elements of the crime itself of 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 the burden of proving. the intent and state of mind. included in the court's materials -- and i think it's probably the last or second to last case is gibbs versus state. it's a 2005 opinion from the fourth district court of appeal. beginning at the bottom of the first column of page 2 and continuing to the midpoint of the second column, the courts have held for a long time that when we're talking about evidence of an ill will, spite, or evil intent, pointing a

loaded gun at the victim and firing it is an act of depraved mind of human life. pointing a loaded gun at their direction, at their head, at their heart and pulling the trigger is, in fact, by itself evidence that you have ill will towards your target. there's really no question of that. shooting someone in the heart is by itself on its face evidence of ill will. now, the defendant raises a defense saying i was justified in do so but he's certainly not saying that at the time he pulls that gun, points it at trayvon martin's heart and squeezes the trigger and puts a hollow point through him that he had some kind of benevolent intention.

there's only one reason you squeeze the trigger at someone's heart and that's because you mean to kill them or you don't care. so the first issue is, is there evidence in this case of intent and spite and evil will? i suggest that gibbs makes it very clear that even just given the gunshot there's evidence of that. but there's plenty more. we'll talk about -- and i'll briefly reference the walker case which i'll point out is absolutely not a self-defense case. it's a who done it case. and so when mr. o'mara says it's the law of the land and announcing a case like this, i disagree. it's not because it's not a self-defense case. it has zero application to at least half of his argument. but for starters the court said this is not a purely circumstantial case.

neither is this one. evidence of ill will towards trayvon martin and in particular, mr. o'mara cast it as usually people who know each other. well, the problem is, this defendant thought he knew -- he thought he knew. he thought he knew trayvon martin as one of these [ bleep ] that get away. he thought he did. [ bleep ] had enough in his heart to stop his trip to the grocery store, if that's in fact where he was going, to follow trayvon martin as he walked through the neighborhood in his car to get out of his car in the rain, follow him and then, as the witnesses made clear, pursue him and make contact with him and grab him. he had enough in his heart to do

all that. so we'll talk about first the direct evidence. the direct evidence and even the walker case -- the defendant's confession, a defendant's statement is direct evidence of his state of mind this defendant's statements go a long way towards telling us what that was. his conversation with mr. noffke in the nonemergency call. but we go further than that. what other things has he said about this and i'll ask the clerk in advance if i can have state's exhibit 210, please. he talks about the first description is he thinks he's on drugs and he's suspicious because he's walking in the neighborhood. he also says that he would do nothing differently and this is all part of god's plan. and i don't even need exhibit

210. i'll tell the court what it says. the first line of the first homework assignment he wrote for professor carter indicates the reason he wants to be a law enforcement officer -- in that case i think it was u.s. marshal, because he wants to hunt fugitives and make sure they don't get away. that -- those are direct statements of this defendant. that's not circumstantial evidence. the defense can argue as to how they ought to be interpreted but they are in fact direct evidence. you move from that to the statements by rachel jeantel that there was some pursuit that took place and one does not follow somebody wishing them well. one does not grab them or confront them or ask them what they are doing here because you like them. but because you have some kind

of ill will, some kind of spite, some kind of bad feeling towards them. the central question, as it relates to that -- and i'll further point out that it leaves miss jeantel said she heard the defendant in this case tell him to get off. it's in fact justifiable use of self-defense. they are not even pretending that this defendant did not kill trayvon martin. so the only hypothesis of innocence that they offer is that. so i've covered what i believe is the direct evidence of this defendant's guilt as to his state of mind. i will now talk about the circumstantial evidence. you know, there's the idea that he thought enough of his neighborhood watch program to trump it, to walk around and be proud about it. that's fine, well, and good but the one time he comes in contact

with someone, he doesn't bother to say, i'm with the neighborhood watch. every time he's on the phone with the police, he says, i'm out with the neighborhood watch. i'm with the neighborhood watch. the one time he's not, he doesn't bother. he follows even after -- and it's contrary to the training for the neighborhood watch. there was an argument, i guess, or there will be an argument about whether he was told not to follow and what his perception of that was. the defendant wrote in his written statement that the dispatcher told him not to follow. his understanding was exactly that. we'll talk about some of his claims in brief. but he lies about kind of his whereabouts. mr. o'mara said that there's nothing to contradict the idea that he went right from the tea

