IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

PoliticsNation, Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Read the transcript from the Tuesday show

July 16, 2013
Guests: Faith Jenkins; Paul Henderson; Zachary Carter, Hakeem Jeffries,
Joshua Dubois, Joe Madison

REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Thanks, Chris. And thanks to you
for tuning in.

Tonight`s lead, inside the jury room. The woman known as juror B-37
reveals what went on behind closed doors during the George Zimmerman murder
trial. In a national TV show on CNN, she offered surprising new details
about how the six women on that jury reached their not guilty verdict.


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR, AC360: Did you take an initial vote to
see where everybody was?


COOPER: So where was everybody -- how was that first vote?

JUROR B-37: We had three not guilties, one second-degree murder, and
two manslaughters.


SHARPTON: Half the jury initially thought Mr. Zimmerman was guilty of
some crime, but 16 hours later, they brought back a verdict saying he was
not guilty on all counts. Throughout this TV interview, juror B-37 seemed
to accept his version of events.


JUROR B-37: I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the
right place but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods
and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond
what he really should have done. But I think his heart was in the right
place. It just went terribly wrong. I think pretty much it happened the
way George said it happened. George had a right to protect himself at that

COOPER: So you believe that George Zimmerman really felt his life was
in danger?

JUROR B-37: I do. I really do. No doubt George feared for his life.


SHARPTON: At the same time, Juror B-37 seemed to accept the defense view
that Trayvon Martin was acting suspicious, and that he started the fight.


JUROR B-37: And anybody would think anybody walking down the road,
stopping and turning and looking, if that`s exactly what happened, is
suspicious. 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.


SHARPTON: Joining me now are former prosecutor Faith Jenkins and
prosecutor Paul Henderson. Thank you both for being here.

Paul, what struck you most about this juror`s story?

PAUL HENDERSON, LEGAL ANALYST: What struck me most was how much they
adopted the defense perspective and how empathetic they were to Zimmerman`s
versions of the story. To me, what I came away with was this prosecution
was almost dead in the water from jury selection. And that doesn`t mean
that they should not have continued and obviously they did. But hearing
her sentiments and hearing that her sentiments were echoed with the rest of
the jury pool, you know, I`m sure the prosecution, if they are reviewing
this and listening to her, is very affected by hearing --

SHARPTON: No. But when you say dead on the water, dead in the water,
let me push you on that. So you`re saying that this juror and possibly
other jurors already had made up their mind they believed George Zimmerman
coming in?

HENDERSON: Well, I believe from what she was saying in the interview
that it was very clear that from the very beginning, at the very
introduction of all of the evidence, that they were -- they believed that
story, that they believed Zimmerman`s approach. They used a lens, right?
So when you`re looking at the evidence, there is two ways to look at it.
The people that believed in the defense, the people that believed in the
prosecution, they heard the exact same evidence and they took it in

It`s clear from what she was saying last night, the lens that she
used, she absolutely believed the defense perspective, so much so that she
was filling in the gaps, and the jury had to have filled in the rest of the
gaps to have presume that Trayvon was mad, to have presumed that Trayvon
threw the first punch, to have presume that Zimmerman had the right to
defend himself, but Trayvon Martin did not have the right to defend himself
in any context of this situation. So, that was a real -- that was

SHARPTON: Faith, did this juror have her mind made up in her opinion?
Because she did as Paul said fill in blanks. There was no evidence that
said Trayvon was stopping and starting suspiciously. That all came from
Zimmerman there is no evidence that Trayvon threw the first blow. So, by
filling in the holes, as Paul said, do you think she made up her mind to
the point where she actually just went along with the scenarios that was
coming out of Zimmerman`s mouth?

every possible inference that she could draw in this trial, she drew it
towards the defense.


JENKINS: Every possible inference. Very much so pro defense. When
she made that decision, I don`t know, but according to -- when I watched
the interview last night, I agreed with Paul. I knew when I heard what she
was saying, the state never had a chance with this particular juror. Every
possible inference.

