Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Rise horse down session JNA will Judge Merpher resided the morning.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
You're on.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
To the garding we York here today to continue the
trial and a matter of state commit versus Valley.
Speaker 4 (00:15):
At his good morning, you're on a market for the
state of Connecticut.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Connecticut money on Kevin Smith for the defending Rewel Valley,
who's at my side.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
So would just like to note for the graphs that
or did prepare a draft jury charge which was presented
to Council for a review prior to closing arguments this
morning for a dated.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Cloud a brief informal conference with the Council.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Regarding that particular jury charge.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Which will be marked as a course that has been
put in the court file as a draft how jury charge.
I do usually go through each of the sections just
to to turn as whether or not there are any
questions or any changes or the requests that have not
(01:07):
been made to the charge and importance is anything submitted
by counsels. So I'm first going to start with the
state and ask the state did you have an opportunity
to review the draft during.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
Charge that was provided The state has had an opportunity
to review the draft your owner and.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Let me just ask the hichportance that it just would
be in terms of reference.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
And orgy it would be exhibit number three important to do, right,
So this is all right, and then move over to
the defense attorney Spike.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Have you had an opportunity or you have an opportunity
to review the first charge in the space? Yes?
Speaker 3 (01:44):
Right, And so I'm just going to go through sort
of each of these sections.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
To make sure the court is not kissing any argument
that which is a toy.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
They have the charge that the coortan tends to provide
to the jury and try.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
So we're going to start with courts duty to instruct
and caution.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
No, your honor, nothing from the state, none from the
nothing for nothing from the state your owner.
Speaker 5 (02:12):
That's from the defense your owner.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Redacted to exhibits.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
I know that counsel is of the opinion that there
aren't any redacted full exhibits in.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
This trial, so I will be changing that language to
accommodate that concern. So it's basically going to read if
there are.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Any exhibits that have been accepting into evidence that adapted
commers of the original please note these adaptions to the
need by way of agreement and the childs making too.
Is there any comment or concerned regarding that words change
that section?
Speaker 5 (02:46):
Not from the defense your honer, nothing from the state,
your owner.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
I'm reading forward credibility any questions or comments regarding.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
That session for Coach Courge.
Speaker 5 (02:58):
No, your honor nothing from the state, not from the
defense runner.
Speaker 4 (03:02):
No, no, uh nothing, No concerns from the state your honor,
not from the defense runner.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Just concerned and pure to these states specific's ninety four
and ninety fifths in the respect the Jacks Water Tyler
to struggle and respectivated background.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Yes, yes, you're nothing from the state, not from the
defense runner, all right, For it has.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
An inserted doctor James Gale, doctor lyon jobs pa or
clapping doctorself.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Probably those who have sus stand and provide it.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Came a relative to certain conditions, with certain results, in
certain definitions and approaches of certain standis so, is there
anyone that should be included here or anyone that you
should not be included?
Speaker 5 (03:44):
I don't believe so. Your are not from the defense
yourn it, thank.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
You defendants testimony and proximate cause anything on the self section.
Speaker 5 (03:53):
Nothing from the state, your honor, not from the defense
all right.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Specific inspecting movie like truvies.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
I just want to make sure that the cow is
right and that or is charging with respect.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
To the intent required to be proven about the state
relative to the charges.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
I want to go through it to count long runner
and their first degree intentional?
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Is that correct?
Speaker 5 (04:16):
Yes, Yes, your honor.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Actual result in the first degree intentional and assault of
sevenree intentionals or lesser included.
Speaker 5 (04:22):
Yes, your honor account.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Free assault in the first free intentional and assaults that
in your intentional of lesser de.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Lessly count for assault and secondary intentional.
Speaker 5 (04:32):
That's correct. Yes, you're.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Moving forward to that business and you change your comments.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Nothing from the state your owner other than the with
regards to the concept of recklessness. Just so the juries
aware that it is a lesser included defense to count
one in that.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
Yet mindset that has to be proven by through state
relative to the charges count one are in the first
degredactaeys and lesser creature. Yes, your honor how to assault
the first degree up and says it loves to including
the assault in the second degree.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
About the second less included, Yes, your honor think you accounts.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
Re assault the first three about it says a lesser
and also assault.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
The second to believe that yes.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Loss account cool assault and secondary.
Speaker 5 (05:14):
Round the loss of srue. Yes, your honor.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Av the seven tents and earlier, are there anything under those.
Speaker 6 (05:20):
Sections you pint to discuss nothing from the snail yard.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Consciousness of guilt. T U again had an opportunity to view.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
The state's claims to any concernings or questions or promised
then never wants them to be again nor no your
honor identification and defend into any touch business nothing from
the state, not from the defense specific charge is brought
by the state again the court, you'll be modifying.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
The charge to repeat substitute information as a first just information.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Or you'll be providing additional built and highlight the substance
of theay.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Is there anything.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Regarding first the introduction to the specific charges that.
Speaker 5 (05:57):
Abted to discuss, No, your honor not from the sense
all right, and.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Again as to each of the four counts when we
discuss elements, even.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
On the last where included, I will be directing the
jury as to the number of elements that must be found.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
As well, so that will be added so account will
murder anything substances substantively.
Speaker 5 (06:16):
Under that pount that you to nothing from the state,
not the defense.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Last including the first.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
To murder, start the astor the first three intentional?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Anything about I'd like to.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Discuss substantie nothing from the state, not from the defense, Yonner.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
Manslaughter in the first degree, up is anything substantively like.
Speaker 6 (06:36):
To discuss here nothing from the state.
Speaker 5 (06:38):
Your owner, nothing from the defense.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Yon and nothing from the defense.
Speaker 5 (06:42):
Correct, that's correct, John, I thank you, all right?
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Pleasant, How to them solve in the first gree anything
regarding assault in the first very intentional?
Speaker 6 (06:53):
Are do you'd like to discuss nothing from the state,
your owner.
Speaker 5 (06:55):
Not from the defense.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Yon?
Speaker 3 (06:56):
It all right, that's an included that advice to assault
in the first three intention.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
We'll start with the introduction. Anything there.
Speaker 5 (07:08):
That red dispass nothing from the state, us, not from
the defense, your honner.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
I think alright, first less or include your assault a
first pretty raptiss anything suss to be.
Speaker 5 (07:16):
There, nothing from the state, no your honor.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Satings at the assault and second degree intentional.
Speaker 5 (07:21):
And it takes sens to be that nothing from the state,
your owner, no your honor.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
And moving on to see them assault the second degree
is I think anything substitute be uh incorrect or in
our green.
Speaker 6 (07:34):
Common the states.
Speaker 5 (07:35):
He's not your owner, not from the defense your owner.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
Okay, and again I just wanna add here we do
discussing homs that ideally the instruct the journy immediately their
order that they're.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
Only to degree if any, if they have found the
defensive uh, not to as.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
You, I mean, all their respective purges. So I just
wanna make clear that uh again relative to help to the.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Only last route to the defenses that have the ex
trusted on the paths of state the fe assault in
the first three rapeless assault and the sectary intentional and
assault in the.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
Second year rapless a sect that's correct and defense not
from the defense you.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Why have you been on to count three assault in
first three intentional as to a different tols and talks junior?
If anything substantively under.
Speaker 5 (08:24):
That account, nothing from the state around, not from the defense.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
N I will post get to the spelling pof are
the egyptive?
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Thus all right?
Speaker 3 (08:33):
So I have the same lesser included charges all count
three asier on count two. I've heard from you on
pound two.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Is there anything additional relative to how to three that'd
be like to discuss? All right? Any same questionion, same
lester recruited defenses.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
Were there any additional different.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Ut defense and offenses of the state is requested?
Speaker 5 (08:59):
And nothing from nothing from the defense even.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
On the health for ressault and secondary intentional Indituator three,
is there anything substantial or any comments.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
That to enjoying that you're gonnaccount the.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
Way that it's said nothing from the state guard, nothing
from the defense.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
You alright? And then if we have.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Less or acreated defense to these secretary intentional uh other
one that's a tuated that includes assault.
Speaker 6 (09:23):
The secondary about that's everything on nothing.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
So's the first uh to have houses stipulate on the reas.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
State will stipulate your anur defense will stipulate.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
You're alright, so beplorant, be can you maybe see things
ladies and gentlemen, you're nailed that you're closing argument.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
The omni house of the party the state.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
You won't have the opening your first argument and joining
emplois and marketing independent.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Or have an opportunity to.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
Also make an icy too. And then you you're from
the state again, perhaps it's my opertunity that you will.
You're in the state, you know, perfect times person to
be now, although the state has two arguments full diskies
get the same amount.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Of time to present their.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Argued to me, that time is a toll of one hour.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
The state gets two opportunities to present to.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
You at the States don't have in your purity of
this particles to author. So we build care for the
days were here from the defense and in those words
states again, there may come a point in time where I.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Have to inter love defense counsel if timing is a
lot a little bit, so please don't know that forgets anyone.
That's my falls So I hate into compito and like healthy.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
See how the prosings going, then side what we're going
to do that to our minister. Thank you so much
for your communications as well as your attention to this
particularly tall. Lastly, I see a lot of people with
your notebooks, and that's my bad. I should have had
a third states you. I'm going to ask you during
(11:04):
the reason that I doom.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Are not out of number one? Are you? So I
will help you listen to you, and then I'll thank
you so much.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
I thank you good morning, ladies and gentlemen. So I
was actually just going to address that that arguments are
not evidence. This is argument, right, You've heard all the
evidence that you need to hear. At some point in time,
you're going to decide this case based on what you're
heard in the court. But I wanted to take a
moment to thank each and every one of you for
(11:45):
giving us your time. Spend two weeks. Over two weeks,
AH got you. All of you have listened diligently. You've
given your time, you've given your obviously your lives outside
of this court and more important. But this is very
important civic duty and it does not go out unrecognized.
So we thank you very much. As the court indicated,
this is my first of two opportunities to talk to
(12:07):
you about this case. And in this case, there have
been many witnesses who testified it's happened three years ago.
They provided different perspectives on what they saw, what they heard,
what they did, and the majority of the witnesses were
teenagers when this happened. It was a horrific event. But
(12:29):
the main story is the same. The main story is
the same. The horrific event that was etched in their
minds was the same. This case is not about who
did it, what happened, how it happened, When it happened,
what happened This case is.
Speaker 1 (12:46):
About Raoul Valley, the defendant who brought a knife.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
To forty three Laurel Glenn on May fourteenth of twenty
twenty two and provoked to fight and stabbed four kids
nine times, killing one. That's what this case is about.
So what happened on May fourteenth of twenty twenty two.
You heard testimony about this party at Lazybrook where it
(13:15):
was a Saint Joe's party. Kids were hanging out, they
were drinking, typical high school party. Probably not the first
time it's been an alcohol at a high school party, right,
Not that anybody's condoning it, but it happens. So there's
this party. The defendant's there with his friends, He's wearing
this helmet and income in some Shelton High school kids,
(13:36):
Ryan Hines and Griffin marsinsic and because this is a
Saint Joe's party, not Shelton party, they can't come in.
So the defendant and mister Snyder and the Silva take
it upon themselves to kick them out. They steal the
beer from Ryan Hines. At some point in time, it
gets heated. They're arguing, they're arguing back and forth, and
(13:57):
at some point it ends out into the driveway, and
when it's out into the driveway, there's this agreement, I'll
fight you for my beer. So Jack and Ryan square up,
and just as they're squaring up, who starts to fight.
The defendant starts to fight. He socker punches him in
the back of the head. And then after he sucker
(14:18):
punches him in the back of the head and the
fight goes to the ground. He takes his helmet and
uses it as a weapon and slams it into Ryan's head.
You heard the defendant testify. He would have to believe
that that was a push, that he pushed Ryan Hines,
and that he didn't hit him with the helmet. I
would submit to you that if you watch that fight,
(14:38):
you could judge for yourselves what you see in the fight.
And by the way, while I'm talking about witnesses, judge
are gonna give you a credibility instruction, right, You're all
gonna have to assess the credibility of each and every
witness who testified. If you were call during vaider, I
think I asked each and every one of you the
same questions. You think it's pop that somebody could get
(15:00):
on a stand raise their right hand and tell the truth,
and you all said yes. I also asked all of
you you think it's entirely possible that somebody could scare
to tell the truth, believe they're telling the truth, and
simply be mistaken about someone. And you all said, yeah,
that's possible. But I also asked you, do you think
it's possible if somebody could get on that stand, swear
to tell the truth and look all of you in
the eye and out right lie to you. So again,
(15:21):
when you're assessing the credibility each and every one of
the witnesses were testified, that's what you have to go through,
and you have to go through what they said and
how does it line up with the rest of the case. Right,
The defendant who took the stand is also subject to
that same credibility and truth. He put his credibility and
issue as soon as he took that over. The video,
I would submit to you tells a very different story
(15:43):
than what the defendant testified to a couple of days ago. So,
after this fight, they get in Jack's car and they
leave Laserbrook. Can they go to Trumble High School, And
at some point in time as they go to Trumble
High School, there's this basketball group chat. You heard tests
money that Shelton kids were in it. You heard testimony
(16:03):
that Ryan Hines was in it. You heard testimony that
the defendant was in it. You heard the testimony that
the Silva and Snyder were in it. And you also
heard testimony that they wanted to fight the Shelton kids
at Trumble High School. They were there for about twenty minutes.
This wasn't over. Of course, there was an argument and
heated emotions about what had just happened at Lazybrook. But
(16:23):
now they want to meet up at Trumble High School.
So what does the defendant say. The defendant tells him
to slide on over to Trumble High School. Multiple times
in the group Jets slide right over because they want
to fight Shelton kids. Don't want to go to Trumble
High School. Somebody puts an address forty three Layred Glenn.
In the group Jet come to Laurel Glenn. So they
(16:45):
go over to Laurel Glenn. The defendant would have you
believed that he had no idea that they were going
to fight, that they were just going to another party.
I would submit to you that you need to assess
whether or not that's credible when you're during your deliberations.
But in any event, you heard testimony from several witnesses
that the defendant wanted to go to Lazybrook or Laurel
Glenn to fight. He wanted to fight at Tumple High School,
(17:06):
and he wanted to fight over at Laurel Glenn, and
that's why they were going. And as a matter of fact,
when they got to Trump when they got to Laurel Glenn,
the defendant lets all the kids know that they're there.
There's a few kids outside, more kids come outside, and
at some point in time, Tyler Rich and his friends
(17:26):
were outside. They're around the car in the front of
his house at forty three Laurel Glenn. And there's some
testimony that at first it was peaceful, some testimony that
got heated, arguing back and forth, things were being thrown.
You heard testimony from Aidan King. I saw Raoul sitting
behind Jack Snyder, who was driving Tyler to Silva, was
in the front seat. The defendant even said Aiden King's
(17:49):
boy and Aiden King got up here and said. At
some point in time, the defendant said, get your friends
away from my car. I'm gonna break the break a
bottle over somebody's head. Again, all of these things going
to what was his intent that night. So things are
thrown at the car. The car shape was being shook
by the shelting kids. There's some testimony things were being
(18:11):
thrown back. Car takes off, drives up and down the street,
things thrown from the car, things being thrown at the car.
At some point in time, they end up at the
end of the street, close to the intersection of Farmhouse
Road near thirty six Lord Way. Now this is eleven
forty at night. You heard testimony. This is Jack Snyder's car.
(18:32):
The defense already out of the car. Tyler G. Silva
gets out of the car. I would submit to you
that the defendant being mad, angry about what had just
happened Jack Snyder's car happens just prior to this video starting,
and that's the point when he asks him for the knife.
He asks him for the knife. He said, Jack, give
(18:53):
me the knife. Where's that knife? Give me the knife?