to his car. there's two minutes of blank time in the phone records where this defendant is apparently wandering about the neighborhood. there's two minutes he can't account for. if he's to be believed that he's hit when he says he's hit, the phone records proof that he had plenty of time to cover whatever distance he was and he said he never got more than 100 feet from his truck. number two, he keeps changing the meeting location for the police. i mean, that is circumstantial evidence that he's got something else in mind. he wants the police to meet him at the clubhouse. no, okay, go back from the clubhouse, just meet me at my truck instead. never mind altogether. just call me when you get here. i'm not going to meet you. you find me. that's not evidence that he is interested in getting to the police right away nor is getting out of his car in the first place evidence that he is interested in meeting the police there. what it is, evidence, circumstantial at least, that he

was going to ensure because the police have always been too slow to catch these guys who always get away, they've always been too slow and he's going to make sure that this time something stops them from getting away. the one other time that somebody got caught had nothing to do with him. it had to do with the stucco guy who followed and identified and thereby caught the burglar and the defendant knew it. the inconsistencies in the defendant's own statements are hardly minor. i think viewed in favor of the state which the court is required to do is construed as evidence of somebody who can't figure out which lie he's already told so he tells a new one. he jumped out of the bushes. no, he didn't jump out of the bushes. he was right there where you are standing in the video walk-through. no, he's not right there where

you are standing. he actually after i hung up the phone and turned around and walked back to my truck, he was walking towards me. he says all three of those things. they can't all possibly be true. i'll submit probably none of them are true but the bottom line is, he keeps contradicting himself and not just in the minor fashion. he claims he knows all of his neighbors but i don't know yet of a neighbor who testified that they knew who he was before the shooting. and despite the fact that he's been the neighborhood watch chairperson, that he's lived there for years, that he claims to know all his neighbors and goes about parking enforcement, he doesn't know the name of the three streets in his neighborhood, he doesn't know that as he's doing his video walk-through, over the shoulder is the address that he claims he couldn't see. those are not minor things. those are evidence of someone who is intentionally ofiscating.

there are two people involved here. one of them is dead and one of them is a liar. that is a circumstance that this court ought to consider and it's a reason that the jury ought to consider. so between the direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence of his ill will, your honor, i will now go towards what the cases have to say about that. the only hypothesis of innocence, as i've said, is that the defendant was engaging in self-defense. included in the -- included in the packets that i've given your honor, the second case is malehan, the fourth district court of appeal decision from

june 6th of last year. and essentially at the -- i believe it's page 11 of the court's copy. the court sets out the law as it relates to this sort of motion. moving for judgment of acquittaling, the defendant admits the facts in evidence and every conclusion to the adverse party that may be fairly and reasonably inferred from the evidence, even if this were a circumstantial evidence case, which again the state argues it's not. there are circumstances but it's not purely a circumstantial case. you about even in a circumstantial case, the state must present evidence that conflicts with the defendant's hypothesis of innocence you but the state is not required to completely disapprove it. further, i've provided the court

with a case of shearod versus state, second district court of appeal opinion 992. i believe i saw this in the packet mr. o'mara handed me, too. but on page 6 -- i'm sorry. i think it's page 6 of the court's copy. page 5 of the opinion, again, the court reiterates this, unless there's no view of the evidence which the jury might take favorable to the opposite party that can be sustained under the law, the court cannot grant this. the weight of the evidence and the witnesses' credibility are questions solely for the jury. where there is room for a difference of opinion between reasonable men as to the proof of facts from which the ultimate fact is sought to be established, the force of such conflicting testimony should not be determined on a motion for a

judgment of acquittal. and finally, your honor, i've provided thompson versus state, another fourth district court of appeal case, this one from 2006. beginning on page 5 of this copy, again, in the secondhand column they talk about the generalized burden and they say this. when moving for judgment of acquittal, the defendant admits not only the facts introduced in evidence, admits but also every conclusion favorable to the state that a jury might fairly and reasonably infer from the

