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

PoliticsNation, Thursday, July 25th, 2013

Read the transcript from the Thursday show

July 25, 2013
Guests: David Brock; Ken Padowtiz; Seema Iyer, Charles Ogletree, Seema
Iyer, Ken Padowitz, Paul Henderson

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

Tonight`s lead, breaking news. The last juror speaks out, Juror B-29,
the only juror we have not heard from in the George Zimmerman case is now
speaking out. And it`s an explosive new interview that takes us inside
those 16 hours of deliberations, talking about the trial and the verdict
that gripped the nation.

In an interview with ABC News, Juror B-29 says, quote, "George
Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can`t get away from God. And at
the end of the day, he is going to have a lot of questions and answers he
has to deal with. But the law couldn`t prove it."

George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can`t get away from
God. A stunning statement that raises questions for millions of Americans
who watched a trial. Juror B-29 also says, quote, "I was the juror that
was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end."

She fought to the end. She started with second-degree murder. Then
ended up with not guilty. A lot of people tonight will be wondering about
that process. How it happened.

Since the verdict, she`s the first juror to show her face and identify
herself. Her first name is Maddie. She is a 36-year-old Puerto Rican
woman, the only minority on the jury. She is a Puerto Rican, according to
ABC. And tonight she dropped a bombshell about the trial and the verdict
that sparked such a national debate.

Joining me now is former prosecutor Seema Iyer and Joy Reid, managing
editor of, and criminal defense attorney Ken Padowitz. Thank
you all for joining me.



SHARPTON: Joy, what is your reaction to hearing that this juror says,
quote, "George Zimmerman got away with murder?"

REID: You know, I think, first of all, it`s finally a relief to find
out that really there were no blacks on the jury. There was a matter of
contention where no black in the jury. We know that. We also now know
that this was the juror who initially wanted to charge second-degree
murder. So in her mind, this was a murder, it wasn`t a killing. But you
have all of these dynamics. And Seema can probably talk more about this
than I can. You have only six people, six women, the group think and the
pressure that had to be on this juror to go all the way from second-degree
murder, and as she said, to fight to the end for that idea, to have two
other jurors who wanted manslaughter and three jurors who wanted to acquit
when they took that first vote according to B-37, the other juror.

So, the idea that you took three people who thought that this was a
murder or at least a crime and have them converted over by the pressure
that had to have been put on them by the other three jurors, it tells you a
lot about a, the dynamics of jurors, but b, why six jurors is the wrong
number of people. With only six people, it is a lot harder to withstand
and hold your position because you don`t have anyone else on your side.


SEEMA IYER, FORMER PROSECUTOR: But she didn`t fight. That`s the
problem. She did not fight, Joy. And during jury selection, we call that
voir dire, you are supposed to, both sides, both attorneys should question
people and say what it is going to be like for you sitting in that room,
Joy, and what if Reverend Al and all of his friends gang up on you, joy,
and it`s Friday night.

SHARPTON: They should have done that.

IYER: They should have. They spent so much time talking about the
media and the outside influences. They have forgotten the fundamentals of
jurisprudence here.

REID: Right.

SHARPTON: But I want to ask something else that she said was

And Ken, I want you on this and Seema back to you, Joy. She said that
as the law was read to me, you have no proof. Let me play to you. Let me
show you the quote. "If you have no proof that he killed them
intentionally, you can`t say he is guilty. You can`t put a man in jail,
even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty."

Ken, does this go back to what a lot of us are raising about the law?
Is some of this about not being able to fight back because the way the law
is written, she didn`t feel she could fight what the law says?

PADOWITZ: Well, I think she was confused about the law. And all
these quotes show to me one of three things. Either a failure of the
evidence, a failure of the prosecution attorneys, or both. And I think the
prosecutors, we have to look really hard about what the prosecutors did
here, because their job was to make sure that the jury understood the law
and applied the law to the facts in this case. And this jury apparently is
confused. This doesn`t have to be an intentional killing in order to be
convicted of manslaughter.


PADOWITZ: Somebody who is driving a car and is convicted of DUI
manslaughter didn`t have to intend to kill that person. They could have
been convicted and charged with manslaughter without an intentional act.