He gets out of the car. Tellers Silva gets out
of the car. Keenan Dmitri will Kenzie walking away. Everybody
with an earshot of that conversation. You heard people testify
about what they heard about the knife. How you heard
Keenan Keenan Fraysich. He was going insane. He was pissed
off about about what happened, what had just happened to
(19:13):
the car. You heard Dimitri he was he was angry
about what had happened to the car. Tyler de Silva,
Jack Snyder. You heard Mackenzie say, I heard somebody asking
about a knife, but I don't know exactly who it
was because she's walking away, right, so we know the
knife comes out at that point in time. He's angry.
(19:36):
He arms himself with a knife at that point. But
then the shelting kids come down the street, after having
just told them get out of here, get the heck
out of right now. Look, was it right that things
were thrown at the car? One hund percent? No, it
was not right at all. Wasn't wasn't right that people
were hitting the car, shaking the car, and people throwing
things from the car. The kids are at the cars
parked on the side street. That wasn't right right either,
(19:58):
But at that point in time, nobody called the police.
They drove down the street could have called the police
at that point, And I said, hey, someone just damaged
my car. I want to arrested for criminal mischief. They
didn't do that. The defendant at that point in time,
thought it was very important to arm himself with a
three inch bladed knife at that point. So the kids
(20:18):
come down the street. Tyler Heard, Tyler Rich, Charlie Connery,
ty Wood, Ricky Fiola, a few other kids go down
the street and yeah, there's things thrown at the car.
They throw things back, right, but there's no physical altercation
between between the parties down the street. Because if there
(20:41):
was going to be a physical altercation initiated by the
Shelling kids, it would have happened right then and there.
But it didn't. Right again, Tyler Rich running down the street,
Get out of get out of here. You guys got
to get out of here.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Now.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
You heard some testimony that somebody threw this can of
WD forty or PB blaster back at Tyler Rich. And
he's walking away, and at some point in time he
sees the defendant and the defendant's walking towards him, so
he sprays him to get him away. Ricky Fiola sees this.
He's within a short distance to see this happening. At
some point in time, Ricky Fiola approaches the defendant and
(21:16):
has a conversation and what did you hear him testify
to He said, listen, hey man, it's really messed up
what he did. He shouldn't persuade you with that stuff.
But look, there's a lot of us and there's only
like five of you. Guys should probably just get out
of here. And while he's having that conversation, what is
Ricky Fiola say. Ricky Fili sees the defendant holding a
knife in his hand. Ricky Fiola turns around, walks back
to the rest of the shell and.
Speaker 7 (21:37):
Kids walk back to Tyler Rich's house again, no physical altercation.
Speaker 4 (21:41):
Down the road, McKenzie Trappaconti's calling her sister, I need
to ride home. At some point in time, Will Dimitri
and Keenan get out of the car and they don't
want to be a part of anything. They want to
ride home. They stay down the end of the street.
Riots are being called. Will calls his girlfriend come pick
me up. I think you heard testimony for Mackenzie traffic Coante.
(22:02):
He was that you Ledo would just stay down here,
stay with me, come home with me. That's not that's
not what he wanted to do because Ryan Hines, who
had just punched Sucker punched in the head earlier that
night and helmeted back at Lazybrook, who is now at
this party. Now, he wanted to go back and face
(22:24):
those kids. But he wasn't going back just him. He
was going back with a knife, because who else goes
back to a house, right? I mean, you heard testimony
when he was in the car with a bunch of
other people and the car was being shook and rocked
and thrown at that he was panicked, he was frightened,
(22:45):
he was scared, he was terrified. If you're if you're
all those things, why are we not staying down the road.
Why are we not waiting for Mackenzie's sisters to come
pick come pick us up? Why are we not calling
somebody to come pick us up? Because he wasn't scared, terrified, panicked,
(23:07):
He's simply not, that's not the case. He was mad,
he was pissed, he was angry, and he had a knife.
So they wanted to go back and go and confront
those kids. Now there's some testimony, yet Tyler wanted to
go talk about the damage. And he knows Tyler Rich
maybe he could work something out. But the bottom line
(23:28):
is he's the one that was going going ballistic about
the car. Yeah, sure, Tyler and Snyder were angry, but
he's going he's going crazy, and he's the one that
arms himself with the knife. So he gets back in
that car. He makes the wilful decision right to get
back in that car, armed with the knife and go
back to the very house he was told to leave.
(23:48):
But he would have you believe he was panic, scared, frightening,
all those things. So Jack pulls up to the He
pulls up to the forty three log land. The defendant
and mister de Silva get out. You've heard testimony from
several witnesses that, uh, Tyler's on the left, the defendants
(24:09):
on the right. They move on to property. They were
told to leave, so now they're trespassing. Some kids were
outside got a little bigger when people hurt out. People
are here. You heard Tyler Tyler Rich say, I told
him to get the thought of the out of my property.
The defendant walks up, Ryan Hines, Faison Teal, Tommy Connery
(24:34):
somewhere behind them, but closer in proximity to the defendant
ty Wood. There is also there and you heard Tyler
rich say, I was yelling at these kids, get the
hell off my property. I looked out a little krmie
and I saw Rabul cock his arm like he was
gonna punch ty Wood. And that's when I just hold
(24:54):
off and cracked him in the face. And it was on.
So I would submit to you if the defendant walked
on the proper confronted those kids and started to throw
a punch or pretend like he was gonna throw a punch,
he was the initial aggressor in the altercation. By coming back,
by approaching those kids, and by cocking his arm, he
(25:15):
was the initial aggressor. He provoked the fight and started
the fight. He gets hit, it's on all right, Now
I can claim self defense. Now I can take this
knife out that I have in my pocket while I'm
on the ground, open it up right, all intentional conduct,
and start stabbing kids. Right. You heard him tested by it.
I was flailing my arms. I would submit to you
(25:36):
if you look at any of the injuries on these
on these kids from three years ago, those are deliberate
stab wounds. Those are not flailing slash marks, stab wounds.
So he stabs Ryan Hines three times. He stabs Faison
Teal in the arm again upper right left arm here
(25:57):
kinds up in the chest as you working his way
down down and Tommy Connery, you heard testimony from Tommy Connery,
who comes over and he's try to push him away
and he's on the ground, the defense on the ground,
and he comes right after him and starts stabbing him
in the leg four times. Deliberate again, what was his intent?
(26:19):
This wasn't self defense he used. He went into that
fight already armed. His response to this fight was unreasonable
when you look at it in totality. It was a
fistfight that escalated by his doing because he was the
only one there with the weapon. At some point in time,
(26:40):
the defendant goes back to the car that's waiting for him.
He would have you believe he was chased. I would
suggest to you that the video shows a different story.
But nevertheless, he's back at the car, looks back and
wants to run back in. He purposefully runs back in
with the knife, and you hear Charlie Connory yelling he's
(27:01):
got a knife. He's got a knife. He's got a knife,
and there's another person there yelling get out of here
bro because again the Shelton kids didn't want them there.
There was a communication to leave. Again, all of these
things could have been prevented. This is Jimmy McGrath just
before he gets stabbed at the end of the fight.
He's not engaging the defendant, but he would have you
(27:23):
believe that he or somebody else was, so that he
can cloak himself with self defense or defense of third parties.
He had a duty to retreat and not even go
after Jimmy McGrath. He was unarmed and he did nothing wrong.
And even if you even if you believe from the
evidence that Jimmy was involved somewhere in the fight somewhere,
(27:43):
which there's been no evidence of that, but even if
that's what you can infer from the video, I would
submit to you that self defense is not retaliatory. It's defensive.
You can't come back and stab somebody just because you're mad.
And that's exactly what happened here. He came back from
the car, he ran back at people who were already
the fight was already done. Tyler de Silva. Clearly in
(28:06):
the road, the fight was over. Kids were screaming back
and forth. Tyler de Silva even said the fight was over.
At that point, you hear get out of here, bro.
And at the very end of the video you see
Jimmy McGrath step back like this to try to avoid
the fight. The stab wound, the deliberate stab wound in
his chest. He didn't stab him in the foot, he
(28:26):
didn't stab him the lower leg. He stabbed him right
in the chest. What was his intent when he did that?
When that, when that happens, you hear Jimmy McGrath yell,
I've been stabbed and he collapsed. He collapses, so he
(28:53):
unnecessarily stabs Jimmy. Right, you're gonna hear an instruction about intent. Right,
I'm sure the fence turns gonna get upre and argue
he didn't wake up that morning kill anybody or stab anybody.
It's not what intents about. Intent can be formed an instant,
It can be formed within a moment. I would submit
to you. At the beginning of that fight that was
(29:14):
not on video. As soon as he got hit, he
informed the intent, the specific intent to stab people and
cause serious physical injury. Right. He went back to the
car and he formed the same intent when he turned around,
saw Jimmy, I'm gonna stab this kid and get out
of here. Why else would you stab him in the heart.
He stab him right in the chest, piercing his heart.
(29:37):
After he gets back to the car, he tells you that,
or Snyder indicates gets back in the car and he says,
I just stabbed like four kids. So he knew how
many kids he stabbed. He knew how many kids. He stopped,
but he knew he stabbed kids. He got to on
the stand here. I don't know if I stabbed anybody, right,
we heard that or heard that testimony. I don't know
if I stabbed am. I was only one with a knife.
(29:57):
But you know, he couldn't even say it, but he
said it that night. He knew he stabbed He stabbed
kids that night, So don't we know he did it.
They go back down the road. No, before we get there,
they take off the Silva, jumps in the car, they
take off, They take a left, They go down Adams Drive.
They're at the cul de Sac. He says, stop the
(30:19):
car and throws the knife into the woods. Why Constius,
there are an instruction about consciousness a gill. Why are
we getting rid of the weapon?
Speaker 7 (30:26):
Right?
Speaker 4 (30:28):
Gets back in the car, Go, Go Go. They go
back down to thirty six flore Lend McKenzie's sister. The
sister's there. He tells Jack and Tyler, I'm going home.
McKenzie jumps in the car with McKenzie and the cars
leave the area. McKenzie drops off Keenan and Dimitri, and
then they subsequently drop off the defendant at his house.
McKenzie was mad, right, she told you. I was pissed.
(30:49):
I didn't want to be there. I was mad at him.
They were going there to fight. I didn't want to
be there. I didn't want to be involved in any
of that. Now they were all going there to fight
that night. But after the defense gets dropped off, you
hear about the text messages that go back and forth
between McKenzie, who is his then girlfriend, and Raoul, and
(31:10):
he's saying things like, I can't text anything. I wasn't there.
You know, I wasn't there. Nothing is happening. Don't text me,
I'm going to Florida. I didn't do anything that was
text message. You didn't want to put anything in writing.
You also hear that he spoke to Taylord Silva on
the phone and when he spoke to Telerdisilva on the phone.
He says, Dude, I fucked up. I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
(31:32):
I don't know what to do because he knew what
he was doing that night and now he's having buyer's remorse.
So again, what was his intent? Right? You guys are
really going to be able to examine what his intent was,
and the judge is going to give you an instruction
such as there's no particular length of time necessary for
(31:53):
the defend to inform the intent. Intent can be formed
in an instant, it can be created in a moment,
may be and usually is inferred from the circumstances of
the crime. Since no witness can come into court and
testify that they looked into a defense's mind and saw
what his intention was, you can look at the number
(32:15):
of wounds inflicted, the location of those wounds on each
person's body, the type of instrument used to cause those wounds,
and his conduct during all of this, I would submit
you could even look at the conduct from Lazybrook. What
was his conduct during that fight and for what his
intent was later on that night. In this case, the
(32:38):
state intends that there were nine stab wounds inflicted by
this defendant on four different individuals. There were stab wounds,
not slashes. I would suggest to you that a person
who stabs multiple people multiple times and areas of the
body that would cause serious physical injury and death intended
to cause those serious physical injuries and death. There's no
(32:58):
other rational conclusion. So that's what this case is about.
The defendant was enraged about what had happened earlier. He
armed himself and he returned to a house to face
those kids with the intempt to stab somebody. He could
have waited down the street. They could have called the cops.
He didn't have to go back. He did potentially went back.
(33:21):
It doesn't make sense when someone says I was very scared, frightened,
and paniced to go put yourself back in that situation.
Speaker 5 (33:29):
It makes zero sense.
Speaker 4 (33:32):
And because of his conduct, three people are going to
have to live with scars for the rest of their lives,
both mentally and physically. And James McGrath lost his life
unnecessarily in the ripple effects that that's caused his family.
The credible evidence in this case shows that on that
day he intentionally caused physical injury to fasee on teal.
(33:57):
He caused that injury by stabbing him in the upper
arm with a dangerous instrument. With regards to Tommy Connery,
the credible evidence shows that he intentionally caused serious physical
injury to Tommy Connery. He specifically intended to cause that
injury by stabbing him four times in the upper leg,
causing deep stab wounds. You heard testimony from his doctor.
(34:21):
She was concerned about compartment syndrome and him losing his leg.
Deep stab woles, deep stab woms. These are not flailing
slash marks. These are deep stab wooms. Again, the manner
in which the wounds are, the wounds are inflicted, it's
not corroborative of slash marks. And he did that with
(34:41):
a dangerous instrument. With regards to Ryan Hines, he intentionally
caused serious physical injury to Ryan Hines. He had the specific,
specific intent to cause that injury by stabbing him three
times in the upper torso, causing a collapse lung and
other injuries to his lower abdomen in hip area. And
(35:04):
he did that again with the dangerous instruments. And with
regards to Jimmy McGrath, he formed the specific intent to
kill Jimmy McGrath at the moment he came back from
that car, turned to him and plunged the knife into
his heart. He didn't slash Jimmy McGrath. He plunged the
(35:25):
knife into his heart, through his rib cage and through
his heart, and the poor Kate bled to death right
there on the front lawn. You know, the judge is
going to give you an instruction on sympathy, and need
to follow that instruction. And I apologize for getting a
(35:47):
little choked up here because I have a son as well,
and I can't imagine what it feels like to have
that happened. And I hope no one else arrasked it.
I hope no one else has to go through this effort.
(36:08):
It's terrible. I apologize for taking a moment, but again,
the church are going to give you an instruction on sympathy,
so please follow that instruction on sympathy. But we are
confident that after you review all this evidence, you will
find the state has proved each and every element with
charge beyond reasonable doubt. You'll find the potentially cause the
(36:31):
death of your ma, regret, potentially cause assault the first
degree to both Ryan Eines.
Speaker 5 (36:39):
Good morning everyone.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
Yeah, they're probably tired of seeing me come up here
and set up with all my stuff, So I'll just
get right into it. This might be a hard case
because it involves young people. It might be difficult because
it involves young people, right, but it is not a
complicated case. It is a case about the most basic
(37:03):
right that any of us have, is the right to
defend ourselves when we're faced with people that are intent
on doing us serious physical harm that could be as
much as death, serious disfigurement, and all the other things
you're gonna hear about.
Speaker 5 (37:20):
Master.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
You've heard from the state here telling you, I guess
that Leedo Valley is a criminal mastermind who came over
there with plan to be able to use all of
this so that now I can claim self defense. You
(37:43):
heard mister Vallely get on the stand. Mister Valley, a
criminal mastermind can put together a plan like that, and
back home, you know, we'd say, son, bless your heart.
But that was mighty stupid. There was a whole lot
of stupid to go around that night. There was a
(38:04):
fire that got lit earlier in the night, and it
started with all that drinking that was going on, and
nobody there to say, what are we doing? How do
we come into all of this. That's the first fire
that was lit. There were a lot more along the way,
(38:28):
but again not a complicated case. Mister Valley took the stand,
he talked to you.
Speaker 5 (38:33):
He didn't have to do that.