evidence. so your honor, as to whether the state has met its burden at this stage regarding the defendant's intent and state of mind, i submit that both through direct and circumstantial evidence, that has certainly been done. in fact, the only hypothesis of innocence is the notion of justifiable use of deadly force and i'm going to move to that. i think the facts testified to by the eyewitnesss who saw the defendant and the victim struggling together upright and at one point a pursuit involved, coupled with the inconsistencies and expression of the defendant's own attitude raises questions for the jury in that regard. as to self-defense as to whether the use of deadly force is justified, the state has a burden to discuss here and i'm going to -- i'm going to refer

the court to two cases in particular in this regard and the first is leasare. that's a second opinion from october of last year. beginning on page 10, i believe, of the court's copy, under headnote three, outline column three, they discuss the motion for judgment of acquital, the court says this. at trial, she asserted both of those that the defendant is asserting here, that the state -- >> you're hearing prosecutor k

defend defend the acquittal motion. we'll be right back. vo: traveling you definitely end up meeting a lot more people but a friend under water is something completely different. i met a turtle friend today so, you don't get that very often. it seemed like it was more than happy to have us in his home. so beautiful. avo: more travel. more options. more personal. whatever you're looking for expedia has more ways to help you find yours.

her long day of pick ups and drop offs begins with arthritis pain... and a choice. take up to 6 tylenol in a day or just 2 aleve for all day relief. all aboard. ♪

you're watching msnbc's live coverage of the george zimmerman trial. let's go back to the courtroom now where prosecutor richard manti is defending the motion for acquittal. >> conflicted with her contentions could lead the jury to disbelief ledger's self-defense theory. i'm going to discuss why i think that as opposed to the jenkins case this case is by far more, at least in a legal sense and certainly as it relates to the nature of the arguments, far more close. the defendant was armed, fully loaded with hollow point bullets. the victim was not. the defendant outweighs trayvon martin by 40 or more pounds. in fact, he even said to the detectives he didn't even think trayvon martin was armed.

the defendant's attitude about these [ bleep ], these guys cause them suspect at everyone opportunity. he is operating contrary to his training, he's operating contrary to the direct suggestions of the police. according to the testimony of at least some of the witnesses, the defendant initiated that confrontation. there was running, there was a chase, there was an upright struggle. the defendant was seen atop the victim by a number of people. john good saw the victim on top of the defendant. that doesn't mean that the positions didn't get switched. that doesn't mean that there wasn't a rolling struggle. but none of that justifies granting a judgment of acquittal. the defendant is the one with the mma training. the defendant's injuries

admitted minimal by him have been significantly exaggerated. he was caught in several inconsistent statements and i'm sure the court has noticed some, but let me put it this way, this defendant has now been exposed as having gone weeks after this incident in the company of his attorney on a nationally televised program in front of millions of people and totally flat out lied a big one about whether he even knew about the nickname for the self-defense law in the state of florida. he's demonstrated that he has no apparent compunction of doing anything like that. i'm not sure why any jury would have to take his word about anything else. and the only person who offers any evidence that the victim in this case, who ended up with the bullet in his heart, was the

initial aggressor in any way, shape, form, or fashion is the guy who went on sean hannity and lied. he certainly has the knowledge or the ability or the access to the materials and the background to construct a lie if he saw fit. this is a person who has been studying this for years. the physical evidence is certainly inconsistent with his hypothesis of innocence. the position of the body, the dna evidence, the idea that he was pinned and not leaving a trace anywhere. there is, of course, the matter of who was screaming. at least two people have said that's trayvon martin. a third has said it sounded like a boy's voice and the defendant, of course, in his recorded statement said, that doesn't

sound like me. spin that how you want to, that's what he said. and then, of course, there's the commonsense matter of the fact that the screams stopped when the gunshot got fired. the physical evidence of the wound itself and the hole through the hoodie and into trayvon martin's body has been sort of suggested or argued i think several points throughout this case that it shows that the victim was leaning over the defendant when the shot got fired and i guess he would have everybody believe that that is a possibility that is equally consistent with the idea that trayvon martin was pulling away at the time the shot got fired and that it wasn't some arizona