This is not a juror who said the state didn`t prove their case. They
didn`t prove beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman did not act with self-
defense. She said I believed that Trayvon Martin attacked George
Zimmerman. I believed that he had no other choice but to defend himself.
She called him George several times throughout the interview, completely
relating to him, identifying with him. It was very telling when I heard
her last night, because she clearly, clearly bought into George Zimmerman`s
story from the very beginning.

SHARPTON: Now, Paul, she also talked about how stand your ground
played a key role in their decision. Watch this.


JUROR B-37: Because of the heat of the moment and the stand your
ground and he had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened, that
his life was going to be taken away from him, or he was going to have
bodily harm, he had a right.

COOPER: So even though it was he who had gotten out of the car,
followed Trayvon Martin, that didn`t matter in the deliberations. What
mattered was those final seconds, minutes when there was an alter
indication, and whether or not in your mind what the most important thing
was whether or not George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger?

JUROR B-37: Well, that`s how we read the law. That`s how we got to
the point of everybody being not guilty.


SHARPTON: Now, the clear point there is even though the defense
didn`t argue stand your ground, she brought up the stand your ground law
and talked about he had rights based on stand your ground. So not only did
she fill in testimony, she filled in the law.

HENDERSON: She absolutely did. And that`s exactly what I took away
from it when she made that statement. When she started alluding to stand
your ground as one of the reference points that this jury used and that she
used to come to her conclusion, that caused me concern, particularly since
because stand your law, stand your ground law was not introduced. It was
not argued. It was not presented as part of the evidence that they were
supposed to use to consider how they evaluated the evidence in the trial.
And she was very clear that because of stand your ground laws that
influenced not just her, but the rest of the jury as well.

And then the fact that she was focused and said that the moment that
she concentrated on was the moment when he pulled the trigger, that heat of
the moment, and how he felt at that time, that he felt that his life was in
danger? Because that was the key that they used for the rest of their jury
instructions to determine that Zimmerman was not guilty. That was very

SHARPTON: But Faith, what about the fact -- the thing that struck me
is that she almost was passionate about Zimmerman`s right to defend
himself. Alluded to stand your ground. But what about Trayvon`s right?
When the interviewer even said to her, well, what about he got out of the
car and followed him. Why wouldn`t you say well, yes, maybe Trayvon had
fear. Maybe Trayvon should defend. It`s almost like Trayvon had no rights
at all in this juror`s mind.

JENKINS: In this particular jury`s mind, apparently he didn`t. She
kept going back to I believe George`s heart is in the right place. And
even when Anderson Cooper asked her, well, do you feel sorry for Trayvon
Martin, she said I feel sorry for both of them. Well, Trayvon is dead.
George Zimmerman was inconvenienced. He spent a few nights in jail. But
she literally could not even make the distinction at that moment.

SHARPTON: No. But she -- that`s right. Couldn`t make the
distinction. She acted like they were equal.

JENKINS: Exactly.

SHARPTON: Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong and was dead. How do you
equate that with Mr. Zimmerman?

JENKINS: Not in her eyes. During the trial, I think the defense did
a good job of painting Trayvon as this scary person. Not only is he scary
to George Zimmerman, but he should be scary to you too, because this is who
he is. And I think that that had an impact on these jurors, and this juror
in particular.

SHARPTON: Now, Paul.

HENDERSON: I think it did.

SHARPTON: The jury, I respect a jury`s decision. But there are some
things about in this interview with this juror that you`ve got to really

HENDERSON: Yes. At one point she related that Zimmerman was only
concerned, he wasn`t just attacking Zimmerman -- I mean he wasn`t attacking
Trayvon, he was concerned about these people, alluding to the break-ins.
And you know, any time someone references these people or those people, my
ears pick up. And I want a further explanation. I want you to clarify.

SHARPTON: Who are these people.

