Watch George Zimmerman trial July 3, 2013 (videos, transcripts)

One of the most standout moments in the George Zimmerman trial on July 3, 2013, unfortunately had little to do with the second-degree murder charge Zimmerman faces; or the Feb. 26, 2012, shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin. A
Skype bomb took center stage when one of the state's witnesses testified through Skype only to have the court proceedings come to a screeching halt as numerous Skype messages appeared on the screen.

The following witnesses testified: Sonja Boles-Melvin; Lt. Scott Kearns, Captain Alexis Carter, Jim Krzenski, Scott Pleasants (who was Skype bombed), Amy Siewert and Anthony Gorgone.

You may see a video of the George Zimmerman trial Skype bomb below, followed by the July 3, 2013, trial videos and transcript.






Live Coverage of the George Zimmerman Trial; Did Zimmerman Know the "Stand Your Ground" Law?

Aired July 3, 2013 - 10:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


CAPTAIN ALEXIS CARTER, U.S. ARMY JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL PROSECUTOR: -- things under the circumstances. But there are certain things that, you know, through case law have been seen to give more weight.

DON WEST, ZIMMERMAN'S DEFENSE LAWYER: Sure. The totality of the circumstances is you look at the sum total of the evidence, I take it, and also apply common sense?

CARTER: Right, right. A reasonable person's standard is what that is generally referred to.

WEST: In fact, interestingly, it's the reasonable person standard or the reasonable belief standard, which squarely is a part of self- defense?

CARTER: That, yes, you can say.

WEST: And we'll talk about that more in a minute, but the work that you are doing now.

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: Are you prosecuting or defending?

CARTER: Prosecuting.

WEST: Just prosecuting?

CARTER: Just prosecuting.

WEST: Do you have the opportunity to defend?

CARTER: No, I do not, not right now in this position that I am, but the way the jag corps is set up, it puts you in a certain position and throughout your career, you move on to different things. Before being a military prosecutor, I dealt with administrative law, federal regulation, interpreting of regulations, giving legal reviews, things of that nature. So as you progress, they move you on, almost like a little circuit.

WEST: So that would include defending at some point, perhaps?

CARTER: Possibly, if I chose it. You know, the army sometimes cares about what you want and then sometimes it's just the needs of the army. So wherever are you best suited, your skill set, wherever they need you is where they will put you.

WEST: Is this your career?

CARTER: I'd rather not comment on that right now.

WEST: Fair enough. Let's go back, though, a little bit to the class that you taught.

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: You commented that the course book that you used, first of all, you didn't write the book?

CARTER: No, I did not.

WEST: It was a book that was suggested or --

CARTER: Suggested. I think the previous professor used that book and when I spoke with the director of the Legal Department, they said, this is the book that we normally use, you know, take a look at it. It seemed pretty straight forward standard book that you would see in a criminal course.

WEST: But it was not Florida law?

CARTER: No, not specifically. I think they probably maybe referenced the majority of the minority estates, but I don't think they ever probably talked about Florida specifically in that book.

WEST: I was looking at the other exhibits.

CARTER: I have them.

WEST: Let me take a look.

CARTER: Sure.

WEST: So that the textbook that you used --

CARTER: Sure.

WEST: Was not specifically focused on Florida law as much as it was sort of a general discussion of a great many topics within this broad subject of criminal litigation and procedure?

CARTER: Yes, but then, you know, I try to supplement that with other materials and things of that nature, discussion to focus them on Florida distinction, because I felt it was important. You know, even with respect to other criminal procedures and things of that nature. I felt giving the students some sort of focus, concentration on that law was important. So I did that.

WEST: So, for example, in part of Exhibit 210, it's an excerpt from the book that says self-defense and I'll have you just take a look.

CARTER: Sure. Yes. WEST: This is a specific discussion of Florida's self-defense statutes or what has been characterized as stand your ground?

CARTER: Negative.

WEST: So that's true, it's not?

CARTER: Yes, that's true. It is not.

WEST: OK. So your discussions then that would be more focused on laws in Florida would have been in the classroom?

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: Not in the textbook?

CARTER: Correct.

WEST: OK. As a member of the Florida BAR, then you took the BAR exam and had to learn Florida law in addition to the more broad general principles?

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: So you had an understanding of Florida law as it relates to self-defense in specifically because of the Florida statutes?

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: A -- just for the jury's benefit, a statute is a law that has been passed by the legislature.

CARTER: And codified.

WEST: Codified. So when we say a statute, that's what's written in the law book?

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: So the law of self-defense is written in Chapter 776 Florida statutes?

CARTER: I'm not sure the chapter and verse, but if you say so, yes.

WEST: Do we have it just to take a look? This is not a trick question.

CARTER: No, no, no, that's fine.

WEST: We'll come back to that in a second.

CARTER: Sure.

WEST: But it's the idea is that the laws that are passed by the legislature and then usually signed by the governor and then become law are known as statutes and they're in the law books. CARTER: Yes.

WEST: And that then becomes the law of the particular state where the legislature is active?

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: And you are familiar, generally, again, I want to ask you the specific wording, but you are generally familiar with the law of self- defense in Florida?

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: You talked a moment ago, for example, how the stand your ground had evolved from the castle doctrine.

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: Stand your ground is sort of a nickname for the statute, the statute, itself, isn't titled stand your ground?

CARTER: No, I don't think any legislators would write that in such a way. It's a nickname.

WEST: So, the codification -- is the word codification, the codification of the castle doctrine became Florida's stand your ground law insofar as the use of self-defense?

CARTER: You can say that, yes.

WEST: The castle doctrine is the notion that if you are in your castle, in your home, and you are attacked, you have no duty to retreat, even if you can, you have no duty to retreat. You may meet the force with force to defend yourself?

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: Am I right generally on that?

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: And then my evolution of that doctrine into what's been generally characterized as stand your ground, what it did, basically, was allow someone to defend themselves outside their home if they are attacked?

CARTER: Correct.

WEST: Without the duty to retreat?

CARTER: Correct.

WEST: Before that, before that, if you weren't in your home and you were attacked, before you could use deadly force, you had to retreat if you could?

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: If you safely could? So, in other words, if there is an attack outside, you have to sort of assess the situation, decide --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection.

JUDGE DEBRA NELSON: Let me hear the rest of the question, then you may approach.

WEST: Under the old law, with the duty to retreat, if you were inside your home and you were attacked, you would have to assess if situation and make a decision at that moment whether or not you could safely get away before resorting to force?

CARTER: Yes.

NELSON: You may approach.

(END LIVE FEED)

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: OK. Sunny Hostin, so now, on cross, the defense is asking about Florida stand your ground law. They're asking that question to a guy that teaches this and the prosecution is objecting. Why is that?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I'm not quite sure why they're objecting at this point because I think that it's not really harmful to the prosecution. OK, they're at sidebar, so we don't know what their reasoning is.

But I suspect, perhaps, they are thinking that this is running pretty far afield of the direct examination and that it really isn't relevant, all these hypotheticals. But I don't think that it's harmful to the prosecution and so, you know, why object?

I mean, if this witness is shown to be someone that really does understand the law and understands stands your ground and taught it to George Zimmerman and George Zimmerman was such a great student that he got an A in the class.

I mean, I suspect the government can then argue, carol, well, you know, he certainly lied when he told Sean Hannity he had never heard stand your ground. He certainly knew enough police procedure to profile someone. So I'm not sure why they don't want to get into this.

COSTELLO: So from a defense perspective, Drew, why are they? Why do you think they're getting into this?

DREW FINDLING, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think what they're doing is normally you can't get into legal issues in front of the jury. That's something for the instructions at the end of the case, of course, you can argue the anticipated instructions. The witnesses can't comment on it.

Here, you put up the witness, you say as the prosecutor, you taught this course and you taught it uniquely to Florida law. At that point, it's not beyond the scope of direct examination. It's fair game to start lurk away at your theories using this witness. It's a little of the inherent risk.

COSTELLO: The defense attorneys want the jury to understand that George Zimmerman understood Florida's stand your ground law?

FINDLING: I think they wanted to do whether they wanted him to understand it or not, they want to educate the jury. At some point, they're going to argue, did he really have the time to remember his subject matter and his course curriculum. I think most logical people are going to say in a matter of seconds, you don't fall back on your class curriculum.

JASON JOHNSON, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: I completely disagree because my whole argument is it's not what George Zimmerman thought when he was getting out of the car with the bullet in the chamber. It's what he thought after this happened. He shoots Trayvon Martin. He has to have a story.

Drawing upon this experience and these courses, of course, he can come up with the story. I don't know why the defense thinks it's a good idea for man to say, yes, George Zimmerman had the skills to come up with a justifiable story.

COSTELLO: OK, well, the attorneys are still conferring with the judge. We'll take a quick break. We'll be back with more in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: On the stand right now in that Sanford courtroom is one of George Zimmerman's professor at Seminole state. He is talking about how he taught George Zimmerman about Florida's stand your ground law. Cross examination is now taking place with Attorney Don West. Let's listen.

(BEGIN LIVE FEED)

CARTER: Say it again, ma'am.

NELSON: Whether or not your answers to these questions are based on your knowledge as an attorney in your practice or are they also something that you taught the class?

CARTER: The evolution of the castle doctrine?

NELSON: That's the question.

CARTER: Yes, that would be something that I hit on in the class.

NELSON: Then you may proceed. Objection overruled.

WEST: So what that means, basically, is that when you were at the castle doctrine, you were in your home, you were attacked, you don't have to worry about whether you can get away. You may meet force with force?

CARTER: Right.

WEST: Sort of a -- then what happened when the statutes changed, a few years ago, into this what's been known as stand your ground, basically, the castle doctrine of no duty to retreat was simply authorized in locations other than your own home?

CARTER: Right. I think what happened is the presumption changed. If you are attacked in your home, there is a presumption that you're in fear of your life. A lot of times attacks happen at night. You are scared. You are woken up by something. So there was a presumption that you were in fear of your life.

So that's how that came about and then it extended outside of the home, but there wasn't that same presumption. The same presumption doesn't exist outside of the home. It's the dwelling, residence, I think your vehicle, where that presumption is, but outside of the home, there wasn't that same sort of presumption. I hope that makes sense.

WEST: Well, I know you are taking this to school, so let me point out a couple of things. You are suggesting that when it occurs in certain locations, in addition is there no duty to retreat, but there is sort of a presumption that if it happens that you are, will be in fear for your life?

CARTER: So, yes, if you are in your home, that's, in your home, there is a great indicia that person had fear of death of grievous bodily harm.

WEST: OK, if you are in your home and you, I don't want to go too far away from why you are here testifying today, but I want to clarify, though, that part of self-defense is under any circumstance the reasonable belief that you have to act to avoid imminent great bodily harm?

CARTER: Yes, no questions to that.

NELSON: There is an objection.

CARTER: I'm sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The objection is the framing of the question is counsel's version of the law.

NELSON: I'm going to sustain the objection and state to the jury at the end of the conclusion of the evidence of this case, this court will give you instructions on the law that you are to follow and apply to the facts as you find them. Your questioning needs to be to what he taught the class not a general discussion on what the law is.

WEST: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So when you taught the class, what is the core concept of self-defense when you can use deadly force?

CARTER: When you have a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm and the term "reasonable" this obviously has two components, so there is a subjective component, meaning that I feel like I'm in fear. In my mind, I feel like I'm in fear of death of grievous bodily harm.

But when stuff hits the fan, you are judged by jurors and your accidents have to meet a reasonable standard objectively. So whether or not a reasonable person in your position would have felt the way you felt.

WEST: All right, so what you would explain then to anybody that was there that day would be that on the issue of the reasonable fear, it's both subjective and objective. The subjective part is crawling inside the person's head to see what they were thinking and would it be reasonable to them that they would fear for their life?

CARTER: Right. That's why the totality of the circumstances are important. For example, if you approached me right now in broad daylight, whatever the case is, I probably wouldn't have that much fear. But, you know, the lights are out, I don't know what's happening. I feel someone grab me. Those are circumstances you need to consider in whether or not someone had a reasonable apprehension of fear.

WEST: So the first part then is trying to understand as best you can from the totality of the circumstances whether that person was in fear in their own mind? Did they think that serious bodily harm was about to happen?

CARTER: Right.

WEST: And then you are saying, then there is a bit of a shift and then in order to see if that's reasonable, then the trier of fact, if you will, the jury then looks at this idea, does it make sense that somebody in that person's situation with all of the circumstances would fear that they were facing imminent great bodily harm.

CARTER: That is correct.

WEST: Nowhere in the discussion of self-defense is it required that the person being attacked actually be injured? It's really the issue of what they think is going to happen not what's actually happened? Is that right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to object again.

NELSON: The court will instruct the jury on what the law is at the end of the case. It's the law that you are to apply to the facts as you find them. Your discussion today is limited to what you have taught in the course.

CARTER: Yes, I understand.

WEST: Mr. Carter, the presumption is that any question that I ask you today is either to clarify an answer that you have given to explain the legal concept or connect it directly with the way you would explain these things to your students? CARTER: Right. As I understand that.

WEST: I'm not going outside the scope of that.

CARTER: Understood.

WEST: So what you just explained is how you would explain this self- defense concept works in Florida.

CARTER: Right. And it's fluid. You know, the law as it applies isn't static. Like I said, any change in a certain fact can waive differently in terms of whether someone acted reasonable and, you know, to illustrate that, I would put up examples on the projector.

I would have YouTube videos and pause it frame by frame, OK, what's happening now? You know, what is this person justified in doing? What are they not justified in doing. So you can see that, you know, things can change in a matter of moments.

WEST: An encounter that doesn't appear to be deadly can turn deadly pretty quickly, in your mind?

CARTER: Yes, yes.

WEST: On the issue of injury itself, though, when you talk about that with the class and your understanding of the law is that the focus is what's going on in the person's mind not whether they have actually been injured? It's the fear of the injury, is it not?