tea pulling it out but drawing it back. again, certainly open to a jury question as it relates to that. it is consistent with the victim defending himself as it is with the defendant in his version. there is this supposedly horrific struggle during which the defendant claims that at various points in time he sustained, i don't know, 30 punches, 25 slams of his head to the concrete, all of this screaming going on and his hand fighting and everything else, the straddling and yet the murder wound is a perfectly straight, perfectly calibrated shot straight through the heart. the defendant is either the luckiest most levelheaded and cool marksman in the world or

there is something else going on here. there is -- john good is relied upon in great part by the defense and expectedly so but even he says i never saw or heard any blows really land. nobody heard 50 screams. i think there's a significant reason for the jury to question that even assuming that the defendant shot trayvon martin in some form of self-defense, that doesn't end the inquiry and i think it's been over simplified. professor carter alluded to this. the standard is whether it was imminent that he felt great deadly harm. that's certainly not the only

argument. it's not the law. it's not the instruction. the instrument is, was his action reasonable? and given what we now know about the defendant's version and how much credibility he has, the defendant's attitude and history and what he felt and thought and the actual extent of the injuries which, again, it is true that the law says you don't actually have to have injuries. you but why exaggerate them? why make them something that they really aren't? so the question is whether he was reasonable in using that level of force, particularly if you believe the defense's theory that, well, he knew that the police were going to be right there. so the one final inconsistency

i'll point out as to whether or not this was self-defense is as it relates to the defendant's account to his best friend. when you think about it, the defendant swore that he was attempting to scoot or move or somehow get off the sidewalk at the time that he claims trayvon martin was above him with his knees to the defendant's armpits. and yet at that same time, according to the defendant, trayvon martin noticed the defendant's firearm and went for it and the defendant, nonetheless, was able to grab it, pull it out, and as he demonstrated, fire it into his heart. i think that's a pretty big physical impossibility. i think everybody with commonsense already realizes

that. so the central question, your honor, is really which one of these individuals was most defending themselves? that is a question the jury should answer. i want to say something about the jenkins case because mr. o'mara described that as one of the most instructive cases and the facts are close. here are the facts. witnesses describe the victim as furious and a wild man. mr. jenkins testified that mr. serazo was acting like a lunatic. mr. serazo claimed that he was a gang member and would come back to the mobile home park and kill everybody, one of the witnesses testified he heard mr. serazo scream, i'm going to kill you, you're a dead man. and another witness heard him threaten to burn down the trailer. mr. serazo claimed that he had a glock. mr. serazo clenched his fists

and charged and mr. jenkins again. those facts are not close. one of the final cases i cited to your honor is the case of hoffman versus state and i think i saw this in the defendant's packet as well. the court cited -- this is the fifth district court of appeal. this is under head notes one, two, and three. a motion for judgment of acquittal must be denied unless there is no legal sufficient evidence of which a trier of fact can base a verdict of guilt in considering facts admitted and you will inferences and conclusions drawn in favor of the state. then we get to head note four.

a jury question is presented when the evidence is reasonly susceptible of two views, either that it was justifiable self-defense or that such actions of evidence induced at trial calls for a difference of opinion between reasonable people as to whether the shooting was self-defense and therefore the court said the motion denied. so i go back to the fact that when one first has to consider whether or not the state has satisfied the standard at this stage of trial as it relates to the defendant's state of mind, we believe we have, both through direct and circumstantial evidence, even if the circumstantial evidence was considered alone. secondly, assuming that, the

only hypothesis of innocence advanced or suggested is that the defendant acted with justifiable use of deadly force. that is certainly open to question as is everything pretty much that the defendant himself has said. so the state believes the motion should be denied. i will close by saying that even if the court felt compelled to grant at this stage a motion as to second-degree murder there remains the necessarily lesser and included offense of manslaughter which is not showing ill will or anything like that and therefore the state believes even if -- and we're not saying you should because i think we've made the point -- even if at a minimum proceed forward on that, judge. thank you, your honor. >> yes. i just want to make sure that my rendition of the jenkins facts are properly presented to the court. i did not suggest that trayvon martin said he was a gang member, did not say that he suggested he had a glock, did not say that he suggested that he was going to cap mr. jenkins.