IYER: However --

PADOWITZ: So, there is a problem here, there is a failure. And I
don`t blame this juror. I think it`s a failure on the part of the

IYER: However, the act of pulling the trigger has been conceded.
Nobody is even contemplating whether George Zimmerman committed that
intentional act of pulling the trigger. So, why she chose to use the word

Let`s look at the quotes that you have put up, Reverend Al, and none
of them are talking about self-defense. So she believes self-defense, she
would have told us that. She is using the law as a scapegoat right now for
not owning up to not finding the verdict that she was intending to find.

SHARPTON: Or did she not understand the law?

REID: Well, this is the thing. You have people who are lay people,
right, who don`t understand the law, who the instructions given to them by
the judge, and I have to also fault the prosecution. The smartest thing
Mark O`Mara ever did was brought up that chart.

IYER: The thermostat?

REID: The thermostat that was highly influential obviously among
these jurors. And I do have to question also whether B-37, because this is
why you don`t want lawyers` wives on, right, on the jury. Because she
probably had undue influence too being like well, my husband is a lawyer
there are all these things that could have gone on in that jury room. But
the bottom line is whether the judge instructed them properly on the law.
Whether the prosecution properly explained the law. Clearly this juror
feels she rendered a verdict that went about her gut instinct and her
belief about what it should have been.

SHARPTON: But, that is why I`m raising about the law, Ken, because if
you go back to juror B-37 that Joy just mentioned, she also mentioned stand
your ground.

REID: Right.

SHARPTON: And they talked about that in the jury room. So obviously,
the was some discussion about that could have been confusing and could have
led her to believe, as Seema said, that we`re just talking about self-
defense here because this is not in any way mentioned in this transcript of
this interview, Ken.

PADOWITZ: Reverend, you are absolutely right. The law is confusing.
When you listen to these jury instructions in any murder case, it is very
confusing. Lawyers disagree about exactly what things mean. And so, it
requires the prosecution to properly explain the law and apply it. Not
just explain it, but apply to it the facts that they presented in the
trial. Spoon-feeding piece by piece by piece.

If you don`t do that, and you send a juror back into the jury room,
she may feel that he is guilty of murder. She said that she believes in
her heart he was guilty of murder, but she doesn`t understand the law and
how it applied to the facts in this case to properly hold out and convince
the rest of the jurors why they should come back with a verdict of guilty.
And that is a failure.

And I don`t blame this juror. I feel very sympathetic for her that
she is so, you know, taken aback now and having to sleep and think about
this and deal with this on a daily basis. It`s a failure on the part of
the lawyer in not explaining how the law worked here.

SHARPTON: Seema, let me put up another quote from her, and you can
respond. She says she still has doubts about the verdict. I felt I let a
lot of people down. And I`m thinking to myself, did I go the right way?
Did I go the wrong way?

IYER: She knows she went the wrong way because she started off at
murder in the second degree. And what people also don`t realize, the
general public, there is no polygraph on why you came to a certain verdict,
OK. She could have stuck to her guns with murder in the second degree for
whatever reason. And that`s also a concept of jury nullification that we
may not have time to discuss now. But no one asked her to push herself to
the other side. She let herself go there. She said in this transcript
that you he given us, it says that he got away with murder.

REID: Right. And remember --

SHARPTON: But we don`t know no one, we don`t know what happened in
that jury room, and we don`t know the interpretation of the law in that
jury room. I raise again we were told by the other juror they were talking
about stand your ground.

REID: Right.

SHARPTON: A lawyer`s wife on the jury.

REID: Right.


REID: But remember what was happening that night? We were both here,
Rev. They went late into the night and we were sitting on that panel. And
we were saying why don`t they take a break? They asked for manslaughter.
So obviously, at some point they were debating manslaughter. And they kept
going. I question whether or not we should have a limit where if they had
had the night to sleep it over, and rather than --

IYER: I agree with that.

REID: When you look at the way group dynamics work, there are ways to
push people to what you want. If it`s five against one with, one minority,
all the dynamics that play in too. And that`s why you need diverse juries
-- when it`s just one against five.

SHARPTON: But what was strange, Seema, is they sent out the note
about manslaughter.

IYER: And that was it.

SHARPTON: And then they came back with a verdict. And the judge said
something about what was specific about manslaughter. So that`s what I`m

REID: They didn`t know what to ask.

IYER: No. With all due respect, Joy, when a juror asks for the
manslaughter instruction, give them the manslaughter instruction.

REID: Right.