CARTER: It's imminent injury or, excuse me, imminent fear. So the fact alone that there isn't an injury doesn't necessarily mean that the person did not have a reasonable apprehension of fear. The fact that there weren't injuries have a tendency to show or support that that person had a reasonable apprehension of fear, but the fact that there wasn't an injury doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't reasonable apprehension of fear.

WEST: You don't have to wait until you are almost dead before you can defend yourself?

CARTER: No, I was advised, you probably don't do that.

WEST: And I take it when you are under attack, you never really know where that moment will be?

CARTER: No, unfortunately, you don't. And then that's not even something from our, that's something that I think a lot of the students grasp, you know, I think we all, they have all probably had situations where, you know, a tussle maybe became more than a tussle, so things can change.

(END LIVE FEED)

COSTELLO: All right, we are going to step away from testimony and take a break. We'll be back with more in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: OK. Back inside the Sanford courtroom now, on the stand, one of George Zimmerman's professor, he is still being cross-examined by the Defense Attorney Don West, they are talking about the definition of self-defense. Let's listen.

(BEGIN LVIE FEED)

WEST: You weren't going to stop?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly, continuing and the specificity.

NELSON: Sustained.

WEST: Without the specific details that I'm talking about, that's what you are talking about in a sense that it really doesn't matter that the focus of the self-defense is at the point that the force is used. And it's only really a relatively minor consideration to what actually started it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection. Again, to counsel posing things.

NELSON: If you will rephrase your question because you begin it with the former hypothetical that the court sustains. So if you will rephrase your question, please.

WEST: I will. I will try, thank you. When you are talking about what you call the imperfect self-defense, what you are really talking about is when are you involved in a situation with somebody, even if you start it, but the tables get turned. All of a sudden you are the one being attacked with far more force than you used? That's the scenario I'm talking about.

CARTER: All right, repeat that what you are asking. So, basically in a sense if someone initially feel that they were being threatened and they countered that threat with the force that was disproportionate to the force that was directed towards them. Yes, that would be imperfect self-defense claim or imperfect self-defense scenario.

WEST: Even under that scenario, the person that may have started it with some lower level of force and the table lumped on them. There is a great level of force, a disproportionate level of force. They have the right to defend themselves.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection. Again, continuing number one the same hypothetical is too specific.

NELSON: I overrule that one the answer was given.

WEST: I didn't hear the answer. We'll be right back. You agree?

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: May I have just a moment?

COSTELLO: All right, I'm going to throw this question to Sunny Hostin. OK, so this witness, he is a prosecution witness, right, supposed to be on the stand testifying that George Zimmerman took his criminal litigation class.

In that class, they learned about Florida's stand your ground law, a little about self defense. George Zimmerman got an A in the class. On cross, the defense attorney started getting into exactly what the definition of self-defense is.

And again, he's seemingly turning into a great witness for the defense. Let's listen again, sorry, Sunny.

RICHARD MANTEI, PROSECUTOR: You are talking about the self-defense law? The idea of planning it -- yes, your honor? The idea of planning it when you have provoked the action, did that enter into the discussion?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection, your honor. Maybe heard it at the bench?

NELSON: Yes.

(END LIVE FEED)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- you answer is "yes" to any of the questions. Please raise your hand. During the overnight recess, did any of you have discussions amongst yourselves or with anybody else about the case? No hands are being raised.

Did any of you listen to any television, newspaper reports about the case? No hands are being raised.

Did any of you use an electric device to get on the internet to do independent research about the case, people, places, things or terminology? No hands are being raised.

Did any of you read or create any e-mails, text messages, twitter, tweets, blogs or social networking pages about the case? No hands are being raised. Thank you very much. State, you may call your next witness.

UNIDENIFIED MALE: Thank you your honor, the state will call Sonja Boles-Melvin (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you tell is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

SONJA BOLES-MELVIN, WITNESS: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

JUDGE DEBRA NELSON, SANFORD FLORIDA: You may proceed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, your honor. Do me a favor. Spell your name and tell us who you are, where you work and what you do. BOLES-MELVIN: My name is Sonja Boles-Melvin. It is spelled S-O-N-J-A, B-O-L-E-S dash M-E-L-V-I-N, and I am the registrar for Seminole State College of Florida.

RICHARD MANTEI, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: What is a registrar?

BOLES-MELVIN: The registrar is responsible for all the educational records, academic records of the institution.

MANTEI: And I assume that your institution keeps academic and institutional records.

BOLES-MELVIN: Correct.

MANTEI: I'll show you what has been marked state's exhibit 209 for purposes of this proceeding. Do you recognize that document?

BOLES-MELVIN: I do.

MANTEI: Is that the type of record that is kept in the course of your business?

BOLES-MELVIN: Yes.

MANTEI: Does it pertain particularly to the defendant in this case George Zimmerman?

BOLES-MELVIN: Yes.

MANTEI: There are two sections along with this. If I may, your honor. The first is what I'll call a grade change form. Do you see that?

BOLES-MELVIN: I do.

MANTEI: Okay. And this was actually submitted for a particular course in a particular department, what is that department, ma'am?

BOLES-MELVIN: Legal studies.

MANTEI: And it is course of which title?

BOLES-MELVIN: Criminal litigation.

MANTEI: And the second is a diploma or certificate application, also in the name of the defendant. Can you tell me, is this something that -- when would a person fill out a form like this?

BOLES-MELVIN: When they are ready to be awarded a degree from Seminole State College.

MANTEI: They fill this out to ask, to apply for a degree?

BOLES-MELVIN: Correct.

MANTEI: And tell me when, A, when this form was filled out and, B, if you can tell when the degree was actually supposedly going to be conferred or being requested for.

BOLES-MELVIN: It looks like Mr. Zimmerman applied for graduation during the term of fall, which would have been our fall commencement. And he applied on October 17th, 2011.

MANTEI: That's when he submitted the application. Does it tell us when he was requesting or thought he would have the degree?

BOLES-MELVIN: Yes. He thought he would graduate by spring 2012.

MANTEI: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. No other questions, your honor.

NELSON: Cross?

MARK O'MARA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, thank you very much.

NELSON: May Ms. Boles-Melvin be excused?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

NELSON: Thank you very much, ma'am. You are excused.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I would move that state's exhibit 209 (INAUDIBLE).

NELSON: Based upon the court's ruling it's submitted into evidence, state's exhibit 209. Call your next witness, please.

MANTEI: Thank you, your honor. Lieutenant Scott Kearns.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you shall present will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

LT. SCOTT KEARNS, PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT: I do.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

NELSON: You may proceed.

MANTEI: Thank you. Morning, sir.

KEARNS: Morning.

MANTEI: Would you please go ahead and spell your name for us, tell us who you are, where you work, and what you do.

KEARNS: Lieutenant Scott Kearns, Prince William County police. Last name spelled K-E-A-R-N-S, first name S-C-O-T-T. Currently assigned to operations Prince William County Police -- Prince William County Police, and prior to that I was the bureau commander for the Prince William County Police Personnel Unit.

MANTEI: Prince William County where, sir?

KEARNS: In Virginia, sir. MANTEI: And does the Prince William County, is there a particular name of that agency, are you the public city police --

KEARNS: It would be county police.

MANTEI: And is that agency normally keep records of people who apply for jobs in that agency?

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

MANTEI: Jobs both civilian and as a police officer?

KEARNS: With the police department, yes, sir.

MANTEI: And in your capacity as the manager of personnel unit would be the person who would normally calling custodian records of that type?

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

MANTEI: How long does the Prince William County Police Department keep the actual applications of records?

KEARNS: Well, in accordance with the Virginia Records Retention Act, what we do is we keep them for the mandated three years. After which time it is standard practice for us to destroy the records after that period.

MANTEI: Were you asked to investigate if you had any records as it relates to an application to become a police officer in Prince William County by the defendant in this case, George Zimmerman?

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

MANTEI: Were you able to locate the actual application?

KEARNS: No, sir. It was destroyed.

MANTEI: Show you what's marked as state's exhibit 211. And do you recognize this exhibit, sir?

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

MANTEI: Okay. What is that?

KEARNS: That's an extract. What we do after we destroy -- you are talking about the first document? After we destroy the records, after the period of three years, we create a very cursory amount of information on the record that was to be destroyed. Basic information, name, address, date of applied, et cetera. And additionally we also send out a letter for those individuals that are not considered further into the process, we send them a dated letter with my name at the bottom regarding their status and they're not going to be considered further.

MANTEI: In this case, what was the date of that letter?

KEARNS: The date was July 8th, 2009.

MANTEI: Now, lieutenant, I'd imagine you get a lot of people who apply.

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

MANTEI: So, is there anything unusual or sinister about people not getting the job as an officer?

KEARNS: No, sir.

MANTEI: Thank you. No other questions.

NELSON: Thank you. Any cross?

UNIDENIFIED MALE: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would move at this time state exhibit 211 into evidence.

NELSON: It will be admitted, state's exhibit 211.

DON WEST, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Morning, Lieutenant Kearns.

KEARNS: Morning, sir.

WEST: Your position in the police department is because you are a sworn police officer and have full privileges as such?

KEARNS: That's correct, sir.

WEST: Are you currently serving in any kind of investigative capacity?

KEARNS: No, sir.

WEST: It's more administrative?

KEARNS: I just recently changed assignments just over three days ago. I'm now the watch commander for the western district evening squad. But prior to that, I was with the personnel bureau.

WEST: So, it's not uncommon, I take it, within a given police department to change hats from time to time.

KEARNS: No, sir.

WEST: Maybe patrol, maybe investigator, maybe behind the desk.

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: How long were you in the administrative position prior to your current assignment?

KEARNS: Six years, sir.

WEST: So, you were the administrator then at the time Mr. Zimmerman applied?

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: Do you have any -- you have no copy of his application, I take it?

KEARNS: No, sir, it was destroyed.

WEST: You couldn't tell me, for example, who he used as a reference on his application?

KEARNS: No, sir.

WEST: You don't have a personal memory of the contents of the application?

KEARNS: No, sir.

WEST: Because, as me Mantei (ph) said, you get a lot of them?

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: A lot of people want to be police officers.

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: As did you, obviously.

KEARNS: I did.

WEST: So, if I understand the process then, there is an application, obviously. And then under your records retention policy after a period of time, the actual record is destroyed and there is a brief extract or excerpt from the application or from the process rather.

KEARNS: That's correct.

WEST: In this exhibit, which is marked as 211, you are certifying here that you are the records (INAUDIBLE).

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: What is attached to it is a business record.

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: I noticed, for example, that it's not on letterhead and it's not signed. And it doesn't have any more information on the document other than the actual written contents of it.

KEARNS: That's correct, sir.

WEST: This isn't a copy then of the actual letter that was sent in the mail.

KEARNS: It's not the actual copy. That was destroyed. That's the document that was used to create the original in terms of later my signature was placed on it along with the letterhead.

WEST: This would have been basically the word processing document that was printed?

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: And you don't have a specific memory of reviewing or signing the disk?

KEARNS: No, sir.

WEST: This is just one of among other documents that are kept in the system?

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: And then this other page of the document, if you can see it well enough from here just to help me know what it is. Is this the extract you're talking about?

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: And in this extract it includes, of course, Mr. Zimmerman's name and Social Security number and his address at the time. That would be the address at the time he filed the application?

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: It would indicate ethnicity.

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: It would indicate gender.

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: Is that what that means? G?

KEARNS: I'd have to, some of them were rather abbreviated and cryptic. Yes, sir. That's correct.

WEST: G would be gender and then Mr. --

KEARNS: Yes.

WEST: A guy?

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: Spanish?

KEARNS: That would be any languages spoken other than English.

WEST: So that it would indicate that Mr. Zimmerman is bilingual.

WEST: It would indicate that he stated that he knew another language other than English. In other words, we didn't confirm that. So this is all self-disclosed information on the application. And we just transpose it on to the spreadsheet. So we didn't validate anything in terms of his Spanish-speaking is skills. That was self-disclosed.

WEST: I see. Well as would be the birth date and the social and everything else. Right?

KEARNS: Well, some of those things can be confirmed up front. The driver's license and et cetera but Spanish would be an actual test that will be performed later in the process.

WEST: I see, got you. Then at the end, there is a column that says "COLL, credit history."

KEARNS: Yes sir.

WEST: Do you take that to mean that Mr. Zimmerman had a problem with his credit?

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: And that would be a reason why you wouldn't be accepted as a police officer?

KEARNS: That's the reason why we did not consider him further based on that record, yes, sir.

WEST: It makes sense if you think about it, doesn't it? Because a police officer who has credit problems would be vulnerable to criminals, wouldn't they?

KEARNS: Possibly.

WEST: They could be put in compromising situations where they may make -- make a bad decision because of their financial concerns.

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: So, if somebody has bad credit because of their age and not having a clear established work history or any other number of reasons that shows up as bad credit, he would be, in fact, was rejected.

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: So, that would mean, I take it, that when his credit got better or he was able to fully address that issue to the satisfaction of the department, he could re-apply?

KEARNS: It's possible, sir.

WEST: In fact, you know of people that have applied once and been rejected and maybe applied, again, even with other agencies and ultimately gotten on.

KEARNS: Yes, sir.

WEST: Can I have just a moment, Judge. Thank you. Thank you very much.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. Any redirect?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: May Lieutenant Kearns be excused? You said yes?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you very much you are excused. Please, call your next witness.

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: All right. So, two witnesses fairly quick, although we were sort of puzzled why Don West was cross examining that last witness so much. But these witnesses -- and I'll go to Sunny Hostin on this.

The prosecution just sort of setting up testimony to come, right?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, they're setting up the admissibility of the records to come in. So they want his application to the police department in Virginia which was denied and they want his school records to come in. So that's what we've seen so far. They've got to lay those foundations.

COSTELLO: All right, the next witness is about to take the stand let's listen.

DEBRA NELSON, PRESIDENT JUDGE: You may proceed.