actually, these facts are more serious than what that victim did in the jenkins case. because in this case we do have some undeniable evidence of what mr. trayvon martin did. see, serveza, the victim in jenkins, hit him one time and threatened him a bunch. in this case, we know the facts are much more serious than that. because in this case, they start out similar. trayvon martin sucker punched my client and there's nothing to contradict that and we have the injuries to contradict anything but but there was an eyewitness to or not. but what serveza did not do in the jenkins case which trayvon martin did in this case was continue the attack and continue the attack and continue the attack because jenkins didn't allow that to happen.

jenkins stabbed him to death with the second blow. my client waited an additional 40 seconds. so the suggestion that the jenkins facts are inconsequential, they are more severe than the zimmerman facts is just ignorant of the case law and similarly the state seems to ignore the leisure case because she suggest and spend a good part of their argument talking to you about the leisure case and it's applicability. sometimes bad facts make bad laws. but let's look at the leisure case. you may remember this. it wasn't that long ago. it's a case where miss leisure states in 911 three completely separate events of what happened. she said to the 911 operator, if i can have just a moment -- >> i know the case. >> you know the case? just so we're clear, in that case she came up with completely different stories. he shot himself, i shot him, i

shot him in self-defense, i shot him accidently. if you want to fail to grant the judgment of acquittal in the leisure case, you probably should but the facts in the zimmerman case are much, much different. because what the state has sort of done is ignore the facts that they want to ignore. of course, what they told you is, here's their direct evidence. what he said on a nonemergency call. not the way john guy said it, not the way bernie de la rionda says the expletives, but they want you to take from the phone calls the beginning of ill will, spite, and hatred. he did not address it in his argument to you and in an

offhand way he said if you get rid of second degree, don't get rid of manslaughter. but where is the state's case, looking at all of the evidence, not just that which they want to focus you on, but all of the evidence, how they get to ill will, spite, and hatred? that he made up stories? well, you have an opportunity to review the evidence, you sat here like all of us did and decide whether that stories are made up. and whether serino stated, they were insignificant changes, as a matter of fact, they were changes or developments that they would expect the more time they question somebody. that's why john good's half of a page statement went to a four-page statement, went to a 50-page deposition. you know it as well as i do and you know what, as well as the state does. that's why they can't come here and say to you, he said, he shot him in self-defense, he said that the gun went off by itself.

there is none of that. those inconsistencies are merely what happens when you tell a story two or three or four times to different officers after you've been through two traumatic events, getting the hell beat out of you -- i'm sorry, your honor. getting beat up the way he did and then the trauma of having to shoot somebody to defend your life. now, you can minimize the trauma that george zimmerman has gone through or we really can't when we're going to compare what happened in his statements. because if you want to look at what is in the light most favorable to the state and say to them, you know what, i'm going to rule that one in your favor, as we've said many times in this room, you can't do it in a vacuum. you can't look at it and say, this little fact i'll put in your favor, it goes on your side, this little fact i'll put in your favor. you have to look at the totality of the circumstances and see whether or not the direct evidence that they say they have convinces you.

one piece of direct evidence as they've shown to you -- and i'm presuming that they've shown you all of their direct evidence already and mr. manti just took an opportunity to present to you all that direct evidence which supports ill will, hatred, spite and they say my client dare to suggest that he was on drugs. it is not properly before this court as to the voracity of my client's understanding as to how mr. martin may have been acting. but you can certainly consider everything that you've heard with the way he said he was acting. so that's a second piece of direct evidence that my client thought he was on drugs. and then he said he wouldn't have done anything differently. he didn't do anything wrong. he contends that to the police officers in every statement he gave. he didn't do anything wrong. he contended that to sean

hannity, i wouldn't have changed anything. does that mean -- maybe that's the callous indifference and ill will, i shot him and i don't care. it's not what he said, it's not what is intended and that's an absurd suggestion, that when he said i didn't do anything wrong, i wouldn't change anything with what i did, that suggests that he, like any one of us, wouldn't have decided not to wake up that day or get in the car that afternoon or go to target that night. that type of an absurdity suggestion by the state should not be considered as valid argument to you as to why this court should not grant a judgment of acquittal and you have said, i would opine and i know that i have said whenever a tragedy happens, that it's god's plan. every time i've lost a loved one, that pass has either come through my lips or through my brain that we have to think something beyond ourselves to decide why something crazy, terrible, horrible happens.