IYER: I don`t understand what the debate was about and I was watching
that. I was here. I don`t understand why the judge sent them back for a
more specific note. There is nothing more specific. Read them the charge.


SHARPTON: I would like you all to stay with me there is a lot more to
talk about here.

Coming up, more from Juror B-29. We will hear from her in her words,
her own words what happened behind closed doors.

And major news today from attorney general Eric Holder. He is taking
a big stand in the fight for voting rights.

Plus, all week long, Bill O`Reilly`s reaching about race and the
African-American community.


BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Talking voice believes the collapse
of the African-American traditional family is the primary reason, the gap
between blacks and whites is so large.


SHARPTON: I will show you, yes, show you why he is a complete fraud
on the issue.

And friend or foe, I want to know. E-mail me. "Reply Al" is coming.


SHARPTON: Coming up, more from Juror B-29, the first time we`re
hearing from her. What do you think of her comments on George Zimmerman`s

Please share your thoughts. 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: The Zimmerman trial and the president`s speech sparked a
national debate on race in America, but all week many on the right,
including Bill O`Reilly, have been distorting the conversation by attacking
the president and the civil rights community.

Listen to this from last night.


O`REILLY: So it`s clear that people pushing racial injustice that
they believed happened in the Zimmerman trial. They don`t really want to
talk about complicated racial problems in general. What the grievance
industry does want is to divide the country along racial lines, because
that`s good for business and they may be succeeding.


SHARPTON: Trying to divide the country? Fifty years from the march
on Washington and there are serious issues that need attention on voting
rights, on equal justice, on civil rights. But Mr. O`Reilly has the
problems in the African-American community figured out.


O`REILLY: Talking voice believes that the collapse of the African-
American traditional family is the primary reason the gap between blacks
and whites is so large. And as I said at the top of this memo, our
leadership simply will not deal with that issue, and that is why we have
this problem.


SHARPTON: Why is Bill O`Reilly talking about the African-American
family? It`s hard to take much of this race talk seriously. I took Bill
to Sylvia`s restaurant in Harlem for dinner 2007. Here is how he described
it afterward.


O`REILLY: There wasn`t one person in Sylvia`s who was screaming m-
fer, I want more iced tea. You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like
going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of
people were sitting there and they were ordering and having fun and there
wasn`t any kind of craziness at all.


SHARPTON: Imagine that, no craziness in a restaurant, no one
screaming I want more iced tea, m-fer. That what the self-appointed expert
on black family said. And listen to Bill talk about a concert he went to.


O`REILLY: I went to the concert by Anita Baker at radio city music
hall. And the crowd was 50/50, black/white. And the blacks were well-
dressed, and she came out, Anita Baker came out on stage and said look,
this is a show for the family. We are not going to have any profanity
here. We are not going to do any rapping here. The band was excellent,
but they were dressed in tuxedos. And, you know, this is what white
America doesn`t know, particularly people who don`t have a lot of people
with black Americans. They think that the culture is dominated by Twista,
Ludacris and Snoop Dog.


SHARPTON: Yes, this is the same guy attacking the president and the
civil rights community on race this week. Not much of a contribution to
the debate, that`s for sure.

Joining me now is David Rock, founder of media matters for America,
and Joy Reid is back with us. Thank you both for joining me.


SHARPTON: I mean, Joy, how can you believe anyone, I mean how can
anyone believe he is credible on the issue of race?

REID: Yes, I`m going to propose a philojournalism (ph). I think that
if you are shocked that black people eat with knives and forks and don`t
throw food at restaurants and that they need to be dressed up in tuxedos
and then you are like shocked that they actually dress in clothes. They
are not running around with spears. Why doesn`t he add that too. If that
is your attitude toward black people, let`s say you probably shouldn`t talk
about it.

SHARPTON: And I went to dinner with him, and this was his reaction to
someone else on the radio show about what he saw in a Harlem restaurant.

REID: These, the eroticization of African-American by people from the
right is what is so galling. This notion that we are some thing from
another planet. That you have to go visit us as if you were visiting some
sort of terrarium where you`re looking in and oh my goodness, they are
actually not throwing things at each other.

The conversation that the right wants to have about race comes from
the same place as the 47 percent comments, this notion that African-
Americans are all violent felons and dead beets. And they want to start
the so-called conversation on race there. Do they not understand that hip-
hop music is consumed mostly by white young men, that they are the majority
of hip-hop customers?

