>> so if i were to show you a picture of trayvon martin's fingernails, you wouldn't know whether or not they looked the same that day? >> the fingernail has to connect to trayvon's head for me even to identify. >> i'm talking about the condition. what the fingernails looked like. if i showed you a picture, that wouldn't do you any good because you have no memory? >> yes. >> is that correct? >> i do not have any memory. i told you before, i told you right now, i do not remember anything. >> part of the protocol also includes fingernail clippings, correct? >> it's not my protocol. it's not my job. it's technician's job. they are trained to do that. >> don't you supervise the technicians? >> i supervise them. >> don't you make sure they do their job completely and correctly? >> i have confidence on them. >> well -- >> they are trained to do their job. i cannot keep my eye on them when i do autopsy. i do autopsy.

my hands is gloved. my hands is bloody. >> are you doing an autopsy with bloody gloved hands when the fingernails are scraped? >> no. i look at them before we do autopsy. >> sure. >> and then after we look at it, and then we write down -- we should write at that point as we start autopsy. and we never look at again. >> so you're saying you don't know whether or not it's standard protocol to make fingernail clippings as well as scrapings. >> no, i don't know. i don't know that protocol exists because it's not part of my job. >> may i approach the witness? >> yes, you may. >> i'm going to show you what's called an evidence accountability sheet. >> yes. >> do you have that? >> yeah, i do have that.

this one? >> right. and do you see that there is a check box for fingernail scrapings that's checked? >> yes. >> and you see one for fingernail clippings that is not checked. correct? >> yes. >> that tells you, then, there were no fingernail clippings? >> yes. >> as part of the autopsy procedure here? >> actually, i remember the technicians do clipping, here they do scraping, it's chief. the chief of medical examiner office makes the decision how to do the business. i'm the associate medical examiner. my job is determining the cause and the manner of death. i will not worry about the protocol. the technician. >> you don't worry about whether the -- the technician is following the protocol at the office? it's not your job? >> no, it's not.

>> and in this case, so you would have no idea why no fingernail clippings were preserved? >> yeah. i -- i was there. i don't remember what they did. it's not my job to worry about it. >> so that would mean, then, that you don't know if they weren't kept because they chose not to -- >> yeah. they do not do that. >> or -- or that there weren't any fingernail clippings because the nails were so short they couldn't get any? you don't know? >> i told you before, i don't remember. >> did you do a blood draw for routine toxicology in this case? >> we tried to get blood for every case. >> so in this case, there was blood drawn as part of the routine autopsy protocol for submission to a toxicology lab for analysis. is that correct? >> yes. in my note, i -- we note that

the blood is from trayvon's chest. >> right. for toxicology -- >> objection, your honor. the issue we previously addressed. >> court has made a pretrial ruling about this. please abide by the court's order. >> of course. yes. for toxicology purposes, the blood that was drawn was from the chest area, correct? >> yes. >> for toxicology purposes, it's -- it's better, is it not, that the blood be drawn from a peripheral source. >> yeah. peripheral blood is the best choice. such as femural blood. >> femural blood, somewhere down in the leg. >> yes. >> in this case did you attempt to get peripheral blood? >> yes. >> how do you know?

>> i do not remember. you want to catch me, i do not remember. i told you generally speaking, okay? we try to get peripheral blood first. if we cannot get peripheral blood, we try heart second. if we cannot get blood from the heart, then we try something else. in this case, trayvon martin has no blood left everywhere else. all blood is in the chest. that's our only option, i believe. >> you're suggesting -- i mean, you saw the photos. >> yes. >> obviously your staff took them. that there was no source of blood anywhere in his body other than the chest -- >> i have that on my autopsy report. >> wait till he finishes with his question. then you may give your answer. >> is it your testimony that there was no source of blood for toxicology purposes that would qualify as peripheral blood? >> there was peripheral blood

taken. >> do you know what attempts may have been made specifically in this case? >> objection. >> you ask me this case. >> just one second, please. >> we are just after the top of the hour here. i'm brooke baldwin. quick pause there in the george zimmerman murder trial. it's what they call a side bar. they kill the mikes so these lawyers can approach the bench and have a little discussion. what you have been watching and what we've been watching for really the crux of the day is this associate medical examiner. this man by the name of dr. bao. he is the person to have performed that final autopsy on 17-year-old trayvon martin. he is being cross-examined by one of the co-counsel, defense co-counsel don west. let me bring in my legal expert who is will walk us through all of this. for however long this lasts for presumably the state rests today. tanya miller here in sfud owe. current criminal defense attorney, former prosecutor here. also eleanor odom, prosecutor.

welcome to you. in stanford, florida, where the trial is takes place we have sunny hostin. now the trial is back. so we listen. >> -- toxicology purposes, in this case you're saying was not available through a peripheral source? >> in this case, i don't remember. but generally speaking, we should get blood from peripheral if there is one. >> okay. >> in this case i do not believe there is one. >> do you do that yourself? are you the one that draws the blood for that purpose? >> i never draw blood. >> so in this case, who drew the blood that was submitted as part of the toxicology -- >> objection, your honor. >> when there's an objection you can't answer until i make a ruling. thank you. the court has made a pretrial determination, and i'm asking counsel so make sure you abide by that. >> certainly. do you know who drew the blood?

>> i believe it's ben dalton. >> he was the hands-on guy, correct? in terms of assisting with the -- >> yes. >> whereas ms. feller was the clean hands? >> yes, yes. >> it makes sense it would have been ben dorton, then? >> yes. >> okay. >> may i have 107?

>> may i approach the witness? >> you may. >> i'm going to show you exhibit 107. it's already in evidence. >> okay. >> it's a better quality than the ones on the screen. would you take a look at that? >> yes. >> do you recognize those to be the pants that trayvon martin was wearing at the time the autopsy was performed? >> yes. this is one of the photos i have. >> correct. >> there's a case number so i believe that is. >> that came from your office. >> yes. >> taken by ms. feller, most likely. >> yes. >> and is considered part of the case package. >> yes. >> and you would have seen those pants at some point? >> yes. >> your honor, could i publish it briefly? >> yes, i may. >> i'll just pass it down.

>> you've had an opportunity to look at all the of the photographs that your staff took in connection with this autopsy? >> yes. i went through many, many times. >> i'm sorry? >> i went through these photos many, many times. >> and am i correct that there are no photographs that show the palms of mr. martin's hands? >> i do not recall. >> take a look. >> we took photos of the -- the left fingers. >> i know. if you have them, if you have them in your memory, just tell me if you can, are there any photographs that were taken that showed trayvon martin's palms? >> no. i don't believe we have that. >> is it part of your protocol

not to photograph the entire body, all of the body surfaces? >> the protocol is we take photos as whole body. we take three photos to cover all the body. because we don't have space to get a camera too high, very high to get one photo of the whole body. other than that, we take the photos as needed. for example, if i found something i thought may be significant, such as the injury, a tumor, a disease, we will take photo. >> are you saying it was a conscious decisionme the palm, y speaking, for every case. because the body coming, the hand is contracted.

i look at them. if i do not find anything, i just pass. >> and you don't take a picture? >> i do not take picture for anywhere i don't think is significant. >> so you're making a decision on the fly what might be significant later? a conscious decision not to photograph certain parts of the body? >> yeah. it was my decision, i think. i looked at it. i did not see any injury. i did not see any disease. so we just move on. >> that's what you're looking for is injury or disease? >> yes. >> likewise, you don't have any pictures of trayvon martin's fingernails. is that correct? >> i do not believe we have that. >> was that also a conscious decision not to take a picture that would show his fingernails? >> it's not a particular decision. i believe we do not do that.