if you actually believe that that is evidence of ill will, spite, and hatred, if you're actually suggesting -- because after all, if we're going to compound inference upon inference, they've got to take their pick. either he is a wonderfully creative and perfect murderer who can come up with the best of plans in a split second but then three, six weeks later he says something that is just from his heart and now that's ill will and hatred? give him credit one way or the other. we're just suggesting that you know what he was and what he is, he's a human being going to school, decent grades, a book he may have read or not, the reality is, he went through a traumatic time and he's trying to deal with it just like the martin family is trying to deal with it. they have more of a loss. my client carries his through

life. they carry it through death. the reality is that have they proven their case, that they get the benefit of the jao standard. so direct evidence, rachel jeantel, get off. if that's at all credible, if that was at all credible the way it was presented by mr. crump, the way it was presented by her and the way it was presented, if that's the only word that i'll use rather than created after the inquiry with miss sybrina fulton at the house and then with bernie de la rionda after the house, so be it. then they say that mora suggests pursuit. she thought they saw george zimmerman on top, no pursuit. sadiker did not testify pursuit.

she said she heard something down below, no suggestion of pursuit, nothing like that. of course, what she thought she heard was the child who she saw later as the one screaming or yelling and then we have bahadoor. she said she saw something, maybe somebody went from left to right. i realize at this state the state gets the benefit of those inaccuracies but they can't just make-believe -- if they are going to support that as direct evidence, that's all they've got, that's all they said. now you're talking about circumstantial evidence. if he calls and says i'm a neighborhood watch, they don't have a chance to. he got hit first. because the evidence is contradicted and therefore cannot be denied when my

client's statements that are before this court uncontradicted to say exactly what happened. those have to be given weight by this court and since it's now on the level of circumstantial evidence that the state is now trying to convince you, they did not address specifically the standard of what happens when circumstantial evidence but i will remind the court that in fact it does have to exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence and of course there's only one, as though it's minimal, as though it's minor. well, the only hypothesis of innocence is deself-defense, of course it is. there doesn't need to be any one. it's not a quantification, it's a kwaul lee indication of analysis. he was acting in self-defense. show me how you have proven that there is no reasonable hypothesis of innocence, innocence being equated to self-defense. and he was told not to follow. circumstantial evidence, they have no evidence to support that

he did. now, i don't want to just sentence for sentence go over what mr. manti said but when we talk about circumstantial evidence, we have to do it with a filter of excluding a reasonable hypothesis. now all of a sudden, george's decision, you've heard the same half a dozen times. some sinister decision, the state wants you to believe, that yorge is george is on the phone, where should i meet you? should i meet you at the clubhouse? yes. or maybe my car? yes. and i guess it was at that precise moment in time that he became the mastermind murderer that the state wants you to believe he is. i'm not saying this for effect. i'm saying this because if this is their circumstantial evidence they want you to consider, it

has to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. it has to be precisely at that moment that mr. zimmerman became the mastermind murderer at that moment who said, you know what, i'm going hunting, i'm going after him, i'll call you when i'm done. there's no evidence to support that. no evidence to support that, not in the tone of his voice -- by the way, if in fact he was going hunting, probably would have had his gun out. probably wouldn't have had the broken nose. he probably wouldn't have had his nose bashed several times. they want to throw out this inference and say look at that in a vacuum and say that is a circumstantial evidence piece that you can say doesn't exclude -- or excludes every hypothesis of innocence. even in a judgment of acquittal argument, your honor, though you look at the evidence in totality and say do i look at it in a

light most favorable to the state? you do not in that analysis ignore commonsense. that's not the purpose of the judgment of acquittal standard. judgment of acquittal standard is to say, if i take every little thing and look at it in the state's favor, do they win? not do i have to bend over beck wards, do i have to ignore commonsense to let this case go to a jury. if it was the standard as suggested by the state, there wouldn't be an appellate case granting a jao ever because under their standard, i'm presuming some indication of some set of facts could support a jury deciding guilt. no. not in a circumstantial evidence case and this if not 100% i would suggest at least 98% circumstan circumstantial evidence. the other evidence is, yes, he was there. there's no question that he shot him. that's direct evidence. but as the issues that count,