SHARPTON: And many of news the civil rights community, including me,
who try to work with the hip-hoppers but denounce the language. And I
still denounce it, even though we`re trying to reach these kids.

David, let me ask you. When you hear Bill O`Reilly and the right wing
talking about the president as a divider for speaking out on race, listen
to this.


RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Obama is all about creating
chaos and upsetting the order of things. He is all about stirring the pot.
And generally, involving things that have to do with race.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it selective moral outrage?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It absolutely is. And it`s done by politicians
and by leaders who want to get people ginned up against each other.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The man who was supposed to unite the United
States of America is an expert on the most divisive form of politics in
existence today.


SHARPTON: Now, David, you`ve been covering this a long time in
watching the right wing a long time. They`re trying to paint the president
as a divider for explaining racial profiling and explaining a lot of the
reaction to the verdict of George Zimmerman. How do you deal with the
right now all of the sudden becoming the experts on race?

BROCK: Well, I think it`s not all of the sudden. Let`s remember the
context here. At FOX News, the fish rots from the head. So back in 1968,
you had Roger Ailes, who is now the FOX News chief, using the n-word
prepping Richard Nixon for a public appearance. This is part of the
southern strategy at the time to attract Democrats into the Republican
party by stoking racial hate and prestigious. Then in 1988, you had Roger
Ailes` fingerprints all over the Willie Horton attack on Michael Dukakis.

Now, we have on our Web site an 11 page document that shows FOX News,
its long history of race-baiting which included attacks, remember on civil
rights activist Shirley Sherrod, making up scandal about the new black
panthers and pushing a birtherism.

And so they don`t know, I guess, that this isn`t 1968 or 1988 anymore.
And as much as we are outraged by this, I think the people who should be
outrage are Republicans who have to run for office and the folks over at
the Republican national committee who are trying to rebrand, to rebuild
their relationships.

SHARPTON: Or at least they`re saying that.

BROCK: They`re saying that.

SHARPTON: But let me ask this point, David to Joy.

BROCK: Sure.

SHARPTON: Because I want you to weigh in on this as well.

They have also now discovered black on black crime. All of the
sudden, they are now talking about violence in Chicago. This has been
going on a long time. It`s been covered on the show. Hadiya Pendleton,
the 15-year-old young black that was killed by blacks, mother first
appearance on this show came up to New York with all of us, but they
discovered it this week. Watch this.


SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Sixty-one people died in Chicago, and
I have their names right here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The president joining the race debate, taking a
firm stand in the Trayvon Martin case. So, why is the president addressing
this case and not the shootings in his hometown of Chicago?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president should have given the speech he gave
today on the streets of Chicago where black-on-black crime is at an all
time epidemic.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A conversation about all the African-Americans
that were just killed in Chicago.


SHARPTON: Now, they never mentioned Chicago before this, never.

REID: Right.

SHARPTON: It wasn`t a big story.

REID: That`s right.

SHARPTON: Now all of the sudden when you have a community and peoples
percent in the white and Latino and black community outraged about a law
Stand Your Ground and a jury, they tried to distort it by saying why aren`t
we talking about what we were always talking about, violence in the

REID: Right.

SHARPTON: But there is no one in the community. You manage the Grio.
Correct me if I`m wrong, that I know.

REID: Right.

SHARPTON: That killed somebody and was there with the body and a gun
in their hand and the police say tell me your story and they sent him home.
They are arrested in our community if you know who did it.

REID: That`s right.

SHARPTON: And they should be. But now they`re trying to take what is
one issue and totally make it a totally different issue. And that is an
insult to the intelligence of their own views.

REID: No, absolutely. And at The Grio, we cover these things every
day that are happening in our community. And I think they forget that
Hadiya Pendleton`s parents were sitting in the box with the first lady at
the state of the union and the first lady went to the memorial service for
Hadiya Pendleton.

SHARPTON: And the president came in and made a speech.

REID: Exactly.

SHARPTON: Before FOX News discovered it.

REID: And they didn`t care about Hadiya Pendleton. They didn`t care
about the 500 murders in Chicago. They only care about in the context of
being able to criticize Democrats and blame them for the problems in the
inner city. I hate to tell them, but the African-American community is not
a Johnny come lately to the problems in the inner city, they are. Because
honestly, all they care about is finding new ways to attack the African-
American civil rights leadership and to attack the president.