if i to not find anything significant or disease or injuries. >> that's certainly not a cost issue, is it? >> it is not a cost issue. >> it's just a digital camera. >> yes. >> the images are stored digitally? >> yes. >> you're not paying for film or copies or anything? >> i do not even worry about that. when we do autopsy, for any professional, in the hospital, in the medical examiner office, the efficiency is so important. in this case, we started autopsy 10:30. i did another one before trayvon martin. i would start autopsy 9:00. and this is monday morning. i will have another autopsy to do after this case. so we take maybe five to ten photos as needed. >> so you're saying that you're kind of in a hurry and you don't

want to take a full body set of photographs? >> no. i'm not in a hurry. i said for any case. we take five to ten photos. we do not just take photos for the purpose of future use. we take 100 photos, cover everywhere, it's -- we cannot do that. >> your testimony is that you can't take pictures of all the body surfaces? >> no. we cannot. there is no reason -- >> that's because it takes too much time? or costs too much in resources? what's the reason? >> what's the reason? we do that all the time. we did that before. we did that on this case. we will do that in the future. >> so in other words, without the photographs in this case, nobody can look and make a

decision for themselves whether you missed something or whether -- >> i do not believe i missed anything. >> quick break. back to this medical examiner cross-examination. getting into the nitty-gritty here. a lot of questions about protocol here to this man. be right back. american success story," "that starts with one of the world's most advanced distribution systems," "and one of the most efficient trucking networks," "with safe, experienced drivers." "we work directly with manufacturers," "eliminating costly markups," "and buy directly from local farmers in every region of the country." "when you see our low prices, remember the wheels turning behind the scenes, delivering for millions of americans, everyday. "dedication: that's the real walmart"

and testimony resumes here in the george zimmerman trial. here is defense attorney don west cross-examinie ining the ml examiner. this is a huge day for the state. this could possibly be their final witness. let's listen. >> you're saying he could have received this abrasion between where he was at the time of the shot and when he fell forward on the grass? >> yeah.

that's too specific. it is my opinion that could happen before they met, during the struggle or after he was shot. >> you're not suggesting, are you, that mr. martin could receive the abrasion on his finger by falling on to wet, soft grass? >> it shouldn't happen. >> it would require a hard, ungiving surface of some sort? >> yes. >> something abrasive? >> yes. >> something like cement or something with a hard edge? >> yes. >> certainly not wet, soggy soil? >> i don't think so. >> now, you said also that it's not something that would bleed, correctly? it wouldn't bleed much? >> yeah. this injury there's no blood. blood is still inside the tissue. still inside of capillary. >> can there be blood sometimes? >> shouldn't. >> right. but can there be? can that -- >> when i look at the -- >> it could have been wiped off?

>> i don't think so. >> you couldn't have been? >> it's so superficial. the blood vessel did not have injury. >> all right. so if there had been some blood that you didn't see, it could have been wiped off? >> objection. speculation. >> sustained. >> the body reacts to being injured by putting some fluids, too, correct? >> yeah. >> even if it's not blood, there could be some other bodily fluids that would kind of come to help start the healing? >> right. an injury for any place in the body, the body will try to get more blood to the area to get more nutrition, to get more white blood cells to fight the disease or injury. >> so if something came in contact with that -- that abrasion, cloth or something,

there could be some transfer of those bodily fluids? if not actually blood? >> so there is no hemorrhage. so there is no clot. just superficial. >> your opinion is there wouldn't -- if that abrasion were to come in contact with someone's clothing, there would be no transfer of biological matter? >> it could be. because the superficial skin was off. so -- so i believe there a possibility after this injury, the superficial skin could transfer from one person to anoth another. any time you have contact you have some transfer. it's called trace evidence. it's in the book. trace evidence means you have contact. you have something transfer. >> may we retrieve the exhibit? >> yes. >> thank you, judge.

okay. you mentioned trayvon martin's height. that's 71 inches. 5'11". >> i never said height. because the dead man cannot stand. >> well, i meant length. body length. >> yeah, length. >> correct. 71 inches. 5'11"? >> yeah. 71 inches. 5'11", yes. >> the weight was 158? >> yes. >> and on the notes taken during your examination, that is a bmi of 22. correct? >> yes. >> do you know what i'm -- what bmi is? >> yeah. >> body mass index? >> yeah. if he's obese i will write down in the autopsy report. if he's of normal range i would -- let me see diagram. 22, yes. 22 is normal range. so i did not include that in my autopsy report.

just in the diagram. >> in the body diagram sheet where it's noted that mr. martin was 71 inches and 158 pounds, it's also noted that his bmi is 22? >> yes. >> that's in the normal range for someone his size and weight is this. >> yes. >> neither obese nor underweight. >> yeah. normal range is 20 to 25. >> i'm just looking around here so i don't repeat what you've already said. we'll try to move forward. i think i'm at the point now where i'd like to talk with you specifically about the gunshot wound itself. >> okay. >> actually, before i do that, let's talk about the length of time that in your opinion mr.

martin may have lived. >> one to ten minutes. >> right. that's what you said before. >> yes. >> are you saying that his minimum or minimum time that he would have survived is one minute? >> yes. >> and the maximum time he would have survived is ten minutes? >> yes. >> and that's based upon your review of literature? >> no. it's based on my experience. i did autopsy, and i have worked in three medical examiner's office. >> let me ask you this about your experience. have you ever done personal research, professional research, that has resulted in peer review publications? >> for this -- for the survive -- >> gunshot wound survival times or anything related to gunshot wounds? >> yes. i read many books. >> i understand. my question, though, is more precise. it's have you done any research

yourself, written any articles, on this subject matter? >> not in the last six months. >> are you published in the area of gunshot wounds? >> no, i did not. >> are you published in the area of what the survival time might be for a wound such as mr. martin sustained? >> i did not. >> so your source of information when you offer your opinion of one to ten minutes is based upon your review of other people's work? >> based on my autopsy and other people's autopsy which i work with. because -- >> when you say you work with -- >> come to the office back in texas or back in alabama, normally we have morning conferen conference. then we go to morgue to do autopsy together. we watch each other's case to have more experience. to learn from each other. >> in this instance, though, are you saying that in working with

other medical examiners over time, you've done your own research project? >> no. i do not have any research project on this manner. >> so you don't have any database, if you will, of how long someone would be expected to live -- >> got to take a quick break. then we will dip back into testimony here. this associate medical examiner talking now specifically about his experience versus what he's read in books as far as what he knows when it comes to gunshot wounds and length of time of survival. be right back. you really couldn't have come at a better time. these chevys are moving fast. i'll take that malibu. yeah excuse me, the equinox in atlantis blue is mine! i was here first, it's mine. i called about that one, it's mine. mine. it's mine. it's mine. mine! mine. mine. mine. mine. it's mine! no it's not, it's mine! better get going, it's chevy's independence day celebration. [ male announcer ] the chevy independence day celebration. now, current chevy truck owners can trade up to this 2013 chevy silverado all-star edition with a total value of $9,000.

and i have a massive heart attack right in my driveway. the doctor put me on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. go talk to your doctor. you're not indestructible anymore. where over seventy-five percent of store management started as i'm the next american success story. working for a company hourly associates. there's opportunity here. i can use walmart's education benefits to get a degree, maybe work in it, or be an engineer, helping walmart conserve energy. even today, when our store es well, i earn quarterly bonuses. when people look at me, i hope they see someone working their way up. vo: opportunity, that's the real walmart.

cross-examination continues here of dr. bao. here he is on the stand. let's listen. >> journals or articles or textbooks? >> no. >> your hands-on experience? >> my hands was not on. my eye was on. >> is this because of a specific case you were working on? >> yes. three weeks ago -- let me -- let me say this case. >> yes. if you would just tell us

exactly what it was, your experience was three weeks ago, that has caused you to more than triple the time that trayvon martin is likely to have been alive. >> three weeks ago we had a case. one guy about 40 years ago -- 40 years old was shot by his father. his father was the real self-defense. he called 911 right away. we have clear -- >> i'm sorry. is this information in your personal knowledge or are you relying on other people's reports. >> my knowledge. because the reason, i did not do autopsy on this case. but i have great interest in this case. >> she needs to be able to hear everything that you're saying. what is it that you're missing. >> my knowledge -- >> i did not do autopsy on this case. but i have very great interest

on this case because this case is similar to trayvon martin's autopsy. this 40-year-old was shot. the gun through the heart, also right ventricle. through the liver. in trayvon's case, the gun -- the bullet through the right ventricle of the heart and the lung. and very rare. this is kind of one of opportunity that we know exactly the time he was alive. his father called 911 right away. and he was in pain and make some painful noise. and the 911 people actually hear that. he was pronounced dead ten minutes after he was shot. very clear time. very rare you can have clear

picture after people was shot how long he alive. so in this case, this guy, 40 years old, shot by his father, his father called 911 right away. we have clear picture. he was alive for ten minutes. i was so interested in this case because i'm preparing for this case. so i believe if you shoot the heart, people can survive ten minutes. >> okay. that's your frame of reference, then? >> yes. >> that other case where there's some evidence that the person was alive longer than your first opinion of one to three minutes? >> yes. >> would you agree the range could be quite different? >> oh, yes. >> depending on the circumstances? >> yes. >> and you couldn't really say that in every case where someone was shot in the heart they would survive ten minutes? >> no. this -- that's why i say one to ten minutes. i did not say about ten minutes or ten minutes. i say one to ten minutes. i give myself plenty of margin of error.