was he justified in doing it to self-defense, where's the direct evidence that it wasn't? ill will, spite, hatred, where is the direct evidence that it was? there isn't any. then we're on to the circumstantial evidence standard and we've talked about that, maybe a touch too long. i'm glad that mr. manti while mentioning the injuries mentioned that the injuries are not necessary. we all know that. witnesses may or may not know that. it is only mr. zimmerman's fear of great bodily injury that allows him to act in self-defense. and if in fact there is evidence, a presentation that has come before this court to support that reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that jorm george zimmerman reasonably believed that he had to act in

self-defense, the judgment of acquittal should be granted. there is absolutely no evidence that at the time he shot -- there's been no evidence whatsoever to suggest under the law that he was the initial aggressor. they want to say that but they know they have absolutely no evidence to say that. they want to and they will at closing, i presume, should we get to that, but there's absolutely no evidence to support that. so if that's not true and we also know even if it was true, screaming for help or done away with that, but the real focus is, at the time he got that gun and shot, was his free of great bodily injury reasonable? i defer to captain carter again and i defer to your commonsense. those injuries were not stopping. every one of those individually could be great bodily injury.

did he survive the attack without great bodily injury? yeah, i think he probably did. i wasn't kidding when i asked mr. rao, what about the next one? that wasn't some sneaky little question. it's really the question of the case. it's the question of, was he going to survive but was it going to stop? but he didn't know that. all he knew was that trayvon martin wasn't stopping the attack after 40 seconds of george zimmerman screaming. and, in fact, if that is the state has absolutely nothing to deny that reasonable hypothesis of innocence and if it's true then the case law says even at jao it has to be granted. now, the other part about

commonsense is i can't say to you and therefore the state can't say to you, here's a possibility. we know we have this argument here. and he gets shot. here's another one. not supported by any evidence whatsoever, nothing to support that. but let's just say that george was holding on with one hand he had the shirt and trayvon martin was trying to pull back. he was at that precise moment, which is the state's position, he was receding from the attack. pulling away. and george decided not -- mr. zimmerman decided not to let him go with one arm and with the other arm decided, are you kidding? is that actually the state's case that they want you to buy into and say that denies a reasonable hypothesis of innocence? that's what he must have done? give me one shred of evidence to

support that. it doesn't exist anywhere. what they are doing is grasping for straws in a case that none of the evidence supports ill will, hatred, none of it, and none of it contraindicates a reasonable hypothesis that george zimmerman had to act in self-defense. why did he exaggerate his injuries? is that a reason not to grant judgment of acquittal because george said i thought i got hit 50 times? really? is that the commonsense that we're going to leave at our doorstep when we consider what we're going to look at with what he did go through? i don't know if it's 50. it looks like 12. dr. rao says it was as little as

4, maybe as many as 12. good lord, let's be realistic. we know who had the injuries, we know who didn't. it was a sad and tragic affair but trayvon martin did in fact cause his own death and this man should not face a jury any longer than he has already. you've been watching msnbc's live coverage of the george zimmerman trial. we're going to hold it right here. >> the court finds that the state has presented sufficient evidence, both direct and circumstantial, to allow the charge to go to the jury. the motion for judgment of acquittal is denied. do you have a witness who is ready? >> i do, but it's -- >> i'd like to ask the jury what they'd like to do. if they would like to start to hear, then we'll go ahead and call your first witness, since you have one. when the jury comes back in, the state needs to rest on the record. okay. are we ready to bring the jury in? >> pardon? >> before we have to do that in front of the jury, the exhibit,

two exhibits, that would just take a second. 193 i think it is. >> paper? the motion for acquittal in the george zimmerman trial has been denied by the judge deborah nelson. good afternoon. this is ed schultz live in new orleans here on msnbc for reaction to what has unfolded in the last hour and a half, let's go to lisa bloom, legal analyst. lisa, your response to what you've seen here unfold here in