Speaker 1 (38:37):
Mister Valley used a three inch pocket knife that Jack
Snyder gave him, that Jack Snyder brought that mister Valley
didn't even know existed prior to that night. Mister Valley
didn't even know existed prior to mister Snyder getting it
(38:59):
to him. Where was Leeder Valley seated when Jack Snyder
pulled that knife out and had it on his lap.
Was he in the front passenger seat? Und silver? Leedo
Valley's behind him with Mackenzie traffic canty on his lap.
(39:24):
There's no way he can see that knife in Jack
Snyder's lap. And Jack Snyder's the one who told you
he took that out and put it in his own
lap because he was so scared about what was going on.
So Leedo Valley can't see that knife, doesn't know it exists.
Mister Snyder told you he didn't that. There was no
(39:44):
way that mister Valley could have known it was there before.
He never brought it out. He never said to him, Hey,
I got this knife, let's go riding over to forty
three LGD and get a little payback.
Speaker 5 (39:53):
None of that happened.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
So it doesn't make any sense when Jack Snyder tells
you the Lito Valley asked him for a knife that
he didn't even know existed. Now I get it. Maybe
some of you want to believe Jack Snyder and Tyler
de Silva. Maybe you say to yourself, Gosh, those kids
(40:19):
got nice looking kids that get up here on the stand.
Why shouldn't I believe them? Well, ask yourself, why should
you believe them over mister Valley. Is there something about
mister Valley and the way he came up here and
took the stand and testified that tells you you should
disbelieve him, but believe those two. I didn't hear the
(40:43):
state talk at all about exhibits ninety four and ninety
six when they're up here.
Speaker 4 (40:47):
Did you.
Speaker 1 (40:51):
What are exhibits ninety four and ninety six? I bet
you remember. I hope it weighed heavily on your mind.
Imagine if I came up here and asked you to
believe witnesses. I can't even call them paid witnesses. They
have something more valuable than any money they could ever
(41:11):
be given. What is more valuable than a complete immunity agreement? Anything?
Is there anything that a eighteen nineteen twenty year old
kid would not come up here and do or say
in order to avoid any penalty whatsoever for their actions?
(41:36):
Does that bother you? Does that disturb you? It should?
Does that sound like justice for all? Does that sound
like justice for some? Does that sound like equal justice
to you? Gonna give those two kids immunity agreements? Jack
(41:56):
Snyder drove the car over there, gives the knife over
to my client. Tyler de Silva gets in that same car,
rides over there to forty three Laurel glen Drive, says
he's gonna go make peace. Listen, there was a lot
of stupid going around that night. Tyler de Silva got
(42:16):
up here on the stand and told you, well, I
thought I could go up and talk to them because
I didn't have a problem with them. Maybe he did.
Maybe some of you sitting here look at these kids
and think of your own kids. State's Attorney, did.
Speaker 3 (42:32):
I know I did?
Speaker 1 (42:34):
Would any of you put your faith in something as
important as this in a sixteen or seventeen year old,
would you have reason to doubt that maybe they would
fail to go to the grocery store and get everything
that you had for them on a list. But we're
gonna sit here and expect these folks to give us
(42:57):
the evidence that we need in order to convict somebody
of murder who's charged with the same things that these
folks could and should be charged with. They told you
that they know what they're exposed to. I went over
it with them. I asked him about it. They know
(43:17):
exactly what they're doing when they're coming in here. Jack
Snyder's story doesn't make any sense. He gave him the
knife because he asked for the knife that he didn't
know existed. It's not just implausible, it's not just improbable.
(43:42):
It is impossible. You don't ask for something that you
don't know exists. He didn't know it existed before that moment.
So we watched the ring video. The ring video is
the thirty six log Glenn Drive. That's Exhibit forty four.
You'll have that available team. You see the car stop,
(44:05):
you see Mackenzie get out. She's walking up ahead, rolls
already on the curb a little ashamed in a bad situation. Here,
Mackenzie's obviously upset with him. She's walking down towards the curb.
Tyler de Silva gets out of the front and then
the car stops and it's there for some time before
(44:30):
it drives off. And mister Valley told you that's when
Jack Snyder threw him the night and said, just in case,
just in case, what just in case? This situation that
I caused over here at forty three, Laurel Glenn Drive
(44:50):
comes running down the street at you, throwing things and
hollering things, and I'm about to drive off and leave you.
Does that make more sense than he was pissed off.
He was the most pissed off. He was angrier than
anybody else there. And he asked me for that knife
(45:11):
that he didn't know existed. Jack Snyder has every incentive
in the world to make these folks and you promises
that he just can't deliver on. He's got no more
powerful There is no more powerful incentive in the whole
world than what he's got. What are the terms of
(45:34):
that agreement that he was given. He's got to come
in here and testify truthfully. But who makes that determination?
Who's he working for when he's under that immunity agreement?
Not me, not you, the state? And what did they
(45:59):
all tell you, almost without fail, about what they did
before they came in here. They met with the state's
attorney a number of times to do what to get ready,
to make sure that when they took that stand, they
were going to testify truthfully. I put air quotes around that,
(46:22):
because what does truthfully mean in this instance? To those guys,
as they told you, it meant not deviating from the
things that they had said, the things that they waited
seven months and after they'd gotten an immunity agreement before
they were going to say anything. When we were in
(46:43):
here during jury's selection, some of you said, well, now,
there can be a lot of gray. There's more than
two sides to every story that was a bit of truth.
How many sides to a story did we get here?
(47:04):
And some of you said, well, you know, a lot
of people will lie. And you said that maybe you
had a little bit of an idea about what happened here,
You've got way more of an idea now about what
happened here. And some of you said, well, you know,
I don't expect everyone to testify truthfully. People may want
(47:25):
to defend or protect their families. You need more than
just common sense to determine credibility.
Speaker 5 (47:33):
Some of you said.
Speaker 1 (47:37):
You had an experience with a kangaroo court, and you
know what that's like. Don't turn this into a kangaroo
court by putting any more weight into the testimony Tyler
de Silva and Jack Snyder than what it deserves. And
(47:57):
it doesn't deserve any more weight than the paper and
the ink on which it is written, because that incentive
is overwhelming. That's more than just defending your friends or
your family. That's defending yourself. And some of you said,
(48:17):
you know, if we don't follow the law, our system
wouldn't work. It's not here just for one person. It's
not here just for a few people. It's here for
all of us.
Speaker 5 (48:27):
And that's right.
Speaker 1 (48:29):
You all take seats that were laid out for you
hundreds of years ago. You come in and you take
those seats, and you got to put your sympathy aside,
sympathy for the victim, sympathy for the complainant, sympathy for
any body. It's got no place here. Some of you
have experience taking things through a process, doing quality control
(48:55):
and making sure that everything has been met along the
way that experience here. Does this make sense? Would this
pass through quality control? You know I told you before
some of these witnesses, if not all of them, are
promising more than they can deliver. Imagine if somebody tells
(49:20):
you something that you know just can't be true. Somebody
tells you they've got to make a delivery and it's
going to take them an hour and a half to
get from here in the middle of the day through
the city down to DC in three and a half hours.
(49:42):
They're making you a promise because they want you to
believe them. They know you'd be really happy if they
could actually make that trip, but they can't deliver on that.
That's more than what they could possibly do. That's what
these witnesses are doing for you, telling you things that
they can see that couldn't have been seen. Why are
(50:04):
they doing that? They want to avoid consequences, the mister
Valley is now saddled with. They want to protect themselves,
they want to protect their friends, and they want to
(50:27):
protect the memory of a loved one that they lost. Now,
during the jury selection, I asked you all if you
could be open to the idea of self defense, and
to a person, you told me that you could. Some
of you said you'd had to use some self defense before,
(50:51):
and you said you'd be open to it, and you
could understand that the law allows you to use self
defense to defend yourself, to defend loved ones, and whether
or not you had experience with doing that, you said
you'd be open to it. I don't know what you
thought you were gonna hear or what you thought self
defense looked like. Some of you had experience with it,
(51:13):
some of you don't. But this is what self defense
looks like. It's messy, it's chaotic, it transpires quickly, and
you don't have to make the best decision. That's not
what the law requires. That's not it's a higher bar
(51:35):
than anybody could be expected to make. It requires that
you make a reasonable decision, that you make a decision
that you had a reason for. You watch those videos,
you know there's a reason for the defense that he used.
He's down on the ground, he's getting kicked, stomped, punched,
(52:02):
and he's being given no reason to believe that that's
going to stop unless he makes it stop. Nobody's saying
that's enough guys, everybody up, just a few licks and
then we'll let him go. That didn't happen. What did happen?
People joined in the fray. There were at least fifteen
(52:24):
to twenty people out there at a minimum. And you
know that because if you watch that video, you can
count them. Michael sam Perry, Sal Perry, Jacob Illo, Loovos,
Matthew Lockovich, Ryan Hines, ty Wood, Tanner, Chernowski, Tommy Connery,
(52:48):
Charlie Connery. The list goes on. We heard about all
of them. We see some of them, Alex burns them.
Some of them couldn't be identified. Those are at least
the people that we can see. And mister Valley's down
(53:09):
on the ground getting kicked punched, can't tell what's going
on around him. Ryan Hines is on top of it,
and Ryan Hines is punching him in the face. And
Ryan Hines tells you, I didn't think he was aiming
for me necessarily, because he wasn't. He reaches in his
(53:33):
pocket and he takes out the only thing that he's
got there, the only thing at that point that he
thinks is gonna make them stop, because they've not given
him any reason to believe that they're gonna do so
on their own. And maybe you're thinking to yourself, well, yeah,
but he said he brought a knife to a fistfighter. No,
(53:55):
he didn't bring that knife to that fist fighter. He
had that knife in hiscket because Jack Snyder took it
out and threw it to him, and he's got some
kids running down the way. He picks it up, sticks
it in his pocket. Now you heard the state argue
to you, well, you know they submit that that's when
(54:19):
he gave it to him. Now is when we see
it on that ring video. Agreeing, I guess with what
mister Valley tells us, which is, in fact, as you
will recall, entirely different than what mister Snyder says than
what Keenan fray Sick says. Snyder tells you he doesn't
(54:40):
give him the knife until it's asked for, which again
is completely ridiculous and unbelievable. But he tells you that
happens after they're looking at the car, after he's dropped
them off, driven down the street, leaving them there, comes
back and then everybody else who is still in the
car gets out. Do you remember that that was Jack
(55:02):
Snyder's testimony. He didn't tell you that he threw it
to him while they were right there and keenan Fresich.
What does he describe? A mad scramble through the console,
through the glove compartment, where's that knife? Give me the
fucking knife? Didn't happen. It's just unbelievable. It's not what
(55:24):
Jack Snyder or anybody else describes. But Jack Snyder and
Tyler de Silva and all these other kids that are
in that car, all these kids that had once been
his friends, all these kids who haven't talked to him
ever since that night, though they still remain very close
with one another. Those kids all told you the mister
(55:48):
Valley was the most upset of anyone there, more upset
than Jack Snyder about his car, more upsnet than Tyler
d Silva, who was worried about the damage and how
much it was gonna cost. He was the most upset
of anybody there. And he went into a rage. He
(56:09):
was so angry. I've never seen anybody that angry in
my life. He goes digging through the car and this
and that and the other. Why does that make any sense?
Of course not not unless you start to think about
what's motivating them to ostracize and distance themselves from mister Valley,
(56:35):
to aggrandize what he was doing so they can demonize it,
so they can wipe their hands in Mister Valley, I
had no idea.
Speaker 5 (56:48):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (56:50):
He was so mad, he was so angry. I just
thought we were just gonna go get back in the car,
and I was gonna go make peace. It doesn't make
any sense. Mister Balley told you he and Tyler Disilva
were best friends. Again, it might have been mighty stupid
to get back in that car, but there was so
much stupid running around that night, and now mister Valley's
(57:13):
the only one sitting here and facing anything for it,
because he got in that car and had a pocket
knife in his pocket. You'll recall not a single witness
telling you that he got out of that car and
came onto that lawn with that knife displayed. None of
them saw it. He didn't get out dancing around with it,
(57:34):
licking the blade, asking who wants a piece of this?
None of that. He's not a person who carries a knife.
It wasn't his knife. And mind you, one of the
charges that you don't hear here is criminal trespassing. It
was stupid to go on that lawn. I would agree
with you. We could argue about that, and I would
(57:57):
concede that, but it wasn't criminal under those circumstances. Those kids,
for whatever their reasons were, had invited them there and
wanted them on that long. What do they tell you?
Did we hear a series of witnesses come in here
(58:19):
and tell us all the things that they could remember
so clearly, And they all could remember. I looked in
the car. I might have been a long way away,
but I could see mister Valley, and I could see
Tyler DeSilva, and I could see mckenseye traffic Caanty, and
I could see Jack Snyder. But then when it came
(58:39):
time to tell us, well, who else was there with you?
Who else went out into the front yard with you?
I can't really recall, really, but you told us that
all those folks were your friends, lifelong friends, grew up
with them from childhood, been over to their homes so comfortable,
and when they got to the house, they could walk
(59:01):
right up and go in through the bill codors that
they could go downstairs. Nobody would even blink an eye
right and when they got down there, they could see
their friends, they knew who was there. But then when
they all went outside, do you remember this? It was
everyone got up, all of us went together. Oh really,
(59:25):
who were you beside? I can't recall that actually, now
that you mention it. Oh okay, Well, who was at
the car? Some of them told you, you know, there
was a couple of us at the car, right, maybe
three or four of us at the car. And then
others told you, no, there was maybe ten of us
that went to the car, And there were others that
(59:46):
told you there was more like fifteen or twenty of us,
and we were all around the car. Some of them
told you, I didn't see anybody touch the car. I
didn't see anything going on over there. It was peaceful
what I saw. And you had others told you, no,
we had our hands on the car. We were rocking it.
There was somebody bouncing up and down on the rear
(01:00:07):
bumper who I can't recall. Oh okay, but you just
went through a whole list of folks that you could
tell us were there, that you saw downstairs, and you
all went out together. So surely you must have seen
Tyler rich by the car. I don't recall. Oh okay,
what about ty Wood? Where was he? I don't recall.
(01:00:29):
You will have the opportunity to see all the evidence
here as long as you want, as many times as
you wish. Do a test, do an experiment. Go through
those witnesses, see when they can't remember things, and ask
yourselves if that's convenient, if it seems like they're protecting
their friends, or ask yourselves, is there something wrong with
(01:00:55):
their memories? Why is it so selective? Why can they
remember some things but not others? And do those things
seem designed to protect their friends and themselves? Tyler rich
has got to tell you that he told Tyler to
(01:01:17):
Silva to get the fuck out of here when he
sees him on his lawn, Because what he can't come
in here and tell you is he didn't tell him
get the fuck out of here. He wanted him on
that lawn, and he wanted for his friends and him
to be able to jump them and get some payback.
Speaker 4 (01:01:34):
Because if he tells you that, and.
Speaker 1 (01:01:35):
If he tells the cops that, then he and his
friends could get charged. Maybe they get an immunity agreement.
Who knows, but they certainly have to admit to some
conduct that is criminal and they're not gonna do that.
They didn't do it that night, to the extent that
(01:01:58):
they came in here and told you things that were
different from what they.
Speaker 4 (01:02:01):
Told the cops before.
Speaker 1 (01:02:05):
I tried to point that out. I asked every single
one of you during jury selection, probably looking at me, like,
what in the world is this all about. I gave
you the parking lot example. Everybody, Remember the parking lot example, right?
I said, what would you be interested in knowing?
Speaker 2 (01:02:23):
Right?
Speaker 1 (01:02:23):
If you came out and you saw two strangers that
you've never met before, and they're each pointing at each
other and saying he did it, and you look at
your white car.
Speaker 4 (01:02:31):
Remember the white car.