RICHARD MANTEI, PROSECUTOR: Thank you, your honor.

Capt. Carter, if you would, please, introduce yourself to the jury. Tell them who are, your name, rank, serial number, where you're from.

CAPT. ALEXIS FRANCISCO CARTER, U.S. ARMY, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL PROSECUTOR: Roger that. Captain Alexis Francisco Carter, the United States Army, assigned to Third Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Georgia, United States officer, JAG Corps.

MANTEI: Tell me what JAG Corps means.

CARTER: It stands for Judge Advocate General. I'm basically a military prosecutor in the Army.

MANTEI: So you're yet another lawyer?

CARTER: Yes. Yes.

MANTEI: Capt. Carter, do you also teach courses?

CARTER: I did at one point but not currently.

MANTEI: Ok would that have included back in spring of 2010?

CARTER: Yes, I taught a course. MANTEI: Where did you teach that course?

CARTER: Seminole State College.

MANTEI: And what was the name of that course?

CARTER: Criminal litigation.

MANTEI: Do you remember the defendant George Zimmerman being a student in that course?

CARTER: I do.

MANTEI: And actually do you remember what kind of a grade you gave him?

CARTER: I gave him an "A".

MANTEI: All right, tell me a little bit about what type of course that was?

CARTER: Well, when I -- when I got the book or when I, you know, got wind of the course, Criminal Litigation, I automatically assumed that I will be teaching it from a more practical standpoint, trial advocacy, things of that nature. But the way the course book was set up, it wasn't really like that and the time frame in which I had to teach the course, I couldn't really teach it from a trial advocacy standpoint.

So it was mostly like a criminal law, criminal procedure course. We talked about the law, elements of the law, we talked about criminal procedure, the constitutional rights, 4th and 5th Amendment, things of that nature.

MANTEI: Ok did you almost do any kind of what I'll call mock trial sort of thing?

CARTER: Not really, not in that course. We didn't have the time for it. Again, it just kind of focused on the elements of the crime and we would go through hypotheticals where, you know, we would ask the students certain questions regarding certain cases and things of that nature.

MANTEI: You mentioned your course book. I'm showing you just what's -- is that your course book titled "Criminal Law and Procedure?"

CARTER: Yes. That's --

MANTEI: And I'm showing you what's in evidence now what has been marked as state's exhibit 210. Is this a sort of subsection, a very small section of this very big book?

CARTER: Yes.

MANTEI: Ok.

And that's the chapter specifically pertaining to what?

CARTER: Self-defense.

MANTEI: Ok and the second part of state's exhibit 210 is what?

CARTER: It's an e-mail, homework assignment from George. It was the first homework assignment that I gave to all the students.

MANTEI: Ok. And is that --

MANTEI: The rest of it actual additional homework assignment?

CARTER: Yes.

MANTEI: Your honor, I want to enter state exhibit 210 into evidence at this point.

NELSON: The book or the excerpt?

MANTEI: Just the excerpt then.

NELSON: Ok they'll come in as composite exhibit 210.

MANTEI: Thank you, your honor.

Talk to me a little bit, professor, about what kind of student you remember the defendant to be?

CARTER: You know, you always kind of remember your smartest student or the one that stood out the most, the one that probably wasn't the best student and he was probably one of the better students in the class.

MANTEI: You mentioned that and we talked about state exhibits 210 as an excerpt from the book about self-defense, obviously, you were teaching this course in Florida so tell me what sort of things you addressed as it relates to the law of self-defense in Florida.

CARTER: Right so you know the way the book is comprised, obviously the publishers are from Florida. They didn't really put Florida- specific things. But I wanted to teach the class from a practical standpoint where these students can really relate and take something from it and apply it to their own lives. You know, with Florida and other states, they have what's called the Stand Your Ground law, which evolved from the Castle Doctrine through case law.

MANTEI: And did you cover that specifically?

CARTER: Yes.

MANTEI: Did you discuss specifically self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws in the connection of violent crimes such as murder?

CARTER: Yes.

MANTEI: And did you address the particularities of -- strike that question, bad question. Professor Carter, what can you tell us about how long you spent as part of that course covering ideas like self- defense and Stand Your Ground?

CARTER: Right. You know self-defense is an affirmative defense. It's a big self-defense. It's not one of those things that you're going to just whisk through in a day or you're -- after you teach it, you're going to neglect from bringing it back into the classroom. So it was something that I constantly reiterated.

I was the type of professor that before I gave any test, I gave a review for the test and it was something that I think the students really wanted to know about. It was so practical that it was, there was, they were very much engaged in class discussion regarding the issue.

So I remember, you know, talking about it you know quite a few times, not just on the one particular occasion.

MANTEI: No further questions, your honor.

NELSON: Can you take your cross?

WEST: Just give me a second.

CARTER: Sure.

WEST: Good morning, Mr. Carter.

CARTER: Good morning.

WEST: My name is Don West. I'm one of the attorneys for Mr. Zimmerman. Do you see George over here?

CARTER: How are you doing, George?

WEST: And Mr. O'Mara is co-counselor on the case.

CARTER: How are you doing?

WEST: How long have you held your current position in JAG Corps?

CARTER: October would be three years.

And you taught at Seminole State College, was it beginning of the semester of January, 2010?

CARTER: Yes, it would have been from January 2010 time frame until probably, I don't know, May.

WEST: Was it just the one term?

CARTER: Yes. I only taught one class and that was it.

WEST: And what did you do after that?

CARTER: Right around that time, well, I was also working at a PD. I was at the public defender's office during that time full time as an orange county 9th circuit. So I went back to work and I left for the JAG Corps for training October, 2010, so I went back to work full time to the PD's office, then went off to the JAG Corps.

WEST: Were you working for the public defender's office in January of 2010 while you were also doing the adjunct?

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: I got you. Do you remember when you started with the PD's office?

CARTER: So, that would probably be November 2009.

WEST: Was that shortly after you became admitted as an attorney?

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: Admitted to the bar?

CARTER: Yes.

WEST: So that was your first job?

CARTER: It was.

WEST: As a lawyer? With the public defender's office?

CARTER: It was.

WEST: And then you took on the responsibility of the class as kind of a side job?

CARTER: Yes. You know, I hopefully one day I could be a law professor and I like teaching. And you know the cool thing about that job teaching was a lot of things that I have to know or had to know every day for my job as a PD was reinforced by educating others.

WEST: So when you made the comment that your approach to the class was really from a practical standpoint, you were talking about how this stuff works in real life?

COSTELLO: Good morning, everyone, I'm Carol Costello with "NEWSROOM." Thank you so much for joining us.

We are keeping an eye on Egypt. I just want you to know that. The thousands and thousands of protesters now protesting at Tahrir Square; the Egyptian military has have given an ultimatum to President Morsi, Egypt's president to either reform the government or something might happen. We're keeping a close eye on that.

And of course, we are continuing our live coverage of the George Zimmerman murder trial. On the stand right now is one of George Zimmerman's professors at Seminole State. His name is Alexis Carter. He teaches criminal litigation, including Florida's Stand Your Ground law. He has testified that Zimmerman was a good student, actually got an A in the course.

It is now cross examination time. This is defense attorney Don West. Let's listen.

WEST: It could be just one or two that may have significance.

CARTER: Well, no. All facts have significance. You generally look at things from the totality of the circumstances. But there are certain things that, you know, through case laws have been seen to give more weight.

WEST: Sure.

RICHARD MANTEI, PROSECUTOR: -- does that the concept, you are in line with that? Or is that what you are talking about?

CAPT. ALEXIS FRANCISCO CARTER, U.S. ARMY: What I'm talking about when it comes to imperfect self-defense is a situation where you do not meet the force that -- the force that you are encountering, you meet that force, disproportionately. It's excessive force.

MANTEI: So I guess in the ultimate level of force in these scenarios is deadly force.

CARTER: Is deadly force.

MANTEI: Like a gunshot?

CARTER: Like a gunshot.

MANTEI: No other questions, Judge, thank you.

NELSON: Thank you. May Captain Carter be excused?

MANTEI: Yes, your honor.

JUDGE DEBRA NELSON: Thank you very much Captain Carter you are excused. Call your next witness, please. Anybody need a recess? No.

Call your next witness, please.

MANTEI: I call Jim Krzenski, your honor.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you shall present will be the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God.

JIM KRZENSKI: Yes I do.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, sir.

NELSON: You may proceed.

MANTEI: Thank you. Mr. Krzenski would you please go ahead and spell your last name for us; in particular, tell us where you are -- I'm sorry, where you work and what you do?

JIM KRZENSKI, SANFORD, FLORIDA POLICE ADMINISTRATOR: The spelling of my last name is K-R-Z-E-N-S-K-I. And I'm the administrative services manager for the Sanford police department. I basically oversee all the administrational police department and report directly to the deputy chief.

MANTEI: And by administration, does that include the records that the department keeps and maintains?

KRZENSKI: Yes, sir. I have four technicians that report to me.

MANTEI: OK.

Sir I'm showing you state exhibit's 212. Is this one of the types of documents you just referenced kept by the Sanford Police Department?

KRZENSKI: Yes, sir.

MANTEI: And you have seen record like that before? KRZENSKI: Yes, sir.

MANTEI: And what is it?

KRZENSKI: This is a Sanford Police Department release form.

MANTEI: When does a person fill out a form like that?

KRZENSKI: When they request to ride along with a police officer.

MANTEI: And was this filled out by a particular individual?

KRZENSKI: Yes, sir, there was a particular individual.

MANTEI: And who was it?

KRZENSKI: George M. Zimmerman.

MANTEI: And when was it filled out?

KRZENSKI: It was filled out according to this on 3-15-2010.

MANTEI: OK.

And does the person indicate whether or not they have a reason for wanting to go on these ride-alongs?

KRZENSKI: Yes, sir.

MANTEI: And what is that reason?

KRZENSKI: It states here, solidify my chances of a law enforcement career -- a career in law enforcement.

MANTEI: Thank you. Your honor, I'd move states exhibit 212 then.

NELSON: We'll come into evidence with states exhibit 212. Cross. Please.

MARK O'MARA, ZIMMERMAN'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Very brief, your honor. Thank you.

Good morning, sir. How are you?

KRZENSKI: Good morning.

O'MARA: You of course reviewed all of your available records to come up with the one time that Mr. Zimmerman sought a ride-along with a police officer, correct?

KRZENSKI: Yes, sir. We searched for this record. We have literally hundreds of these, sir.

O'MARA: Sure and there was only one where Mr. Zimmerman did that back in 2010.

KRZENSKI: Yes, sir, to my knowledge.

O'MARA: Never requested it again.

KRZENSKI: To my knowledge, no.

O'MARA: Were you aware at all in your records that Mr. Zimmerman had responded after that ride-along talking about the officer he had rode along with?

KRZENSKI: Not directly, sir. No.

O'MARA: Not in any of the records that you keep when you are looking for that record?

KRZENSKI: No, sir.

O'MARA: OK.

KRZENSKI: I didn't find anything related to this ride-along other than this form right here.

O'MARA: Then I have no further questions. Thank you, your honor.

NELSON: Thank you, may Mr. Krzenski be excused?

MANTEI: Yes, your honor.

NELSON: OK thank you. You may be excused. Sir. Call your next witness.

MANTEI: Could we approach, your honor?

NELSON: Yes.

RICHARD MANTEI, PROSECUTOR: -- does that the concept, you are in line with that? Or is that what you are talking about?

CAPT. ALEXIS FRANCISCO CARTER, U.S. ARMY: What I'm talking about when it comes to imperfect self-defense is a situation where you do not meet the force that -- the force that you are encountering, you meet that force, disproportionately. It's excessive force.

MANTEI: So I guess in the ultimate level of force in these scenarios is deadly force.

CARTER: Is deadly force.

MANTEI: Like a gunshot?

CARTER: Like a gunshot.

MANTEI: No other questions, Judge, thank you.

NELSON: Thank you. May Captain Carter be excused?

MANTEI: Yes, your honor.

JUDGE DEBRA NELSON: Thank you very much Captain Carter you are excused. Call your next witness, please. Anybody need a recess? No.

Call your next witness, please.

MANTEI: I call Jim Krzenski, your honor.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you shall present will be the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God.

JIM KRZENSKI: Yes I do.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, sir.

NELSON: You may proceed.

MANTEI: Thank you. Mr. Krzenski would you please go ahead and spell your last name for us; in particular, tell us where you are -- I'm sorry, where you work and what you do?

JIM KRZENSKI, SANFORD, FLORIDA POLICE ADMINISTRATOR: The spelling of my last name is K-R-Z-E-N-S-K-I. And I'm the administrative services manager for the Sanford police department. I basically oversee all the administrational police department and report directly to the deputy chief.

MANTEI: And by administration, does that include the records that the department keeps and maintains?

KRZENSKI: Yes, sir. I have four technicians that report to me.

MANTEI: OK.

Sir I'm showing you state exhibit's 212. Is this one of the types of documents you just referenced kept by the Sanford Police Department?

KRZENSKI: Yes, sir.

MANTEI: And you have seen record like that before? KRZENSKI: Yes, sir.

MANTEI: And what is it?

KRZENSKI: This is a Sanford Police Department release form.

MANTEI: When does a person fill out a form like that?

KRZENSKI: When they request to ride along with a police officer.

MANTEI: And was this filled out by a particular individual?

KRZENSKI: Yes, sir, there was a particular individual.

MANTEI: And who was it?

KRZENSKI: George M. Zimmerman.

MANTEI: And when was it filled out?

KRZENSKI: It was filled out according to this on 3-15-2010.

MANTEI: OK.

And does the person indicate whether or not they have a reason for wanting to go on these ride-alongs?

KRZENSKI: Yes, sir.

MANTEI: And what is that reason?

KRZENSKI: It states here, solidify my chances of a law enforcement career -- a career in law enforcement.

MANTEI: Thank you. Your honor, I'd move states exhibit 212 then.