>> so that's really ten times, isn't it? >> yes. >> ten times, one to ten minutes is a huge -- >> yes. let me tell you -- >> is that as accurate as you can be? >> yes. >> okay. let's then talk about something else you said in connection with that. if i heard what you said earlier in direct, that you said that immediately following the shot, trayvon martin would not be able to move. did you say that? >> yes, i did. >> is that your opinion, that based upon the shot to mr. martin's heart that immediately upon sustaining it, he would not have been able to move? >> and also i gained the experience -- >> if you would just answer the question first. is that your testimony that -- that immediately upon receiving the injury to his heart and lung, that trayvon martin would not have been able to move?

>> yes. >> and are you also saying that he would not be able to talk? >> yes, i did say that. i would -- >> that he would have no voluntary control of his muscles whatsoever? >> i -- >> is that what you're saying? >> i have no idea about that. i -- i do think they can move a little bit. they can make some very painful noise. that's what i learned from the case three weeks ago. >> but you didn't do the autopsy on that case, did you? >> i did not. but i -- >> did you witness the autopsy? >> yes, i did. i did. >> and that's your database, if you will, for all of this? >> normally, we have -- we have two person. in this case, dr. gallagher did the autopsy. at that day, i -- i did not do autopsy, i think. so because this case is so rare,

we have clear picture. >> what i'd like you to focus on, please answer more fully if you need to, but i want to focus on your opinion as a medical examiner in this case. >> yes. >> so that we're clear. is it your testimony that immediately upon sustaining the gunshot wound to his heart and lung, that trayvon martin would not have been able to move voluntarily? >> i think he was able to move a little bit. >> how much? >> very, very little. >> could he pull his hands in? could he move his hands? >> i don't know. >> could he move his legs? >> in this world, only one person knows. >> could he sit up? >> i don't know. >> all right. so somewhere between not being able to move at all and maybe move a little bit, you're just not sure how much or for how long? is that what you're saying? >> again, i -- because nobody knows. only one person knows in this room. >> objection, your honor.

the -- the witness is not being responsive. could we approach the bench, please? >> no. but please rephrase your question and wait till he asks the question to give your answer. >> i don't understand your question because nobody knows what trayvon did after george shot him. >> excuse me. excuse me. thank you. dr. bao? >> yes. >> you need to wait until a question is finished being asked and you need to answer the question that is being asked. okay? thank you. >> your honor, may we please approach just for a second. this is an important matter i'd like to address very briefly. >> just go ahead and ask your question, please. >> may i have just a moment. i want to precise with my question.

>> okay. >> and as an expert, you're allowed to give an opinion, obviously. >> yes. >> i just want to know what your opinion is. >> yes. >> your opinion is that trayvon martin may have been able to move some after sustaining the shot. you just don't know how much or for how long. >> yes. >> is that correct? >> nobody knows details. >> all right. so because it's a matter of opinion? >> yes. >> okay. so have you done any studies yourself other than this one occasion you're talking about or consulted any research on that specific issue, how long somebody could move or talk, what physical activity they're capable of, and for how long after sustaining a similar injury? >> okay. for human study, we cannot do

experiment. so in this world, nobody knows -- >> your honor, the question -- >> okay. you have all been watching. still this back and forth, i tell you, this is getting tricky. you heard the judge, deborah nelson. she is running a tight ship. she wants the specific question asked, she wants the question answered and that is it. let's move on. again, got to get a quick break. they're talk specifically about whether trayvon martin could have, given this gunshot wound to his heart, have moved just a teeny tiny bit or not. we're still trying to figure that out according to this witness. quick break.

we go back to the trial in sanford florida. again, this could be the state's final witness. this associate medical examiner continuing to be cross-examined by the defense. let's listen. >> that there is some distance -- >> yes. >> between the fabric and the skin -- >> no. i did not say between the fabric and the skin. between the skin and the muzzle of the gun. there is some distance.

>> that's what i'd like you to be clear on so i understand it. >> okay. >> you're saying that there is some distance between the muzzle of the gun and the skin? >> okay. >> so -- >> when i say contact, it's not contact to the clothes. it's contact to the skin. okay? >> are you saying that if you contact the clothing, and the clothing is next to the skin, that you're not going to see evidence of a contact wound on the skin? >> it depend how you contact. there are two contact. loose contact and hard contact. if you -- the gun through the clothes press the clothes very hard contact skin, then i will see the imprint of the fiber of the clothing on the skin. >> you would also see that stellate pattern you're talking about, the tearing.

>> you may not see that if it's hard contact. >> you're saying that if the barrel of the gun were pushed against the fabric against the skin that you would see fibers in the skin. you might see the stellate tearing but not necessarily? >> i cannot answer that question. because i'm -- in this case, i believe it's not. >> you believe what is not? >> i -- i don't believe it is contact. in my autopsy report, i give you three ranges. contact, intermediate and indeterminant means i cannot tell. in this case for me it's also like three second question. he had a stipling. intermediate range. we use a chemical method or use actual -- actual shooting to determine the range. they give you whatever. one inch, two inch. >> let's talk about how you

determined your range. >> i use the definition. so if it is stipling, it is intermediate range. intermediate range, it is stippling. >> let's break that down just a little bit more. >> okay. >> if it's not contact, it's the next closest distance, by your definition, would be intermediate. >> yes. >> there's no such thing as close range. >> some people do that. in this case, some people will call close range. but i -- i don't do that. because -- >> so you have either contact to intermediate. >> yes. >> and in your mind, based upon the resource materials, intermediate can be from less than half an inch? >> yeah. >> all the way out to four feet? >> yeah. less than 0.4 inch to four feet.

that's what i said in the deposition. >> and the way you know that is because you know it's not contact? >> yes. >> and that you see some of the stippling or the tattooing? >> yes. >> and you know there is a point, there is a distance, where the gun powder drops off? somewhere around four feet? if the shot is beyond four feet, you're not -- >> not see the stippling, yes. >> you're only going to see -- >> again, this case, when i give you my opinion in the deposition, first thing i need to be safe. so after i determine it's intermediate range pattern, then i search the book. i found out that the closest -- >> let me be clear. have you changed your opinion now from what you gave -- >> i did not change opinion. because in the the book still there, book still same. >> which books do you refer to? >> i have several books on my

shelf. >> did you refer to any of the books by dr. vincent demayo. >> yeah. he's one of them. >> so you consulted dr. demayo's book on gunshot wounds? >> yes. >> after consulting his book and others, have you now changed or refined your opinion that the distance of the shot is .4 inches to four feet? >> no, i did not. i made the determination before your deposition. i did not -- >> quick, quick break. back after this.

back to the testimony. just to give you a little context, this associate medical examiner is the one to have performed the final autopsy on trayvon martin being questioned now about whether or not he changed his opinion on the range of this gunshot. and you're going to hear this word stippling. i just have learned, stippling is the bit of markings on your skin from the gun powder after

being shot. that's the word. listen for it. let's resume. >> is that what you're saying? >> yeah, yes, you're right. >> and once you saw this, you knew that it was an intermediate range? >> okay. yes. >> and at that point you did not attempt to determine where within that intermediate range this particular shot may have occurred? >> yeah. because i could not write that down on the autopsy report. because it is not part of autopsy report. it is opinion. very great confident. it is my responsibility when i do deposition, i have to give you range. so i did research, give you range. >> so the only -- the only testimony you're able to give the jury on how far the muzzle of the gun was from the skin is

somewhere between .4 inches and four feet? >> yes. >> if i might have just a minute, i think i'm about finished. thank you. >> thank you, your honor. thank you, dr. bao. >> thank you.

