We're going to bring if ABC's chief legal affairs anchor Dan aim rams in the studio with me and from Atlanta, Nancy grace. Good morning to you both. Good morning. We heard in that report about the ear... See More
We're going to bring if ABC's chief legal affairs anchor Dan aim rams in the studio with me and from Atlanta, Nancy grace. Good morning to you both. Good morning. We heard in that report about the ear witness. Yet another one. This is crucial. If the judge believes there was an argument followed bay shooting, it's hard to see how there is not a murder conviction. The notion that they're fighting following by a shot, and the shots, that would likely be intentional murder. That's why this is so important for the defense to try to undermine. There have been a number of these ear witnesses now, Nancy? The thing about ear witnesses, people very often expect an eyewitness. This judge is seasoned. She knows there is not always an eyewitness. If it were just one ear witness, eh, not so much. But now, they're stacking up. You know, another thing that hasn't been brought forward, robin, it's very disturbing to me. He used hollow-point bullets. They expand with talons. They were outlawed by The Hague treaty. They're not used in warfare because they're so incredibly painful because they mushroom inside the body. The first shot went through her right hip. She was still alive and screaming. He had to know it was her. The next one, missed. The next one, probably hit her left hand as she tried to protect herself. The final one into the head. So the point of that is that he heard her screaming and should have known it was her. But the problem that the prosecution had thus far, because I think Nancy and I agree they put on a pretty compelling case thus far. The area that we may hadisagree, I don't think they put out one eye yet th iota that this was premeditated. Premeditated is different from intentional. Premeditation requires planning. That's different. The reality is, this judge could decide intentional murder. That's still murder. But it's a slightly lesser sentence. I don't know why they pursued a premeditated murder charge. Unless there is other evidence to be presented. I know why. It's a common misunderstanding about premeditation. It is intent, yes, planning, yes. But premeditation can be formed in the twinkling of an eye. That quickly. The fact that he came to get the gun, I'm not confusing anything. I would like to finish. He came and got the gun out of the holster from under her side of the bed. He had to see, he was on his stump, which he lied about, he had to see she wasn't in the bed. He walked into the bathroom and starting firing. And they had had an argument. The argument, as you pointed out earlier, Dan, shows motive for anger. And just because you're angry does not denigrate premeditation. That's just a misunderstanding of the law. What Nancy is talking about, what you can form in an instant is intent. You can create intent in an instance. You cannot create premeditation in an instance. The spent to create premeditation. That's my point. And you can plan in a moment of minutes. So now we're minutes. A moment ago, you were saying in seconds. The bottom line is, premeditation -- takes time. You have to plan it out. You have to plan it out. There's not a single -- Once again, back to a judge that is hearing this, not a jury. A judge. That's right. That's true. Hey, Nancy, thank you very much, as always. Dan, thank you. Thanks, robin. Bye, Dan. Some must-see video.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.