Speaker 1 (01:02:32):
It's got a long red gash. Remember the red gash?
I said, would you be interested in knowing whether either
of them drove a red car? He just looked at me,
or kind of like I guess. I said, okay, would
you be interested in knowing whether or not there was
any objective other evidence that you could look at, like
surveillance camera footage. He said, yes, yes, that would be
(01:02:54):
interesting to me. And I said, okay, would you be
interested in whether or not there were any eyewitnesses or
people who claimed to be eyewitnesses, and you all said yes,
I think I would be interested in that. And I said,
would you be further interested in knowing where those people
were standing and whether or not it was possible for
them to have seen.
Speaker 5 (01:03:15):
What they claimed to have seen?
Speaker 1 (01:03:17):
And you all said yes. And then I finalized that
and I said, and would you be interested in seeing
how all of that evidence either aligns or doesn't? And
you all said yes. I know you did, because I
wouldn't have chosen you otherwise. That's your job is to
(01:03:38):
look at that evidence. It's my job, based on what
you told me, to try and show you those things
about the evidence that gives you some doubt about what
you're being told. You're being asked to align yourself with
(01:03:58):
Tyler de Silva and Jack Snyder. You're being asked to
condone that testimony and accept that and say I don't
have a reasonable doubt about what those two fellas told me. Again,
(01:04:22):
would you trust those two fellas knowing that that had
that kind of incentive under any other circumstances where you
had a decision as serious as this to make. If
they were the two guys, the paid spokespeople that were
telling you about a surgery that you should get. Would
you want to know what sort of value they were
(01:04:44):
being given to tell you that that was what you
needed to do? Of course you would. Would you make
a serious decision and not have a reasonable doubt about
it on the basis of those two folks. Would you
trust that kind of a evidence under those circumstances. Of
course you wouldn't. Don't start doing it now, Why would you?
(01:05:07):
You'll never forgive yourself if you do that. Don't overlook
your reasonable doubts. This system is built on reasonable doubt.
It's fundamental. Because none of us were there, we're looking
at it after the fact, and we're trying to determine
(01:05:29):
has the state proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. You
may feel inclined to try and solve the crime or
somehow make things right.
Speaker 5 (01:05:42):
That's not your job.
Speaker 1 (01:05:46):
You can't fix all the ills that led up to
that night. Your job is to determine whether or not
you have a reasonable doubt about what happened that evening
based on the evidence that you've been presented. And I
think you've got more than a single reasonable doubt. You've
(01:06:10):
got reasons to doubt. Jack Snyder You've got reasons to
doubt Tyler Desva, and you should heed those doubts. That's
what the law tells you to do. Listen to your doubt,
give your doubt credence. It is, in fact what binds us,
because it's there for.
Speaker 4 (01:06:31):
All of us.
Speaker 1 (01:06:32):
And if you don't follow that doubt and give it
the credence that it deserves, you're not following the law,
and you're leaving these seats in a lower place than
they were there when you took them. Just as fundamental
to our system is a presumption of innocence. And again,
I know I asked every single one of you whether
(01:06:54):
or not you could uphold that, whether or not you
could tell me as you sat there and looked at
mister Valley, that you could presume him to be innocent
despite the fact that he had been.
Speaker 5 (01:07:07):
Charged with these things.
Speaker 1 (01:07:10):
And again, you know, we made it kind of easy
for you. This is not a case of a who
done it. This is not a case where we're claiming
somebody else who knows no. This is not a case
about who did what. With the exception perhaps I guess
a faison tell as I think about it, there's no
(01:07:31):
evidence really to show you that what happened to Faison
cut on his arm there was as a result of
a stab anymore than Faison coming in and getting in
a couple of stomps, somebody pushing him from behind and
him getting a cut there. There really isn't. But it's
not about who had the knife. It's about why and
(01:07:55):
whether or not that was reasonable. Did he have a
reason to do that or was he just out there
to kill somebody. The State gets a lot of things
wrong about this case, but it got one thing absolutely right.
This is a specific intent case, but it's not specific
(01:08:21):
intent to murder. You know that you sat here through
all of this. There was no specific intent to go
out and murder. In order to believe that there was
specific intent to murder Jimmy McGrath, you would have to
believe that mister Valley was some sort of trained knife
fighter who knew that by taking a three inch pocket
(01:08:41):
knife and inserting it between the sixth and seventh intercostal,
that he could strike directly into mister McGrath's heart. Again,
he's no criminal mastermind, and he's certainly no trained knife fighter.
What he was was a sixteen year old boy down
(01:09:05):
on the ground getting stomped and kicked, and the numbers
were overwhelming. Was it fifteen? Was it twenty? Were they
all focusing their attention on him at one point? Were
they all focusing their attention on Tyler de Silva in
that chaos. That's not a determination he could or had
(01:09:25):
to make. None of us likes violence. We're not up
here saying violence is okay. That's not part of the argument.
But what we're saying, and what the law says, is
that when you have a reason to believe that you
need to defend yourself, that you have a right to
(01:09:48):
do that and to use the force necessary. And that's
what he did. And how do you know that that's
what he did?
Speaker 4 (01:09:59):
Well?
Speaker 1 (01:10:00):
I guess if the state's now conceding that he got
that knife during that exchange down on thirty six Laurel
Glen Drive when we see those folks coming up, then
the states should also have to concede the following. He
had that knife in his pocket, and he didn't take
it out when those folks came up, and he didn't
(01:10:20):
take it out when he got sprayed in the face
with WD forty or PB blaster. Forgive me, I have
no idea what pp blaster is, but I understand it's
something that you could spray out from an aerosol can.
And he didn't use it then either, despite having it
right in his pocket. That's a lot of control for
(01:10:46):
a person that they want you to believe. It's basically
a homicidal meaning.
Speaker 4 (01:10:53):
He can't be.
Speaker 1 (01:10:54):
Both now when he's down on the ground. You may
recall Ryan Hines till you again, I didn't feel like
he was aiming at me. What else did he tell
you about his position? Do you remember you can see
his arm doing this thing, but it looked like his
(01:11:14):
other arm and his bicep were somehow stuck under him
or pinned beneath him. Sure, because he told you he
was in the fetal position down on the ground before
he was able to get that knife out and start
using it, and he had not just Ryan Hines on him,
(01:11:37):
but all those other boys. You can see it in
the video. You've got a couple different versions of that video,
and I gave you defensive zebit B and I'd ask
you to use it a frame by frame that you
can go through as fast as slow. Focus in on
a single frame, and you can see that there are
(01:12:01):
two groups that peel all that there are two folks
that are wearing very similar outfits, and those outfits look
very much like the lighter bottoms, dark blue tops, graphic
on the back Jimmy McGrath and Tommy Connery admitted to
(01:12:24):
having been wearing that night. And you can see in
some of those frames feet attached to those figures kicking
a figure down on the ground that is clearly not
Tyler d Silva because he's being subjected to a separate
beating over to the left. And you heard about how
there were two fights that developed and that one goes
(01:12:48):
down over to the right and one's going.
Speaker 5 (01:12:51):
On over to the left.
Speaker 1 (01:12:53):
And think about what he's facing at that moment when
he's down on the ground, because that's what self defense requires,
not us sitting here later in the cool hindsight of
this room, the ability to say this at that No,
it's at that moment when you're sixteen years old and
(01:13:15):
you're down on the ground and you're facing the entire
shelf in the high school football team that's pissed off,
and they already know about the fight at five Lazy Broke, right.
You heard a testimony They got there and everybody was
already asking them about. One of the first puttersons that
came up to ask Ryan Hines about it was Jimmy McGrath.
Griffin Marsinsk told you, Jimmy McGrath is one of the
(01:13:36):
toughest kids.
Speaker 2 (01:13:36):
I knew.
Speaker 1 (01:13:39):
There was already a building fury in that basement. They
didn't know about that. This bunch of idiots are in
the car. They just got added to a group chat.
People are talking shit to them, as they said, people
that they claimed they knew on social. Can we all
(01:13:59):
agree that if you think you know somebody on social,
you don't know that person. I think you guys have
all gleaned what a luddite I am by my inability
to work this contraption over here. Knowing somebody on social
you just don't know anything about that person. These were
all strangers, at least to my client. Now you know
(01:14:21):
they're not all strangers to Tyler de Silva. He told
you about growing up with some of them. He told
you about they knew cousins and things of this nature.
And here they are texting in the group chat, talking shit,
and he says he thought it would be funny to
tell them to come over to trumble High School because
(01:14:44):
they were gonna leave Trumbull High School and if they
showed up, they'd be gone. Then he told you, I
saw a picture that got sent on the group chat,
and I realized, oh man, I know some of these kids.
And he left.
Speaker 4 (01:14:57):
He left the group child.
Speaker 1 (01:15:00):
There's Tyler de Silva, Jack Snyder in the front seat.
They're still going back and forth, and they're still going
at it. Jack Snyder Gryffin Marsensic are really going at
it right. Gryffin Marsinsic has taking photos of the car
out front, saying sitting ducks, that's what he was facing
when he's down on the ground, not you and I
(01:15:26):
coming up around him and saying, what's going on here,
my friend? Perhaps you should not be here right now.
This appears to be a bad idea. No, that's not
what that video shows. And let's talk about the existence.
Speaker 5 (01:15:39):
Of that video.
Speaker 1 (01:15:42):
These kids were ready. They came out with their phones
going this was gonna be a trophy, just like a
hunter hanging a head up on the wall. Let's document this,
let's record this. Not oh gosh, we don't want this
(01:16:03):
to be going on. This seems a little too violent. Gentlemen,
let the young man up. No, we're filming this thing
and we're celebrating. You remember Tanner Chanowski up on that
stand when I asked him, can you identify whose voice
that is saying.
Speaker 4 (01:16:20):
Yes, sir? That was me?
Speaker 1 (01:16:24):
That was you, and you're saying yes, sir? Is that celebratory?
Speaker 5 (01:16:31):
I don't know what you mean.
Speaker 3 (01:16:32):
Self.
Speaker 5 (01:16:32):
Try I don't know.
Speaker 1 (01:16:33):
I just I don't know why I said it. Oh,
I did somebody ask you a question to which the
answer was yes, sir?
Speaker 4 (01:16:39):
Is that what happened?
Speaker 2 (01:16:40):
No?
Speaker 1 (01:16:40):
I don't think so. No, I don't think so either.
And again, how many times did these guys tell you
something here that they admitted they hadn't told anyone before?
And how often were they telling you we were all
doing something? Everybody just went I couldn't see this and
that and the other. But then on cross examine they
would tell you, oh, well, you know yet everyone was
(01:17:04):
throwing something, but actually that was me that was throwing something.
Everyone was screaming stuff, but actually that was me that
was doing that. They wanted to minimize their involvement, generalize
what they were doing, anonymize it, and scrub it clean
so they could come in here and tell you we
(01:17:26):
were just shocked, shocked to find this going on. You
know that's not true. If you want to believe that,
ask yourselves, why why do you want to believe that sympathy?
Do you have any reason not to doubt that when
(01:17:46):
they tell you that these are people that are filming
a beating, not just one. Ricky Fiola's filming too, right,
we just don't have that film. Ricky Fiola's over there,
he's got the camera out. He's doing this. You can
see him in any of these free strings that they
show you, right, He's like this, and you can almost
kind of see when he turns over and he looks
(01:18:08):
at the camera and the light shines right in his eyes.
The book wild get that little red and he's kind
of like, oh shit, right, oh, I didn't realize somebody
else would be filming me filming. Then he goes and
what does he do with that? He goes and gives
it right to the cops.
Speaker 5 (01:18:24):
Right.
Speaker 1 (01:18:26):
He takes it and he shows it to some girls
that we're watching that thing go on. He wants to
show them Tyler da Silva getting beat because he thought
one of the girls would like seeing Tyler get and
then he kind of drifted off, and I asked him,
can you finish that for us? And he couldn't remember
(01:18:48):
what it was that he wanted to show him for
it that there's no reason to believe that those folks
were gonna stop unless they were made to stop. And
if you tell yourself that, there's a reason to believe
that they were going to stop unless they were made
to stop. If somebody back in that jury room tells you.
Speaker 4 (01:19:05):
No, no, he didn't have to do that.
Speaker 1 (01:19:07):
They were just gonna stop and then let him up, well,
what's the reason to believe that? I'm asking, what's the
reason to believe that? What's the psychology of a mob?
What's the psychology of eighteen to twenty boys and men?
(01:19:29):
Don't forget this is a boy at that time. Some
of those folks there were men, They had already graduated,
they told you, Taylor Capella told us it was mostly
older kids there that night. What is the psychology of
a mob? The problem with the mob is not what
(01:19:51):
they do as much as what they might do, because
you don't know what they might do. So when you're
down on the ground and you're getting kicked and punched
and stopped, and again we know there's at least fifteen
to twenty people there. It doesn't matter what these witnesses
(01:20:12):
got up here and told us on the stand as
far as saying no, no, it was just a one
on one or maybe it was two of them talking
with them. That's just simply unbelievable based on what we
see there and.
Speaker 5 (01:20:23):
What's going on on that video.
Speaker 1 (01:20:28):
And we heard a little bit from some of the
witnesses trying to tell us Rolls there on the lawn
beside Tyler d. Silva, they're facing this big group of
Shelton High football players that have started to circle them.
He's not got the knife out, but he's gonna pull
(01:20:50):
back like he's cocked and ready to punch somebody.
Speaker 4 (01:20:56):
And who was that supposed to be?
Speaker 1 (01:20:57):
Ty Woods? You didn't hear ty Woods tell you that?
Speaker 2 (01:20:59):
Did you?
Speaker 1 (01:21:00):
Oh? Can hear a thing from ty Woods? You heard
the people that are trying to protect themselves from what
they did tell you that. That's why Tyler rich just
had to haul off, even though he was over here
talking to Tyler to Silva and punch mister Valley, who
again still had not pulled out at night, even though
(01:21:22):
he's got it in his pocket, didn't even pull it
out to say, hey, whoa, guys, this is looking a
little dangerous here. I think maybe you should all know,
you know, back off. At that point, Tyler and Silva
still thinking he's gonna make peace because he knows somebody's cousins.
Speaker 5 (01:21:39):
They know his cousins.
Speaker 1 (01:21:43):
Ricky Fiola and Tanner Chanowski are proof that everybody there
knew what they were planning to do, because they had
their cameras ready to go. So those are the kind
of folks that are kicked and stomping and punching Tyler
de Silva, mister Valley while they're down on the ground.
(01:22:06):
And the first three folks that get stabbed look at
their wounds again, aison till he told you you know, well,
I was sort of over on the side, and then
I came in and I started getting in a few what.
Speaker 4 (01:22:22):
Did he call them?
Speaker 1 (01:22:23):
Light stomps? Medium stomps? Ever been medium stomped?
Speaker 5 (01:22:28):
Anybody?
Speaker 1 (01:22:29):
What's a medium stomp? A stomp is a stomp. A
stomp is somebody down on the ground. You don't stop
somebody who's standing up, do you no, No more than
you stab somebody in the legs unless you're down on
the ground. Look at those wounds. One to the back
(01:22:52):
of the leg, couple to the front. Those are wounds
that you give somebody when you're down on the ground.
You don't then down give a couple here and well there,
and let me get one.
Speaker 4 (01:23:04):
On the back.
Speaker 1 (01:23:05):
It's just not how that happens. It happens fast because
you're frightened and you're panicked, and you're scared, and you
have a reason to believe that you've got to do
that because nothing else is stopping them. In fact, you
heard mister Valich. It scared him even more after he
had to do that because it didn't stop. And you've
(01:23:28):
got Ryan Hines. Look at his injuries. One to the ribs.