>> redirect? >> good afternoon again, dr. bao. >> thank you. >> let's make sure of a few things. you did a report, and i think it was six pages. correct? >> seven page. >> seven pages. >> my notes? >> right. you did a report, but then you also made notes, too? >> yeah. seven pages of notes. >> you made seven pages of notes and your report detailed your diagnosis and findings, did it not? your medical examiner report -- >> oh, yeah. the autopsy report. >> the autopsy report. >> yeah. let me see. six pages. autopsy report. >> okay. and you documented your findings in this case? >> yes. >> in terms of the gunshot wound, detailing, describing the -- >> the autopsy report -- because you cannot rely on your memory

to testify say truth, nothing but truth. because you don't know the truth. >> so at that time it was very fresh in your mind and you did it that same day? >> yes. >> and you documented your findings on the report? >> yes. >> okay. and then you created some notes to help you testify in court so hopefully it would be easier? >> yes. >> okay. like make sure you had your name downright in terms of all your education so it would be easier for you to tell the jury? >> yeah. even before the deposition, i told you i spent a whole weekend from 8:00 a.m. to 8 p.m. i come to my office. i lay down everything. >> yes, sir. >> i tried to figure out what i can remember. i could not remember anything. >> okay. and, in fact, in the deposition, you provided to both sides, defense and state, with some answers to some very simple questions about what homicide is. >> yes. >> the definition of intermediate range pattern, correct? >> yes. >> and then you put in terms of -- >> quick break. this is the redirect.

this is bernie hr the state's s. the associate medical examiner it was discovered had these notes with him. not necessarily autopsy report, but other notes. they're getting back to that. quick break, back in a moment. d. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪ yup. another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap.

let's continue with redirect with this associate medical examiner still on the stand. >> yes. >> he's trained to do that or did you just that day tell someone to come off the street say hey, come in here or is he trained to do that? >> yeah. trained to do his job.

he had previous experience with some other job. we have senior technician train him to do the job. >> we're vouching for a witness that's not here and subject to cross-examination. >> can you move on? >> okay. i'll move on, your honor. you've mentioned -- may i approach the witness, your honor? >> you may. >> you did recover -- or some blood was recovered, correct, for dna purposes, correct? >> yes. >> the bottom line, dr. bao, whether it's from one to three minutes, from one to ten minutes, he was going to die? >> yes. >> and never recover from this gunshot wound, correct? >> he had no chance. there are two defects on the heart. >> so the bottom line, it could be as little as one minute up to

three minutes or up to ten minutes? >> yes. >> correct? >> yes. >> in your deposition you stated one to three minutes, but you recently came across a case where someone could have lived up to ten minutes, correct? >> yes. >> by the way, in terms of -- you did not go to the scene, correct? >> i did not go to the scene. >> i object to the leading nature of the last several questions. >> okay. next question, if it's just to get to a point in testimony, i will allow it. >> you -- you were asked by mr. west to, i think, at some point review your investigator's report that went to the scene? you recall that? >> yeah. i did not go to scene. i just rely on her report here. i do not want to testify on her behalf. because i -- i don't have fact. >> you didn't go to the scene yourself? >> yeah. >> okay. >> so i don't have opinion. >> okay.

is the evidence -- hypothetically if the evidence showed photographs there at the scene by the police department that the body was covered in a tarp, or a tarp was covered over the body, would that in some way protect the body? >> yeah. before i came here i did review the scene photos. not because i went to scene but because i reviewed the photos. >> you reviewed photos that were taken by the investigator? >> yeah. i reviewed a few days ago, even yesterday. >> right. was there indication the body had been covered at the scene? >> yeah. according to my memory, my new memory. not the memory of one year ago. that the body was covered by orange something. >> okay. and when you say in terms of trayvon martin, in terms of the one minute minimum up to three minutes and all that, in other words, his brain was still functioning, but he wasn't able -- was he able to get up and do jumping jacks and all this stuff or not? >> i believe brain is minimally

functioning. i don't think he can move based on my case, our case three weeks ago. >> all right. don't refer to the other case. just based on your experience you don't think he can move around? >> i don't know trayvon martin's case. i have to refer previous case to predict trayvon's case. >> sure. all right. in other words -- well, strike that. >> quick break. these could be the final moments here of the state's case before they rest. back after this break.

sleep train's ticket to tempur-pedic ends sunday. experience the pressure-relieving comfort of tempur-pedic, and sleep risk-free with sleep train's 100-day money back guarantee. get 36 months interest-free financing: no down, and no interest for 3 years. plus, get free same-day delivery. sleep train's 100-day money back guarantee, interest-free financing, and free delivery? that's the ticket! sleep train's ticket to tempur-pedic ends sunday. ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪

all right. here we go. just about the top of the hour. i'm brooke baldwin. good to be with you on this friday. what a friday in sanford, florida, inside this courtroom. they have now taken a ten minute recess. the state has yet to rest its case. but today was the day, this was their chance to make their case. and on this day, let me just take you back to the very beginning. they called the person many expected would be their moment compelling witness. of all people, it's trayvon martin's mother. here she was. sybrina fulton. >> you mentioned that it was probably one of the worst things that you went through to listen to that tape, correct? >> absolutely. >> and that if it was your son, in fact, screaming as you've testified, that would suggest that it was mr. zimmerman's fault that led to his death, correct?

>> correct. >> and if it was not your son screaming, if it was, in fact, george zimmerman, then you would have to accept the probability that it was trayvon martin who caused his own death. correct? >> i don't understand your question. >> if you were to listen to that tape and not hear your son's voice, that would mean that it would have been george zimmerman ea 's voice, correct? >> and not hear my son screaming? is that what you're asking? >> yes, ma'am. >> i heard my son screaming. >> and you certainly had to hope that was your son screaming even before you heard it, correct? >> i didn't hope for anything. i just simp rly listened to the tape. >> sybrina fulton there on the stand. tough cross-examine to watch there. we're going to go back to that with our legal experts. also, we just saw this associate medical examiner, dr. shiping

bao. he was just excused. he was on the stand for quite a chunk of the day. he was the person who conducted that final autopsy on the body of 17-year-old trayvon martin. and earlier today, this was prerecess, something happened that you actually rarely see in a court of law. >> are you reading from something now. >> yeah, yeah. i typed down my stuff. >> may i see what you're referring to, please? may i approach the witness? >> because i puzzled by that. i could not remember the thing. >> your honor, may the witness not answer until i've had a chance to -- >> yes. >> okay. >> show me what you're looking at. >> before this testimony, i told you i spent hundreds, hundreds hours. potential answers to your potential question. these my notes. >> may i see them, please? >> i rather you do not see this, my notes. nobody saw that before. >> okay. dr. bao, if you're going to be

reading from your notes, both attorneys are entitled to see what you're reading from. >> okay. >> so please allow him to do so. you pray approamay approach the >> perhaps it would be convenient if we made a copy for counsel. i could continue with some questioning then we could look at them at our leisure. >> you've got people here behind you. you can make a copy if you wish. >> so they become -- it's my note i type myself. nobody read that before. >> so it was kind of a what moment today in the courtroom. also on the stand today, trayvon martin's older brother jahvaris fulton took the stand. we'll play sound from what he heard, the 911 call and whether or not those "help" screams came from trayvon martin or george zimmerman. we have sunny hostin, senior legal analyst. cnn legal analyst and criminal