the last hour. >> well, it's been a fascinating hour because these are many closing arguments directed only to the judge, not to the jury. we can see how each side has interpreted the evidence thus far. bottom line, the defendants says there's not sufficient evidence for the jury to decide if it was second-degree murder or any type of a crime, it was simply self-defense. the prosecution coming back very strongly with all of the evidence that they have, arguing that george zimmerman acted with a depraved mind, that he set out to get trayvon martin. using the hannity interview in particular where george zimmerman said this killing was god's plan and he had no regret. ultimately he denied the motion for directed verdict and there is both direct and circumstantial evidence for this case to go to the jury. a jury will be deciding this case, ed. >> ladies and gentlemen, i know

you've been sitting back there for a long time. >> well, the prosecution focused on the ill will of george zimmerman and the intent, which i thought was a very compelling case. but what's also interesting was the judge, you showed, had absolutely no emotion in any of this. i mean, this was some real tight courtroom operation that was taking place right here, almost surgically put together by both teams and the way they presented it. lisa, who was impressive? >> listen, i think both sides are impressive. there's some really outstanding lawyering going on in this courtroom, instructive for anybody interested in the law or law students. this is something that happens at the end of every prosecution case. the defense moves for a directed verdict, essentially saying, judge, there's not enough here to give it to a jury, just to throw the case out right now.

the judges almost always deny a directed motion for a verdict. but in this case the judge says there's sufficient evidence. this is not for me to decide at this case. let's let the jury decide. now the defense has to call its first witness, ed. >> he will with, this is going to be interesting. the state has rested its case. let's turn now to msnbc the grio's joy reid. what jumped out at you today as this unfolded? mark o'mara did about as good of a job as he possibly could do. >> yeah, i thought mark o'mara did with what he had. he said the prosecution was grasping for straws in a case where none of the evidence contradicts self-defense both in the hannity interview and where he wanted to meet police. i've got to tell you, richard manti put on a clinic.

it was sus stint, forceful, and the first thing that jumped out at me, he said george zimmerman, his first homework assignment was a class in which he says he wants to be in law enforcement, to hunt stuj tiffs so they don't get away. he also said that george zimmerman had the presence of mind in the midst of what he said was a brutal attack it could have ended his life to point a gun, point blank at trayvon martin's heart and put a hollow point bullet through it. if richard manti does the argument for the prosecution, i think it will be a powerful presentation. mark o'mara did as well as he could but i think manti got the lines that i remember. >> let's go to john burris. >> i thought it was interesting that the prosecution went to the state of mind of george zimmerman, talking about his ill will and statements saying that's how he was proceeding on this and secondly the most

important thing, the injuries that he received, trying to minimize that it overstated his injuries and suggested that it was reasonable m reasonable is an objective statement. anyone can make a mistake on injuries but the truth of the matter is, 50 bumps against the cement versus one or two punches, i thought they did a good job at illustrating the significance of the injury. >> on the stand right now is gladys zimmerman, the mother of george zimmerman. let's go to that. >> do you have other children? >> yes, sir. >> their names? >> robert john zimmerman jr.and grace zimmerman. >> and, of course, you know why we're here. your son has a second-degree murder charge right now, correct? >> yes, sir. >> okay. i want to talk to you or have you listen to a tape. i'm going to limit my questions

to you today to just a couple regarding the tape. but premise that, have you listened to a tape that has the 911 phone call with miss lauer with screams in the back of it? >> yes, sir. >> if i might, your honor, i'd like to play this. what i'd like to do is let you listen to it one time through. i'm going to ask you if you know whose voice it is or tell me if you want to listen to it a second time or if not. okay? >> yes, sir. >> as i begin that, i'm going to presume that you were around with george most of his life, correct, as he grew up as a child? >> yes, sir. >> had an opportunity to hear him in all different voices, laughing, screaming, yelling, crying? >> yes, sir. >> do you think that you have enough knowledge of his voice that you would be able to tell his voice if you were to hear

it? >> yes, sir. >> if i might, your honor. >> 911, do you need police, fire, or medical? >> maybe both. i'm not sure. there's someone screaming outside. >> what's the address? >> 121122 -- >> sanford? >> yes. >> is it a male or female? >> it sounds like a male. >> and you don't know why? >> i don't know why. i think they are yelling help but i don't know. >> does he look hurt to you? >> i can't see. i don't know what is going on. they are sending. >> does he keep yelling help? >> yes. >> were you a