Issues With Lionel Tate's Trials

First Degree Murder is defined as "unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated." I do not know how this definition relates to Florida's state laws concerning First Degree but for the moment let's assume their state law fits this definition. Lionel Tate is charged for the murder of Eunick as an adult when he is 12 years old. His first trial continues with him being charged as an adult, when clearly this is extreme. The jury, judge and Florida Justice System should have stepped in with logic and changed this child's charge to juvenile status. That is my first issue: how the system didn't recognize his age and charged him as an adult. Now, even if he was tried as an adult he does not fit the role to being charged with first degree murder successfully. There is no evidence provided during the whole trial of premeditation, intent to kill, or malice aforethought (which can be viewed as premeditation). If Florida State's Justice System follows the general definition of First Degree Murder then Tate's indictment would be viewed as unjustified. I also have an issue with Tate's lawyer and how he didn't acknowledge Tate's absence of motive, intent to kill, and premeditation. If he was a good lawyer he would've argued this to the end. The Justice System should have taken many factors into Tate's favor. We know he is guilty of Eunick's murder but we can argue it was unintentional and can be charged as manslaughter. I don't understand how motive, a very large factor, could be so easily overlooked when charging of 12 year old (as an adult) of First Degree Murder; it all could've been done and argued better. Again, this is all an argument revolved around the assumption of Florida's law concerning First Degree Murder to match the general prerequisites of the charge.