defense attorney here with me in studio seven, eleanor odom. veteran prosecutor. tanya miller, defense attorney and former prosecutor. so welcome, welcome to all of you. i think we need to begin with the mother. we need to begin with sybrina fulton who we all knew, we all assumed she would be one of those final witnesses. this was when the state really had to bring home the story about the 17-year-old young man who was shot and killed last february. did she, eleanor? did she help them do that? tough for her. >> well, it was tough. and it always is for the victim's mother. but what was so important after we heard all that forensic evidence, remember, the day before the fourth of july on the 3rd, everything was about his sweatshirt and everything. this finally brings trayvon martin back into the courtroom. it makes him -- i hate to say it, come alive. it really humanizes the person that he was. it's so important to bring that up again in front of the jury as often as you can. especially after all the forensic evidence has been laid

out. >> sunny hostin, let's talk about the o motions. because this is an adjective that's been used to describe sybrina fulton many times. the strong patriarch. she's stoic. do you think jurors were expecting tears, more emotion from this mother describing, yes, those were my son's screams on the 911 call. >> well, it's hard to tell what the jury expected of her. but she does come across as very stoic. very elegant. i was in the courtroom for her testimony. remember five out of the six women on the jury are mothers. they were leaning forward. i can tell you one juror in the very back did not take her eyes off of sybrina fulton. especially when they were playing the tape of the screams. while she may have appeared to be stoic on camera, i will tell you in the courtroom that was not the feeling that was there. it was very intense. and certainly she came across as being elegant. i will tell you what was very surprising to me, brooke, was

mark o'mara's cross-examination. i think he is a very skilled attorney, very good attorney. but i think he made a rookie mistake. i mean, they will tell you in law school and at the u.s. attorney's office and in most training places that, you know, it's -- it's very difficult to cross-examine the victim's mother. and most professors will tell you not to do it. and i think his line of questioning where he almost tried to go into blame the victim, asking trayvon martin's mother, the victim's mother, isn't it true that perhaps trayvon was responsible for his own death really fell flat in the courtroom. and the jurors in my view didn't appear to like that. >> yeah. i'm glad you brought that up. guys in the control room, get in my ear and tell me if we have a little sybrina fulton sound we can play. to sunny hostin's point to her testimony. off of sunny's point, also the second mark o'mara sits up there, immediately there's an objection. he is saying i'm sorry for your loss. there's an objection from the state. then to sunny's point, he does

continue to question him. she called it a rookie mistake. do you agree? >> i agree. i think that he really didn't make any point with his cross-examination. everything that he has to argue this is already in evidence. you're never going to get the victim's mother to really give you anything more. she was solid. she was convinced that that was her son's voice on that tape. nothing he asked her was going to change that. it was really kind of a pointless cross. >> i'll throw a question to you. this is something i was just curious. in terms of standard operating procedure, when you are a mother of a 17-year-old who has been shot and killed and you know you are going into -- it's actually not at the police precinct. it's at the mayor's office. she testified that she wasn't told what she would be hearing. perhaps not to color her view. perhaps not to bias her toward one voice or another. but is that standard or not? >> no. the proper control is you have

it without a crowd of people around you and without all the suggestions or the subliminal messages or somebody trying to navigate you. i don't think it's going to make any really big difference in this instance. but, no, you should have a neutral, unbiased control that's simply an investigator playing it in the sanctity of a room with a grieving parent who whoever might be looking to identify a voice. that's a better control. all in all, it shouldn't have been done that way but i don't think it'll be a big deal. >> i want to come back to the four of you because we have a lot more to talk about, especially with this associate medical examiner. also the older brother of trayvon martin. again, trial in sanford is in recess. probably about five minutes left, then we'll take you back to that live, i promise. but i have to talk egypt this afternoon. quickly here, in cairo, shooting has now erupted outside these government barracks where the overthrown president, mohamed morsi, is believed to be in military custody. but look at this. look at these crowds. it's after 9:00 at night there in cairo.

you have the islamist political party saying that five of its peop have been killed. sporadic clashes in other parts of the country have left dozens of people wounded. and i want to take you to this. these are live pictures coming out of eastern cairo. these are supporters of the ousted president, mohamed morsi. now it is their turn to take to the streets and to protest. joining me now, karl penhaul on the phone from cairo. and, karl, just describe for me what you're seeing. i'm hearing about clashes. i'm hearing about on this october 6 bridge which i know gets you to tahrir square, you have pro-morsi and anti-morsi folks now going back and forth. >> reporter: exactly, brooke. really the rallying point, the supporters of the deposed president, was friday prayers. after friday prayers they began marching to different points of the city. one of the points they did march to was the republican guard

headquarters where they believe president morsi is still being held. there were clashes there. army and police opened fire with tear gas. and we also understand from protesters, they say the soldiers returned fire with live bullets. the health ministry has confirmed at least one protester was shot dead there. that was during daylight hours. now nighttime has fallen and more columns of pro-morsi supporters are trying to cross the october 6 bridge from the other side of the nile coming towards tahrir square. clashes have broken out there again. we believe this is a civilian on civilian clash. pro-morsi demonstrates against anti-morsi ddemonstrator. the police may also be involved as we understand. we hear from a cnn team on the ground a car has been set on fire. there are shotguns apparently being fired. molotov cocktails are also being thrown there. it is a very fluid situation.

and what we've heard at friday prayers were calls from the sheikhs, from the preachers, calling on pro-morsi supporters not to go home, to stand and even die for their cause if necessary. as i say, right now, night has fallen, but no sign of pro-morsi demonstrators are heading back to their homes, brooke. >> now fatal clashes in cairo according to karl penhaul as we look at these live pictures and that burning car you were just describing. karl penhaul in cairo. thank you. we'll continue to monitor the developing situation here in cairo, egypt, as clearly people are furious that mohamed morsi has been ousted. coming up next, though, we are looking also at these live pictures inside this courtroom in sanford, florida. i am seeing activity which tells me this is about to get going once again. quick break. back in two minutes. ready? happy birthday! it's a painting easel! the tide's coming in!

this is my favorite one. it's upside down. oh, sorry. (woman vo) it takes him places he's always wanted to go. that's why we bought a subaru. (announcer) love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. we know it's your videoconference of the day. hi! hi, buddy! that's why the free wifi and hot breakfast are something to smile about. book a great getaway now and feel the hamptonality humans.

we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? back to sanford, florida. just a little heads up as we can

eavesdrop on what's happening inside this courtroom. the attorneys have approached the bench. they're discussing maybe some evidence. we saw a huge board with a timeline as far as events taking place february of last year. maybe one of the questions is with the jury out of the room right now can this evidence or perhaps the tweaking of this which looks like with a sharpie perhaps will be admissible. let's listen. >> okay. just as long as the wording is the same. what is this next thing? >> the next thing is what we asked the court to take official notice. i'll have the court make a ruling. >> can i hear the objection? >> certainly. we've had about half a dozen witnesses testify as to the -- whether particularly in the scene of the event. this is a much more generic. it happened somewhere in sanford. matter of fact, mr. guy told me the park -- i've been around for a while. i've never heard of rabino park.

i don't know where it is in sanford. i can tell you it is not as close as the witnesses who have already testified to the actual conditions that night. i don't think it's relevant in that it is some generic overview of some other area. i guess in sanford. but not close. if it was a necessary element for the state to bring out, i might see the need for judicial notice. but since we already have sufficient, i think, more than sufficient testimony from witnesses, then the issue has been addressed and i don't want the confusion of some other location to be before the jury. >> okay. thank you. response? >> to my knowledge it's the closest weather station to the scene. and i believe it is permissible pursuant to the florida statutes cited in the state's notice. again, it's offered to show there's been testimony whether or not it was raining, what the wind was like. this provides an hour by hour analysis of those two --