SHARPTON: And you know, we care about Hadiya Pendleton and Trayvon

REID: Exactly.

SHARPTON: And we don`t holler for iced tea in the restaurant.

REID: Exactly.

SHARPTON: David, Mr. O`Reilly goes back into talking about the
African-American family all week. Listen to this.


O`REILLY: The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black
precincts is the disintegration of the African-American family. We`ve got
to stop young black women from having babies out of wedlock. You have got
to discourage that actively.

What do you think of them investing all of this energy into the Martin
case, all right, the marches, the protests, everything, and absolutely
nothing into the disintegration of the African-American family and the
violence in places like Chicago.


SHARPTON: Now, David, we are talking about the justice system,
Martin-Zimmerman. Is Mr. O`Reilly trying to purposely change the
conversation to something else that has nothing to do with that case?
Because certainly we`re not talking about the destruction of family had
anything to do with why Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. So is this a
strategy here?

BROCK: Yes. I think it`s a strategy, first of dodge and deny and
then divide.

What he is trying to dodge, obviously, is the reality of white racism
in this country. What he is denying and dodging are the real issues that
face our country, the inequities in the education system, the disparity in
sentencing for young black males and incarceration rates and persistent

The president invited us to a meaningful dialogue. And unfortunately,
with folks like Bill O`Reilly, who is a bigot, who accuses the folks they
disagree with being part of a racial industry, frankly, the only industry
based on race that I know about is this toxic talk radio.

SHARPTON: Now, Joy, and I want to be clear, all of us are going to
continue fighting against violence in the community.

REID: Of course.

SHARPTON: I mean, we have done that for years and will continue to do
that and deal with violence. And deal with all of the misbehavior in terms
of our family structures and I will continue to fight hip-hoppers. I`m
working with them, trying to get them understand me. They understand, me
understand them. We are going to continue to do that. But you can`t do
that and excuse injustices in the community, because then you don`t have a
credibility to even address the issues in the community.

REID: Yes, just like we would eat at Sylvia`s with knives and forks
and not throw things we can also talk, walk and chew gum at the same time
on issues of violence in the community and issues of gun violence outside
of it.

And others in addition to what David Brock mentioned, this is also a
very flashy attempt to use the shiny keys of racial stereotyping to
distract from the issue of gun laws.


REID: Because the reason they want to do anything, even throwing out
the most vile notions about black people to distract folks is they don`t
want to talk about the gun laws that we talked about in the first segment,
things like stand your ground being proliferated by the NRA and ALEC are
the real problem. And they don`t want to talk about it because they know
that reasonable people will look at laws like Stand Your Ground and say you
know what, that really might not be reasonable.

We may need to fight the NRA. And what FOX News and talk radio are
handmade dense of big business, handmade dens of corporations including gun
manufacturers. They do their bidding at all times and in any way possible.
This is about stopping reasonable people from passing sane gun laws and
amending things like Stand Your Ground.

SHARPTON: And that`s very important as we continue to deal with gun
laws and the other issues.

And let me stay this. We don`t just want to single out one person,
but we do want to set the record straight. And we are not going to allow
them to decide the conversation that we are going to have in this country.
We should be discussing it all and not be censored or limited to just one
view that excuses anything that ought to be on the table and discussed.

David Brock and Joy Reid, thank you for your time tonight.

REID: Thank you.

BROCK: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Coming up more on the breaking news tonight. The emotional
words for Trayvon Martin`s parents. Juror B-29 breaks her silence. We
will hear directly from her.

And big news today. Attorney general Eric Holder`s powerful fight
with Texas and the Supreme Court on voting rights. Stay with us.


SHARPTON: Today exactly one month after the Supreme Court`s
disastrous decision gutting the voting rights act, the Obama administration
is punching back. In a huge announcement, Attorney General Eric Holder
said the Justice Department will fight to guarantee voting rights in states
with a history of discrimination, starting with Texas.


ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Today, I am announcing that the
Justice Department will ask a federal court in Texas to subject the state
of Texas to a preclearance regime similar to the one required by section
five of the voting rights act.



SHARPTON: And the Attorney General promised this was just the


HOLDER: This is the department`s first action to protect voting
rights following the Shelby County decision. But it will not be our last.
My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to
stand against discrimination wherever it is found.