HENDERSON: What is going on. Who are these people? What is the
classification you`re talking about. I thought it was really very
interesting that she says and echoed the same thing that the defense
counsel said that this was not about race. So she is saying it`s not about
race. The rest of the jury said it wasn`t about race. The defense
attorney said it wasn`t about race. And to me that flies almost in the
face of the presentation that I felt was made that had allusions to race
all throughout the trial. But the fact that she adopted that perspective
and the rest of the jurors may have adopted that perspective is part of the
reason why I think people are frustrated right now. Because they feel even
if the race component might not have been outcome determinative for that
trial, communities wanted to hear that that perspective was valued and it
was not addressed as well as they thought should it have been, if at all in
the trial.

SHARPTON: They directly question on race in this interview, Faith.
Listen to this.



JUROR B-37: If there was another person, Spanish, White, Asian, if
they came in the same situation where Trayvon was, I think George d have
reacted the exact same way.

COOPER: Why do you think Trayvon Martin found George Zimmerman
suspicious, then?

JUROR B-37: Because he was cutting through the back. It was raining.
He said he was looking in houses as he was walking down the road, kind of
just not having a purpose to where he was going. He was stopping and
starting -- but if, I mean, that`s George`s rendition of it.

COOPER: Was that a common rendition on the jury that race did not
play a role in this?

JUROR B-37: I think all of us thought race did not play a role.


SHARPTON: Well race was not argued, but profiling was, Faith.

JENKINS: Right. And for this juror and perhaps for others, that
racial profiling was a completely foreign concept to her because she could
not understand or accept the fact of about these facts and what they meant.
And she went on the say that she thinks that George Zimmerman would have
stopped anyone of any nationality walking through the neighborhood at this
point when all of the phone calls that the prosecutors introduced, they
were about young black men.

SHARPTON: All that Zimmerman had made on the phone calls.

JENKINS: That`s right. Every benefit of the doubt in this case, she
gave to it George Zimmerman. Every benefit of the doubt.

SHARPTON: Faith Jenkins and Paul Henderson, thank you both for your

JENKINS: Thank you.

HENDERSON: Thanks for having us.

SHARPTON: Ahead, the attorney general takes a stand against these so-
called Stand Your Ground laws, demanding more justice in our criminal
justice system.


ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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.


SHARPTON: Plus, dramatic protests inside the governor`s office in
Florida. Turning anger into action in a peaceful way.

Also, new pressure for a federal civil rights case against George
Zimmerman. Wait until you hear what the right wing media is saying about

And remember, friend or foe, I want to know. Send me your e-mails.
"Reply Al" is coming.

Stay with us.


SHARPTON: Have you joined the "Politics Nation" conversation on
facebook yet? We hope you will. Here is one graphic that has really
gotten our facebook community`s attention today. It compares how the
justice system worked for Marissa Alexander and how it worked for George
Zimmerman. One fired a warning shot injuring no one and got 20 years in
jail. The other shot and killed an unarmed teenager and was found not
guilty. I`ve got more to say on that, coming up next.

But if you want more information on this, you should check out our
facebook page. Just head over to facebook and search "Politics Nation" and
like us to join the conversation that keeps going long after the show ends.


SHARPTON: In George Zimmerman wasn`t armed that fateful night, it
might have just been a fist night. This trial has shined a spotlight on
radical gun laws in America, like the so-called Stand Your Ground law. It
gives you the right to kill if you feel threatened. And here is the key
part. You have no duty to retreat. Moments ago, attorney general Eric
Holder talked about the danger these laws pose.


HOLDER: Separate and apart from a case that has drawn the nation`s
attention, it`s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept
of self-defense and saw dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods.

These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has
always been a legal defense for using deadly force if and the if is
important, if no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that
take this further by eliminating the common sense and age old requirement
that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat outside their home
if they can do so safely.

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


SHARPTON: We must stand our ground to make sure our laws reduce
violence. In 2005, Florida became the first state to adopt Stand Your
Ground. And since then, some version of the law has gotten on the books in
33 states. It`s been systematically pushed by a powerful big business
group, the corporate-backed American legislative exchange council known as
ALEC. But there are ways to fight back.