>> i see that. would you please tell me how far it is from the retreat at twin lakes? >> judge, i think it's -- i believe it's right off of 1792 and 417. somewhere in that location. not too far from this courthouse. so within -- within a few miles. >> if it's that far away, then i truly have an objection. because that's several miles. >> does anybody have -- be able to get on their computers to give me a distance? >> i think we can. >> i can tell you where robina park is. my objection is i don't -- even if it was down the street, the testimony that exists is the testimony -- >> i understand what the testimony exists. but we have people testifying as to different times to what the weather conditions were. some say it was raining. some say it was drizzling.

some say it was misty. some say it was raining hard at different times. i don't see any prejudice if we were to have a weather report that showed time for time what the temperature, dewpoint pressure, wind, humidity and rainfall were. there would be no prejudice. my only concern is how far away this is. >> again, listening to this hearing, this back and forth with this judge, which eleanor just mentioned, she's running a tight ship. i tend to agree with you. i think a lot of attorneys on either side will as well. quick break. we will see what's happening in this hearing and when the jury can come back in and when the state will rest. be right back.

this hearing is still taking

place, this side bar hear ing. the jury is still out of the room. let's just try to understand maybe not necessarily what's happening because we're not in there and you're not the attorneys there. i don't want to put you in an awkward position, eleanor and tonya. let's talk about the process of resting a case. the state officially rested. i'm getting in my ear from the control room. so jury is still not in the room. to rest without the jury? is that typical? >> well, not necessarily. but then they could bring the jury back in and you could say on the record the state rests. >> okay. just big picture today. here we have -- we start with the mother. then we see trayvon martin's brother. then we have this dr. bao who, you know, threw a curve ball in there a little bit with those notes before and then got into the minutia on the cross with distance of shooting and how long -- you know, whether or not he has an opinion based upon something that happened a couple weeks ago or while ago. there was a lot of back and forth, back and forth. i was asking you all as we were watching this, that is all typical in a final day, right?

a day of resting? >> absolutely. absolutely. i think what you're seeing right now is they're sort of getting the exhibits ready. the state is making sure they're crossed the ts, dotted the is before they officially say we're done, your honor, this is our case. definitely. very normal. not sexy, but normal. >> what next? i guess the big question, sunny hostin, let me go to you in sanford. this is all we haven't had any lists of witnesses who've been taking the stand. we now know officially, i presume the jury is still out of the room, guys. let me know if they're not. we now know the state has rested. do we even know if the defense will just continue to roll right through and begin their witnesses or might they begin on monday? >> we don't know yet. but this judge is always reluctant to take any time off. so i suspect that if they're prepared, that the defense will begin today. what usually, though, happens at the end of the government's case is that the defense will ask for what's called a motion -- will make what's called a motion for judgment of acquittal. what that basically means is they're going to argue, listen,

the state didn't prove its case. there's not enough evidence to take this to the jury. these motions are always made. they are rarely, rarely granted. because the evidence is looked at in the light most favorable to the government. so i suspect that that's something that may happen as well. and after that -- and those motions sometimes are very quick. and sometimes they take a long time. so depending on how long that takes, then we may see the beginning of the defense case. >> martin, what do you think of this final witness the state called today? this dr. bao, associate medical examiner? a lot of times in cases like this, obviously you want to have that final witness that really hits it out of the park for depending on your side now it's the state, right? do you feel like dr. bao was able to do that or was his testimony deluded after all the cross-examination, the back and forth with don west? >> yeah. it fumbled and bumbled along the way. that's clearly not what they hoped for. i was surprised they called him at the end. i thought they would call trayvon's mother or his brother as the last witness. but i understand their strategy. that was they were going to have

the mother, the brother giving very emotional, impactful statement for the jury. then they were going to conclude it with what they thought would be a simple m.e. presentation, medical examiner presentation. and then showing the body, the autopsy of this young 17-year-old, thin young man who as i understand it looked quite young from the pictures. and then that would have been very impactful. they didn't get what they were hoping for. this m.e. was all over the place. he did not give the closing that the state would have only hoped for as they would in any case. he really did not help them. >> i believe the words i heard in here from these ladies was wishy washy. let me pull away and go back to the trial as -- this is typical here. the defense is arguing for an acquittal. let's get back in. >> exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. the standard still is to the extent we can look at direct evidence and the court may consider the expletives that

have been used as some, well, i would argue with it. but i guess the court could look at it and say the words that he used might evidence -- they may be direct evidence of ill will and hatred. i will suggest that maybe the way other people have said it or screened it in the courtroom, the evidence that's before the court and before the jury, the way my client used it, can certainly the entire context of the way he used it in the conversation on the nonemergency call does not suggest anywhere near the level necessary for ill will, spite and hatred. under that suggested, if you were to even consider that direct evidence. short of that, i would suggest there is no other direct evidence to support any contention whatsoever of second-defwree murder as to the ill will, spite and hatred argument. the circumstantial evidence, then, that may exist, and they've tried to present to you that my client is some -- i'm

not exactly sure what the state's case is yet. but to the extent that what they're trying to say to you is that my client was a frustrated neighborhood watch and cop wannabe and just sort of had had enough, and that is supported by some circumstantial evidence, i don't think that they have any direct evidence to suggest that. in fact, what they have shown is that my client has, in fact, been frustrated. because he's called before. and on occasion, the people he's called on have gotten away. however, rather than just having the huge bridge that needs to happen from that suggestion to ill will and hatrehatred, that circumstantial evidence has to negate any hypothesis of innocence of my client, even in the judgment of acquittal standard, that being you look at

that evidence in the light most favorable to the state. still pursuant to walker has to exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. i will suggest to you that now what you have before you, what the jury has before it, is not only some reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but a very well founded reasonable hypothesis of innocence. and that is that my client acted in self-defense. because though you do look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, you have to look at all the evidence. you can't -- i don't mean to suggest this as though you don't know the standard. but you have to look at all the evidence. you can't just call out parts of evidence and say if i take these four pieces of evidence and look at these in the light most favorable to the state, then i can see where judgment of acquittal should not be granted. you have to look at the entirety of the evidence that's before the court and therefore the jury. and what is before the court is an enormous amount of information that my client acted in necessary self-defense.

we will not know yet, and you don't know yet, who was screaming. and if you are to look at any evidence in the light most favorable to the state, you have equivocal statements of the only two people who have talked about it. jahvaris fulton, i really want it to be him, i'm not sure. of course, you have miss fulton who, though she did testify that is her son's voice, you have to take it in context. you have to understand reasonably why she would say that, how she would say that. quite honestly also the circumstances under which it was done. that piece of evidence in and of itself, a mom saying it has to be my son who passed away, that has to be his voice, because any other possibility means my son caused his own death, you could consider as evidence. however, you have to take it in context. you have to take it in the reality of the other undeniable circumstances that existed that night. and here's what existed that

night in the evidence that you have to consider. my client's immediate statement to those who listened to him that he was screaming for help before he knew that that was being recorded. you can have an argument that he's this cop wannabe who would know it's going to be recorded. but the reality is, the first person on the scene he told it to, the second person on the scene he told it to, the officer. that's minalo and the officer. and he has the undeniable injuries that evidence nothing other than a violent attack by trayvon martin. there is no other reasonable hypothesis that could come from that undisputed evidence other than my client was attacked by trayvon martin. some form or fashion. is it determined quite yet how, in what precise moment? maybe not. i would suggest that there is absolutely no evidence to contra

indicate what my client now has before you and before the jury. which is that he was at the t-intersection when he was attacked -- approached and then attacked by trayvon martin. there's no evidence to contra indicate that. and that he was hit in the face. there's no evidence to contra indicate that. what we all know now it did to his nose. that violent act in and of itself, i would suggest to you, is sufficient for immediate response with great -- with deadly force. but he didn't. what we have is 40 seconds of somebody screaming. of course, you know, my client through his statement said it was him screaming. 40 seconds. and receiving additional injuries consistent with and even the state's own experts sa it was consistent with my client's head being bashed against concrete. or hit, contacted without using the motional word of smashed