SHARPTON: This is a powerful response to the Supreme Court. It says
the federal government will be there to stop states from discriminating at
the ballot box. Over the last month, Republicans have gone on a rampage to
restrict voting rights. It started with Texas, was pushed ahead with its
voter ID law just hours after the court`s ruling. Texas was the first.
But it quickly spread.

Within 48 hours of the ruling, five more states moved forward with
voter ID laws. And in just the last day, we`ve seen two more states make
moves to restrict voting. Today the Attorney General of the United States
put those states on notice that these laws must not stand.

Joining me now is Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree. Thanks for
coming on the show.


SHARPTON: So professor, the Supreme Court struck down a key part of
the voting rights act. But now the Attorney General is going to use a
different part of the law to protect those rights. Take me through that.
How does that work?

OGLETREE: This is very important. I have to say this for Eric
Holder, he has been a dynamic attorney general like Janet Reno for Clinton,
going all the way back to the attorney general for President Lyndon Baines
Johnson. He has done this by saying we`ve written this into law. Congress
has passed it as recently as 2006. It makes a big difference in getting
people to vote. You tried to stop people from voting with voter
suppression in the 2012 elections.

You try to stop people from voting after the march across the Edmund
Pettis Bridge in 1963. None of that is going to work. And he is going to
use every legal tool available to him to make this happen. He has done
that very effective with this today by saying I`m going go to another
provision. It`s going to be very clear. And Texas and other states will
not be able to avoid the laws. A very important step by the attorney

SHARPTON: Now, the President said right after the Supreme Court had
made its decision they had made a mistake. Listen to President Obama`s


PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: I might not be here as
president had it not been for those who courageously helped to pass the
voting rights act. I think that the Supreme Court made a mistake in its


SHARPTON: What does he mean when he says he may not be this president
if the voting rights act had not been passed? And now the Supreme Court
has taken out a major part of it.

OGLETREE: Well, you know what it means for this point of view. You
and I were traveling around the country in the last year because from state
after state, those folks having voter suppression by requiring voter IDs.
We won every court ballot that we had. And we got people to go to the
polls. And as you said, 150 churches got together in Florida and went out
and made that happen very clearly. So the law is there. The president is
following the law. The Attorney General is following the law. People just
don`t want to hear it.

But these people are being very cautious, very careful, and Barack
Obama is not making new law. Eric Holder is not making new law. They`re
applying the law that Congress has and already passed. So I think this is
a good day for everybody, because it makes us have a level playing field
when it comes to the issue of voting. Everybody has a vote. Every vote
will be counted.

Now, as you said, many of us travelled a lot last year around this
question of people having the right to vote, voter ID laws. But let me
show you a map of what the Attorney General faces now. These are the
states that have now come with new voting laws. He has said now he is
going to pick them off state by state, as many of us are raising our voices
about the need to protect the right to vote, Professor Ogletree?

OGLETREE: Two things, Reverend Sharpton. Number one, if you see
these stages, a lot of them are in the south. Right? And our populations
of African-Americans and Hispanics are in those states. And so, those are
people who vote more than anybody else very reliably. And they vote
democratic, which I think is one of the reasons that people, republican
governors are changing those laws in those states. It won`t work.

We`re going to make sure that everybody has the right to vote. One
vote, one time. And not having discrimination. Our kids are wondering
what is this happening? We heard about this back in the 20th century and
even before.


OGLETREE: But why in the 21st century? It makes no sense. It`s not
going to happen. And we`re going to stop it right here, right now in every
way that we can.

SHARPTON: Well, thank you, Professor Charles Ogletree. Let me say
this is about preserving the right to vote, preserving an American
democracy. The Attorney General is right, and the people must stand up and
rally just like we did 50 years ago, 48 years ago in Selma. We cannot
allow any voter suppression to go unchallenged, unanswered, and without it
being turned around.

Coming up, we hear directly from juror B29 for the first time. What
was her first vote? What would she say to Trayvon Martin`s mother? Keep
it right here.


SHARPTON: The big breaking news tonight. Juror B29 speaks out and
says Zimmerman got away with murder. We will hear her emotional interview,


SHARPTON: We`re back with more breaking news from Zimmerman juror
B29, the woman we now know as Maddie. For the first time ever, we are
hearing and seeing her take on the trial. Here`s part of that explosive
interview with ABC News.