NELSON: We'll come into evidence with states exhibit 212. Cross. Please.

MARK O'MARA, ZIMMERMAN'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Very brief, your honor. Thank you.

Good morning, sir. How are you?

KRZENSKI: Good morning.

O'MARA: You of course reviewed all of your available records to come up with the one time that Mr. Zimmerman sought a ride-along with a police officer, correct?

KRZENSKI: Yes, sir. We searched for this record. We have literally hundreds of these, sir.

O'MARA: Sure and there was only one where Mr. Zimmerman did that back in 2010.

KRZENSKI: Yes, sir, to my knowledge.

O'MARA: Never requested it again.

KRZENSKI: To my knowledge, no.

O'MARA: Were you aware at all in your records that Mr. Zimmerman had responded after that ride-along talking about the officer he had rode along with?

KRZENSKI: Not directly, sir. No.

O'MARA: Not in any of the records that you keep when you are looking for that record?

KRZENSKI: No, sir.

O'MARA: OK.

KRZENSKI: I didn't find anything related to this ride-along other than this form right here.

O'MARA: Then I have no further questions. Thank you, your honor.

NELSON: Thank you, may Mr. Krzenski be excused?

MANTEI: Yes, your honor.

NELSON: OK thank you. You may be excused. Sir. Call your next witness.

MANTEI: Could we approach, your honor?

NELSON: Yes.

(END LIVE FEED)

JUDGE DEBRA NELSON: OK, let's go ahead and bring the jury in.

NELSON: Mr. Mantei, call your next witness.

NELSON: Mr. Mantei, call your next witness.

RICHARD MANTEI, PROSECUTOR: Thank you, your honor.

We call Professor Scott Pleasants.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Raise your right hand, please.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you shall present will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. PROFESSOR GORDON PLEASANTS, ZIMMERMAN'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSOR, EX-POLICE OFFICER: I do.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

MANTEI: Professor Pleasants, would you go ahead and make sure you spell your last name for us, please?

PLEASANTS: It's Pleasant, P-L-E-A-S-A-N-T-S.

MANTEI: And I understand you are testifying remotely at the moment. Where are you at, sir?

PLEASANTS: I am in Delta, Colorado, west side Colorado in Delta ...

MANTEI: Can we get that fixed?

And, Professor, can you still hear us OK?

PLEASANTS: yes.

MANTEI: Professor, where do you teach courses at?

PLEASANTS: Seminole State College.

MANTEI: How long have you been a professor there?

PLEASANTS: Three years.

MANTEI: OK.

And do you teach a course that is variously entitled "Criminal Investigation?"

PLEASANTS: Yes, I do.

MANTEI: I'm holding up a green-and-blue book. Can you see it?

PLEASANTS: Yes, I can.

MANTEI: Is that a copy of the course book that you routinely use in the course.

PLEASANTS: That is one of the books, yes.

MANTEI: OK.

And previously I've shown you what's state's exhibit 201. Is this just a packet with some excerpts from that textbook?

PLEASANTS: Yes, it is.

MANTEI: OK.

Do you remember teaching the course in terms of 2010?

PLEASANTS: Actually, it's 2011, summer of 2011.

MANTEI: Summer of 2011, is that when you had a student named George Zimmerman?

PLEASANTS: Yes.

MANTEI: OK.

And specifically, simply as it relates to the course, what sorts of things do you cover?

PLEASANTS: Oh, we cover various aspects of criminal investigations, of the duties of a criminal investigator from the constitutional issues surrounding criminal investigations and, basically, different aspects of different types of crimes.

MANTEI: OK.

Your honor, I would move state's exhibit 201 into evidence.

NELSON: OK, 201 will come in as state's exhibit 201.

O'MARA: I make the previous objection where (inaudible), your honor.

NELSON: Yeah, pursuant to the court's order.

MANTEI: And, Professor Pleasants, the course that you teach, is that sort of an in-classroom course or is it a different type?

PLEASANTS: No, this is a course (inaudible) we teach it online, and requires (inaudible) activities by the student that is based on the coursework in the book.

MANTEI: I'm sorry. Would you go ahead and repeat that, starting from the beginning?

PLEASANTS: Yes, the (inaudible) -- is it coming across?

MANTEI: Go ahead.

PLEASANTS: OK. Could you repeat the question?

MANTEI: Sure. Is this an in-room course, or is it a different type?

PLEASANTS: No, this is a distant-learning course, where the students are online and I facilitate the class through the textbook, discussions and workbook exercise.

MANTEI: And how do you facilitate those types of discussions?

PLEASANTS: Basically, having (inaudible) form that is (inaudible) ...

MANTEI: Start again, please. Start that answer again.

PLEASANTS: We have weekly discussions, starting with an introduction discussion where the student introduces themselves of what types (inaudible) to go for, what their career goals are.

And then each week, we have discussions.

(Inaudible) those discussions are based on different topics.

MANTEI: OK, and as I understand the excerpt in state exhibit 201, there are chapters on how to testify, how to testify as a witness, as well as on psychological or criminal profiling?

PLEASANTS: Yes, sir.

MANTEI: OK. Thank you.

No other questions, your honor.

NELSON: OK. Cross?

Is that his phone? (Inaudible).

MANTEI: It's someone calling the destination, your honor.

(INAUDIBLE) just hit decline call.

(END LIVE FEED)

MARK O'MARA, ZIMMERMAN'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: There is another one that talks about strategies for excelling as a witness. Was that discussed in coursework at all?

VOICE OF PROF. GORDON PLEASANTS, ZIMMERMAN'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSOR, EX-POLICE OFFICER: I think that might have been a discussion topic, but (inaudible).

O'MARA: The second half of that question, again, sir? The answer?

PLEASANTS: I said I need to check. It might have been one of our discussion topics.

O'MARA: OK. And can you testify -- can you testify here today whether or not George Zimmerman was even present for any of that discussion on the online course?

PLEASANTS: He participated in all of the discussions that we had.

O'MARA: And how is that documented, just so we know?

PLEASANTS: It's through the Sakai (ph) management system and any of the discussions that we have (inaudible), they are maintained and can pretty much go back to any comment board post (ph).

O'MARA: I'm sorry. The last half of that answer, sir?

PLEASANTS: Sakai (ph) could go back at any time and look at those discussions that the students had made (ph) again.

O'MARA: OK, and are those records somewhere available to you?

PLEASANTS: Yes, they are.

O'MARA: OK. You don't have them with you today, though?

PLEASANTS: I actually have printout of the discussion. That's what I'm looking through right now to see if we covered (inaudible).

O'MARA: OK, well, maybe we'll take a moment to see if you can review those and then tell us about that.

O'MARA: I'm sorry, I'm going to ask the question again because I couldn't understand your answer, understanding again that we have audio difficulties. Was there any discussion about testifying or acting as a "how to be a witness" in your coursework, yes or no?

PLEASANTS: Like I said, it was a part of the required reading but we didn't address it in the discussions or the actual course.

O'MARA: OK. It was in the book, correct?

Sir, it was in the book, correct?

PLEASANTS: It was.

O'MARA: OK, but it was not discussed in any of the coursework, is that also correct?

PLEASANTS: It does look like it was not discussed.

O'MARA: OK, thank you.

AMY SIEWERT, FIREARMS ANALYST, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT: And as they release, the top cartridge from the magazine will be removed from the top and loaded into the chamber and the pistol will be ready to fire. In order to fire a shot at this point, all you need to do is pull the trigger.

JOHN GUY, PROSECUTOR: All right. And is there a way to load the firearm so that you don't need to pull the slide back to chamber a round?

SIEWERT: You have to chamber. You have to pull back on the slide to load a cartridge into the chamber. That's the only way to get it in.

GUY: All right. If the magazine was full, could that be done?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: Explain to them how that is.

SIEWERT: With a loaded magazine with the capacity of this particular one is seven. You can pull back on the slide and release and it will load that top cartridge. And there will be one in the chamber, six in the magazine. If you desire, you can release the magazine, load another one, so the magazine would be full for a total of seven in the magazine. Re-insert into the pistol so the total capacity between the magazine and the chamber it will hold is 8.

GUY: Do you recall how many cartridges were with the firearm when you received it?

SIEWERT: I received seven cartridges total.

GUY: The magazine holds how many?

SIEWERT: Seven.

GUY: So if that firearm had been fired, are you telling me that someone has to place a live round in the chamber?

SIEWERT: With -- the way I received it was six in the magazine and the additional one. It would be consistent with the magazine fully loaded and one in the chamber at the time it was fired.

GUY: All right. Does that firearm have features that prevent an accidental discharge? SIEWERT: Yes, it has internal safeties. It is double action only, which means that the firearm cannot be cocked unless the trigger is pulled. Pulling the trigger will both cock and release the hammer, which is located back here. It is also shrouded so you cannot get to it to be able to cock it. It also has a hammer block, which is a mechanical piece that prevents the hammer from being in contact with the firing pin unless the trigger is pulled and then that will drop out of the way and allow the hammer to hit the firing pin.

GUY: What does, what do you mean by trigger travel distance?

SIEWERT: Trigger travel distance is the distance that the trigger has to be pulled rearward in order to release the firing mechanism, or in this case, dock and release the hammer.

GUY: And what's the distance or relative distance of the trigger travel distance on that particular firearm?

SIEWERT: This particular gun has a longer descent (ph) than most typical pistols.

GUY: Is that another feature that would help prevent an accidental discharge the?

SIEWERT: Yes. You have to pull that significantly in order to release the firing mechanism.

GUY: All right. Did you also receive a holster with that exhibit with that firearm?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: Would you show that to the jury how the two go together?

SIEWERT: This was the holster. There is a clip on the back. (INAUDIBLE).

GUY: All right. All right. So that would be the total size of it if a person were to wear that on their hip either inside or outside their clothing?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: Thank you, ma'am. You may resume your seat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE).

GUY: Yes, could I ask the deputy to do that?

MARK O'MARA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your Honor, I'll asking her some questions and using it with it as well, or do you want to wait?

DEBRA NELSON, CIRCUIT JUDGE: (INAUDIBLE).

GUY: All right. Ms. Siewert, what is meant by the term "trigger pull"? SIEWERT: Trigger pull is the amount of force required to release the firing mechanism.

GUY: And are you able to measure that with any particular firearm?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: Did you measure that with this firearm?

SIEWERT: I did.

GUY: Explain to the jury how you did.

SIEWERT: I hung a series of known weights from the shooting position of the trigger where the finger will rest and I kept adding weights until the trigger was pulled and if the hammer cocked and released.

GUY: What did you find when you measured the trigger pull?

SIEWERT: This was 4-and-a-half and 4 and three-quarters pounds.

GUY: Was that within the manufacturer's specifications?

SIEWERT: Yes, it is.

GUY: Did you receive a cartridge case with this evidence?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: How many.

SIEWERT: I received one fired cartridge case.

GUY: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

NELSON: Approach the witness.

GUY: I will see you states 147, ask you if you recognize that?

SIEWERT: I do.

GUY: How do you recognize that?

SIEWERT: The daily case number, exhibit number and my initials.

GUY: And what do you recognize it to be?

SIEWERT: It is one fired .9 millimeter Luger caliber cartridge case.

GUY: When you receive a firearm in a fire casing, are you able to determine whether or not that particular casing came from that particular firearm?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: How can you do that? SIEWERT: With a submitted firearm and magazine that I will use laboratory and/or evidence ammunition to test fire that pistol. I will then collect the fired cartridge cases and compare those microscopically to the evidence cartridge case to the cases that I've received.

GUY: Did you do that with the shell casing or cartridge case in this case and also the Kel-Tec pistol?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: What did you find?

SIEWERT: The cartridge case was fired with the pistol.

GUY: Did you also receive some bullet fragments in this case?

SIEWERT: Yes, I did.

GUY: Your Honor, may I again approach Ms. Siewert?

NELSON: Yes, you may.

GUY: Let me show you state's 165, ask do you recognize that?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: How do you recognize 165?

SIEWERT: Again by the case number, the exhibit number and my initials.

GUY: What is that? What is contained in that exhibit?

SIEWERT: There is one fired jacket portion, two fired bullet jackets, fragments and one lead core.

GUY: And when you received parts of a bullet or fragments of a bullet and a firearm, are you able to compare those to determine whether or not those fragments were fired from a particular firearm?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: Explain to the jury how you do that.

SIEWERT: Similar to the cartridge cases, I will use the bullets and compare those microscopically to the submitted evidence built or bullet fragments.

GUY: And did you do that with the fragments in this case in the Kel- Tec pistol?

SIEWERT: I did.

GUY: What did you find? SIEWERT: The fired bullet jacket portion was fired from the pistol. The two smaller fragments were inconclusive. The bullet core is not suitable for a microscopic examination.

GUY: When you say inconclusive, what do you mean?

SIEWERT: I was not able to determine whether they were or were not fired from the pistol.

GUY: SIEWERT: Why is that?

SIEWERT: A lack of detail on them. They were very damaged. They had very small portions of rifling on them.

GUY: All right. Is it apparent those fragments hit something, the bullet and caused it to fragment like that?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: Did you also receive some clothing in connection with this case?

SIEWERT: I did.

GUY: And if you received clothing in connection with a firearms case, are you able to determine or attempt to determine the distance between the muzzle of the firearm and the clothing at the time the firearm was fired?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: How does that work? How do you do that?

SIEWERT: When a gun is fired, a cloud of partially burned and unburned powder particles vapors and particulate lead and smoking gases will follow the bullet out the barrel. This cloud can potentially be a pattern on an object or if the firearm is in contact with a particular object, no pattern will be left, but other physical effects will be present.

GUY: All right. Did you conduct those tests in this case with the clothing you received and a .9 millimeter pistol?

SIEWERT: I did.

GUY: Your Honor, may she sit down again?

NELSON: She may.

GUY: Thank you.

GUY: We will ask to you stay right there, if you would.

Actually, we'll put this down.

If you would join me over here, briefly.