against concrete at least several times. that type of injury in and of itself, the way it was presented by my client, that injury and the ongoing nature of that injury supports the right my client under 776 to reasonably believe that he's in fear of future bodily injury because it was ongoing. the state's own witness, captain carter, said one really good indication of future bodily injury is when you've already been injured. and it's still ongoing. you can presume that it's going to continue to occur. and that is, in effect, why my client acted in self-defense. and there is something, most importantly, under walker, there is absolutely no interpretation of the state's evidence which excludes that as a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. and if you read walker, the very words that i said, the whole case is quite instructive. it allows for no other

determination that since my client now has presented self-defense through the state's case, but it is now affirmative evidence, of why he acted in the way he acted that since the state cannot exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence based upon their circumstantial evidence, that the judgment of acquittal should be granted. that's under walker. walker also cites woods. and it is the woods case which also cites another supreme court case which is barwick, b-a-r-w-i-c-k. in 1995 florida supreme court case that also sort of began the premise in florida law that the judgment of acquittal is appropriate if, in fact, the state fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis

except that of guilt. you, as barwick says, barwick again is 660 72nd 694. determines you at the outset have to determine if there's competent evidence the jury can exclude guilt to the exclus of all other inferences. i would suggest to you that this would be a textbook case. it wouldn't make it to a textbook because the -- it is so apparent from the evidence presented at this stage of the proceedings, judgment of acquittal after the close of the state's evidence, that the inference of nonguilt is much stronger than any suggested inference of guilt. barwick, woods, and walker stand without question and unassailed for this proposition. and should be considered by the court as to the circumstantial

evidence issue. there are other cases that i would cite for you. and you have them in front of you. sims is a 2013 case. 110 73rd 113 talking about the state's obligation to eliminate any reasonable hypothesis of innocence and upheld by the judgment of acquittal in sims should have been granted. in fact, again, was upheld. and in that case, it also cited through law, state versus law, l.a.w. 559 72nd 187. law is one of them since it was cited in sims fairly well, you don't have that actual case in front of you. but the cite is quite specific.

s-t-i-e-h versus state was a case for the court to consider. that's the second dca case. it's been out for a couple of years. where there was a stabbing. and the defendant argued self-defense. the second dca advised the trial court that it should have granted the motion for judgment of acquittal once the defense had presented a prima facie case of self-defense. i believe the court should consider and, in fact, should decide that my client through his statements over the last week and a half as they were presented, not only his statements but all the supportive or corroborative

evidence, and those are all of the witnesses that my client, has, in fact, presented a prima facie case of self-defense. i mentioned it a moment ago. just to make sure that the foundation is properly laid, we have my client's -- if we set aside for a moment, i'm going to ask you for a moment to set aside the fact that my client is just the most amazingly competent protector of his own murder. set that aside for a minute. he didn't just decide at some snap decision to become a murderer and then was perfect in covering up everything. because i would suggest to you that that is a fallacy of absurd proportions. that such could even be suggested by the state certainly considered or actually endorsed by you. but if we set that aside for a moment, then what we have to look at is it sha-- >> okay. i know you're thinking what's going on? see the words on the scream,en,

acquittal. this is how they roll in any case like this. why? >> this is the defense's chance to attack the state's case before it gets to the jury. if you can get a judge to throw the case out without even letting the jury decide. this is a very common motion. it happens at the close of almost every criminal case. >> then the judge comes back and says, um, no. we're continuing. >> right. a jury is going to decide it. >> quick break. back in a moment. matt's brakes didn't sound right... ...so i brought my car to mike at meineke...

...and we inspected his brakes for free. -free is good. -free is very good. [ male announcer ] now get 50% off brake pads and shoes at meineke.

and defense attorney mark o'mara, still talking. still giving this joa, judgment of acquittal. again, a formality. requesting the judge to toss this case out based upon lack of evidence. let's listen back in. >> now, testimony would certainly support the idea even having moved the hands out as ms. moore has said, the feet still move. dr. bao seemed to say at some point maybe the body can move, maybe it can't. nonetheless, this is the foundational evidence for which you have to make a determination did my client present to date a prima facie case of self-defense. two, is that defense and its reasonable hypothesis of innocence which is, of course, what it is, specifically contradicted by the state's

case? under walker, woods, barwick, now as i've mentioned to you stieh, s-t-i-e-h, they have failed to do that. so if we look at shieh which interesting out of the second dca. i don't know that i quoted it. 67 73rd 275. stating that the joa should have been granted once the defendant presented a prima facia case of self-defense. a pretty good analysis of 776. in that case they were talking about defense of others. of course, the same standard applies as we have here today. jenkins, i think, is one of the most instructive cases. 942 72nd 910. the reason why is because jenkins, a 2006 case, remember as an aside that there are not a lot of cases about judgments of

acquittal and self-defense cases after 2006. the reason why is, of course, we now have self-defense immunity hearings as an alternative to judgment of acquittal arguments in a trial. we did not avail ourselves of that pretrial determination of immunity. so many other people in most of the other caseload, case law, have. so you'll see a significant dropoff in the number of joa arguments or joa call it case law after 2006 on a self-defense issue. because, as you would imagine, most of them exist pretrial, they're addressed pretrial. we have made the voluntary decision not to do that. but jenkins, what jenkins is good for, your honor, is that first of all the facts are -- are close. jenkins was in his house. a guy was outside making a lot of noise.

he went outside. jenkins tried to minimize the altercation. cesaro, who was the eventual victim in the case, made a maneuver towards him, punched him in the face, wobbled back, goes jenkins. then the assailant comes again. jenkins takes out a knife, catches him in the heart. he passes away. jenkins, the case, as opposed to just the facts, is very significant because jingens goes through and cites about seven cases, which is the recent history of judgment of acquittal cases in self-defense cases. judgment of acquittal issues in sel self-defense cases. and is a pretty good rendition of it. it references, for example, thompson, which is state versus thompson 552 72nd 24. that's an aggravated battery

case where he tried to stop a fight, was attacked. defendant backed up, brandished a gun. aggre aggressor continued to approach. defendant shot him. and that was where the court reversed the conviction on that, suggesting that the judgment of acquittal should have been granted. the hernandez/ramos case of 496 72nd 837, again cited in jenkins gives some good insight into a somewhat similar fact scenario. in that case, evidence was there that the defendant took some effort to ward off the attack or end it without violence. the state's witnesses in that case uniformly identified the victim as the aggressor. we don't have -- we have one eyewitness in this case, john good, i think, would present a

scenario very similar to that presented by the state witnesses in hernandez/ramos. that is that we know and it is completely uncontroverted that mr. martin was the aggressor in that he had mounted mr. zimmerm zimmerman. refused the suggestion by mr. good to stop what he was doing and continued the attack. similar to hernandez/ramos, the state's witnesses in that case suggested that the victim in the case was the aggressor. and, again, that case similarly was suggested that judgment acquittal should have been granted. now, that is looking at the issue of the circumstantial evidence and the direct evidence would exist and whether or not

my client has presented a prima facia case of self-defense. i think if you reach that alone, the case would simply be dismissed presently at judgment of acquittal. as i said a moment ago, i -- we don't -- i can't say, judge, can i stop and let you rule and i'll start over if you don't? so i have to continue as though you're not following my first track and i go to my second track. the second track is whether or not should the court not agree that a prima facia case of self-defense has been proven and to the extent that circumstantial evidence is being considered by this court as presented by the state, if you decide that that does, in fact, exclude any possibility of my client -- any hypothesis of my client's innocence, if for some reason i lost those two arguments, which i think the evidence supports that we should win, if we don't, then you have

to look at whether or not this case should still move forward on a second degree murder charge as to the issue of ill will and hatred. so let's talk for a moment about what ill will and hatred is and what it's not. in white versus state, 841 72nd 623, second dca case, that was a mosh pit case. mr. light didn't like the fact that the eventual victim fell back into and may have hit him in a sensitive area of his body. so mr. light decided to pick him up in a wrestler move, hang him over his head and smash him to the ground, crushing the left side of his head, i think it was, on the cement. sort of got up. made it outside and died. and the court ruled that that behavior, though extremely reckless behavior to simply get