What when you're over top of it, when you're punching
them in the face, then further down on the side,
and finally one down on the hip flank area. Again,
what did he do? Mister Valley was standing with him
and went one here, one here, one here, I'm gonna
(01:23:50):
get one there. It makes no sense. It's not the
way this happened. It's not the way self defense happens. Again,
it's not complicated, doesn't mean it's not hard. Doesn't mean
it's not difficult the decision that you have to.
Speaker 4 (01:24:10):
Make, But it is not complicated.
Speaker 5 (01:24:12):
It is simple.
Speaker 1 (01:24:15):
He's down on the ground, he's getting me, he's getting stopped.
The same thing is happening to his friend. Nothing is
telling them that that's gonna end unless he makes a stop.
So with his arm pinned behind him while he's getting
stopped and kicked, bhoom, Ryan Hines, Tommy Connor, he tells
(01:24:39):
you he comes over and separates them, right and he
takes his place, takes his place.
Speaker 4 (01:24:44):
Over to.
Speaker 1 (01:24:46):
No, he's over there as well, getting in his kicks,
his leg gets stuck, gets the side side the back right.
Speaker 4 (01:24:55):
Now.
Speaker 1 (01:24:56):
Ryan Hines tells you after he got stabbed, you know
that was it. He had nothing to do with what
happened to Tyler de Silva. You know that's not true
because you saw that video. You saw that green hoodie,
black shorts with the white trim right over there on
(01:25:16):
top of Tyler de Silva, kicking him and stomping him
with the rest of the group. Part of the state's
argument here is simple, who are you gonna believe, are
witnesses or your lion eyes? Look at the video, watch
(01:25:39):
it and you will see there are two groups here.
You will see one group breaks off. That's the group
that is beating on mister Valley. And then you can
see them shove him into the road.
Speaker 4 (01:25:52):
He walks to the car.
Speaker 1 (01:25:55):
Thank goodness. At that point Tanner Turnaskusville, because what do
we see? Camera pan's over, He's looking what's he looking at?
He's looking at where mister Valley is. Mister Valley's by
the car. He opens the door. Briefly you see the
light come on inside the interior light, and then you
(01:26:16):
see his head go just like this right and we
can see the side of his face. We see the
profile and you can almost hear the wheels clicking inside
Tanner Chanowski's mind, It's like, what's he looking at? You
see the camera pans again?
Speaker 2 (01:26:33):
Oh what is that?
Speaker 1 (01:26:34):
Camera pan right to Tyler de Silva on the ground,
surrounded getting pounded on by a number of kids, right,
kids that are saying.
Speaker 4 (01:26:47):
Yeah, come on, get some who wants a piece of this?
Speaker 1 (01:26:50):
Yes, sir, that's what's going on. Any indication those kids
are gonna just stop that at that point, no, not
a single reason to believe that they're gonna stop. They
didn't stop with my client until he had used that knife,
(01:27:12):
and they gave him no reason to think that they
were gonna until he used that knife. That knife was
a tool. It was the only tool that he had
available to him to survive. That that was the specific
intent that he had. The States charge specific intent crimes. Again,
they're right about specific intent, but it's not specific intent
(01:27:33):
to murder. It's not specific intent to assault, specific intent
to survive. Because he had no reason to believe they
were gonna just let him that that was gonna stop.
They were intent on pummeling him into unconsciousness at best,
serious physical harm almost certainly, and no way to know
(01:27:58):
whether or not that was gonna stop until he was dead.
Speaker 4 (01:28:01):
Just not.
Speaker 1 (01:28:02):
If you want to believe otherwise, ask yourself why you're
gonna get an instruction on implicit bias. Is there something
about the way my client looks the way I am
that makes you think he's any less believable than those kids,
that he deserves to have self defense available to him,
any less than any one of us. That those kids,
(01:28:23):
if they were down in that same position, wouldn't have
done that exact same thing. Would it change your mind
if he'd had a screwdriver with a three inch shaft
in his pocket, and that he'd pulled that out and
used it, he'd have the same wounds, stabs, and punctures.
(01:28:45):
This is what self defense looks like. Most of us
have never had to think about that before. Right, what
does self defense look like?
Speaker 3 (01:28:53):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (01:28:53):
Hey, I saw it in a movie or something. There's
no manual for self defense when you're down on the
there's no handbook that you can pull out and be
like page what getting stomped by a group of how
many of you are here? Okay, okay, doesn't work like that.
(01:29:14):
The law doesn't require you to go through that, because
if it did, he'd be done. Maybe that's something that
you've never thought about with the law. But I asked you, guys, I.
Speaker 3 (01:29:26):
Know I did.
Speaker 1 (01:29:27):
Can you follow the law even if you don't like it?
And I probably gave you some ridiculous example, like have
you ever heard the song I Can't drive fifty five?
There's a guy who doesn't like the speed limit holes
and he says he can't follow them. Well, this is
a lot more serious than that, right, This is can
you follow the law even if you don't like the
(01:29:50):
fact that somebody died. But the law is you just
have to make a reasonable choice. Did he have a
reason to do what he did?
Speaker 2 (01:30:03):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (01:30:06):
Do you have any reason to doubt that? What is it?
Because Tyler de Silva told you that the fight was
over when he got back over there. You saw Tyler
de Silva in that video. He didn't think the fight
was over. He's in the street hitching up his pants,
(01:30:27):
facing back towards the group, and we can't see Raoul
at that. Tanner's perspective is over here. We can see
Jimmy McGrath a little bit on the side. And you
heard mister Balley tell you they were forming a semicircle.
Speaker 4 (01:30:41):
They were forming a horseship.
Speaker 1 (01:30:45):
And I asked all of those witnesses who watched that video,
where did those kids go? Where was Charlie Connery coming from?
Followed by one, two, three, four, five kids? Who were
those kids that were following him? One of them was
(01:31:06):
Matthew Lodge, one of them was Jimmy McGrath. Where were
they coming from? Watch that video? Use the frame by frame,
go through that part closely. You'll see exactly where they
were coming from. They're coming from just having been involved
with the fight with Ledo that shoved him out into
(01:31:27):
out into the street. That's exactly where they're coming from.
Speaker 2 (01:31:33):
Now.
Speaker 1 (01:31:34):
He didn't have time to identify anybody. He didn't know,
Jimmy McGrath. That's probably the tragedy, the most tragic thing
of this whole thing. These kids are practically strangers, at
least when it comes to mister Valley, as to all
of them. And with a stranger, you can't know what
is that person going to do. You have to make
(01:31:56):
your decisions based on the information that they're giving you
at that moment. Again, what's the information that he's got.
These are kids that are going to attack the car.
These are kids that are going to stomp, kick, punch,
gang up on film it record it for what? I
asked Tander Tchernowski, why are you recording this? Oh? I
(01:32:19):
don't know.
Speaker 2 (01:32:20):
I just do that.
Speaker 1 (01:32:23):
And at some point he admitted to collect memories. He
thought this was going to be a memory that he
wanted to keep before he knew what the tragic outcome was.
But when he thought it was just a beating and
an assault that was going to go on, Yep, that
(01:32:44):
was a memory he wanted to collect. That's who Tanner
Tchernowski is. That's who these other kids were. Now, some
of you might be thinking, well, when he comes back
on to the grass and he passes by Tyler de Silva,
at that point, you know, I can't see any of
those other kids that are there. I just see Tyler,
(01:33:05):
and then I see a little bit of Jimmy. Well,
you see a little bit more than that. You see
that hand under that hand down here around the back
on Jimmy. It's not his hand, it's Matt Lakovich's hand.
Because they're side by side, because they are part of
a semicircles. This is a group that has been acting
(01:33:29):
as a group the entire time. You're telling me, all
of a sudden, this group has decided, oh, let's split up,
let's single out. No. And in fact, you can see
in the video across the way there's another person on
the other side of mister dam He's got on the
dark top and there's some sort of white lettering.
Speaker 4 (01:33:47):
Across the top.
Speaker 1 (01:33:48):
You may remember I was trying to point that out.
You're gonna have that evidence to take a look at
it and ask yourself about perspective, right, because when we're
looking at things, one way. We can see like this,
and these things look appear to be very distant and
far apart. But if I shift over here, now it
looks like something else is in front, and ask yourself,
(01:34:09):
wait a second. He steps into that place. These kids
are all around him. They don't just disappear. And you say, okay,
well hold on, Charlie Connery's yelling he's got a knife.
He's got a knife. These kids are all backing up. Right,
makes perfect sense, right, thank you, Charlie. You solved that
(01:34:31):
one for us. I think he did inadvertently. Do you
tell somebody who's running out of a house fire, fire, fire,
I gotta warn you about the fire that you're running
away from.
Speaker 5 (01:34:48):
No, you don't.
Speaker 1 (01:34:52):
You warned somebody about a danger that they are running into.
And that's exactly what was happening here. He's got a knife.
He's got a knife. Guys, don't go rush him. You
need to back up. That's who you warn You don't
call off people that are already calling themselves off. Again,
(01:35:16):
that just doesn't make sense. And you don't have to
believe those witnesses just because it's their friend who died.
You don't, and you shouldn't and you wouldn't under any
other circumstances. Some of you have experienced doing workplace investigations.
(01:35:40):
You know this is way more serious. These stakes are
so hot. Why are you going to believe these witnesses
and this evidence under circumstances like this when you wouldn't
believe these folks, knowing what you know about them, their
selective memory, their efforts to minimize and generalize and anonymize
(01:36:03):
not put themselves or their friends in any danger.
Speaker 4 (01:36:08):
Lay it all on him.
Speaker 1 (01:36:10):
Your duty is to look at this situation, the circumstances
that my client faced as they were at that time.
It's at least twenty verses two. It's at least that
could have been more. Some of these folks told you, oh, oh,
there's people watching. They're just sitting, they're just watching. You
(01:36:35):
want to believe that, there's probably nothing I can tell
you or should even argue to you. These folks had
sprayed WD forty in his face. These folks twenty verses two.
That's forty fists, forty feet and legs. There's nothing that
says the force he uses to defend himself under those
(01:36:58):
circumstances has got to be identical. Just because they have
fists and feet. Doesn't mean he can only punch and
kick back. That's not what self defense requires. It simply
requires reasonable. Is it reasonable to use a three inch
pocket knife that you didn't bring, but that you have
(01:37:20):
in your pocket because your friend gave it to you
under those circumstances, of course it is. Look at these wounds,
Jimmy McGrath. One wound, that's it. He's not trying to
stab him over and over and over. He steps into
(01:37:44):
this situation. Look at the amount of time between the
time he steps onto the grass and again. In perspective,
they want to try and tell you that that kid
on the far side of him is not lined up
with mister Valley. Look at the grass underneath their feet.
Valley's on the grass. That kid's on the grass too.
The line of the curve, the curve goes just like this,
you know about horizon and perspective. They're almost side by
(01:38:07):
side those two kids. The other kids haven't gone anywhere.
It's wet. You remember me asking all these kids is
it dark? Wet, rainy, misty? I don't remember, I don't remember.
You can see it in the video. You can see
rain beating on the windows. Of the cars. Of course,
it's wet and you hurt. Tailor Kapella tell us he
(01:38:28):
came onto the grass and he slept. He spun around,
and mister Valley told you he got punched. Somebody swung
at him. You see Matt Lockovich's hand on Jimmy's back.
Then all of a sudden it's gone. You can infer
what happened there. Matt Lockovich takes a swing at him,
(01:38:53):
and mister Valley told her, I just swung. I put
everything I had into it. I was terrified. These kids
hadn't stopped before when they were stopping me, and I
had to use that they weren't stopping now. Did he
have a safe retreat that he could completely and safely retreat.
Speaker 2 (01:39:10):
Of course not.
Speaker 1 (01:39:12):
Last time that he had tried to get up. These
kids tackle them and went down again. And here they
were coming again, and we know they were coming again
because we hear them being worn. He's got a knife.
He's got a knife again. You're not telling that to
somebody who's not walking towards that danger. You're trying to
walk them off, who's not rushing towards that person. Once againing,
(01:39:37):
mister McGrath is holding the edge. These are all football players, right,
they know what it means to hold the edge. He's
holding the edge, that horseshoe, that semi circle. He is
a threat just as much as anybody else in that
mob at that bellows are the circumstances and mister value
(01:39:58):
of the space. That's what you have to judge him.
And if you want to believe these kids. Look, you've
heard about consciousness of guilt, right, Why have we heard
this evidence about consciousness of guilt. It doesn't change anything
about what happened down there on the ground at that point.
It's just another effort to make my client look like
(01:40:20):
some sort of criminal mastermind. He knew to go out
and throw the knife into the woods. Well, let's talk
about that. Who told us that that's what happened. Only
one person, Jack Sniper. When he's in here singing for
his supper, the jailhouse keys ringing in his ear, he's
(01:40:45):
trying to give you something, trying to give the States
something to believe him. Oh, they haven't found a knife.
Speaker 4 (01:40:54):
I'll tell him.
Speaker 1 (01:40:55):
He threw the knife down at the end of Edwards
of Adams in the cul de Sac. And then Chelton
PD Detective Bango tells you we went out, we look
for a knife. I couldn't find it.
Speaker 5 (01:41:09):
No knife.
Speaker 1 (01:41:10):
I guess that means Jack Snyder must be true. You
have every reason to believe that.
Speaker 2 (01:41:18):
Well a little bit over if we wrap it up.
Speaker 4 (01:41:20):
Thank you, folks.
Speaker 1 (01:41:24):
I'm not gonna apologize for taking up a little bit
more time. I do want to thank you for listening.
I hope you will look at that evidence. I hope
you will take your time with it. I hope you
will all understand this is probably the most important thing
you've ever been asked to do.
Speaker 4 (01:41:41):
In your lives.
Speaker 1 (01:41:42):
And I will tell you that the law requires you,
despite the tragic ending in this case, the law requires
you to find my client not guilty.
Speaker 5 (01:41:57):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (01:42:00):
Thank fifteen. I am going to go ahead and take
a quick break before we can keep on up. Then,
so we standon you said until quarta rapher cloud. I'll
come back a.
Speaker 5 (01:42:18):
Save silence step.
Speaker 2 (01:42:20):
I wouldn't find some state that to thank you.
Speaker 4 (01:42:28):
Good afternoon. That's my second opportunity to address for all
of you. It's it's funny that listening to counsel's argument
about there was a lot of Tyler to Silva. Jack
Snyder in there. This case does not rise and fall
with Tyler Silva Jack Snyder. The warrant was signed. That
(01:42:48):
you heard from Detective Bango on Monday the sixteen, So
the warrant was signed. There was enough probable clause at
that point, and then the investigation was still unfolding, but
there was enough to arrest the defendant for when he
did that. Tyler Desilvan Jack Snyder approached us six months
later because they had information and they want you to
(01:43:09):
discredit everything that Tyler Disilva and Jack Snyder said. Of course,
what you have to look at it. Remember when we
what d I asked all of you, how do you
determine credibility that you're just gonna sit there and look
a here, listen to what they have to say? What's
their demeanor? But isn't it use your common sense? How
does what one witness say? How does it marry up
(01:43:30):
to other witnesses testimony? In the entire case, Tyler Disilvan
and Jack Snyder are not the only people that hurt
the defendant asked for the night that Keenan Frasik did,
Demetrius our Fanis did a Kenzie Trafficcotty heard somebody ask
him for a night while she's walking away. There are
other people that heard these things. So again, whether or
not you're ready to just discredit them because they have
(01:43:53):
an immunity, agree with the State of Connecticut. I suggest
to you see how they're The information they provided to
you in this case marries up with the rest of
the case, and I would agree with the defense that
there was a lot of stupidity that night, absolutely, But
the bottom line is, you can't bring a knife to
a fistfight. It just can't. Look at the defendant's injuries
(01:44:16):
days after the after the incident, he's not completely beat up.