I am using the exhibit number.

155.

All right. Let me ask you to examine the packaging from 155 and tell the members of the jury whether or not you recognize it.

SIEWERT: I do.

GUY: How do you recognize it?

SIEWERT: By the case number, exhibit number and my initials.

GUY: Is this an item of clothing you examined in this case?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: And conducted distance testing on?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: If you would put that back in here. Like so.

All right. Explain to the jury first what this is, what you saw and what you did.

SIEWERT: Sorry. This was -- I have the evidence that I examined for distance determination, and what I did was I was looking at the area surrounding this hole. I was looking for partially burned or unburned gun particles. I was looking for any type of sooting present around this hole as well as looking at the ends of the fibers to whether they were blackened or singed or melting.

GUY: And how did you --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I couldn't tell whether they were blackened or singed or --

SIEWERT: Melted.

GUY: Yeah, if you would stand over there as a visual.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sorry.

GUY: What did you do to test fire with this particular item? Did you take a cutting from it or what did you do?

SIEWERT: I did. I removed a portion of the back of the sweatshirt for testing purposes.

GUY: All right.

If you could turn this around real quick.

Can you show the members of the jury where you removed the fabric to conduct your tests?

SIEWERT: It came from this area.

GUY: Will you go back that way, this way?

Thank you.

From there, with this item removed, is there an exhibit on the back?

SIEWERT: Yes, it is.

GUY: Does that have a test fire hole in it?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: All right. Let me ask you, if you grab that packaging now. 156. Do you recognize the packaging?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: How do you recognize it?

SIEWERT: The case number, the exhibit number and my initials.

GUY: And this is, obviously, a sweatshirt that you examined in the case?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: If you can show the members of the jury the area that you focused on as having a bullet that passed through it?

SIEWERT: This area right here was where I was looking right underneath the exhibit.

GUY: As with the previous exhibit, did you make a cutting from the exhibit?

SIEWERT: I did.

GUY: Is that depicted on the back of the exhibit, if you would come around and look?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: Both the cutting and then the area on the sweatshirt where it was cut out?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: Show that to the jury, if you could.

And that's the display with the bullet hole through from the test fire?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: In conducting the test fires, did you capture your analysis with photography?

SIEWERT: Yes, I did.

GUY: All right. Let me ask you to look then at states 122.

Your Honor, if we could have assistance with the lights.

And if I may approach the witness.

NELSON: Yes, you may.

GUY: Laser pointer works by depressing that button right there at the top.

We're at states 122 first.

SIEWERT: This is a picture of the outer sweatshirt that I had examined for distance determination.

GUY: All right. Explain to the members of the jury just the significance of the items that you have marked on the exhibit.

SIEWERT: Sure. This is an overall shot of the sweatshirt. I measured the distance about nine inches down from the top shoulder seem and approximately 7 inches in from the side arm seem.

GUY: All right.

States 123, what's depicted there?

SIEWERT: It's a little difficult to see with the particular color of the fabric, but what I was looking at here are a few, there are a few gunpowder particles surrounding this as well as blackening right around the hole as well as tearing of the fabric and burning and singing on the fabric ends that were torn.

GUY: And is that a close-up, obviously, of the bullet hole on the sweatshirt?

SIEWERT: Yes, it is.

GUY: All right. States 124, what is that?

SIEWERT: That is the inside of that same area. Right here, you can see a little better, the blackening that I was looking at.

GUY: So that's a close-up of the inside of the sweatshirt?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: All right.

And states 125, what's depicted there?

SIEWERT: That was the distance tests that I had made using a portion of that sweatshirt. GUY: All right. Just take them through how you conduct distance tests, what ammunition you use and why.

SIEWERT: Absolutely. Using the submitted pistol and submitted ammunition, I test fired into portions of both garments that I received. And the reason for doing so is the pattern that can be left behind using a particular firearm or ammunition can vary greatly depending on the length of the barrel, the size and of the bullet as well as the amount, shape and burn rate of the gunpowder contained within the cartridge.

GUY: So you actually used one of the seven live rounds that you received with the exhibit to conduct this test?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: All right. States 126. What do we see there?

SIEWERT: That is a close-up of the distance tests that I had made. The arrows are pointing to diagonal tear that occurred in the fabric.

GUY: When you conducted the distance test with the Kel-Tec pistol and the hoodie sweatshirt, what did you determine about the distance between the muzzle of the gun and the material at the time the gun was discharged?

SIEWERT: The clothing displayed residues and physical effects consistent with a contact shot.

GUY: Meaning the muzzle or the end of the barrel of the gun was up against the sweatshirt when it was fired?

SIEWERT: Correct.

GUY: All right. Let's go to states 127. What is that?

SIEWERT: This is the other sweatshirt that I had received to do distance determination of.

GUY: There again, you made measurements where the hole is relative on the sweatshirt?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: All right. Incidentally, if both of those sweatshirts were being worn in their intended fashion, that is, forward, do the two bullet holes line up?

SIEWERT: They do.

GUY: 128, what do we see there?

SIEWERT: With this, we are looking at the tearing of the fabric, you can see there are a few gunpowder particles which are not easily depicted in this photo as well as some light sooting and burning and singing of the ends of the fabric. GUY: And the reddish-brown stain, that would be apparently blood?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: Not something that you applied?

SIEWERT: No.

GUY: States 129, what is that?

SIEWERT: The inside of the hole on the previous photograph and again you can see a little better the sooting, the blackening surrounding the hole, itself.

GUY: Can you circle that for the jury as best you can?

OK.

All right, and state's 130.

SIEWERT: This is the test I generated using a portion of the back of the garment.

GUY: When you conducted that distance test, did you also use the .9 millimeter firearm as well as the ammunition that was present with the firearm?

SIEWERT: I conducted that simultaneous to the first one. I had layered the darker sweat shirt over the lighter sweatshirt and fired one shot --

GUY: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

SIEWERT: -- through the hole. This is from the same.

GUY: The hooded sweatshirt, you would have put on the outside the lighter sweatshirt would have been on the inside?

SIEWERT: Correct.

GUY: What did you find distance-wise when you conducted the test with this particular sweatshirt?

SIEWERT: This as well was consistent with residues and physical effects of a gunshot.

GUY: So evidencing the gun was against the material when it was fired?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: All right. Finally, states 131, what's depicted there?

SIEWERT: This is a close-up shot of the test that I had generated with the lighter colored sweatshirt, depicting a little better, you can see the tearing and the blackening of the fabric right around the hole.

GUY: All right.

Are your findings consistent with the muzzle of the gun having been pressed into the dark hooded sweatshirt and then fired through both the dark hooded sweatshirt and the lighter-colored sweatshirt?

SIEWERT: It is consistent with the muzzle of the firearm touching the outer sweatshirt and the inner sweatshirt being in direct contact with the outer one, yes.

GUY: Judge, that's all I have, thank you.

NELSON: OK. Thank you.

Do you want to break for lunch at this time?

O'MARA: Your call, Your Honor.

NELSON: Well, I don't know how long you think it will be.

O'MARA: I think I can probably get through it, so we will get this witness off the stand. It might take me 15 or 20. But I can't imagine more than that.

NELSON: OK.

O'MARA: And if I get to 20, you can remind me where we are, if I don't notice. But I'll get through it. If we hit a snag, I'll ask that we break for lunch.

Good morning, ma'am. How are you?

SIEWERT: Good.

O'MARA: We're going to try to do it to the way that you went through it in your direct examination. Obviously, what you've told the jury, you do in a lot of cases where these issues may be in contest?

SIEWERT: Correct.

O'MARA: You're trying to determine, for example, that the cartridge found came from the gun?

SIEWERT: Correct.

O'MARA: You know that's not an issue here?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: You do a lot of analysis to make sure that the bullet came from the gun in the case, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes. O'MARA: You know that's not an issue here?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: Concerning the firearm itself, of course, you need to be able to testify to a jury this gun can work and can fire a bullet, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: You know that's not an issue here?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: Judge, I'm sorry, I'm going to interpose an objection as to the legal conclusions by the defense attorney as to what is not an issue in this case.

NELSON: Thank you.

That will be sustained. If you can rephrase your question?

O'MARA: Sure. Certainly.

From a forensic perspective, were you given any indication that there was an issue in whether or not this bullet came from this gun?

SIEWERT: We're never given an indication whether there's an issue present or not.

O'MARA: You would take it on and see what needs to be done to prove up matters even if they may not be in contest?

SIEWERT: Correct.

O'MARA: In this case you were able to document gun works, fired cartridged, fired bullet, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: Let's talk about the gun itself.

And if I might approach the witness, Your Honor, with the firearm.

If you would, I'm also going to have you testify from where you are. I'll ask you to take out the firearm and hold it, as you know how to, pointing nowhere near us, including the jurors.

I think you said you have a good history and experience in firearms generally, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: You know what different types of firearms are used for?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: OK. That is what's called a double action, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: Meaning by that that you don't need to do -- you need to have a certain amount of weight and intent to fire that firearm, correct?

SIEWERT: Double action refers to is pulling the trigger, cocking and releasing the firing mechanism.

O'MARA: The very characteristic of it being a double action is a safety feature, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: Meaning that there are some firearms, some semiautomatics where if you actually rack it, if you have a cartridge in the chamber it's ready to fire with a very light, almost featherweight pull?

SIEWERT: These are referred to as single action.

O'MARA: If I carried around single action without an external safety it might hit, it would be quite dangerous, wouldn't it?

SIEWERT: If the firearm was cocked.

O'MARA: Of course. If it's only on single action, because it has a featherweight pull, right?

SIEWERT: Yes. It has a lighter trigger pull than the double action.

O'MARA: So the double action characteristic itself makes it a safer weapon to ready to fire position?

SIEWERT: With it functioning.

O'MARA: You know that some weapons are used for self-defense, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: To protect ones self, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: A firearm has to be ready to be used for self-defense?

SIEWERT: Potentially.

O'MARA: You would not want a firearm that has an external safety that would require an additional step to make it ready to fire?

SIEWERT: I can't really say as to whether that would be -- that would be more of a personal preference, I believe.

O'MARA: If one was carrying a firearm and it had an external safety, what would have to happen before that firearm was ready to fire? SIEWERT: The safety would have to be disengaged.

O'MARA: You would have to take that extra step to disengage the safety?

SIEWERT: Correct.

O'MARA: This gun doesn't have that?

SIEWERT: No.

O'MARA: What makes this a so I have firearm to carry in a loaded way?

SIEWERT: It's a combination of the fact it's double action. It's never cocked until you pull the trigger as well as the hammer block, as I stated previously, that prevents the hammer from coming in contact with the firing pin unless the trigger is pulled. With both of these safeties functioning properly, the gun cannot be fired unless the trigger is pulled.

O'MARA: The hammer lock is an additional safety device. That's a metal plate that goes between the hammer and the back of the cartridge.

SIEWERT: Back of the firing pins.

O'MARA: If that metal plate is there it's safe? It cannot fire, correct?

SIEWERT: Correct.

O'MARA: The only way you can start pulling on the trigger, which has a four and a half to four and three-quarter pull does that plate drop in order to make the gun active?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: The very nature to having a four and a half to four and three-quarter pull is a safety feature?

SIEWERT: The trigger pull is not a safety feature.

O'MARA: Having to pull the trigger without amount of force is a safety feature, correct?

SIEWERT: No.

O'MARA: I want you compare for the jury the pull necessary to pull a double action firearm as compared to a single action?

SIEWERT: Are you talking the trigger travel distance?

O'MARA: I'm sorry. I use -- yes, the trigger travel distance.

SIEWERT: Yes. In terms of the length that the trigger needs to travel backwards to release the firing mechanism on a double action and especially this one is much longer than say a single action firearm.

O'MARA: Would you agree that also is a safety mechanism to be certain the person that the firing is not going to fire without someone deciding to make the full pull on it?

SIEWERT: That would make it a lot less likely to accidental pull. It would be a deliberate pull of the trigger.

O'MARA: You're saying it's not a safety feature or did I just misstate the word when I was using pull pressure?

SIEWERT: It's a design feature.

O'MARA: To make it safer.

SIEWERT: Potentially, yes.

O'MARA: Is that an appropriate gun then to be carrying or is it a safe gun to be carrying in a loaded and ready to fire position?

SIEWERT: This gun in working order is safe in terms of it will not fire unless the trigger is pulled.

O'MARA: There are other guns as we talked about a moment ago that have external safeties that mean you need to do undo a safety?

SIEWERT: Correct.

O'MARA: Are those more found in single action guns where the trigger distance is much less?

SIEWERT: That will be found in single action guns and double action guns and firearms that do both single and double action. It's a mix all across the board.

O'MARA: You agree this gun without an external safety is a safe gun to carry loaded?

SIEWERT: Safe is a personal preference in terms of loaded. I would say this gun cannot fire unless the trigger is pulled.

O'MARA: I don't want to get into qualitative terms but is there anything with this particular gun that found it was unsafe to carry in a loaded way ready to fire?

SIEWERT: No.

O'MARA: There are probably at least two guns in this room. Would you agree that all law enforcement carry their guns ready to fire?

SIEWERT: I do believe they do.

O'MARA: They're not much use if they're not ready to fire are they?

SIEWERT: No.

O'MARA: You mentioned as to this weapon you had chance to visit the factory a couple of times?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: It's right here in Brevard County?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: You've been there a couple of times to see. Any concern with the manufacturer of that weapon?

SIEWERT: No.

O'MARA: From your experience as to how it's utilized in this event, did it perform properly? Did it shoot its projectile the way it was supposed to?

SIEWERT: The gun functioned, yes.

O'MARA: It worked, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: It worked the way it was supposed to?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: There was no suggestion that the pull distance was malfunctioning in any form?

SIEWERT: No, there was no any indication that anything on this pistol was malfunctioning.

O'MARA: You had mentioned now talking -- anything that we haven't talked about with the gun and its safety features?

SIEWERT: No.

