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 to his 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 mr. zimmerman just 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 we re going to take another quick break. we ll be right back with more from the george zimmerman trial. [ male announcer ] with everyone on the go this summer, now s the perfect time to get home security for protection while you re away. and right now you can get adt security installed starting at just $49,
jenkins facts are inconsequential, actually that they re more severe than the zimmerman facts, is just ignorant of the fact or at least its application to the law. similarly the state seems to ignore the reality of the leasure case. sometimes bad facts make bad law but let s look it the leasure case for a minute. you may remember the case. it wasn t that long ago. it s a case where miss leasure stated to 911 three completely separate cases of the events of what happened, he shot himself, i shot him, i sat him in self-defense, the gun went off accidentally. if those are the type of inconsistencies that the state wants you to focus on, please
instructed in the law to prove second degree murder and manslaughter. of course the state, they re hanging on to the second degree. i don t know. that will ultimately be obviously a decision of the jury. i want to tell you about that judgment of acquittal, though. it s not just automatic, as marcia said. it s required if you re ever going to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. if you lose the case and want to appeal it and say there was insufficient evidence, if you had failed to make a motion for judgment of acquittal, then you waive that ability to appeal it. so it is, indeed, as she said in every case. all right. let s listen in. that is not correct, jake. that is not correct. that is not correct. you never waive your right to attack the sufficiency of the evidence. the defense is always allowed on appeal to attack the sufficiency of the evidence regardless of what happens at trial. we ll hash that out in a minute. right now i want to listen in as the first witness for
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 even saw this in the defendant s packet as well. the court cited this is the 5th district court of appeal, cited the familiar standard i ve gone through several times, under headnotes 1, 2 and 3. a motion for judgment of acquittal must be denied unless there is no legally sufficient evidence on which a trier of fact can base a verdict of guilt. in considering the morgs all facts in evidence are considered admitted and all inferences and conclusions must be drawn in favor of the state. then headnote 4. a jury question is presented when the evidence is reasonably susceptible of two views, either that the defendant s action in
that s not what was said, it s not what was intended and that s an absurd suggestion that when he said i didn t do anything wrong, i wouldn t change anythingith what i did, that 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 the 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 has either come through my lips or through my brain that we have to think to 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 they re