It's because he took the knife out immediately and started
stabbing people. You would think he would have huge contusions
all over his head, and he didn't even go to
the hospital. I would submit if if he was that
(01:44:38):
badly beat up and the only way out was I
could I could not. I had to fight for my life.
But there's the physical evidence does not show that. And
there's you know, there was testimony his arms pinned under
his under his own body. How did he get the
knife out with one hand and opened it up with
one hand? I would submit, that's next tosiball unless you're
(01:45:00):
a pro at it. I think the more likely thing
that you can infer from what happened is that he
took the knife out of his pocket while he was
involved in the fight, immediately opened it up and started
stabbing people. He wasn't on the ground you like they
would have you believe. He went after Tommy Connory. He
stabbed Ryan Hines in the chest. It's just not reasonable
(01:45:23):
to bring a knife to a fist fight. He went
there looking for trouble, that's the bottom line, because if
he doesn't go back, none of this happens. But he
went back. Imagine if he didn't go back with a knife,
it would have just been a fist fight, that's all.
But he went back with a weapon. You can't use
more force than what's being used against you, and he would.
(01:45:45):
The defense would have you believe that being punched is
deadly force. It's just simply not true. By the way
they want you to discredit everybody that is testified in
this case, this is not a who done it? And
they read it's not a who done right. He used
that that the defense Turney used that the parking lot example.
(01:46:08):
I was actually thinking about this during the break. Now,
the kids that testified, they saw what happened, right, It
was chaotic, but they saw what happened. Then when they
go and they give a statement to the.
Speaker 7 (01:46:19):
Police, you know where they asked who's to the right
of you, who's to the leftia Probably not did they
know at the time, maybe, but now it's three years later, right,
So it's kind of like a situation where you're in
a parking lot and you park your car.
Speaker 4 (01:46:33):
Now, all of you came here and you parked your car.
Did you look to the right? Did you notice what
color of the car was next to you? Maybe some
of you did, maybe some of you didn't, But you know,
you parked next to a car, right now, imagine that
happening and then you see somebody being chased in the
parking lot and getting stabbed with a knife. Right now,
that's a horrific event that you've just witnessed. And you
give a statement to the police, right and you see,
(01:46:56):
you're not gonna say yourself, why parked next to the
red car? Maybe you were remember that at the time.
So now fast forward three years later. I guarantee you
never one of you would recall that horrific event. Happening.
But if you got on the stand and I said, well,
what color was the car to the writing of if
you can't recall what car was the car that left him,
I can't recall do you know if there were cars
(01:47:17):
next to ye? Yeah? I know there were cars next
to me. I just don't recall one color. So the
reality is, is the color of the car or the
person that was standing next to anybody necessarily in and
around that air in this this fight, this this chaotic scene,
is that important in the grand scheme of things? Right?
Does it make a fact in evidence more or less? Probably?
Probably not right because listen, there were a lot of
(01:47:39):
people around, a lot of people were watching. There was
two or three kids fighting at any given time. Right,
we've seen that, We've seen the video. But does it
really make a difference. If you know Taylor, I mean
Taylor capelotole she was standing next to who, Mikayla Holt, right,
she remembered her, Maybe there was somebody else next to her.
She can't recall Tommy Connor, who was standing in the
driveway at any given time when when.
Speaker 2 (01:47:57):
The car first arrived.
Speaker 4 (01:47:58):
Yeah, I knew what I was there. I was talking.
I just can't remember exactly who I was talking to.
But does that really matter in the grand scheme of
things when we know the car arrived at forty three
log Lend, there was this confrontation, the car was shook,
the car was hit, and they took off, and according
to people inside the car, it was it was scary.
We didn't want to be there, and we wanted to
(01:48:19):
get out of there. And the defendant told me that. Again,
assess his credibility because when he's down the street he
arms himself with a knife and comes back. If you're
really that scared, why would you go back and confront
thirty kids who just shook the car. I mean, that
makes no sense to me. Disrespected of Jack Snyder's car.
(01:48:40):
Let's go back. Let's go back. If things go sideways,
guess what. I got a plan. B that was your plan.
Might have been a stupid plan, but that's what happened.
That's the bottom line. This is not something that happened,
you know. I mean, I would say instantaneously, as soon
as he gets hit, he takes the knifebok. He's not
waiting to get pounded on. No, there's no way. If
(01:49:01):
he was getting pounded on the way the defense suggests
you he was, he would have more injuries that we
would have seen after the fact, and he simply did not.
And by the way the defendant testified, when he was
running out of there, after he stabbed a graph in
the chest, he dropped the knife. The cops looked for
the knife all in that area. They couldn't find the knife.
They actually walked up and down the street. They held
(01:49:23):
the area. They looked for the knife. The next day,
no knife. And the information that Jack Snyder in telliged
Silva gave us right, we didn't know where the knife
came from. We knew had a knife, we didn't know
how he had a knife or where it came from.
Jack Snyder gave us that information. He came to us.
We didn't go to him. But even if you don't,
(01:49:45):
if you don't, if you seek the Silva and Snyder
out of it, it's still the defendant. Going back to
forty three, Laurel Glass with the knife, there were people
in his car that he went to high school with
the heard a mask for a knife and went there.
He got out of the car, he went in and
provoked the fight and instigated the fight, and it started,
(01:50:06):
he took it out and started staffingkins because that's what
he wanted to do. And then once he was able
to get out of there, he went back in for more.
And they have to have you believe that, oh, being
he was being approached or surrounded when he came back
into the fold.
Speaker 1 (01:50:21):
He hasn't do it in retreat.
Speaker 4 (01:50:23):
He can't come back into a fistfight with a knife.
It's just not reasonable. It's not reasonable, even if you believe,
even if you believe that that self defense applies to
the first three kids that are stabbed, even if you
believe that, it certainly does not apply to mister Ricgrath,
because again, self defense is not retaliatory, it's not punitive,
(01:50:48):
it's defensive. You can't you can't do things like this
and then turn around and claim self defense. He came
back from the car, Charlie yelled, he's got a knife
and with an I can see turned around his stabmographic chest.
They want to have you believe that he slipped.
Speaker 1 (01:51:05):
He slipped. It was a purposeful stab in the chest. Right.
Speaker 4 (01:51:11):
So again, when we're talking about intent, specific intent, the
areas of where the wounds were inflicted, right, the number
of wounds inflicted, the defendant's manner and how he conducted
himself that night, both at lazy Brook and later that night.
He did not have to go back to that house.
It's as simple as that. He did not have to
go back. But if he was going back, he was
(01:51:32):
going back with the player.
Speaker 5 (01:51:33):
That's as simple as that.
Speaker 4 (01:51:36):
And that that conduct cannot be excused. It's a horrific event.
It's terrible to tragedy that cannot happen because if that
happens all the time, then this is a very different
world we live in. And I asked him on a
cross examination, when you got out of there, and you
left and you went home, after you texted Mackenzie, you
didn't call the cops at that point, did you? Nope?
(01:51:58):
You went to Florida, right, yep. Did you call the
cops were here in Florida?
Speaker 3 (01:52:00):
Nope?
Speaker 4 (01:52:01):
After you learned the Saveria the situation, did you call
the cops and tell them, Hey, this is what happened.
I was pummeled, I was acting in self defense. Nope.
So again I would submit to you that, yeah, he
knew what he was doing as soon as he stabbed
those kids, and he told Jack and I got out
of there, and they went down at Adam's Rise and
he got rid of the knife. Why are we getting
rid of the knife? All the cops? I you know,
(01:52:23):
I just this just happened terrific. But this is what
got rid of the knife, got rid of the evidence,
you know, tells his girlfriend, I wasn't there. Didn't want
to put anything right. And God forfit because if he said, yeah,
you know what, I was really getting pumbled. I had
established kids, get out of there. He was very fighting
for my life. Didn't say that in the text, just
said nope, I wasn't there. It wasn't me. I don't
know what you're talking about. You know, I wasn't there.
(01:52:45):
And then he told Tyler to Silver subsequent to that
that he messed up. He knew, he knew. You know,
the judges going to give you, you know, the self
defense instruction. And again it's only justified when a person
reasonably believes that such force is necessary, reasonably believes the
first thing he did he didn't do is he didn't punch,
(01:53:07):
punch back, he didn't kick grab that knife. Again, you're
gonna hear the judge instruct that a person must not
use more force than he reasonably believes is necessary. I
would submit on that night he used more force than
was reasonably necessary, and I state submits that we've proven
that beyond a reasonable doubt. We also submit that he
(01:53:30):
provoked the fight. You're gonna hear some disqualif disqualifiers. If
you believe the state has proven the disqualifiers one or
all of it doesn't matter. You believe we've proven those
disqualifiers beyond a reasonable doubt, that he cannot avail himself
of the self defense claim. So in a provocation the circumstance,
you're gonna hear the judge instruct that a circumstance under
(01:53:52):
which a person is not justified in using any degree
of physical force and self defense against another person is
when he provokes the other person to use physical force
life against him. The defender must have specifically intended to
provoke another into using physical force and then use force
to defend himself from the ensuing force that he provoked
that person to use against him. You're also going to
(01:54:14):
hear about the initial aggressor the instruction that with regards
to that is another circumstance under which a person is
not justified in using any degree of physical force and
self defense against another is when he is the initial
aggressor in the encounter with which with the other person
and does not both withdraw from the encounter and effectively
communicate his intent to do so before using physical force.
(01:54:38):
He also has a duty to retreat. You're going to
be instructed that two conditions must be bet must be met.
A complete safe retreat is available to him, and he
knows he can avoid the necessity of using deadly force
at deadly physical force by making a complete, complete safe retreat.
Self defense cannot be retaliatory. It must be defensive. It's
(01:55:01):
not punitive.
Speaker 8 (01:55:05):
You know it's again if you don't if you look
at the whole, if you look at everybody's testimony, they
wouldn't need you to disbelieve everybody's testimony.
Speaker 4 (01:55:20):
In this case for you to not find that the
state has proven his case.
Speaker 6 (01:55:24):
Being a reasoned with them.
Speaker 4 (01:55:25):
If you looked at Jack Snyder and Tyler Stiville, took
them out of it, and just listen to everybody else's testified,
I would submit that there is enough more than enough
evidence to determine that this defendant brought a knife to
a house. He should have been a and he used
that knife should though, and after he used it, he
went back in and he stabbed my grath for no
(01:55:48):
good reason. But I would submit that he formed the
intent to kill him when he turned to him and
lunge at him and stabbed him in the chest. You
heard the testimony of the doctors of the medical examiner.
These were not slash wounds. These were punctual rooms, purposeful punctures.
Speaker 2 (01:56:09):
Remember that some rules that I love. A new day
to day. We are going to move alur lunch break.
Speaker 3 (01:56:15):
After our lunch break, I'm going to come jack onto
the bench to a few administrative things, and then I
am going to have you.
Speaker 2 (01:56:22):
Brought back into the courtroom and at that time I
will provide those.
Speaker 3 (01:56:27):
Instruction to otherwise. Hearing is good jury charge. So enjoy
your lunch, get a little bit of extra time for lunch.
Speaker 2 (01:56:36):
You'll hear the charge. You'll hear from that. There's a charge.
At some time into my later today, I expected you
will begin your little bility. However, now it's not the time. Okay,
thank you so much. A Council of part is prepared
(01:56:57):
to charge, and important with.
Speaker 3 (01:56:59):
The jury charge that's been provided, which does refilt the
changes that we're just during the formal charging conference. The
only additional change that's been made is adding some language
regarding the action to the lawyers during the trial in
addition to their statements, and just some typographical.
Speaker 2 (01:57:20):
Years, maybe a common here and there, ramatical things. That's
about it. But so I am prepared to move forward
on this.
Speaker 3 (01:57:28):
I intend to take a break during the charge because unfortunately.
Speaker 9 (01:57:33):
This charge is a rather repea charge, so I do
want to provide the jury a few minutes to stand
up and stretch. It's going to be difficult to offer
everyone to get through just sitting, so I will give
them some time to do that with take it.
Speaker 3 (01:57:48):
Pretty Additionally, I had asked about an exhibit list going
in with the jurate during deliberations, so I will be
asking too make sure that.
Speaker 2 (01:57:59):
You agree that there's nothing on the list that you.
Speaker 3 (01:58:02):
Know and absolutely represents the exhibit as an exhibit that
provides concern to you one way or the other regarding
whether or not that.
Speaker 2 (01:58:11):
List should go in, So you'll have additional time to
do that after the court's done. Charving, is there anything
that the court needs to address of these times?
Speaker 5 (01:58:20):
No, your honor not from the defense honor, saying I'm going.
Speaker 2 (01:58:24):
To go ahead the jury and then thank you. I
just want to actually give me one moment. I'm so sorry.
Speaker 3 (01:58:28):
I just want to address everyone in the courtroom. You're
welcome to be here. There are some courts.
Speaker 2 (01:58:38):
That close the doors, don't allow anyone in and out
of the courtroom during the judges charged the jury. I
do not do that.
Speaker 3 (01:58:48):
However, I am going to pass for your collaboration in
staying and remaining in place during the courts charge the jury.
This is a very import in part of the trial.
This is the law that the jury has to apply
to the facts they find. If you do have to
leave the courtroom, I am going to ask you to
(01:59:10):
respect the court and the process enough at this point
in time to not return to the courtroom during the
court's charge. I will be taking a break during the charge.
Speaker 2 (01:59:18):
Okay. If it's an emergency that requires you to leave
and you have to come back in, that's fine. But
I am going to be asking the marshalls to keep
an eye on that people coming in, you know. Okay,
So if you have to leave, that's fine. Just to
be the cognizant of where we are in the proceedings.
Speaker 3 (01:59:35):
If in fact you're attempting to come back in, I
want the least amount of distraction to the jurors at
this time.
Speaker 2 (01:59:41):
Thank you for your cooperation.
Speaker 3 (01:59:47):
Defense stipulates right, So once again, if you let me
in those pads, I am going to ask you to
step on a side.
Speaker 2 (01:59:53):
This is the jury's instructions, So I am going to
instruct you on the law that is true. If actually
find in.
Speaker 3 (02:00:01):
This case, you will have a copy of your court
jury charge with you during the deliberations. This is going
to be rather lengthy, so I do intend to give
you a grade comparing the parts in my charge so
that you can get up scraps, cheese facilities and sort of,
you know, get comfortable.
Speaker 2 (02:00:20):
And be seated again for some period of time.
Speaker 3 (02:00:23):
So you have heard the evidence presented in this case,
I am now going to instruct you as to the
law that you are to.
Speaker 2 (02:00:29):
Apply in this case.
Speaker 3 (02:00:30):
During these instructions, I will for the most part be
reading from prepared material. I do this so that I
do not inadvertently give you incorrect instructions.
Speaker 2 (02:00:41):
So if I use eye contact with you from time
to time, please bear with me the reading of these instructions.
Like I said, earlier is going to do some time.
The function of the court in jury.
Speaker 3 (02:00:52):
It is exclusively the function of the court to see
the rules of law that govern the case, with instructions
as to how you are to apply them. It is
your obligation to accept the law as I stated. What
I tell you, not what the attorneys tell you, is.
Speaker 2 (02:01:06):
The law that you are to follow.
Speaker 3 (02:01:08):
If the law as I give you differs in any
way from the claims of law made by counsel dismissed
from your minds your counsel have said to be extended
differs from what I tell you, you must follow all
my instructions and not single out some and ignore others.
Speaker 2 (02:01:23):
They are all equally important.
Speaker 3 (02:01:25):
Also to note in these instructions the Court does use
the terms first count and count, one, second count and count, two,
third count and count, free, fourth count and count for
crimes and offenses, and information and substitute information interchangingly.