Today, activists in Florida helped show the way, staging a peaceful
protest at Governor Rick Scott`s office, demanding that stand your grand be
overturned. And that`s why we`re standing together in 100 cities this

Joining me now is Zachary Carter, former U.S. attorney for the eastern
district of New York, and Joy Reid, an MSNBC contributor and managing
editor of

Thank you both for being here.



SHARPTON: Joy, you covered the Stand Your Ground law extensively.
Will this trial be enough to change that law?

REID: Well, Rick Scott put out a statement today saying that he
recognizes that there were protests, and he said that`s great. People have
the right to protest, acknowledging he created a task force after the
Trayvon Martin shooting and the task force recommend nod changes, and he
supports the task force`s finding.

So, right now there is no momentum at least in the legislature or the
governor`s mansion to change the law. However, there is a governor`s elect
coming up in 2014. This should probably be an issue for everyone who is
running. Because the point is before Stand Your Ground, before 2005, the
jury in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial would have been
instructed that had George Zimmerman been able to avoid the conflict or
flee from the conflict, meaning don`t follow someone, he then would have
gotten an instruction that would have allowed the jury to find a way to
convict. But Stand Your Ground provision basically, in the words of Dan
Gelber who voted against it, it`s almost like the stupid, reckless uncivil
behavior. That it is saying you can actually provoke a fight, start a
fight, shoot someone dead and then claim self-defense.

SHARPTON: Well Zachary Carter, we talked about this law a lot when
this case started and dealt with ALEC a lot. In 2005, the jury instruction
was the saying, quote, "the fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked
cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
And by retreating, he could have avoided the need to use that force," what
Joy was referring to.

But after Stand Your Ground, the law reads if George Zimmerman was not
engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had
the right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had to write to stand his
ground. And this jury, the only one that has gone public so far, actually
in the interview she did, talked about stand your ground and the law. So
this had a direct impact on this trial, Zachary Carter, even though it
wasn`t argued.

CARTER: Well, it had a direct impact on the trial, but it shouldn`t
have. I mean, one of the problems in this case is that there appeared to
have been on the part of the prosecution and to some part on the court and
insensitivity to the importance of race as a central issue in this case.
And it was squeamishness about dealing with that directly. And it
permeated every part of the presentation of the case beginning with the
voir dire process of selecting the jury. I mean, there should have been
searching questions that would have reduced the likelihood that somebody
who harbored those strong preconceived notions about Stand Your Ground
could have been seated on the jury in the first place.

Now, it`s possible that she was asked those questions and was not
necessarily forthcoming. But at least those questions need to be asked.

SHARPTON: Now, the Stand Your Ground protest that many of us have
been raising as I said, for over a year, hit pop culture now. Listen what
Stevie Wonder said last night.


STEVIE WONDER, SINGER: I decided today that until the Stand Your
Ground law is abolished in Florida, I will never perform there again. As a
matter of fact, wherever I find that law exists, I will not perform in that
state or in that far for awhile.


SHARPTON: There is a lot of activities, a lot of us involved. But
Stevie Wonder said I will not perform in states with Stand Your Ground law.
With the activism we see from students today, clergy, pop culture icons
like Stevie Wonder, will that create a different kind of political climate
going into a political year, Joy, in the state of Florida?

REID: Well, I mean, I think those kinds of things can work and there
was some pressure if NABJ is going to continue.

SHARPTON: NABJ, the national association of black journalists.

REID: Exactly. They have -- Orlando attracts a lot of conventions,
central Florida does. You can actually begin to hurt a state by doing
these kinds of actions. Look, it`s also a matter of safety because what
people have to understand is that what ALEC and the NRA are doing, the
American Legislative exchange Council, the conservative group that writes
these laws, what they want to do is three things.

First, they want to sell more guns. So, the NRA pushes the way system
work on. They also want to expand the places you can carry a gun, because
they want to break down the pro exhibition, the self prohibition about
owning a gun. The third thing is to make safe the discharging of a gun.
Because one of the reason not to purchase, not to carry, if the fear -- if
I drop it, it goes off and kill a child, will I go to jail? If I shoot
somebody by mistake thinking they`re going to rob me, but oh my God, they
weren`t, will I go to jail?