O'MARA: You had state in response to how you can load that is that you --

MARK O'MARA, ZIMMERMAN'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Mentioned now talking anything that we haven't talked about with the gun and its safety features?

AMY SIEWERT, FIREARMS ANALYST, FLA. DEPT. OF LAW ENFORCEMENT: No.

O'MARA: And you stated that a person, Mr. Zimmerman, since we know it to be his gun, right?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: OK. Would have then wrapped (ph) it to make sure it was, in fact, ready to fire and then put another bullet in the magazine and reloaded it, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: Is that a usual occurrence in your experience dealing with fire arms?

SIEWERT: I typically see a wide variety of -

O'MARA: Which is (INAUDIBLE). OK.

SIEWERT: Of what I observe (ph).

O'MARA: You did not - I'm sorry, I jumped (ph).

SIEWERT: I'm sorry.

O'MARA: You did not consider that to be an unusual occurrence certainly did you?

SIEWERT: No.

O'MARA: OK. As a matter of fact, the two officers here, and probably every other law enforcement officer gun that you have a chance to see that is normal, that is one wrapped (ph) in the chamber and a full magazine, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: The military do that, correct?

SIEWERT: I am unsure. O'MARA: In fact it is the way you make that gun as capable as it can be for whatever the need may be, correct?

SIEWERT: To have it fully loaded?

O'MARA: Yes.

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: And then we've talked about the shirts themselves and I'm not going to go into having you look at them just yet. Might be able to avoid that. But you had said that the two shirts sort of lined up, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: And by that you mean obviously there was a hole through one and a hole through the other and when you - and when you took the shirts and lined them up, they matched, correct?

SIEWERT: Correct.

O'MARA: You're not suggesting that because of that, that the shirts are in any particular configuration on the body, are you?

SIEWERT: No.

O'MARA: OK. They were where they were, but certainly the bullet went through both shirts where they were lined up with the bullet hole?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: OK. And let's talk about the actual when you say contact. Mr. Guy (ph) suggested pressed into. And I think you corrected him to say it was touch, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: There was no evidence, for example, that would show up that you would take the gun nuzzle and push it into the shirt somewhere, where the shirt would fold around it, was there?

SIEWERT: No, it was consistent with the muzzle of the firearm touching. The sweatshirt.

O'MARA: It was consistent with this, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: Shirt, firearm.

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: Wasn't consistent with this, right, pushing or anything?

SIEWERT: No. O'MARA: That would have shown up completely different configuration to you, right?

SIEWERT: To me, contact is when the muzzle is touching the fabric.

O'MARA: OK.

SIEWERT: Whether it's a light touching or whether it's pressed in all the way. The fact that the muzzle was touching the garment itself was what I had determined.

O'MARA: Right. So certainly had the gun actually been sort of smothered by the shirt or by a sheet, then fired, you would have seen a much different patterning on that, right, because the fire then would have wrapped back around it somewhat?

SIEWERT: Potentially if it was wrapped around it.

O'MARA: Correct.

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: As a matter of fact, any configuration that suggest something other than flat would have shown some different stickling (ph) potential or burning from the way the flame would then have bounced around, correct?

SIEWERT: In terms of farther away or closer?

O'MARA: No. If it was in contact -

SIEWERT: OK.

O'MARA: Pushed in to the extent that it folded the fabric around it, that would have showed a different type of burn pattern potentially, correct?

SIEWERT: Potentially if the sweatshirt had gone over the top of the ejection port area, there would possibly be marks from that. But otherwise, whether it was lightly touching or pressed in, it would be the same - same type of physical effects that I have seen.

O'MARA: And when you say touching, is that a term of (INAUDIBLE) actually was touching or, in this case, when you saw a couple of - I thought you said you saw a couple of little burn spots of maybe powder that had escaped, is that consistent with being an eighth of an inch away or a quarter of an inch away or what?

SIEWERT: Yes, it was consistent with the muzzle touching the garment itself.

O'MARA: OK. And that you could tell because there was some tearing itself, that is the way that a projectile at that range rips through the fabric?

SIEWERT: Yes. O'MARA: Did you do any examination to identify the distance that the bullet traveled before it hit Mr. Martin's chest?

SIEWERT: No. I only examined the clothing for distance determination.

O'MARA: May I have a moment, your honor?

JUDGE DEBRA NELSON: Yes, you may.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: So in any criminal trial that involves gunfire, you have an expert who talks about the mechanics. But this goes further. Let's listen.

O'MARA: Do you involve yourself then, ever to your experience with FTLE (ph), to actually look at the injury or flesh wound occurring by a bullet entering it?

SIEWERT: No. I do examination of clothing.

O'MARA: OK. So whenever the bullet, before it gets to the body, is where you stopped?

SIEWERT: Correct.

O'MARA: Your analysis?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: Thank you. Your honor, no further questions.

NELSON: Thank you.

Any redirect?

JOHN GUY, PROSECUTOR: Just briefly, thank you.

Ms. Siewert, you were asked questions about whether or not that firearm could be used for self-defense. Could it also be used to commit a murder?

SIEWERT: The firearm can be used for any purposes.

O'MARA: We object, your honor. (INAUDIBLE) because that is speculation and would affect the ultimate fact before the jury. The ultimate question before the jury.

NELSON: Sustained.

GUY: You were asked about trigger pull. Can you give the members of the jury an idea of whether or not four pounds or a little bit more than four pounds is a relatively light or a relatively heavy trigger pull?

SIEWERT: Four and a half pounds is within the normal range of trigger pulls that I see in my case work.

GUY: So it's not a heavy trigger pull?

SIEWERT: No, it is not.

GUY: And you were asked questions about the firearm being fully loaded. Can you explain to the members of the jury that if the magazine's full and there's a live round in the chamber, on that particular firearm, what must a person do to expel a bullet?

SIEWERT: Pull the trigger to fire the gun at that point in time.

GUY: That's it? There's no other - there's nothing they have to turn off or adjust? You just pull the trigger?

SIEWERT: Correct.

GUY: All right. But they do make firearms with what you refer to as an external safety, right?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: Can you explain to the jury just briefly how those work and the purpose of those?

SIEWERT: Sure. An external safety is a typically a button, a knob, something that you physically have to engage to prevent the firearm from firing.

GUY: And where is that - where are those typically located on the firearm?

SIEWERT: More times than not you'll find them right back here on either the left or the right side. But those are typically referred to as thumb safeties, as all you need is your thumb to disengage it or engage it.

GUY: And - but that firearm does not have any type of external safety?

SIEWERT: No.

GUY: All right. With the firearm in the condition that it is right now, unload, are you able to demonstrate for the jury how to pull the trigger and to make that sound?

SIEWERT: Yes.

GUY: Your honor, may she do that? May she demonstrate pointing it into the wall?

NELSON: Yes.

SIEWERT: I'll use my left just so you can see. (INAUDIBLE).

GUY: And that's all someone would need to do to fire a shot if it was fully loaded?

SIEWERT: Yes. GUY: Thank you, ma'am.

Judge, that's all I have.

NELSON: Thank you.

Any re-cross?

O'MARA: Very brief (ph) on that one point. This gun's safety mechanism requires that same amount of pull for every time you want to shoot the gun, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: You agree that there are other semiautomatic weapons, a number of them, where while the first shot may be a double action pull, the ones after that are single action, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes, there are some firearms designed that way.

O'MARA: And sig sauers are all that way? Colts are all that way, right?

SIEWERT: Some of them, yes.

O'MARA: OK. And what that means is while you can rack it and shoot with a four and a half, five pound pull our distance, every other one is featherweight, right?

SIEWERT: A single pound trigger pull is going to be lighter than a double action trigger pull. But when you have a firearm that's both single action, double action, pulling back on the slide and releasing while you chamber a cartridge will leave the pistol in a single action. So firing it that way will be the single action trigger pull, which will be lighter than a double.

However, a lot of these firearms also have what's called a decock safety, which is essentially another thumb where you depress it and it will allow the hammer to fall without causing the gun to fire. And then by pulling the trigger at that stage it's going to be a double action trigger pull while all remaining ones, if you do not decock, are going to be at the single action trigger pull, which is lighter.

O'MARA: So, with this gun, if I wanted to shoot it one time, four and a half inch pull, correct?

SIEWERT: Four and a half, to four and three quarter pass, yes.

O'MARA: All right, four and three quarter pound pull, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: And then the second shot, again, four and three quarter pound pull, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes. O'MARA: If I had my sig sauer .9mm with me, and I did the same thing, first one, let's say four and a half pound, correct? And -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge, I'm sorry, I'm just going to object to the relevance of a different firearm.

O'MARA: Well, any -

NELSON: Sustained.

O'MARA: Any other firearm that goes from double to single, I think you probably could --

NELSON: The objection was sustained.

O'MARA: I'm - now I'm moving on to the next question.

NELSON: But we're still talking on firearms other than this firearm.

O'MARA: Well, she has now identified, if I might be heard.

NELSON: I know, but the objection is relevance. That objection is sustained.

O'MARA: Then this firearm's additional safety measures, is that each pull has to be the full pull, correct, as opposed to shifting to single action after the first pull?

SIEWERT: That's a design feature of a pistol that's either only single action or only double action, where it has the same trigger pull for each shot.

O'MARA: Which means - which means that even the second, third or fourth shot require a full four and a half to four and three quarter pound pull?

SIEWERT: Yes. Each pull of the trigger requires the same amount of force.

O'MARA: And that is different than it would be if it was a single action, correct?

SIEWERT: Yes.

O'MARA: Thank you.

Nothing further, your honor.

NELSON: Any re-redirect?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No thank you.

NELSON: May Ms. Siewert be excused?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She may.

NELSON: Thank you very much. You are excused. Please put the lock back on the firearm and put it in the box.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to go ahead and break for lunch. During lunch you're not to discuss the case amongst yourself or with anybody else. You're not to read or listen to any radio, television or newspaper reports about the case. You're not to use any type of an electronic device to go on the Internet to do independent research about the case, people, places, things or terminology and you're not to read or create any e-mail, text messages, twitters, tweets, blogs or social networking pages about the case. Do I have your assurances that you will abide by these instructions?

JURORS: Yes.

NELSON: OK. There's something different going for lunch today, so I'm going to give you some extra time. If - we will be back at 1:45. Please put your note pads face down on the chairs and enjoy your lunch.

ANTHONY GORGONE, CRIME LABORATORY ANALYST: And it's the genetic blueprint that makes each person unique. It codes for everything about you. Everything from the pigment making up your eye color, to the enzymes in your stomach breaking up your lunch right now.

BERNIE DE LA BIONDA, PROSECUTOR: And how is DNA used in a forensic setting?

GORGONE: Forensically, your DNA is found -- a copy of your DNA is found in almost every cell in your body, therefore it can be left behind in bodily fluids that you leave behind, such as blood, semen, saliva, almost sometimes hair and skin cells as well. And forensically, I could use those bodily fluids to develop what I call a DNA profile, which would be to analyze the DNA at certain locations on the DNA molecule, develop a DNA profile that could be used for identification purposes and comparison.

DE LA BIONDA: Is -- are there other uses for this technology other than in a forensic or criminal setting?

GORGONE: Yes. Several fields use DNA. The same DNA testing that I use. It's used in medical and genetic research. It's used in organ and blood transplant donor recipient evaluations. It's used to test the - to test any abnormalities in the fetus during pregnancy when they do the amniocentesis. It's used in the identification of mass disaster victims, as well as the Innocence Project and paternity testing as well.

DE LA BIONDA: Is the DNA profiling comparison method using STR, that you're going to talk about that your lab uses, being accepted in the scientific community as being reliable?

GORGONE: Yes, it is.

DE LA BIONDA: And is your lab, FDLE, been accredited and been through all the hoops in terms of their accreditations or being findings that they're proficient, et cetera?

GORGONE: Yes, we are an accredited laboratory.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. I want to talk about the laboratory procedures for a few minutes, if we could. Do you all have an established protocol or methods in which an item comes into your lab where you make sure that there's no contamination and that kind of stuff? GORGONE: Yes. We have a quality assurance program that says that we have documentation of all the quality procedures. We have standard operating procedures that give specific instructions for every test that I do so that every person working in the lab is on the same page and one person isn't doing one thing their way and another person doing another thing their way. So we have written protocols and all of our quality assurance program is in writing.

DE LA BIONDA: In -- are there any controls within the testing themselves in terms of positive and negative controls to verify that what you're doing is accurate in terms of not getting any misidentification or contamination?

GORGONE: Yes. There are positive and negative controls at just about every step of the way. Before I even do the DNA testing, if I'm screening for the possible presence of blood, I need to test a positive control and a negative control of blood to make sure the chemicals I'm using are working. During the DNA testing, I have positive controls where I have a DNA profile I need to get that expected DNA profile at the end of the process to know that not only that the chemicals and the instruments are working, but that my techniques are good as well. There are also negative controls at a few steps during the way and those would be blank samples and those samples need to remain blank the entire process.

DE LA BIONDA: In the lab while you're analyzing evidence that's submitted in the lab, do you wear any kind of clothing attire to make sure that you don't cross-contaminate anything?

GORGONE: Yes. Whenever I have an item of evidence open and I'm physically examining that item, I'm required to wear a lab coat, a mask, gloves and sometimes a hair net depending on the item. When I'm actually working with the tubes and actually doing the DNA testing process, I'm also required to wear a lab coat and mask and work in chemical hoods with a -- it's a sash that covers in front of my face.

DE LA BIONDA: And are all these procedures for quality control methods that you all utilize at FDLE, are they used by other labs in terms of being accredited?

GORGONE: Yes. Any lab with a quality assurance program in place is going to have very similar protocols as far as quality control.

DE LA BIONDA: Tell us if you could briefly about proficiency testing in terms of testing yourself and also your lab to make sure that what you all are doing is working properly.