ROBIN ROBERTS, ABC ANCHOR: What was your first vote?

JUROR B29, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL: My first vote was second-degree

ROBERTS: Second-degree murder?

JUROR B29: In between that nine hours, it was hard. A lot of us
wanted to find something bad, something that we could connect to the law.
For myself, he`s guilty. Because the evidence shows he is guilty.

ROBERTS: He is guilty of?

JUROR B29: Killing Trayvon Martin. But as the law was read to me, if
you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can`t find -- you
can`t say he is guilty.

ROBERTS: Did you want to step out at all? Did you want to quit?

JUROR B29: I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury.
Oh, I was. I fought to the end. I mean, it`s hard for me to sleep. It`s
hard for me to eat, because I feel that I was forcibly included in Trayvon
Martin`s death. And I carry him on my back. I`m hurting as much as
Trayvon Martin`s mom is, because there is no way that any mother should
feel that pain.


SHARPTON: Guilty of killing Trayvon Martin. Wow. Back with me now
is Seema Iyer and Ken Padowitz. I`m also joined by veteran Prosecutor Paul
Henderson. Thank you all for joining me.

PAUL HENDERSON, PROSECUTOR: Thanks for having us.

SHARPTON: Paul, what is your reaction to hearing juror B29, Maddie,
talk about the pain of Trayvon Martin`s family?

HENDERSON: You know, I think that`s exactly what the prosecution
wanted to impart to this jury. They wanted them in that jury room to feel
for and identify with Trayvon Martin`s parents. And so when I hear her
saying that she wanted to identify with them, she feels that pain, she
wanted to find him guilty, and she didn`t know how to get to guilty given
the legal standards that she was given in Florida law, it really highlights
to me I think some of the shortcomings in the presentation from the
prosecution because that`s your job as a prosecutor is to give them that
road map, to give them those signs and give them the tools in that jury
room so that they can get to the verdict that you want them to reach.

And so it`s very frustrating, I think, certainly for them, to hear
that that`s what she wanted to do and did not feel that she had the tools
to fight back with the other jurors or even to hold on to those convictions
for herself for the entire verdict.

SHARPTON: Yes. Seema, she clearly says that as the law was read to
me, which the prosecutor is clearly in there somewhere. And the law is in
there somewhere. And she said again, it had to be intentional, which is
not true.

SEEMA IYER, FORMER PROSECUTOR: But she says that. The statement that
you just said, after she said in this interview the word guilty and the
word evidence. So I certainly don`t understand how my friend Paul
reconciles that, because even though I understand what you`re saying.
You`re saying that the law is the problem here, the way the jury
instructions were read. But before you get to that, Rev, this juror is
telling us that she found him guilty, that there is evidence, and that she
now feels guilty for finding a contrary verdict.

SHARPTON: No, but I think she is saying that their evidence was that
she killed, and that she felt he was guilty, but as the law was read, she
couldn`t find that. That`s how I understand what she is saying.

IYER: But she is not saying the key words of justification. She is
not talking about self-defense. And I`m sure Paul heard this too. When
she says the word "intentional," the act itself was intentional.

SHARPTON: But I think, Ken, I think that`s where you and -- had said
earlier that the prosecutor didn`t make that clear.

And I think --

SHARPTON: I think that`s what is lacking here.

PADOWITZ: That is what was lacking here, because I think there was
evidence, and it could be interpreted in two different ways. And
obviously, at the end of the day, this jury chose to interpret the evidence
that was presented to them.


PADOWITZ: In a way that supported Zimmerman`s presentation. But
there was another way to interpret that same evidence and to see conflicts
in that evidence that they could have gotten to a verdict of guilty. She
is saying that`s what she wanted to do. That`s what she believed she had.
But she did not have a clear enough tool.


And I think that`s the gap. I mean, that`s where we missed out.

SHARPTON: But Ken, what happens in the jury room? Tell me. Go in
the jury room and tell me what could have been the pressuring inside the
jury room?

PADOWITZ: Well, inside that jury room, the strongest personalities
are going to end up being the leaders of the jury. And so the other lesser
personalities are not as strong. They need to have the ammunition, the
tools, as was stated before, the tools to be able to tell the rest of the
jury this person is guilty. Here is the evidence. Here is why this person
is guilty. And that`s why I said the prosecutors closing argument, the
second argument was brilliant emotionally, but what it lacked was it didn`t
show the jury how to apply the law step by step to each piece of fact in
this case.