ALEC`s goal is roll back anything that would inhibit a rational,
reasonable person from getting and carrying and even discharging a firearm.
It`s almost creating a Wild West atmosphere where they`re saying take you
gun anywhere you want, into a bar, into school, into church. And you know
what, if you discharge it, we`re going create a web of laws that will
protect you from the law.

SHARPTON: Now exactly, Carter. Let me go back to this juror we
talked about in the last segment. You saw her interview.

As a prosecutor, as one who has listened and talked to a lot of jurors
down through the years, what disturbed you, if anything, about what she
said? Because you talked about the prosecution. Because we were
introduced to her, found out she has a lawyer as a husband, that there was
a book deal. I mean, there are some questions about this juror that has
been raised. Do any of those questions bother you?

CARTER: A number of them bother me. The first that she cited to
legal authority that was not charged as part of the legal instructions that
were delivered by the court in this case. And the fact that she is married
to a lawyer could help explain that. It`s one of the reasons why
personally I`ve always been adverse to permitting if I could help through
the use of my peremptory challenges having a lawyer sit on a jury, because
I would prefer not to have anybody with real or pretended expertise on any
important matter at issue in a trial, sitting on the jury, because they may
be hardened in their views and they may be unnecessarily or inordinately
influential on other juries, you know, my husband says the law is thus and
therefore it must be.

And rather than asking for the judge to explain or re-explain the law,
they rely on the juror who says, well, my husband is a lawyer, and
therefore the law must be thus and so. So that`s one problem.

But the most important problem for me, it must have been frustrating
and disappointing for the prosecutors is the extent to which all of her
sympathies apparently allayed with George Zimmerman and none with Trayvon
Martin. And that means that you would have to regard the presentation to
have been at least with respect to this jury utterly ineffective. If you
can have a situation in which someone uses a -- an epithet to describe, you
know, these a-holes always get away, right.

And whether you believe he said f-ing punks or frankly, as I think
when you listen to the audio, it sounds likely that he actually says f-ing
coons, there is a degree of animus. And if he used the latter epithet,
clear racial animus that should not -- that should if anything predispose
you against Zimmerman. It doesn`t mean that you necessarily convict him.
But at least you have a sense that this is a person who was motivated, at
least initially, with ill intent.

Let`s see how the events unfolded and whether or not there was
anything that occurred that may have justified his use of force. But you
don`t start out with sympathy if you believe someone has shown that kind of
antipathy or prejudice toward someone like Trayvon Martin.

SHARPTON: Well, and we hope the justice department looks into all of
this, and we`re going to talk than later.

Zachary Carter, Joy Reid, I`m going to have to hold there it. Thank
you both for your time.

REID: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Tonight on "All In with Chris Hayes", we will have much
more on stand your ground, as well as the case of Marissa Alexander, which
we have cover on this show. That`s tonight at 8:00 p.m. here on MSNBC.

Still ahead, what about Trayvon Martin`s civil rights not to be
profiled? His civil right not to be followed? We will talk about the
potential federal case against George Zimmerman.

But first, the attorney general`s emotional words today about being
pulled over driving while black. Stay with us.


SHARPTON: The George Zimmerman verdict is prompting many Americans to
take a new look at the racial disparities and inequalities in our criminal
justice system. Today Attorney General Eric Holder gave a powerful
emotional statement at a civil rights conference about how he himself had
to confront these issues when he was younger.


ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Years ago, some of these same
issues drove my father to sit down with me, to have a conversation, which
is no doubt familiar to many of you. About how as a young black man I
should interact with the police, what to say and how to conduct myself if I
was ever stopped or confronted in a way that I thought was unwarranted.

The news of Trayvon Martin`s death last year and the discussions that
have taken place since then reminded me of my father`s words so many years
ago. And they brought me back to a number of experiences that I had as a
young man when I was pulled over twice and my car searched on the New
Jersey turnpike when I`m sure I wasn`t speeding, or when I was stopped by a
police officer while simply running to catch a movie at night in Georgetown
in Washington, D.C.

