West now arguing the presence of the "provoke" instruction, and asks the court require the state to articulate the facts that constitute provocation.
Mantei says "follow," hearing a scuffle and conduct. Surdyka's statement that she saw Zimmerman on top of Martin. Mantei says there is a physical closing, and there are facts to support either Martin or Zimmerman being the first to threaten or use force.
West says the court didn't address this argument in the JOA (and doesn't know if the court plans to compose a written statement of why it denied the JOA). And what Mantei articulated is not the low, not close to the law, and not supported by the witnesses he claims support the facts. West is covering each witness in turn, Bahadoor, Surdyka. Surdyka could not have seen what she claims to have seen. She says Zimmerman fired from above, and Martin was face down. But Martin was not shot in the back. Surdyka did not see the start of the altercation, so can't establish Zimmerman provoked the attack.
Good argument all around, by West.