GORGONE: A proficiency test is a test given to me by an outside company. It's mailed in and it's a set of samples that I have to work as if it were a regular case. And I perform that testing and send the results back to that company. And then they send a notice back saying, yes, you got the correct results or, no, you did not get the correct results.

I'm required to take a proficiency test every six months. So I take one about May and about November of every year. And I've done that every -- every year that I've been doing independent case work, since August of 2008.

DE LA BIONDA: And is the lab -- the entire lab also subject to proficiency testing, the DNA lab, or the lab but the DNA department of the lab also?

GORGONE: Yes. Everyone -- every crime lab analyst, and even the forensic technologists, have to go through some kind of proficiency test twice a year.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. Let's briefly talk about the exhibits themselves that would be tenured into your lab for analysis. In terms of making sure that you have the right exhibit in front of you when you're analyzing it, what kind of quality controls do you all have? Is there some numbering system or some cataloging of the items when they come in?

GORGONE: When an item is submitted for testing, we get items from outside agencies such as local law enforcement agencies in the central Florida area. They submit the items to our evidence intake section. The evidence intake section makes sure that that item is in a sealed condition. And they issue it an exhibit number for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement exhibit number and put a barcode label and a case number on it. And then that item gets brought up to me, once I'm assigned the case, and then I - I also examine that item to make sure it's in a sealed condition and we have that barcode label, the Florida Department Law Enforcement case number and exhibit number.

DE LA BIONDA: Do you also document when you analyze something in terms of putting your initials or some kind of markings to be able to say, like, you will have to here in court and say, yes, I know I examined this item?

GORGONE: Yes. I mark the package that I -- before I open the package, I mark that package with my initials, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement case number exhibit, and the date that I'm examining that item. And then the actual item itself, unless there's a reason why I can't mark that item, I will mark that item as well with that same information.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. Let's now move on to the DNA testing you did in this specific case. I believe you used STR DNA testing, is that correct?

GORGONE: Yes.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. Tell us when we talk about STR DNA testing, what we mean by that, or what you mean by that, I should say.

GORGONE: STR testing is called - is Short Tandem Repeat testing. And it's -- I'm analyzing short segments on the DNA molecule that are highly repetitive segments. They don't actually code for any physical characteristic or any kind of molecule inside your body that's doing a job. They are just repetitive, noncoding regions of DNA. And I can take advantage of that fact, the fact that those repetitive sequences vary from individual to individual. So I can use these short segments of DNA to develop a profile for that individual. DE LA BIONDA: And if you could, I'd like you to break down the -- in terms of the STR process, are there, I think, three or four steps that you have to go through in order to first determine whether you have enough DNA to actually develop it?

GORGONE: Yes. Well, the first step would obviously be analyzing the item of evidence for the possible bodily fluids, the blood, semen, saliva, as well as hair and skin cells. Once I had that stain that I want to perform DNA testing on, I take a small portion of that stain, or a swab, and put it in a tube and use heat and chemicals to perform what I call an extraction. That breaks open the cells in that stain, exposes the DNA molecule, and then hopefully I can isolate that molecule and wash away all of the debris and all of the other chemicals in that sample.

The next step would be called quantification, where I take that sample and see about how concentrated, about how much DNA was I able to recover from that stain. And I used that information for the next step, which is amplification. I'm basically making Xerox copies, almost, of the DNA molecule, but only at these 13 or 15 different regions that I'm interested in testing to develop the DNA profile. I make millions and millions of copies of the molecule at these specific regions so that I can analyze these regions.

The last step is called electrophoresis, where I actually separate out the DNA molecules that I was able to amplify by size. I get a data readout. I interpret that and create the DNA profile, which is essentially a set of numbers. And I can use those numbers for comparison.

DE LA BIONDA: And when you're going -- I'm sorry. You need a minute?

GORGONE: No.

DE LA BIONDA: I'm sorry. When you're going through the extraction process, the stain, or what you believe is a stain, might you be given the actual exhibit itself? Like if I gave you this pen, or may they be a swab from that pen that you're first looking at?

GORGONE: It varies. Sometimes I get an actual item, like a pen, and say, who was possibly handling this pen. And then I have to take a swab and swab that pen for any skin cells that might be left behind. Sometimes I get a swab that was collected from an item and it was collected by the agency that submitted that, say Sanford Police Department or Orlando Police Department. They swabbed the pen themselves, put that swab in a box and sent that box in to be tested. So then I just have the swab to work with. I take a cutting of that swab with a scalpel, put that in a tube to perform my testing.

DE LA BIONDA: In terms of that second step you talked about, the quantification, you need a certain amount of DNA in order to - even get a result. And what's the minimum you need?

GORGONE: Well, there's really no minimum. That step tells me about how much DNA I have in the sample. And I use that information for the amplification step. The amplification step, it's kind of like a recipe. If you have a recipe that calls for one cup of sugar, ideally this recipe calls for about one nanogram or 1.5 nanograms of DNA. So I'd like to have that 1.5 or 1 nanogram of DNA to put in that tube in order for the reaction to work right for me to get a DNA profile that I can use for some kind of comparison.

But if I have less than that, I'm still going to go through with the rest of the steps to see because sometimes I can get less information than the full, complete DNA profile but it's still enough for me to make comparisons. And then there's plenty of times where I don't have enough DNA and I don't get any results or I get very little results. But I still go through with the step. There really is no minimum or I look and say, OK, I don't have enough DNA there, I need to stop. I'm going to go through with it regardless of how much DNA I have in that sample.

DE LA BIONDA: And educate us if you could, nanogram, what is that? What's - how much is that?

GORGONE: A nanogram, it's a very small amount. If you basically - if you take an index card and cut that index card up into a million pieces, that would be about a nanogram, I believe. It's not a quantity that you can touch or feel.

DE LA BIONDA: Now you mentioned also that in the process you're looking for markers or (INAUDIBLE) and you mentioned that the test you do is either going to give you 13 or 15 possible, is that correct?

GORGONE: Yes.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. In terms of STR, you have 13 or 15? Did I get that right, in terms of markers?

GORGONE: Yes.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. Do you always get 13 or 15?

GORGONE: No. Like I said, sometimes, based on the sample, the amount of DNA I have or the condition of the DNA, sometimes I get less than the full amount of locations that I'm testing. That would be called a partial DNA profile.

DE LA BIONDA: And if you get a partial DNA profile, are you still in certain cases --

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: This is fascinating. This is the science talking quantification and molecules. Bottom line, this is a crime scene technician, an analyst, an expert, really. And what we're waiting for, what we're going to hear are questions specifically about Trayvon Martin's DNA and blood, where that landed, and also that of George Zimmerman. Is there any DNA from Trayvon Martin on Zimmerman's gun? A quick break. Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: We'll take you back to Sanford, Florida, in just a moment. But I have to show you these pictures. Look at this. Left hand side of your screen, hundreds of thousands of people protesting against the democratically elected president of Egypt Mohamed Morsi. That is Tahrir Square. That was the heart and soul of the revolution some two and a half years ago that ultimately ousted the then leader, Hosni Mubarak.

On the right side of your screen, just a couple miles away, folks with quite a different perspective. These are pro-Morsi demonstrators. According to a Morsi spokesperson that we've been in touch with here at CNN, there has been a coup in Egypt. The fact is that the military, according to this spokesperson, has taken over. According to our senior correspondent Ben Wedeman, whose there on the ground in Cairo, was reporting on our air a little while ago that Mohamed Morsi is in the Republican Guard complex, we believe. What he's doing there, we don't know. But according to witnesses, the army has erected barbed wire barriers around barracks where Mohamed Morsi is currently.

We are awaiting a statement from the military. What will they say? What is the road map for Egypt as we look ahead? We'll take you live to Cairo here momentarily.

In the meantime, back to Sanford, Florida, back to this crime scene technician talking specifically DNA and blood at this crime scene from February of last year. Here you go.

GORGONE: It's somewhere in between. I can't include them in the mixture and I can't exclude them based on what I'm seeing, so I'm not able to make any kind of determination for that person to that mixture.

DE LA BIONDA: Sometimes when you examine an exhibit, do you do a preliminary test to determine whether it's even blood?

GORGONE: Yes.

DE LA BIONDA: Tell us about that briefly, that testing, what that involves.

GORGONE: Depending on the case scenario, when I open an item and look at it, I could be looking for any of those bodily fluids that I discussed earlier. So if I'm looking for blood and I see a red brown staining on the article of clothing or the swab or whatever it is, I'll take a rubbing of that stain, try to rub off a little of that material on to a small piece of filter paper and I apply a series of three chemicals. And if I get a pink color change at the end of that series, that would give me an indication that that would be positive for the possible presence of blood.

DE LA BIONDA: Before we get into the heart of why you're here, I want to talk briefly about the significance of your findings. Assuming you get DNA results, I want to talk briefly about the population matters. And let me just ask you some questions regarding that, if I could.

When you examine the results, let's say you get an STR test, do you then determine the probability of a match in terms of what are the probabilities you know is it -- tell us a little bit about that.

GORGONE: Yes. When I have a match, when I have a single source profile or a mixture and someone matches that DNA profile or they're included in that mixture, I need to put a relevance to that match. If I got a result at one location, at one of the 13 locations that I test, and it matches an individual, and what is the relevance of that one location matching an individual? There could be, you know, maybe three other people, four other people in this room that match that location. So I need to put a statistical relevance to that match.

So when I have 13 locations, I perform what's called a random match probability. When I have any amount of locations that I get, I perform a random match probability. And it's the possibility that you would pull a random person off the street and test their sample, and that they would match that unknown DNA profile that I got, whether it's at one location, two locations, or all 13 or 15 locations.

DE LA BIONDA: And is there a database that you have as a baseline in order to compare it to determine in terms of the percentage of the population, or what -- how likely is that to occur?

GORGONE: Yes. The different results that I could get at these locations, they aren't evenly distributed in the population. Some results are more common than others. So I use population databases that were put together for the purpose of estimating about how rare or frequent these different results are in certain ethnic groups.

DE LA BIONDA: And are you familiar with the database that you all use?

GORGONE: Yes.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. And has that been accepted in the scientific community of being reliable in terms of -- do you use the pop (ph) stats, I believe, for FBI, or what do you use?

GORGONE: I used two different databases during the course of working this case. We used -- for years we used the FBI's population database. That is generally used within the scientific community. I did test a couple samples later on in this case where we had switched to a different database. We call that the Butler (ph) database because it was created by Dr. John Butler. And that's the one we currently use on our casework.

DE LA BIONDA: And has that been accepted in the scientific community as being reliable?

GORGONE: Yes.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. And do you use the product rule in some way, too, in factoring that all in?

GORGONE: Yes.

DE LA BIONDA: Tell us briefly about the product rule.

GORGONE: The product rule, it's a simple statistical concept that says, if you have a frequency for one event and a frequency for another independent event, and you want to see what's the frequency that both these events could occur at the same time, you can multiply their frequencies together.

So, for example, if you have a coin and you flip that coin, you have a 50 percent chance of heads, 50 percent chance of tails. Well, if you want to see what's the probability that I'm going to have two coins and I'm going to flip both and they'll both land on heads, you would multiply that 50 percent for one coin, 50 percent for the second coin, and you would get 25 percent that they would both land on heads.

This applies to the random match probability, the statistics I use, because these 13 or 15 locations that I test are all inherited independently. So once I determine the frequency that you would find the results at one of these locations in the population, I can then multiply it with the other 12 or the other 14 locations using this product rule to get a frequency that you would find that entire DNA profile.

DE LA BIONDA: In terms of some of the results that you're going to talk to this jury about, why are some of the results in terms of the pop -- the numbers more than the actual population of the earth? Which I believe is now 6.5 or maybe 7 billion. Why is it higher?

GORGONE: I think it's almost 7 billion now, the population of the earth. It really doesn't have anything to do with the population of the earth. It's more about the frequency at which I see these results. It's similar to, if you think about it, sometimes you see it posted somewhere that the frequency -- or the probability of winning the lottery is one in a million. Well, that doesn't have to do -- that has nothing to do with how many people play the lottery or how many people live in the area, it just has to do, what is the probability that I'm going to match all six or seven of these numbers and get them all right.

BALDWIN: A quick break. Back to Sanford, Florida, after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

We're following huge breaking news out of Cairo. We expect momentarily the opposition leadership in Egypt, the opposition to the Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, to be making a statement. What's being described as a road map to new elections in Egypt.

It looks like the Egyptian military has dramatically stepped in. Mohamed Morsi, unclear where he is, what his status is right now. He is the democratically elected president of Egypt. But clearly the Egyptian military and millions of Egyptians, they have an other idea for Morsi right now.

We're continuing to follow what's happening on the streets of Cairo, the pro and anti Morsi demonstrations that seem to be escalating right now. We're going to get that statement from the opposition leader, Mohammed el Baradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He's been intimately involved in working the Egyptian opposition. We expect him to be making a statement soon. We'll have live coverage of that. Stand by.

In the meantime, let's go back to Brooke. She's following the Zimmerman trial.

Brooke.

BALDWIN: We'll watch for that. Wolf Blitzer, thank you so much for the update on what's happening right now in Egypt.

I want to take you back now to this George Zimmerman trial underway in Sanford, Florida. Once again you see him on the stand. This is a crime lab analyst talking science and DNA.

GORGONE: The outer package has our FDLE barcode label, my initials, the date I opened the package. The internal packages with the swabs also have my initials and the date.

DE LA BIONDA: And what is that, sir?

GORGONE: This would be buccal swabs taken from George Zimmerman. That would be swabs take from the inside of the mouth.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. If I could show that to the jury, your honor.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, you may.

DE LA BIONDA: So all this writing that's on here in terms of - with your initials would be on here, right here, right? I got it right, where would your initials be on here?

GORGONE: Right here.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. That that would be true of all the exhibits? In other words, if you could verify that you actually did analysis on this?

GORGONE: Yes.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. And it would have your FDLE number and I think you said the yellow quick (ph) card or whatever you call this label is also FDLE?

