0 that's it for us. thanks for watching. "piers morgan live" starts now. welcome to our viewers around the united states. george zimmerman's fate will soon be in the hands of six florida women. they will begin deliberations friday. will they find him guilty or not guilty of killing trayvon martin. a dram day in court punctuated by the most we've heard from the defendant himself. >> did you now have sufficient time to discuss with your attorneys whether or not you wanted to testify in this case? >> yes, your honor. >> i don't need to know what was said, but after those discussions, have you made a decision? >> yes, your honor. >> what is your decision, sir. >> after consulting with counsel, not to testify, your honor. so, he won't testify, but his defense attorney mark o'mara is talking, striking a confident turn after today's dramatic session. >> i think we have a very, very good chance with the jury right now and with the evidence as presented. he's already given his story or statement five, six, seven times now so the jury has that, and we just decided that there was enough evidence in there that we don't need to present any more. >> were you leaning towards -- >> coming down to the wire, both sides using high drama with each holding a foam dummy and demonstrating the confrontation that ended trayvon martin's life. martin savage joins us from the courthouse. dramatic stuff with this dummy and also, seemed very significant concession by the state, over who may have been on top. >> piers, yes, another fascinating day inside the courtroom. you have to say the prosecution's case went through an evolution i support is the kindest way. clearly a change in the way the prosecution has presented what happened. john guy getting up there, demonstrating with maybe one of the strongest testimonies, this testimony coming from something that is not alive, a dummy. he grabbed that dummy and essentially is now saying that the state is willing to concede that trayvon martin may have been on top of george zimmerman, but they didn't just give up on that. listen to his explanation, fairly dramatic. >> if this person, this mannequin, were carrying a firearm on their waist, where would the gun be in relation to me? >> would be at your left inner thigh. >> right here, right? >> yes, if he was right-handed, it would be at your left inner thigh. yes, sir. >> right, underneath my leg? >> yes, inside your leg. >> okay. were you aware the defendant described to his best friend that when he slid down, the defendant slid down, that trayvon martin was up around his armpits? were you aware of that? >> no, i haven't heard that, no, sir. >> okay. where would the gun be now? >> now the gun would be behind your left leg. >> one of the things i should point out, that the jury found all of this fascinating. in fact, those that sit in the back row were actually on their feet leaning over watching that presentation. they took great interest in that, piers. >> seemed like a great concession, didn't it, martin, because if you believe as a jury trayvon martin was on top, you're more likely, i think, to assume the cries for help were coming from the person on the bottom? >> right, yeah. no, this clearly is a change from what we initially were told in opening arguments. whether this is the state saying all right, we may be headed for lesser charges, so this is a way to go after those is unclear. a lot of this will be made more clear tomorrow, but quite striking to see that and also, you know, mark o'mara was not to be outdone. he quickly grabbed the same dummy and jumps aboard and does his own rendition of what the defense says take place. >> and incredibly powerful it was, too. let's turn to the tensions between judge nelson and defense attorney don west. he's not had by common consent a great trail. it got very heated today, even by their standards. >> yeah, no. these two really, their relationship i think has been dissolving since i think the first day, maybe before the first day of testimony. i think don west has been very frustrated. he was frustrated about evidence the state -- i'm sorry, that the defense was not allowed to present, and i think that that frustration just continues to grow. last night they went very late arguing over, still trying to get evidence in and today you talked about it. that showdown now between don west and don west wasn't supposed to be talking. the judge was talking to george zimmerman, but boy, it didn't go over well. listen. >> have you made a decision, sir, as to whether or not you want to testify -- >> your honor, i object to that question. >> okay. over ruled. have you made a decision as to whether or not you want to testify in the case? >> i object to that question, i think that's -- >> over ruled. the court is entitled to inquire to mr. zimmerman's determination whether he wants to testify. >> may we have an opportunity to speak? the case isn't concluded yet. >> i understand that and i've asked mr. zimmerman if he needed more time to talk to his attorneys, and if he does, i will afford it to him. if your attorneys have finished with two witnesses before the end of the day, do you think that you would then know whether or not you want to testify? >> i'll -- on mr. zimmerman's behalf -- >> i am asking your client -- your client questions. please, mr. west. >> i