supposed to get involved? do you know? every school has a policy, they are not charging him with neglect of a child. he h he had no obligation to get involved. stacey, what is interesting is that he came out right away and said that the school did not tell me that there had been a problem. it makes it clear to me that if there s a lawsuit, the school probably should be included. and finally, the possibility of this child almost being a whistle blower, he goes to school and said these kids are selling me pot and they beat the hell out of him, the school has a responsibility to protect him. absolutely. you are going to see lawsuits cop out of this and one of them is going to be the whistle blower that it was in
honowitz, stacey, everyone including me is furious about this beat down on the school bus, the place where we put our children to get to school safely. can these teens be charged as adults? they can. they can be waived up to adult court or there could be a direct file. even if they had no prior contact with the criminal justice system. and quickly do we know whether they had any prior contact. are you a wear of any other juvenile record or contact? they have no stated whether or not there s been a juvenile record, a lot of that is confidential, i m sure we will find out in the coming weeks whether they had contact with the system. is there an obligation for the school bus driver to get at least get involved. he said something that interesting that he is not
s who arg whose argument was most effective for the jurors? which do you think? that s a big question. obviously it s be a important question, but a lot of people don t recognize that lawyers usually do not expect to persuade jurors of their position in closing arguments. you hope by that time in the case that you already have a few jurors who support you, and what you re doing in closing arguments is giving your supporters good arguments to take back with them to the jury room to convince anyone who is on the other side. i think both sides laid out their respective arguments fairly well. i think the defense had to focus on the law, focus on the burden, and the state had to focus on emotion. stacey, when you re watching that, it s interesting. it wasn t too present in the case-in-chief in the main cases that were brought themselves about this cement. they talked about injuries but not cement. what did you think of this
dummy beneath them, they can kind of get a visual but they ve been taking copious notes. that might be something they re back there debating about. that s not the evidence we heard or we heard from the stand yet the lawyer is doing something different. all of these play a role in the deliberations. all right. page, stacey, thanks so much. we ll be back with you throughout the coming hours. we re waiting and watching as the jury deliberates on the fate of george zimmerman as this trial has wrapped up. what we re talking about how the defense attorney, what decisions he made and why and we re not talking about it blindly. fortunately, cnn s margin savidge got a chance to sit down with george zimmerman s attorney mark o mara for a one-on-one interview. it lasted 50 minutes. he asked about what this could mean and one of the things they discussed was if george zimmerman is exonerated, if he s acquitted, if this case ends favorably for him, what may happen. take a listen. do you think
that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but skittles trying to get home. this is an undeniablundeniable. this is significant injury. the defense is going to parade the photographs of the injuri injuries. i don t think i need to show you the one photo that counts, do i? the m.e. photo? who suffered the most serious injury of all? we re joined once again by page pate and stacey honowitz. page, let s start with you. their closing arguments were fascinating in so many ways. everyone is wondering whose argument was more effective. i m talking about whose argument was more effective for the television viewing audience?