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.
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
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
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
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