PADOWITZ: And that was what was happening back in that jury room.
This juror didn`t have the tools to fight off those other jurors and make
it clear that the law does support a conviction here based on the evidence
that is in this trial.

HENDERSON: That`s exactly it.

SHARPTON: Maddie has talked about how she feels about her decision.
Now listen to this.


JUROR B29: I stand by this decision because of the law. If I stand
by the decision because of my heart, he would have been guilty.

ROBERTS: I know that you`ve heard some people have said point-blank,
they`ve said, George Zimmerman got away with murder. How do you respond to
those people who say that?

JUROR B29: George Zimmerman -- that`s -- George Zimmerman got away
with murder. But you can`t get away from God. And at end of the day, he`s
going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with. The law
couldn`t prove it, but, you know, you know, the world goes in circles.


SHARPTON: Seema --

IYER: Shame on Maddie. Maddie, shame on you. How dare you invoke
God and the Lord to us God-fearing people when the law was there? The
evidence was on your side. Reverend, al, shame on her.

SHARPTON: Maybe she didn`t understand the law?

PADOWITZ: Exactly.

SHARPTON: Maybe the law was interpreted, I think the way -- I think
where I disagree is that you act as though she is a lawyer.

HENDERSON: And the law is really complicated. And I think this is
not something that is uncommon. When you talk to jurors, they frequently
say you know what? I just didn`t understand. It really is the obligation
of us lawyers when we`re in trial, the last thing that you want to leave
those jurors with is a tool to interpret the jury instructions that they
have in order to get to the verdict that you want them to achieve. And she
is saying she wanted it. She just didn`t know how to achieve it. That`s a
real shortcoming.

PADOWITZ: That`s exactly right, Reverend. And it`s not shame on the
juror. This is our system of justice. It`s not shame on the juror. She
was a juror in this case, and we need to respect the verdict. But we can
take a look to learn for the future.


PADOWITZ: About what some of the problems were here, or what some of
the failings were. And it`s not a failure of this juror. It`s a failure
of the law. The law is confusing.

IYER: Ken, if we respect the verdict, we don`t change the law.

PADOWITZ: The stand your ground law is confusing and should be
revoked. We need to respect the verdict.

IYER: Ken, if we respect the verdict, then we don`t change the law
and we remain as compliant as everyone else. And Paul, I just want to say
that I do concede with you, and Paul and I have spent many hours together
here at MSNBC.



IYER: And Paul, I do want to concede that in both of the prosecution
as well as the defense attorney`s arguments.

HENDERSON: Absolutely.

IYER: They did not bring up manslaughter enough. So with that, and
Reverend Al, that point.

SHARPTON: And they did not bring up that you can fight and hold out.
And I think what they could have done...

IYER: That`s right.

SHARPTON: .is ask for more clarity on the law. But I don`t blame her
for not understanding something that was not explained. And I differ with
those that say you can respect the verdict but not -- and also change the
law. You respect that they made a decision on the law the way it is. But
I think the way the law -- the way the law is needs to be changed and
clarified. That`s where I think my view is.

HENDERSON: Absolutely.

IYER: Well, that`s why we have you, Reverend Al, because you are

SHARPTON: And that`s why we have you. You can fight it back.

IYER: We have too. We have too. We have to use this as a teaching
point and changing point.

HENDERSON: That`s why we have the lawyers.

SHARPTON: That`s why these jurors helped bring us way down the road in
that teaching points.

HENDERSON: Right. Thank you.

SHARPTON: Seema, Ken, and Paul, thank you for your time this evening.

HENDERSON: Thanks for having us.

SHARPTON: Friend or foe, I want to know. "Reply Al" is next.


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

Joel writes, "When are we going to be able to take collective
meaningful action to rein in the gun rights activists to make the country
safe for your kids and mine?"

Well, I absolutely agree with you. That is what we must do in terms
of confronting the right wing, who won`t even allow background checks.
That`s at the bottom of the fight. If we`re talking about violence in
Chicago, if we`re talking about stand your ground laws in Florida and over
20 other states that encourage people to use deadly force, we have got to
get the mentality of violence and the instruments of violence, guns, out of
our society, and we must take it on aggressively and do it collectively.
You`re right.

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