is it to try and continue to go through the
allegations that Mr. Zimmerman lied to police in many of the things that he
gave them that night, Kendall?

COFFEY: Well, it could be the key to the whole case for the prosecution.
As we know, they don`t have a single witness that saw it all that can put
it together. The only surviving eyewitness is of course George Zimmerman.
But they`re actually using, going to be using a lot of the statements that
George Zimmerman gave to police proving point by point that there are
provable falsities in those statements.

We all know that innocent people don`t have to lie if someone is caught and
trapped in a number of untruthful comments, it strongly indicates guilt.
And that, as well as of course the young woman who was on the cell phone
with Trayvon Martin in the final minutes of his life, those could be the
major parts of the prosecution`s evidence.

SHARPTON: Zachary, the charge is second-degree murder. Florida state law
says prosecution has to prove Zimmerman committed the unlawful killing of a
human being demonstrating a depraved mind regardless of human life. And
what the killing was done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent.
And indicates an indifference to human life. That`s what they`re going to
have to establish.

CARTER: Correct.

SHARPTON: Is that why we`re seeing all this about they want to put in the
old tapes of him calling 911 and his behavior at the scene and making him a
liar. They`re trying to fit what the law requires there?

CARTER: Exactly. And what they`re trying to establish is, frankly, that
he acted with a motive, that while we know that race is the subtext, the
prosecution hasn`t mentioned race. And that`s been very disciplined and
cleaver. They use the word profiling.


CARTER: All right, and that signals a race, they talk about that in
combination with hatred. They talk about his apparent frustration at not
having been successful at becoming a police officer. They talk about
things that suggest that he may have a vigilante bent. And when you
combine those things together, they seem to fit the elements of depraved
murder under the Florida law, that talks about ill will and evil intent and
hatred as motives for the killing.

SHARPTON: Because, Kendall, they have already kind of framed some of that
language, even in their opening statements yesterday. The prosecution used
language that sounds much like the Florida law. Listen to this.


GUY: That defendant at that same time was upright, walking around,
preparing. Preparing to tell law enforcement why it was he had just
profiled, followed, and murdered an unarmed teenager.

Ladies and gentlemen, the truth about the murder of Trayvon Martin is going
to come directly from his mouth, from those hate-filled words that he used
to describe a perfect stranger and from the lies that he told to the police
to try to justify his actions.


SHARPTON: Kendall, you have been a prosecutor right there in Florida,
tried a lot of cases, hundreds of cases. Is that effective?

COFFEY: I think it is effective. And remember, they don`t have -- the
prosecution doesn`t have to prove a premeditated design to take a human
life in the sense of first-degree murder. This is second-degree murder.
It`s more about an attitude than anything else. And in this case, what the
prosecution is demonstrating, and what they hope to prove is that George
Zimmerman had an attitude. These guys always get away. He said it on the
tape. He said it in those same words in his first statement to the police.

He was not going to let these guys get away this time. And when you
approach and hunt and look and go after these guys to make sure they`re not
going to get away, it shows a kind of indifference to human life that the
prosecutors hope will add up to a conviction.

SHARPTON: Zachary Carter, Kendall Coffey, I`m going to have to leave there
it. Thanks for your time tonight. We`ll be right back with reply Al.
Remember, friend or foe, I want to know.


SHARPTON: It`s time for reply Al. Friend or foe, I want to know.

Sharon writes, "Hi, Rev. A friend and I were talking about how the IRS has
been targeting groups of all kinds for years. I hope that you would speak
more on that."

I will speak more on that, Sharon, because there is a major development
that totally ruins the right wing`s effort to make this a scandal. The
Associated Press reports that documents show the IRS also screened liberal
groups. Not just conservatives. The AP says the IRS flagged groups using
terms like progressive, occupy, and health care legislation. I have been
involved with churches and civil rights groups that have been targeted in
our opinion in the past.

Let me be clear, though. I`m against targeting any group, right, left, far
right, far left. The job of government is not to target people. It is to
have equal protection under the law and the same standard for everyone. If
it was all right or all left, I would be all opposed to it.

We want to answer your questions. E-mail me, askrev@msnbc.com. Remember,
friend or foe, I want to know.

Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now.


Transcription Copyright 2013 ASC LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is
granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not
reproduce or redistribute the material except for user`s personal or
internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall
user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may
infringe upon MSNBC and ASC LLC`s copyright or other proprietary rights or
interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of