I was at the time of that last incident a federal prosecutor. So,
Trayvon`s death last spring caused me to sit down, to have a conversation
with my own 15-year-old son. Like my dad did with me. This was a
father/son tradition I hoped would not need to be handed down. But as
father who loves his son and who is more knowing in the ways of the world,
I had to do this to protect my boy.


SHARPTON: The highest ranking law enforcement official in the country
talking about the kind of injustice faced every day by African-Americans in
this country. It has to stop. And we`ll talk about that, next.


SHARPTON: The Zimmerman trial has drawn some much needed attention to
our criminal justice system, and it started a conversation about how many
feel, that system is used unfairly to target black men. But some can`t see
the facts.


black young men across the country.

BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Yes, by other black young men.

DEGRAFF: No, by the criminal justice system and the education system.

O`REILLY: No, no, no, no, no, that`s not true.

DEGRAFF: How do you explain the disparity?

O`REILLY: Wait a minute. I`m going to have to explain that because
he asked me. The disparity comes in high crime districts, OK, where police
flood in to protect the citizens and make more arrests than they would make
in low crime districts. That`s how the disparity comes.


SHARPTON: Let me show you the real disparity, the facts. One in
every 106 white men is incarcerated. But for African-American men, the
rate is just one in 15. Today there are more African-Americans on
probation, parole, or in prison than there were slaves in 1850. And it`s
not because of disparities in high crime districts. It`s because of a
broken system. Whites and blacks use marijuana at the same rate, but
blacks are four times as likely to be arrested for drug use.

The same crime, a different standard for who is arrested. Black
offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders
for the same crimes. So how are those for disparities? It`s a justice
system that needs to be fixed.

Joining me now is Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, democrat from New York.
He is a member of the House Judiciary Committee`s over criminalization task
force. They`re holding hearings on how to fix this broken system. And
Joshua Dubois, he is a former spiritual adviser to President Obama. He
wrote a cover story of this very topic titled "The Fight for Black Men" for
a recent issue of "Newsweek." Thank you both for copping on the show.


REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D), NEW YORK: Good evening, Rev. Thank you for
having us.

SHARPTON: Congressman Jeffries, many people like Bill O`Reilly,
they`re like that in that they ignore the fact that blacks are
overrepresented in the criminal justice system. What`s your task force
doing to change it?

JEFFRIES: Well, African-Americans are overrepresented at every level.
We`re more likely to be arrested, more likely to be charged, more likely to
be prosecuted, and more likely to be convicted and then get longer
sentences for the same offense as you pointed out. Under the House
Judiciary Committee`s chairmanship, Chairman Goodlight has to his credit
appointed a task force that is bipartisan in nature, five Democrats, five

Both of us charged with the responsibility of looking at the reality
of over criminalization. In America, more than a million people
incarcerated. A disproportionate number of those individuals African-
American are more incarcerated people in America than in any other country
in the world as a proportion of our population. It is costly from the
standpoint of the loss of economic productivity and human capital.

It has a devastating impact on the city communities, predominated by
African-Americans and Latinos. And we`ve been charged with the
responsibility over the next six months to look at ways in which we can
deal with this over criminalization dynamic in America.

SHARPTON: Now, Joshua, you know, one of the things that I`m trying to
do out of this trial is not just deal with just a trial, but raise the big
broad issues that really play into all of this and put a spotlight on him.
For example, it`s not just a current system, it`s a system facing black
youth. A white male born in 2001 has a six percent chance of spending time
in prison. But a black male born in that same year has a 32 percent chance
of spending time in prison.

DUBOIS: That`s exactly right. And it`s a vicious cycle, Reverend
Sharpton. It starts really early on. Those same rates, those same
disproportionate rates are applicable to the rates of suspension and
expulsion from school. The way that we approach young black men is through
a climate of fear, not unlike how George Zimmerman approached Trayvon
Martin, a climate of suspicion. And that starts in our elementary schools
and in our middle schools. And by the time they reach high school and
college, as you said, and as the congressman said as well, we`re
incarcerating them at much higher rates than everyone else. But I do think
it starts early. It starts in our earliest grades.