Speaker 2 (02:01:45):
You, assures, are the sole judges of the facts. It
is your duty to find the facts.
Speaker 3 (02:01:49):
You are entitled, in the course of evaluating the evidence,
to draw any and all inferences that you find reasonable
and logical from the evidence to hear. You are to
recollect and weigh the evidence and form your own conclusions
as to what the ultimate facts are. You may not
go outside the courtroom or the evidence introduced in court
to find the facts.
Speaker 2 (02:02:08):
This means that you may not resort to guess for
conjecture or suspicion, and.
Speaker 3 (02:02:12):
You must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices,
or sympathy.
Speaker 2 (02:02:19):
You should not be influenced.
Speaker 3 (02:02:21):
By my actions during the trial and ruling on motions
or objections by counsel, or in comments to council, or
in questions to witnesses, or in setting forth the law.
In these instructions, you are not to take my actions
as any indication of my opinion as to how you should.
Speaker 2 (02:02:37):
Determine the questions of fact.
Speaker 3 (02:02:39):
If I asked any questions of witnesses, you must not
assume that I hold an opinion on the matter to
which my questions may relate. Remember that you, as jurors,
are at liberty to disregard all comments or questions of
the court and the witness's responses to those questions, in
arriving at your own findings of the facts. You must
not take any thing I said or did during the
(02:03:01):
trial as indicating what I think the evidence or what
your verdict should be. Any reference I make to the
evidence is only for the purpose of clarification of some
point of law or a point of illustration, or.
Speaker 2 (02:03:13):
To refresh your recollection.
Speaker 3 (02:03:14):
As a general nature of the testimony, I do not
intend to emphasize any evidence I mention, or limit your
consideration to it. If I do not mention certain evidence,
you will use the evidence from your recollection.
Speaker 2 (02:03:27):
If my recollection of the evidence does not comport with
your recollection, then it is your recollection which must prevail.
Speaker 3 (02:03:34):
Because you are the exclusive trier of the facts, the
defendant justly relies upon you to consider carefully his claims,
to consider carefully all the evidence, and to find him
not guilty. If the facts and the law require such
a verdict. The defendant rightfully expects fear and just treatment
at your hands. At the same time, the state of
(02:03:55):
Connecticut and its people look to you to render a
verdict of guilty if the facts law, which if I
are such, urdict The law for gibbitts the state's attorney
or the friends counsel from giving personal opinions as to
whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. During my
instructions to you, I may repeat certain instructions. I apologize
in advance. I do this for the purpose of organization.
Speaker 2 (02:04:18):
You are not to.
Speaker 3 (02:04:19):
Consider a repeated instruction more important than any other instruction.
All instructions are equally important. Also, during my instructions, I
may refer you to previous or subsequent instructions given. When
I do this, I will identify it for you and
direct you to the section to which I am referring.
If there is an inconsistency in the number and the
(02:04:42):
title of an instruction to which you are referred, it
is the title of the instruction that shall be controlling
in my reference to it.
Speaker 2 (02:04:51):
Presumption of innocence.
Speaker 3 (02:04:53):
In this case, as in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant
is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. This presumption of innocence is with the
defendant when he was first presented for trial.
Speaker 2 (02:05:05):
In this case, it continues with.
Speaker 3 (02:05:07):
Him throughout the trial and less and until such time
as all evidence produced here in the orderly conduct of
the case considered in the light of these instructions of
law and deliberated upon you in the jury room, satisfied
you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. The
presumption of innocence as to each crime charge and as
to any lesser included defense as instructed by the court,
(02:05:30):
may be overcome only after the state introduces evidence that
establishes the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If and
when the presumption of innocence has been overcome by evidence
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty
of a crime charge or any applicable lesser included defense
as instructed by the court, than it is the sworn
(02:05:51):
duty of the jury to enforce the law and render
a guilty verdict. Burden of proof, the state has the
burden approving that the defendant is guilty of the crimes
with which he is charged or lesser included defense as
instructed by the court.
Speaker 2 (02:06:06):
The defendant does not have to prove his innocence.
Speaker 3 (02:06:08):
This means that the state must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt each and every element necessary to constitute a crime
charge or lesser included defense as instructive. Whether the burden
of proof resting upon the state is sustained depends not
on the number of witnesses, nor on the quantity.
Speaker 2 (02:06:26):
Witness of testimony, excuse me, but on.
Speaker 3 (02:06:29):
The nature and quality of the testimony. Please bear in
mind that one witness's testimony is sufficient to convict if
it establishes all the elements of a crime beyond a
reasonable doubt reasonable doubt. The meaning of reasonable doubt can
be arrived out by emphasizing the word reasonable. It is
(02:06:49):
not a surmise, guess, or mere conjecture. It is not
a doubt raised by anyone simply for the sake of
raising a doubt. It is such a doubt as in
serious affairs that concern you would heed. That is such
a doubt as would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate.
Speaker 2 (02:07:06):
To act upon it in matters of imporance.
Speaker 3 (02:07:09):
It is not hesitation springing for many feelings of pity
or sympathy for the accused or any other person who
might be affected by your decisions. It is, in other words,
of real doubt, an.
Speaker 2 (02:07:19):
Honest doubt, a doubt that has its foundation in the
evidence or a lack of evidence.
Speaker 3 (02:07:24):
It is doubt that is honestly entertained and is reasonable
in light of the evidence. After a fair comparison and
careful examination of the entire evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable
doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt. The law
does not require absolute certainty on the part of the
jury before it returns a verdict of guilty. The law
(02:07:45):
requires that, after hearing all the evidence, if there is
something in the evidence or lack of evidence, that leaves
in your mind, as reasonable men and women, a reasonable
doubt as to the guilt of the accused, then the
accused must be given the benefit of.
Speaker 2 (02:08:00):
That doubt and acquitted.
Speaker 3 (02:08:02):
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that precludes every
reasonable hypothesis except guilt, and is inconsistent with any other
rational conclusion evidence. The evidence from which you are to
decide what the facts are consists of one so aign
testimony of witnesses, both on direct and cross examination, regardless
(02:08:23):
of who called the witness, To the exhibits that have
been received into evidence as full exhibits, including any pictures, videos,
or documents.
Speaker 2 (02:08:30):
That have been marked as full exhibits.
Speaker 3 (02:08:32):
Three, any facts that the court judicially noticed, and for
any stipulation of the parties.
Speaker 2 (02:08:37):
In reaching your verdict, you should.
Speaker 3 (02:08:39):
Consider all the testimony in full exhibits admitted into evidence.
Certain things are not evidence and you may not consider
them in deciding what the facts are. These include one arguments,
statements and questions by lawyers. The lawyers are not witnesses.
What they have said and are closing arguments is intended
to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence.
Speaker 2 (02:09:01):
Likewise, any emotion, re.
Speaker 3 (02:09:03):
Enactment, or other actions displayed by counsel during this trial
is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them
differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your
memory of them controls. It is not proper for the
attorneys to express their opinions on the ultimate issues in
the case or to appeal to your emotions. Also, attorneys
(02:09:24):
have a duty to object when they believe a question
is improper under the rules of evidence. You should not
be influenced by the objection or by the court's ruling
on it, and you are not told against any party
for making objections. During the first of the trial, you
may have heard counsels stand up and make comments without
questions made by opposing counsels. You are not to regard
any comments that counsel may have had what may have
(02:09:46):
made in your deliberations.
Speaker 2 (02:09:48):
Any comments on the propriety of.
Speaker 3 (02:09:50):
Questions are not proper for trial, or your consideration should
not be used in your deliberation. Lastly, the questions the
lawyers as scope witnesses are not evidence. It is the
testimony of the witnesses in a response to the attorney's
questions that is evidence.
Speaker 2 (02:10:08):
Two testimony that has been excluded or stricken.
Speaker 3 (02:10:11):
If I have excluded certain testimony, you must follow my
instruction to disregard the testimony. In fact, I'm telling you
to do what may be difficult, but which you will
have to do your guest to accomplish, and that is
to accept in your minds that such stricken testimony is
not evidence and must not be considered in your deliberations.
Three anything you may have seen or word when the
(02:10:33):
quote was not in session, or anything you may have
seen or heard from any spectators.
Speaker 2 (02:10:38):
During the trial. Five the document called.
Speaker 3 (02:10:42):
The substitute information, which you will have with you at
the time of your deliberations. The information is merely the
formal manner of accusing a person of a crime to
bring that person a trial. You must not consider the
amended information as any evidence of the guilt of the
defendant or draw any inference of built because he has
been charged with crimes. You will note that each count
(02:11:04):
in the information contains within it the alleged date and
location of the offense. The state does not have to
prove the exact time, date, or location of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the state must prove each
element of each offense, including identification of the defendant, beyond.
Speaker 2 (02:11:22):
A reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (02:11:24):
Direct and circumstantial evidence. There are generally two kinds of evidence,
direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is testimonied by a witness
about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.
Speaker 2 (02:11:37):
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence.
Speaker 3 (02:11:40):
That is, evidence from which you could find that another
fact exists, even though it has not been proved directly.
Speaker 2 (02:11:47):
There is no legal distinction between.
Speaker 3 (02:11:49):
Direct and circumstantial evidence as far as private of value.
The law permits to give equal weight to both, but
it is for you to decide how much weight to
give to any particular evidence.
Speaker 2 (02:12:00):
Circumstantial elevenance of an.
Speaker 3 (02:12:02):
Event is the testimony of witnesses as to the existence
of certain facts or evidence, or the happening of other
events from which you may logically conclude that the event
in question did happen? By way of example, let us
assume that it is a December night and you're preparing
to retire for the evening. You work out the window
and you see it as snowing. You wake up the
(02:12:24):
next morning, come to court and testify that the night
before it was snowing in the area of your house.
That is a direct evidence of the fact that it
snowed the night before you saw it, and you came
to court and testified to that fact. Now assume that
it is another December night, the weather is clear, there
is no snow on the ground, and you retire for
the evening. You wake up the next morning, you look
(02:12:44):
out the window and you see snow on the ground
and foot prints.
Speaker 2 (02:12:48):
Across your lawn.
Speaker 3 (02:12:50):
You come into court and you testify to those facts.
The evidence that the night before there was no snow
on the ground and the next morning there was snow
on the ground.
Speaker 2 (02:12:59):
And foot prints across your lawn is direct evidence.
Speaker 3 (02:13:02):
That direct evidence, however, is circumstantial evidence of the fact
that sometime during the night it snowed, and that sometime
thereafter someone willant to cross your lawn. The only practical
difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that when you
have direct evidence of some fact, the main thing you
have to do is determine the believability of the direct
(02:13:24):
testimony given the credibility of the witness. With circumstantial evidence,
you must first determine the credibility of the witness and
witnesses and decide whether.
Speaker 2 (02:13:35):
The facts testify to did exist.
Speaker 3 (02:13:38):
Then you must decide whether the happenings of those events
or the existence of those facts leads logically to the
conclusion that other events occurred or other facts exist, and
ultimately whether the crimes alleged were committed by the accused.
There is no reason to be prejudiced against evidence simply
(02:13:58):
because it is circumstantial life evidence. You make decisions based
on circumstantial evidence in the everyday affairs of life. There
is no reason why decisions based on circumstantial evidence should
not be made in the courtroom. In fact proof five,
circumstantial evidence may be as conclusive as would be the
testimony of witnesses speaking.
Speaker 2 (02:14:19):
On the basis of their own observation. Circumstantial evidence, therefore.
Speaker 3 (02:14:25):
Is offered to prove a certain fact from which you
are asked to infer the existence of another fact.
Speaker 2 (02:14:30):
Or set of facts.
Speaker 3 (02:14:32):
Before you decide that a fact has been proved by
circumstantial evidence, you must consider all the evidence in light
of reason, experience, and common sense. Redacted exhibits If there
are exhibits that have been accepted into evidence as redacted
versions of the original Please note that these reactions were made.
Speaker 2 (02:14:52):
By way of agreement by council or by order of
the court, and you must not speculate as to why
the information was redacted or what was redacted.
Speaker 3 (02:15:00):
Redacted information is not evidence, and as indicated earlier, you
may not go outside the evidence introduced in court to
find the facts.
Speaker 2 (02:15:08):
This means that you may not resort to.
Speaker 3 (02:15:10):
Guess, work, conjecture, or speculation credibility. In deciding what the
facts are, you must consider all the evidence. In doing this,
you must decide which testimony to believe in which testimony
not to believe.
Speaker 2 (02:15:24):
You may believe all, none, or any part of any
witness's testimony.
Speaker 3 (02:15:29):
In making that decision, you may consider a number of factors,
including the following One was the witness able to see
or hear or know the things about which that witness testified?
Speaker 2 (02:15:41):
Two?
Speaker 3 (02:15:42):
How well was the witness able to recall and describe
those things. Three, what was the witness's manner while testifying?
Or did the witness have an interest in the outcome
of this case or any bias or prejudice concerning any
party or any.
Speaker 2 (02:15:55):
Matter involved in the case.
Speaker 3 (02:15:57):
Fause how reasonable was the witness is testimony considered in
light of all the.
Speaker 2 (02:16:02):
Evidence in this case?
Speaker 3 (02:16:04):
And six was the witnesses testimony contradicted by what that
witness has said or done at another time, or by
the testimony of other.
Speaker 2 (02:16:13):
Witnesses, or by other evidence.
Speaker 3 (02:16:17):
If you think that a witness has deliberately testified falsely
in some respect, you should carefully consider whether you should
rely upon any of that witness is testimony. Deciding whether
to believe a witness, keep in mind that people sometimes
forget things.
Speaker 2 (02:16:33):
You need to consider, therefore, whether a.
Speaker 3 (02:16:35):
Contradiction is an innocent lapse of memory or an intentional falsehood,
and that may depend on whether that contradiction has to
do with an important fact or with.
Speaker 2 (02:16:46):
Only a small detail.
Speaker 3 (02:16:48):
These are some of the factors you may consider in
deciding whether to believe testimony. The weight of the evidence
presented does not depend on the number of witnesses.
Speaker 2 (02:16:57):
It is the quality of the evidence, not the quantity
of the evidence that you must consider.
Speaker 3 (02:17:03):
Witness with a cooperation agreement, you have heard evidence that
witnesses Jack Snyder and Tyler de Silda have.
Speaker 2 (02:17:10):
Signed a document entitled cooperation Agreement with the State.
Speaker 3 (02:17:13):
Terms which are contained in States Exhibit ninety four and
ninety six, respectively. These agreements are permissible, and the rules
of provide for their use. Although the state is permitted
to present the testimony of someone who has signed a
cooperation agreement in exchange for his testimony, you must examine
the testimony of such a witness who provides evidence against
(02:17:36):
a defendant with greater care and caution than the testimony
of an ordinary witness. While examining the testimony of a
witness who has signed a cooperation agreement and who has
not been prosecuted with offenses for which the state has evidence,
you should keep in mind that he may, in his
own mind be looking or hoping for some favorable treatment
(02:17:59):
in the disposition of his own matters, therefore, may have
such an interest in the outcome of this case that
his testimony may have been colored by that fact. In
considering the testimony of such a witness, you may consider
whether there was any motive developed in the evidence for testifying.
Speaker 2 (02:18:16):
Falsity and in inculpating the accused.
Speaker 3 (02:18:22):
The factors you may consider, among others, when evaluating the
credibility of such a witness, include the extent to which
the witness's testimony is confirmed by other evidence, the specificity
of the testimony, the extent to which the testimony contains details.
Speaker 2 (02:18:37):
And known only by the perpetrator of the alleged effects.
Speaker 3 (02:18:41):
The extent to which the details of the testimony could
be obtained from as well as other than the defendant.