GORGONE: Yes, the yellow barcode label is from FDLE.

DE LA BIONDA: Now, those are what I think you referred to as standards, correct, (INAUDIBLE) standard from George Zimmerman and also from Trayvon Martin, is that correct?

GORGONE: Yes, those are known standards that were used for comparison to all the unknown samples in the case.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. You do the process. You go through the extraction, quantification, et cetera. You get some results I'm assuming, right?

GORGONE: Hopefully.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. Did you get some in this case, on both of those occasions?

GORGONE: Yes.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. Do you then prepare - and for the record, I'm going to show you state's exhibit 206, previously been shown to counsel and no objection. Well, I'll show it to you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

DE LA BIONDA: I'm going to show you - I'll put it on the (INAUDIBLE) -- may I approach the witness, your honor?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, you may.

DE LA BIONDA: Let me actually show you the actual exhibit so you have it there, but -- and I want you to talk about this and explaining - I believe there's 13 (INAUDIBLE) markers on this one. So let me show you state's exhibit 206.

Thank you, your honor.

Tell us just, when you talk about all these markers, let's go - and you don't have your (INAUDIBLE). I need Mr. Guy's assistance. (INAUDIBLE).

May I approach the witness again, your honor?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, you may.

DE LA BIONDA: I'm going to give you this fancy pen, I guess, or whatever you call it. And I think the button's right -- you see it? OK.

Let's talk about -- you got three columns here. And let's -- actually, I think I can do it here in the red, too. So you do green, I'll do red. But let's talk about this description right here. What are all these? I know they're referred to as loci (ph). What does this mean right here?

GORGONE: These -- this column right here is the -- they are the names of the 13 locations that I tested for these samples. They're -- loci (ph) is like a fancy scientific way of saying location. So I test 13 loci (ph). Loci (ph) would be plural and locus (ph) would be one single location. So these are their names. And they basically represent, you know, about where these locations are located on the DNA molecule.

DE LA BIONDA: Who came up with D3S135A (ph)? Who came up with that fancy name for that?

GORGONE: I have no idea. They're basically representing where, on what chromosome -- this would be on the chromosome 3, chromosome 8, and they represent about where on the DNA molecule that they are located. These locations that I test.

DE LA BIONDA: All right. And tell me the significance of this one right here that I'm circling.

GORGONE: The - yes. The amelojenin (ph) location is in addition to the 13 location. It's a sex determining location. And it gives me an indication of whether or not that individual has two x chromosomes, which would make them a female, or an x and a y chromosome, which would make them a male.

BERNIE DE LA BIONDA, PROSECUTOR: OK. If you could, move to that middle column that's entitled JR-20. I mean JR2 is the number I'm assuming that was designated by FDLE or by the submitting agency?

ANTHONY GORGONE, CRIME LAB ANALYST: Yes. That's the exhibit number, Exhibit JR-2. That was from Sanford Police Department.

RIONDA: OK. Under that column right there, you have it appears on each one of the -- on each column two numbers. Tell me the significance of that, if you could.

GORGONE: These numbers here, this -- if you read down, this is the DNA profile for George Zimmerman. These numbers represent different size fragments of DNA that are found at that location. So that's my result at that location.

These numbers are called aliels and what these aliels represent are a different size fragment based on how many repeat units they have on those highly repetitive segments of DNA. Each person, like I said, inherits half of their DNA from their mother and half of their DNA from their father.

That's why each of these 13 locations you see two numbers. One came from each parent. There are times where you inherit the same -- same size DNA at the one location, which is why there'll be two numbers that are the same.

RIONDA: OK. Now, move on to the last column. I believe that's Trayvon Martin's, ME-3 means from the medical examiner's office. Is that correct?

GORGONE: Normally when an exhibit comes from the medical examiner's office, it has an M.E. as the abbreviation, but it could be called anything. Really it's just a letter number designation that's unique to that sample in this case.

RIONDA: And in terms of you have the same on Mr. Martin in terms of you have two numbers, obviously one from his father, one from his mother. Is that correct?

GORGONE: Yes.

RIONDA: OK.

RIONDA: About using obviously State's Exhibit 203, I want to talk about the four swabs that were taken from the defendant's gun. The first one I want to talk about is the swab taken from the pistol grip. If you could, using that part of State's Exhibit 203, tell us the significance of your findings there. And just describe each part that is shown up there. Hopefully the jurors can all see that. It's got an FDLE number, right, exhibit number? Then you've got a description of what it is, swab 21-A from pistol grip. Is that correct?

GORGONE: Yes. This is basically a summary of the testing I did, the results of that testing and the statistical analysis. Over here, this is the number that it got -- this exhibit got assigned when it came into the FDLE laboratory. I usually refer to them as the agency's -- the Sanford Police Department's number, which is over here, which would be -- it was DMS-21.

Since there were four swabs in the box they got labeled a, b, c, d. Swab "a" here was from the grip of the gun. And I did the chemical test for the possible presence of blood on the swab, which gave me a positive result. So that's this column here, whether or not I did that chemical test.

The next column is whether or not that sample gave me an indication of a mixture of multiple people or if it was a single source. So this one here, yes, meaning I got a mixture of DNA from the testing of that sample. I was able to resolve this mixture out. I was able to pick out or determine the major DNA profile in that mixture.

And that's right here for the major. I got a complete DNA profile which matched George Zimmerman. And then the statistic here would be the random match probability. The probability that you would pick a random person off the street and that they would also -- that they would match that major DNA profile.

So just to read that, the probability would be 1 in 11 quadrillion Caucasians, 1 in 1.5 quintillion African-Americans and 1 in 57 quadrillion South Eastern Hispanics.

So going back to the mixture, also for the minor, which would be the lesser contributor or contributors. I was not able -- not determined means I was not able to determine a profile for that minor or minor contributors.

And the comparison of my other standard, which would be from Trayvon Martin to that mixture, I determined that Trayvon Martin was excluded as being a possible contributor to that mixture.

RIONDA: So as to this part of the Exhibit 203, the swab or the DNA that you developed from the pistol grip of the defendant's gun, it was positive for blood, correct?

GORGONE: Yes.

RIONDA: And then there was a mixture. The major was matched the defendant, George Zimmerman?

GORGONE: Yes.

RIONDA: And you were able to exclude Trayvon Martin as having DNA on the pistol grip. Is that correct?

GORGONE: Yes. Trayvon Martin was excluded as being a possible contributor to this mixture on the grip.

RIONDA: I want to move next to the second part of the swab from the pistol trigger this time, on the previous exhibit that you examined, did you again perform or try to do the same testing, or tell us what that significance of that FDLE exhibit 3 was, sir?

GORGONE: The 21-b was a swab collected from the trigger of the pistol. I did not perform the chemical test for blood on that exhibit. The swab itself didn't give me an indication that blood might be present.

BALDWIN: OK. So this crime lab analyst is walking through these multiple swabs that he took on George Zimmerman's gun to see whose DNA was where. So far the headline that I'm hearing is the fact that it was George Zimmerman's DNA, specifically on the grip of the gun, but not that of Trayvon Martin. Quick break. We'll take you back to this after this break.

RIONDA: Even though you don't have a swab, how do you remove, if there is any DNA, from this? What do you do?

GORGONE: I take a swab and I swab the pointy end to try to obtain anything that is on that pointy end that came from under the finger fingernails.

RIONDA: And let's, if we could, talk about your findings as to that specific exhibit, sir. I gathered there's a right hand and a left hand. Is that correct?

GORGONE: Yes. There were two envelopes inside the main envelope. One contained the right hand, which I labeled "a." The left hand was labeled "b."

RIONDA: And if I could, I've put it up on the screen here. Tell us what your findings regarding your DNA analysis of the right hand fingernail scrapings of Mr. Martin?

GORGONE: The right hand, the stick from the right hand had some red brown staining on it. So I performed the chemical test for the possible presence of blood and it tested positive. The DNA profile I obtained was a single source profile. And it was -- it matched the DNA profile from Trayvon Martin.

In a sample like this, I call this an intimate sample. Because it's collected directly from an individual's body. When you collect a sample from an individual's body, their DNA profile is expected to be seen on that swab or on that sample.

So what I'm looking for on an intimate sample is anything foreign to that person. And in this case, because the DNA profile matched Trayvon Martin, that means there were no DNA foreign to him on that sample.

RIONDA: In other words, from the right fingernail scrapings of Trayvon Martin, you did not find any of George Zimmerman's DNA there. Is that correct?

GORGONE: No, there was nothing foreign to Trayvon Martin.

RIONDA: If we could move to the second part, which I believe would be the fingernail scrapings from the left hand. If you could, tell us your findings as to that, sir.

GORGONE: Yes. The left hand stick was not tested for the possible presence of blood. It did not have any staining on it whatsoever. I swabbed that, performed the testing, and I did not get any DNA results from that swab.

RIONDA: I believe you also examined some swabs, possible DNA swabs from a Skittles bag and also a flashlight. Is that correct?

GORGONE: Yes.

RIONDA: May I approach the witness again, your honor?

JUDGE DEBRA NELSON: Yes, you may.

RIONDA: Sir, I'm showing you State's Exhibit 169. I ask you if you recognize State Exhibit 169, sir.

BALDWIN: All right, so quickly they were talking specifically about the scrapings that were found underneath Trayvon Martin's fingernails and the fact was no foreign DNA was found. Translation, no George Zimmerman DNA was found, which is not consistent with what George Zimmerman was saying earlier in the trial that we heard. Not in the trial. What we heard in the video where apparently he was saying Trayvon Martin's hands were covering his mouth and his nose. We'll look for the defense to counter that somehow. Quick break.

RIONDA: Mr. Gorgone, let's talk about the findings regarding the hooded jacket recovered from -- or that Mr. Trayvon Martin was wearing. I'm showing you State's Exhibit 119. Does that -- can you show us where there's a stain there or appears to be a stain there? GORGONE: That would be stain "c" which was on the back of the sweatshirt.

RIONDA: Am I circling it right here?

GORGONE: Yes.

RIONDA: OK. So in addition to actually making your cuttings, you're photographing what you do so that if you had to come and explain it to somebody or testify about it, you would be able to say this is exactly where I got this cutting and this is where I got this result?

GORGONE: Correct. This is a photograph of before I did any testing. Obviously there's no cutting taken there yet. But in my notes I describe chemical tests for blood, the result, cutting taken, cutting not taken, and so on.

RIONDA: State's exhibit -- I'm going back to 203, I believe it is. I want to ask you about the results. Let's talk about stain "a" that we've shown the jury already. Tell us what your findings were regarding that, sir.

GORGONE: Stain "a" gave me a positive result for blood, for the possible presence of blood. I obtained a single source profile so no mixture. It was a partial DNA profile at less than the 13 locations that I test. And it matched the DNA profile from Trayvon Martin.

RIONDA: And I believe you stated state's exhibit -- I'm sorry. Stain "a" from the hooded jacket from Trayvon Martin was in the front. Is that correct?

GORGONE: It was in the front lower part of the jacket.

RIONDA: OK. Let's talk about the stain "b" which I believe you stated was one of the sleeves, is that correct?

GORGONE: Yes. Stain "b" was on the sleeve, the left sleeve.

RIONDA: And if you could tell us what your findings were regarding that, sir.

GORGONE: Stain "b" tested negative for the possible presence of blood and I performed no further testing on that stain.

RIONDA: And the stain "c" which I believe was in the back of that hooded jacket, what were you findings regarding that, sir?

GORGONE: Stain "c" gave me a positive result for the possible presence of blood. However, I was not able to obtain any DNA results from my testing.

RIONDA: I believe we have one more. Tell us if you can what your findings were regarding that specific exhibit.

GORGONE: In addition to the three stains that I tested, I was also asked to swab to see if there was any foreign DNA on the cuffs or the lower part of the sleeves of the sweatshirt. So I collected -- well, first I did the test for blood on a rubbing from the entire cuff and lower part of the sleeve. I considered the lower sleeve from about the elbow down to the cuff.

So I tested that whole area for the possible presence of blood, which tested negative for the right cuff and sleeve. I swabbed that area to see if there was any DNA foreign to Trayvon Martin since it was his sweatshirt. So I can expect to potentially see his DNA profile there. And it was not -- there was no DNA foreign to Trayvon Martin on that right sleeve.

RIONDA: Did you also do that to the left cuff or lower sleeve?

GORGONE: Correct. There was about the same results. It was negative for the possible presence of blood and I was not able to obtain any DNA foreign to Trayvon Martin from the left sleeve cuff swab that I collected.

RIONDA: I want to make sure the jury understand that. Are you saying that as to the hooded jacket from Mr. Martin, the right cuff and left cuff -- let me just -- Mr. Gorgone, I want to make sure we're talking the same thing. Make sure the jury understands. May I approach the witness, your honor?

JUDGE NELSON: Yes, you may.

RIONDA: For the record, I'm showing you State's Exhibit 155. Mr. Gorgone, when you're talking about the sleeve, how much of the sleeve are you rubbing?

BERNIE DE LA BIONDA, PROSECUTOR: Can you just --

ANTHONY GORGONE, DNA ANALYST: I swabbed the cuff and lower sleeve area. And I consider that from the elbow or midpoint of the sleeve forward. So I did the chemical test for blood from about here forward and the cuff, which tested negative. And I was not able to obtain any foreign DNA.

DE LA BIONDA: And did you do that also from his left sleeve?

GORGONE: Yes.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. And when you're doing that, are you doing both sides or one side or what part of the sleeve are you doing?

GORGONE: All the way around, so the front and back of the outside surface.

DE LA BIONDA: And then you said here also that -- tell us about this, what you're doing here with the cuffs.

GORGONE: The same thing. It was all collected with one swab, the cuff area to here.

DE LA BIONDA: OK. And there was nothing foreign to Trayvon Martin? In other words, you didn't find another person's DNA on those, either one of those?

GORGONE: Correct.

DE LA BIONDA: Thank you.

May I -- may I take it back?