SHARPTON: Now Congressman, it`s policies like in New York, we have a
policy of stop and frisk that are a big part of this unjust system. And it
doesn`t even work. In 2012, the New York Police Department conducted over
533,000 stops. Eighty five percent of the stops were black and Latino, and
89 percent of them were totally innocent. It`s not even a good crime-
fighting policy.

JEFFRIES: It`s not a good crime-fighting policy in any way, shape, or
form. The overwhelming majority of people who are stopped, questioned and
frisked has no gun, no weapon, no drugs, no contraband, nothing at all.
And what it also does, Reverend Sharpton, as you know, is it poisons the
relationship between the police and the community, because the community
views the police for good reason often as a hostile conquering entity that
views innocent law-abiding individuals as potential criminals.

And so where there should be cooperation, there is great contention.
And that`s a significant problem. It`s unfortunate. But it`s symbolic of
the notion that African-Americans generally and in particular African-
American men tend to be viewed from a suspicious criminal lens, very
different than any other person in America.

SHARPTON: Joshua, in fact, if you would want young black men to grow
up trusting police, looking up to police, wanting to be one. Look at what
your black youth say about stop and frisk. Let me give you an example.


UNIDENTIFIED MAN: A lot of times I ask them, you know, what is the
reason for you stopping me. They don`t have an answer for me. They say
just turn around.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Why me? You know, I didn`t do anything. I`m just
cruising by. How could they mistake me for someone else?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: When I do get stopped, it does make me feel like I
have no type of rights or anything like that.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: It`s the most dominated you could really feel
standing on two feet is having your hands on the wall, having somebody
patting you up and down, and another person surveilling it and watching it
and documenting it.


SHARPTON: So you have this hostility that is built up. Innocent
people that feel they have been criminalized. And then you have another
element that goes to jail in disproportionate numbers. And then when they
leave jail, you write in your article about how the system follows people
even after they leave jail. And that is the result. This is your writing.
The result of all this is that is the under-caste. And I think that your
whole article went to the fact that you build a permanent kind of under-
caste that very few of them break out of.

DUBOIS: That`s right. It`s really hard to break out. When you
return from incarceration, it`s that much more difficult to get a job, to
get health insurance, to provide for your family. But you know, the way to
address this is not just to tell the statistics, although that`s absolutely
shocking. It`s to do what you and Attorney General Holder and so many
others do, which is to tell our stories, you know. The reality is that the
vast majority of this country thinks the criminal justice stem is working
just fine.

And the only way to break that down is to tell them the real personal
stories of the moments when it wasn`t working. That`s how we humanize
these young African-American men. That`s how people like George Zimmerman
don`t look at Trayvon Martin and see a nameless, faceless hoodie, but they
see someone who is a son, who is a brother, who is a student, who has hopes
and dreams. I think that`s really where the hope and the promise is.

SHARPTON: Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, and Joshua Dubois, thank you
both for coming on the show tonight. This is issue of incarceration and
unequal injustice is something we`re going to keep a real focus on in the
coming weeks and months ahead on this show.

Coming up, will the Justice Department file federal civil rights
charges against George Zimmerman? And the calls to act are growing, and so
are the protests across the country. Next.


SHARPTON: Well, the Justice Department file federal civil rights
charges against George Zimmerman? That`s next.


SHARPTON: I`m back with a simple question. Did Trayvon Martin have a
civil right not to be profiled as a criminal? Did he have a civil right
not to be followed by a man on with a gun? Those are the questions facing
the Justice Department today as it considers whether to file federal civil
right charges against George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin.
This morning I along with other civil rights leaders and clergy rallied at
the Justice Department in Washington to call for those charges to be filed.

Joining me now is Joe Madison. Thanks for being here tonight, Joe.


SHARPTON: Joe, why wouldn`t this be a civil rights case?