object to the court inquiring of mr. zimmerman as to his decision about whether or not to testify -- >> your objection is overruled. >> that is about as close to a judicial bam as you'll get. remember last night while don west was actually talking, the judge walked out on him. they might need some counseling when this is said and done. >> quickly, martin, what do we expect tomorrow and more importantly, can we expect the jury to go out as soon as friday, perhaps? >> we can. real quick, tomorrow they will go over in the morning is the attorneys and the judge working on instructions. these are critical, really crucial information. this is what the jury will learn about what they can charge or what they can consider here. and then after that, 1:00 in the afternoon is when closing arguments begin. it will start with the state. they will go two hours and stop, and the jury gets to go home at that particular point. they are still sequestered so they think all night about what the state said and friday morning the defense will pick up and counter that argument, but of course, the state will get the last word in and then it will go into the hands of the jury, as you say on friday. >> dramatic stuff. martin savidge, thank you very much indeed. joining me is ben crump, the attorney for the martin family, natalie jackson, co-counsel for the martin family. ben crump, you've not been able to talk. we thought you would give testimony. that didn't happen in the end. now you are free to talk. i know you've not been heavily engaged in every day in the court, so you have a more general view. but how do you feel the case has gone? do you feel confident you have proven a case collectively that trayvon martin was murdered? >> piers, you're right, and i'm glad to be free from being sequestered so i can now talk about the case and i've been catching up throughout the day looking at different clips after it was determined the defense was not going to call me to testify. but i've said all along, piers, if the jury follows the evidence, george zimmerman will be held accountable of killing trayvon martin because nothing has changed. george zimmerman followed, profiled, made a decision to get out of his car and chase trayvon martin. the 911 tape, clearly that objective evidence says that the young lady he was talking to on the phone clearly says that. there is nothing to contradict that. so who threw what first punch if they were struggling and rolling on the ground, well george zimmerman started this confrontation and so we can never get beyond trayvon martin just walking home and a strange malg chauz is man chasing him. doesn't trayvon martin have the right to self-defense? >> here is the problem, ben crump, is many people will have absolute sympathy, but you say chase the evidence. it seemed there was a real shift by the state case in saying look, we concede that trayvon martin was probably on top of george zimmerman. now if you're that jury and you hear that u-turn on such a crucial piece of information, regardless of what happened in the buildup, we don't know who actually may have started the fight, regardless of that you're now left with a jury that believes trayvon was on top, and they are more likely than not to assume that the voice crying out for help is the person underneath. >> piers, it has always been our contention that there was some struggle, and if trayvon defended himself against a strange man who confronted him, he had every right to do so. but the cries for help, all of that is inconsequential when you think who started this. who was the initial aggressor? are you telling me if your child is walking home from 7-eleven and some strange man comes following him, that you don't want your child to try to defend himself when that person does not identify -- >> no, no, no, ben. my answer to you there is absolutely not. but the problem you face is florida law is very specific, and i've discussed this all week with various legal experts. it doesn't really matter what happened up to the moment they are in this confrontation. what matters is did george zimmerman genuinely believe his life is in danger? if he did, he is allowed to use the gun by way of self-defense so pure lit letter of the law i'm talking about here, it is hard to see how the prosecution have proven that case against zimmerman. >> well, i'll clearly say to you, piers, we have to all acknowledge that if you had the dynamic turned around and you had trayvon martin kill george zimmerman, the stand your ground argument wouldn't work for trayvon martin. that's the trouble with this whole thing. it's so subjective when you think about it. i believe in my heart that based on your child being chased by a grown man with a .9 millimeter gun and we hear that 911 tape and a couple minutes later he's shot in the heart and dead, those women on the jury have children, and they have to think that this could be my child. this could be anybody's child. and that's what is so troubling about this case and that's why so emotional, piers. people all over the country are saying, especially minority parents, what if this were my child? that's a horrible feeling to imagine your child do nothing wrong but walking home minding his business and somebody gets out of their car and chases them. >> let me turn to natalee jackson because you've