upset and somebody, pick him up over your head and smash him on to cement, is not ill will or hatred. and would not sustain a second-degree murder conviction. because you can't infer any malice. i don't exactly know how you can't infer malice from picking somebody up over their head and smashing them on to cement. but if we are to compare that law, which is now the law in florida, to this case, i would suggest that there is absolutely no evidence to support the contention that mr. zimmerman acted in ill will, spite or hatred. if you can get past the expletives and you get past the fact that he seemed to be particularly interested in his community and that may have been why he focused on mr. martin as a suspicious person, looking unfortunately similar to what we now know we have in evidence of emanuel bergas who was this one person crime spree through this

circle who got prison time for his bevy of crime sprees in the area. the court may recall you were the sentencing judge in that case when we came before you a year and a half ago. yeah, an unfortunate circumstance. that doesn't allow the outrageously overresponse by mr. martin. sticking to the ill will and hatred argument, basically in the light case, it was just not ill will because the courts looked to two other cases for the instruction on ill will, spite and hatred. that being williams versus state at 764 72nd 177. another second dca case. and mcdaniel versus state, 620 72nd 1308. fourth dca case. to begin the analysis that even extremely reckless behavior itself would be insufficient for you to infer any malice that

would suggest second degree. i guess in this case, had trayvon martin pushed my client as happened in the light case when he actually hit him in the genitals, had trayvon martin pushed my client and my client just reeled back, took out his gun and shot him, under light i'm not certain that would have been ill will, malice and hatred. because the other overriding necessity in an ill will and spite and hatred case, i know the court is aware, is second-degree murder for ill will, spite and hatred not exclusively, because they'll never say never, but almost always, the people have to know each other. because the ill will, the spite, the hatred cannot be momentary. it cannot be instantaneous. all of the cases that talk about ill will, spite and hatred talk about in 99% of the cases, and

that's my percentage, not the case law's, but in the overwhelming majority, it only occurs where that ill will, spite and hatred has been something that has grown over time. the husband and the wife with the affair. the neighbors fighting over the fence. things like that. so that we can presume that there's ill will, spite and hatred by previous acts against the two. and it cannot be presumed. it has to be by direct evidence that there was this previous animosity that would suggest the growth or therefore existence of ill will, spite and >> similarly, there are two other cases. at first i didn't think that they were worth mentioning except as i thought of the issues of hate, ill will, in the

case in the florida supreme court in 1991 and -- i'm sorry, your honor. and that's sigler, 805, southern 2nd, 32. i mentioned those two cases for this reason. those were the high-speed chase cases. factually different from this case but interesting because in both of those cases the defendant, one, had just escaped from prison. another one had stolen a car, i believe. they were high-speed chases, 80, 90 miles an hour, running through intersections, running over curbs, running through toll booths and just acting about as outrageously as you could act while in a vehicle. and in both of those cases the courts said that even when you run into somebody and kill them, that's not ill will, spite and

hatred. there's no, in effect, transferred intent from when you act as outrageously negligent as you might act to steal a car and do 80, 90 miles an hour through a rounded area, running people out of the way and finally killing somebody, that's not ill will, spite or hatred. so i mention those for that purpose. another case, state versus ellison, 561, southern 2nd, 576 -- i'm sorry, that's one of the two i just mentioned. that was one of the cases where the high-speed case was not suggested to be ill will, spite or hatred. dorsey versus state, 5 1, 4th

tca case, 2011. in that case the defendant had a gun and the facts support that he actually went and got the gun to arm himself after having an argument with two victims. then they came to the car, further attacked him, one guy punched him in the face and after having armed himself voluntarily in anticipation of continued altercation with these guys, which is the facts of the case, he got hit in the face, took out the gun, shot him, killed both of them. and the 4th dca said in that circumstance where he went and got a gun and came back, no ill will, no hatred, no second degree. an impulsive overreaction to an event is insufficient in itself

to prove ill will, spite, hate, evil intent. >> belamy is another case, 977, southern 2nd, 682, 2nd dca case out of 2008. this was a fight that lasted a couple of minutes. basically a bar fight where they went back and forth and to the extent of the client, in that case belamy's responsibility in that regard, even though there is no evidence that the victim of the final stabbing by mr. belamy wasn't even known to have caused his own death, so he was, in effect, was thought by the court to be an innocent bystander and that belamy may have just reached out and decided to start stabbing

people, including this guy, there was no ill will or hatred found in that case either. and, again, they mention in that case particularly and also cite a number of cases standing for the proposition that you really -- ill will and hatred almost always and only comes from people who know each other before the event begins because it is almost impossible for that ill will and hatred to grow so quickly in the middle of an afray or a fight or an altercation such as we have here. wylie versus state 60, southern 3rd, 588. interesting case because in that case there was a fight and wylie decided to take out his gun and smack it against the eventual victim. so it was a deadly weapon, but

he didn't use it as a gun, but he used it as a hammer. as it hit him, it went off and killed him and again in that case, even though he decided to arm himself with a deadly weapon, decided to do it the way he did, since the intent was not there and there is no ill will and hatred, presumably it would have been found if he stood five feet away and shot him, they said that the action and the way it occurred suggests a lack of ill will, hatred sufficient for second degree murder. so it's a complicated case on a judgment of acquittal, i think, in a number of ways and that is that in the self-defense case, the case law, walker and others, woods and others, are quite clear that even at judgment of acquittal stage, the state has

to be able to, in effect, disprove a reasonable hypothesis of self-defense, even in the light most favorable to the state, all of those standards that the state has to present, all the factual scenarios have to convince this court that a judgment of acquittal should not be granted because they have presented evidence which negates every hypothesis of self-defense or hypothesis of innocence, which they're synonymous for these purposes that my client acted in self-defense. failing to do that, walker is the law of this land and suggests that a judgment of acquittal should be granted. if it is not granted outright because they have simply failed to disprove self-defense, of course you know that to be the standard for the jury to consider anyway, then we shouldn't even need to present a defense. and if for some reason, as i mentioned a moment ago, you

think that all of that is just has to be ruled in favor of the state, not giving my interpretation to walker and its progeny any consideration whatsoever, then certainly the state has failed in convincing that second degree murder charge evidencing a depraved mind has any basis moving forward to this jury because they simply have not presented any evidence to suggest that there is not a reasonable hypothesis that my client did not act with ill will or hatred and that they need to present, though they get the benefit of all the evidence being presented in their favor, what they don't get is the benefit of you ignoring evidence that can't be interpreted any other way. you cannot look at that picture of my client's nose and say that

he wasn't beat in the face. you can't look at the back of his head and say he wasn't beat in the back of the head. you cannot look at the autopsy of mr. martin and realize my client never attempted to nor landed one blow upon mr. martin. all my client did was scream out for help. mr. good, though he was questioned a lot about this area, did finally, i think, opine, though he didn't see gaffs escaping from my client's mouth as he was the one screaming towards him that he said it was his thought, his common sense that it was in fact my client screaming out for help. and the reality is had it been mr. martin, who we now know and it's undisputed was on top screaming for help, well, he had his chance. he had mr. gerd 17 feet away is

it asking him to stop, mr. martin telling him he was going to call 911 and continued to ignore him. they can't ignore that evidence to a jury and they really should not be able to ignore it to you on a judgment of acquittal, your honor. respectfully mr. o'mara gets the arguments backwards for starters. because justifiable use of deadly force is a defense for which the defendant actually bears the initial burden, and i'm not arguing necessarily that he didn't meet it, but because it is a defense, the first inquiry that has to be undertaken is the elements of the crime itself for second degree murder. only then do we move to the

issue of whether or not there is sufficient evidence to dispute the defense of justifiable use of deadly force. so the first thing that should be addressed is the elements of the actual crime that the state bears of burden of proving. the intent and state of mind included in the court's material -- >> you're watching the george zimmerman trial. the defense right now is asking for an acquittal before the prosecution is set to rest. this is perhaps the toughest day of testimony yet to watch in the courtroom, both trayvon martin's mother and the brother took the stand as well the medical examiner, who performed martin's autopsy. we're following every moment for you. let's take a listen. >> pointing a loaded gun at the victim