MADISON: I really don`t know why it wouldn`t be a civil rights case.
Just like the group where you today came to Washington, understand it, I
was with the NAACP in Orlando, Florida on Monday. And I said, you know,
Trayvon Martin had a right to walk in that area of that complex just like
Vivian Malone had a right to walk in to the doors of the University of
Alabama, just like Rosa Parks had a right to sit on that bus wherever she
wanted to, just like Medgar Evers had a right to walk on his driveway
without being shot down.


MADISON: And that`s really, I think, how the Justice Department
should look at it. And I said this morning that, look, this is not the era
of Jim Crow. But as James Crow`s grandson --

SHARPTON: James Crow Esquire. That`s right.

MADISON: James Crow Esquire, that`s right. And it`s far more subtle.
It is far more sophisticated. But the result is still the same. Everyone
must ask themselves. What did Trayvon Martin do wrong?

SHARPTON: And that`s the real question.

MADISON: That`s the question.

SHARPTON: And see -- let me say this also, Joe. And as you notice,
these cases have happened. We talked about Rodney King last night where
the police were acquitted in state court, and then the Justice Department
came in and tried them in federal court on civil rights charges and
convicted them. Right here in New York, Anthony Baez was choked to death
by police, 1996, the officer was acquitted in state court. Then he was
convicted of federal civil rights charges. So it has happened. And it has
happened where it wasn`t as clear a profiling in some of these situations.

MADISON: And, you know, everybody is hinging on the fact, well, he
didn`t use the n-word. He didn`t use other kinds of racial epithets. And
I agree with Attorney Carter who you had on.


MADISON: Because we played that tape over and over and over. And
what he said. And, again, instead of having a cable news station analyze
it, let the FBI.

SHARPTON: No one should have better equipment.

MADISON: Thank you.

SHARPTON: But let me tell you, already we`re seeing the news pundits
at FOX trying to undermine the Justice Department over the last couple of
days. Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The Department of Justice, its active involvement
in fomenting anti-Zimmerman protests in Sanford, Florida last year.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The Department of Justice might as well in this
instance we call the Department of Political Justice.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Why does it seem the Department of Justice is
taking their marching orders from the new Black Panther Party?


SHARPTON: I mean, this likely.

MADISON: Ridiculous.

SHARPTON: .concerted effort to discredit the Justice Department while
there are those that would appeal to the Justice Department to execute what
is fair. And as I just named, have done before under other

MADISON: Well, and, hey, as you know, and they know it too, these are
career attorneys. These are attorneys that were probably there under the
Bush administration. Who knows what administration?


MADISON: And this is not where -- and you know Eric Holder like I
know Eric Holder. Eric Holder is not some dictator. As a matter of fact,
a lot of times when we try to have discussions with him, what do you plan
to do, look, he has to put all these attorneys together.


MADISON: And they have to come up with a decision. So, FOX is

SHARPTON: And you`ve been in the Justice Department a long time.

MADISON: Thank you.

SHARPTON: And said, yes and no in a lot of situations.

MADISON: Absolutely. So, what they`re doing is that they`re playing
to an audience that doesn`t know what you know and what I know and what
we`re now educating this audience to know, that these decisions are not
made in a vacuum. They`re not made by a dictator, and oh, and by the way,
when the FBI, part of the Justice Department, went in to Sanford, they came
out with the conclusion initially that, well, George Zimmerman may not be a
racist. Now how do they respond to that?

SHARPTON: Oh, it was all right then, but they don`t want to see a
formal aggressive investigation. Joe Madison, we`ve got to go. Thank you
for your time tonight. We`ll be right back with "Reply Al."

MADISON: Thank you.


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

Emmet says, "Please, please, please Rev, do not let Zimmerman`s not
guilty verdict be the end of justice for Trayvon."

Well, I`ve said from the beginning we must pursue until the end.
We`re only to plan B. Federal will be in 100 cities Saturday. But we must
also deal withstand your ground. So that we don`t have more Trayvons. We
must deal with the bigger issues to deal with the real problem that creates
this climate of recklessness. And I`m committed to doing that until we
stop. These big problems legislatively from being in place.

Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. And this program note.
Tomorrow night, I`ll be joined by Rachel Jeantel, a key witness in the
Zimmerman trial.

"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