been in court. you've heard all this evidence. i mean, there clearly is going to be a lot of contention over whether the case for second-degree murder has been proven. however, many people believe that there is a much more compelling argument for manslaughter or aggravated assault. could you see a situation where george zimmerman is convicted of one of those lesser charges, and would that be satisfactory if you couldn't get a murder charge against him? >> well, what is satisfactory is what the jury decides in this case. we don't have a choice in that. we don't get to vote. i think there is a case made for both murder two and for manslaughter because manslaughter is a lesser included offense of -- i'm sorry, yeah, manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder two. so that's why the jury will be given that option. i mean, ben crump quite rightly feels very passionate about this. many people feel very passionate about this. emotions are running very high. in the end, this jury will operate to florida law and will be directed to do so. >> yeah. >> it's very clear to me, talking to florida judges and particular judge alex and others who have great experience there, that really it all comes down to george zimmerman's state of mind when he pulled the trigger. >> it comes town to whether or not his state of mind was reasonable to the average person, so that's really the crux of it. that's what the jury will decide. were his actions reasonable? and the actions don't srt in the middle of a struggle. they start from the beginning of him getting out of the car armed with a .9 millimeter following and running after someone who is running away from him. >> natalie and ben crump, thank you both very much indeed for joining me. >> thank you. this case will soon be in the hands of six female jurors. defense attorney and hln contributor mel robins was there. mel, it's very -- getting very heated, very emotional now, both sides now realizing this is it. reaching crunch time. the jury likely to go out as early as friday. what are you detecting, if you can, from the mood of this jury right now? >> well, today was fascinating, piers. first you had the defense witness by the last name of root who was the use of force expert. he wasn't really giving testimony. he was giving a warmup for the defense, and what was fascinating about his testimony, piers, is that he would constantly look at the jury and you know what they were doing? looking back at him. it was like watching two people have a conversation across the room at a cocktail party. he was speaking directly to them, and they were soaking it in. but more importantly, piers, when they kind of brought out that mannequin dumb diddy thing and the attorneys were straddling. do you know what happened? the jury stood up. all five members in the back row stood straight up. the four women in the front row, they leaned forward and they were taking copious notes and really paying attention, and just as you pointed out earlier, this was a turning point in the case. the state acknowledged that trayvon was on top, and it seemed like the jury had this -- they were more alive today than i've seen them the entire trial, piers. >> there was also this extraordinary moment when the defense called a neighbor, called olivia bertalan who gave evidence about two young african-americans who intruded into her home. let's watch a clip of what she said. >> i saw two young african-american guys ring my doorbell repeatedly. they broke into my house. i heard bangs downstairs. the dispatcher told me to grab any weapon i had. >> mel, not to put too fine a point in it, this struck me as all right they agreed not to bring race into it. this was overtly making a racial statement. this was saying, look, the reason george zimmerman was right to suspect this young black boy trayvon martin was because this white girl had been at home, and two young black youths had intimidated her and broken into her home. >> you know, actually, piers, you know, this was a risk for the defense because they had her on the stand to actually have her testify about what an amazing neighbor george zimmerman was, how he comforted her, how he checked up on her, how he brought a lock over for her, and i thought it was very risky when they did this because she obviously identified that the perps in this case were two young black guys. and the prosecution was asleep at the wheel. they didn't hammer on this. maybe they will in close, but here is one more theory i was thinking, where is the rebuttal case? what is the prosecution doing? it seems like they are phoning it in. why don't they have ten of trayvon martin's friends coming on the stand and giving emotional testimony. that's my friend, that's my friend. i sat there in court today and thought, my gosh, regardless of how you feel, you still have the martins sitting here and it's almost as if the prosecution is just like, you know, giving up. >> i thought it was a very poor day for the prosecution, and i don't think they had a great trial. i think mark o'mara in particular for the dehanes has been extremely strong. let's take a short break, mel, stay with me. next, zimmerman's father was on the stand. how did that go over in the courtroom? that's coming up. [ male announcer ] oh, dan, checking out of the doubletree isn't the end.