The circumstances under which the witness initially provided information supporting
such testimony to law enforcement or a prosecutorial official. Whether
the witness has received a benefit or expects to receive
a benefit, including immunity from prosecution, leniency and prosecution leniency
(02:19:05):
and sentencing, or personal advantage in exchange for testimony.
Speaker 2 (02:19:10):
And whether the witness has ever changed his testimony.
Speaker 3 (02:19:14):
Further, notwithstanding any language contained and exhibits ninety four ninety
six the cooperation Agreement signed by Jack Snyder and Tyler Disilva, respectively,
it is your exclusive role to.
Speaker 2 (02:19:25):
Determine the credibility and believability.
Speaker 3 (02:19:28):
Of that woman's In other words, you and you alone
are to determine whether any evidence offered by Jack Snyder
or Tyler de Silva is to believe tolly partly or
not at all, very respective of any language in the cooperation.
Speaker 2 (02:19:43):
Agreement that may suggest otherwise.
Speaker 3 (02:19:46):
The determination as to whether the state is proven the
elements of the crime's charge beyond a reasonable doubt rests
solely with the jury after a careful examination of all
the evidence presented. You should carefully scrutinize the testimony of
Jack Snyder and Tyler Desnolva before you accept it. However,
you are not required to disliave a witness because he
(02:20:06):
assigned a cooperation agreement. The law recognizes that there are
many offenses that are of such character that the only
persons capable of giving useful testimony are those who are
themselves implicated in the prime. Like all other questions of credibility,
this is a question for you to determine based on
all the evidence presented to you. It is your duty
(02:20:28):
to decide what credibility to give to any witness. Therefore,
it is your duty to decide whether Jack Snyder and
Tyler de Silva are to be believed fully, partly, or
not at all, testimony police officials. Police officials have testified
in this case, you must determine the credibility of police
(02:20:50):
officials in the same way and by the same standards
as you would evaluate the testimony of any other witness.
The testimony of a police official is entitled to no
special or exclusive weight merely because it comes from a
police official. You should recall the police official's demeanor on
the stand and manner of testifying, and wigh and balance
just as carefully as.
Speaker 2 (02:21:09):
You would the testimony of any other witness.
Speaker 3 (02:21:12):
You should neither leave nor disbelieve the testimony of a
police official just because he or she is a police official.
Expert testimony in this case, certain witnesses have taken the stand,
given their qualifications, and testified as expert witnesses.
Speaker 2 (02:21:28):
A person is qualified to testify as an expert if
he or she has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education sufficient to qualify him or her as an expert
on the subject to which the testimony relates. An expert
is permitted not only to testify the facts that he
or she personally observed, but also to state an opinion
about certain circumstances. This is allowed because an expert from experience, research,
(02:21:52):
and study generally has a particular knowledge of the subject
of the inquiry and is more capable than a lay
person of drawing conclusions from facts and basing an opinion
on them.
Speaker 3 (02:22:03):
An expert witness may state an opinion in response to
a hypothetical question. The hypothetical question is one in which
the witness is asked to assume that certain facts are
true and to.
Speaker 2 (02:22:14):
Give an opinion based on those assumptions.
Speaker 3 (02:22:16):
The value of the opinion given by an expert in
response to a hypothetical question depends upon the relevance, validity,
and completeness of the facts he or she was asked
to assume. The way that you give to the expert
excuse me to the opinion of an expert will depend
on whether you find the facts assumed or approved, and
whether the facts relied on in reaching the opinion were complete,
(02:22:39):
or whether material facts were omitted or not considered. Like
all other evidence and experts, answer to a hypothetical question
may be accepted or rejected in whole or in part,
according to your best judgment. In this case, you are
provided for testimony by the following witnesses. Doctor James Gill,
(02:23:00):
Ryan DAWs, pa Eric Black, and doctor Roselle Crombie. Allowing
someone to give expert testimony is in no way an
endorsement by the cord of the testimony or the prudentials
of the witness.
Speaker 2 (02:23:12):
Such testimony is presented to you to assist you in
your deliberations.
Speaker 3 (02:23:16):
No such testimony as mining upon you, and you may
disregard the testimony, either in whole or in part.
Speaker 2 (02:23:23):
Is for you to consider the testimony with the other
circumstances in the case, and using your best judgment.
Speaker 3 (02:23:28):
Determine whether you will give any weight to it, and
if so, what weight you will give to it. The
testimony is entitled to such weight as you find the
experts qualifications in his or her field entitle it to receive,
and it must be considered by you, but it is
not controlling upon your judgment. You are also to consider
his or her general credibility in accordance with the instruction
(02:23:51):
on credibility applicable to all witnessess defendants testimony. In this case,
the defendant testified person having testified stands before you, just
like any other witness, is entitled to the same considerations
and must have his testimony tested and measured by you
by the same factors.
Speaker 2 (02:24:10):
And standards as you would judge the testimony of any
other witness. You have no right to.
Speaker 3 (02:24:15):
Disregard the defendant's testimony or to disbelieve the defendant's testimony
merely because he is accused of committing multiple crimes. Consider
my earlier instruction on the general subject matter of credibility
and apply them to the defendant's testimony.
Speaker 2 (02:24:30):
Proximate clause.
Speaker 3 (02:24:32):
Proximate cause does not necessarily mean the loss, act, or cause,
or the act and point in time nearest to the
death or injuries.
Speaker 2 (02:24:42):
The concept of proximic clause incorporates the principle.
Speaker 3 (02:24:45):
That an accused of may be charged with a criminal
offense even though his acts were not the immediate cause
of the death or injuries. An act or omission to
act is a proximate cause of the death or injuries
when it's substantially and materially contributes in a natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause to the
(02:25:07):
death or injuries. It is a cause without which the
death or injuries would not have occurred. It is a
predominating cause, a substantial factor from which the death or
injuries follows follow as a natural, direct and immediate consequence.
It does not matter whether the particular kind of harm
that results from the defendants act be intended by the defendant.
(02:25:30):
When the result is a foreseeable and natural result of
the defendant's condom, the law considers the chain of legal
causation unbroken and holds.
Speaker 2 (02:25:38):
The defendant criminally respond from the specific intent.
Speaker 3 (02:25:44):
Specific intent is the intent to achieve a specific result.
A person acts intentionally with respect to a result when
his conscious objective is.
Speaker 2 (02:25:55):
To cause such result.
Speaker 3 (02:25:57):
What the defendant intended is a question of fact for
you to determine. The concept of specific intent applies to
count one murder and manslaughter or in the first degree
intentional as a lesser included defense, Count two assault a
first degree intentional, and assault and the second degree intentional
as a lesser included defense, count free assault in the
(02:26:17):
first degree intentional, and assault in the second degree intentional
as a lesser included defense, and count for assault in
the second degree. Intentional recklessness. A person acts recklessly with
respect to a result or to a circumstance described by
a statute defining an offense when the defendant is aware
(02:26:38):
of unconsciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such
result will occur, or that such circumstance exists. The risk
must be of such nature and degree that disregarding it
constitutes a grous deviation from the standard of conduct that
a reasonable.
Speaker 2 (02:26:55):
Person would observe in the situation.
Speaker 3 (02:26:58):
The standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the
same situation as the defendant is the doing of something
that a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances,
or omitting to do what a reasonably prudent person would
not do.
Speaker 2 (02:27:11):
Under the circumstances. A gross deviation is a greater substantial deviation,
not just a slight or moderate deviation.
Speaker 3 (02:27:20):
There must be a great or substantial difference between, on
the one hand, the defendant's conduct, which is regarding a
substantial and unjustifiable risk, and on the other hand, what
a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances, whether
at risk is substantial and unjustifiable as a pression of
fact for you to determine under all the circumstances. The
(02:27:42):
concept of recklessness applies to count one landswater in the
first degree reckless as a lesser included defense count two
assault in the first degree reckless as a lesser incruded defense,
and a sault in the second degree reckless as a
lesser incruded defense. Count three fault in a reckless degree
assault the first degree reckless.
Speaker 2 (02:28:03):
As a lesson included defense and assault and secondary reckless.
Speaker 3 (02:28:06):
As a lesser included offense, and count for assault and
second degree reckless as a lesser included defense.
Speaker 2 (02:28:15):
Evidence of intent, what a person's intention was is usually
a matter to be determined by inference. No person can testify.
Speaker 3 (02:28:24):
That he or she looked into another's mind and saw
therein a certain knowledge or a certain purpose or intention
to do harm to another, Because direct evidence of the
defendant state of mind is rarely available. Intent is generally
proved by circumstantial evidence. You will refer to the court's
earlier instruction on direct and circumstantial evidence. The only way
(02:28:45):
a jury can wander nearly determine what a person's intention
was at any given time is by determining what the
person's conduct was and what the circumstances were surrounding the conduct,
and from that infer what his or her intention was.
To draw such an inference, as the proper function of
a jury, provided, of course, that the inference draw complies
(02:29:05):
with the standards for inferences as explained in connection with
my instruction on circumstantial evidence. The inference is not a
necessary one. You are not required to infer particular intent
from the defendant's conduct of statements.
Speaker 2 (02:29:18):
But it is an imference that you may draw if
you find that it is reasonable and logically.
Speaker 3 (02:29:23):
I remind you again the burden of prosing intent beyond
a reasonable doubt is on the state. Evidence of motive
or the lack of it, may also be considered value
in determining the issue of intent.
Speaker 2 (02:29:35):
You will refer to the part's instruction on motives below.
Speaker 4 (02:29:39):
The motive.
Speaker 3 (02:29:41):
The law does not required that the state in a
criminal case prove a motive, because it is not an
element of a crime. It is not necessary for the
state to prove what reason the defendant may have had
for committing a crime charged. Because crimes are generally committed
for some motive. Evidence of a motive may tend to
prove the guilt of a defendant. In the same manner,
(02:30:04):
if there appears no adequate motive on.
Speaker 2 (02:30:06):
The part of a defendant to commit the crime, that
may tend to raise a reasonable doubt as to the
guilt of the defendant. If the existence of a.
Speaker 3 (02:30:14):
Motive can be reasonably inferred, that may tend to prove
the defendant's guilt.
Speaker 2 (02:30:19):
If no motive can be inferred, it.
Speaker 3 (02:30:21):
May or may not raise a reasonable doubt as to
the guilt of the defendant.
Speaker 2 (02:30:26):
If the absence of a motive does not raise a
reasonable doubt that.
Speaker 3 (02:30:29):
The defendant is guilty, then the fact that the state
is not proved what the defendant's motive was does not
prevent you from returning a votive of guilty.
Speaker 2 (02:30:39):
Consciousness of guilt.
Speaker 3 (02:30:41):
In any criminal trial, it is permissible for the state
to show that conduct or statements made by a defendant
after the time of the alleged defense may have been
influenced by the criminal act.
Speaker 2 (02:30:51):
That is, the conduct or statements show a consciousness of guilt.
Speaker 3 (02:30:55):
For example, light and unexplained may indicate consciousness of guilty.
Facts and circumstances support it. Such acts, however, do not
raise a presumption of guilt. If you find the evidence
proved and also find that the acts were influenced by
the criminal act.
Speaker 2 (02:31:13):
And not by any other reasons. You may, but are
not required, to infer from this evidence that the defendant
was acting from the guilty conscience.
Speaker 3 (02:31:21):
The state claims that the following conduct is evidence and
all the consciousness of guilt, the defendant's disposing of the knife,
the defendant's denial of his involvement in text messages to
his girlfriend, and the defendant's life from the jurisdiction of Florida.
It is up to you, as judges and the facts
to decide whether the defendants acts is proved in such
(02:31:41):
a consciousness of guilt, and to consider such in your
deliberations and conformity with these instructions.
Speaker 2 (02:31:48):
Identification of the defendant. The state has the burden to
not only prove every element of a crime, but also
the identity of a defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.
Speaker 3 (02:31:57):
You must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the
identiy of the defendant as the one who committed the crime,
or you.
Speaker 2 (02:32:03):
Must find the defendant not guilty.
Speaker 3 (02:32:05):
If you have a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy
of the identification, you must find the defendant no good.
Speaker 2 (02:32:15):
Specific charges brought by estate.
Speaker 3 (02:32:18):
I will now turn to the specific offenses charged in
this case. The substitute information in this case contains four counts.
Speaker 2 (02:32:25):
Against the defendant.
Speaker 3 (02:32:26):
In other words, the state charge is the defendant with
committing four separate defenses or crimes. You are to consider
only the specific charges submitted to you and not concern
yourself of how the information may have read when it
was read to.
Speaker 2 (02:32:40):
You at the start of trial. Please note you.
Speaker 3 (02:32:44):
Will also be instructed to consider lesser included defenses.
Speaker 2 (02:32:47):
We're appliable.
Speaker 3 (02:32:49):
Additional instructions on your consideration of lesser included defenses will
be provided for their long in discharge as it concerns
your deliberations on each count the defendant is entitled to
it must be given by you a separate and independent
determination of whether he is guilty or not guilty as
to each crime charged in each count, including lesser included defenses.
Speaker 2 (02:33:11):
If applicable as instructive in accordance with this charge.
Speaker 3 (02:33:15):
Each of the four counts charge in the information, including
lesser included defenses, were applicable sets forth a separate and
distinct crime. The state is required to prove each element
of each crime charge and account, including lesser included defenses,
beyond a reasonable doubt. Each crime charge under each count,
(02:33:37):
including lesser included defenses were applicable must be deliberated upon separately.
Please note, the total number of counts charge and the
information does not add to.
Speaker 2 (02:33:48):
The strength of the state's case.
Speaker 3 (02:33:49):
You may find that some evidence applies to more than
one count in the information, or more than one crime
under account. The evidence, however, must be considered set as
to each element of each crime.
Speaker 2 (02:34:02):
Deliberated upon.
Speaker 3 (02:34:04):
Each count is a separate encite. You must consider each
count separately, including lesser included defenses, as instructed, and return
a verdict a separate verdict for each count. This means
that you may reach opposite verdicts on the four different counts.
A decision on one count does not find your decision
(02:34:26):
on any other count. I have previously instructed you in
here and reiterate. The substitute information is not evidence. It's
merely a behavior statement of the charges against the defendant
on which the state proceeds to trial. You must not
consider it as any evidence of the guilt of the
defendant or draw any inferensive guilt of the defendant from
the substitute information. You will first deliberate on count one
(02:34:52):
and then follow the order of deliberations as provided by
the court.
Speaker 2 (02:34:56):
In these instructions.
Speaker 3 (02:34:58):
You're going to proceed to parts instruction on count one
murder Statue three Title, which is immediately below one count
one murder. Connecticut General Statutes, Section fifty three A fifty
four a Subsection A. The State charges the defending and
count one with murder, charging that, in the County of
(02:35:19):
Fearfield and the City of Shelt, in honor about the
fourteenth day of May twenty two, out or near forty
three lau Old Glenn Drive and sub city, the said
ray Eliah Valley, would intent to cause the death upon
James McGrath, did stab and cause the death of the
said James McGrath in violation Section fifty three a DASH
fifty four a subsection A the Connecticut General Statutes. The
(02:35:43):
statute defining the offensive murder reads impertinent part as follows.
A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to
cause the death of another.
Speaker 2 (02:35:54):
Person, it causes the death of such person.
Speaker 3 (02:35:58):
For you to find the defending guilty of this charge,
the state must prove the following two elements beyond a
reasonable death.
Speaker 2 (02:36:06):
Element one intent to cause.
Speaker 3 (02:36:10):
The first element is that the defendant specifically intended to
cause the death of James grab There is no particular
length of time necessary for the defendant to harm the
specific intent to kill James McGrath. A person acts intentionally
with respect to a result when his conscious objective is
to cause such result. Murder is a specific INTENTPT crime.
Speaker 2 (02:36:32):
And you will refer to reports earlier instruction on specific intent.
The intent to cause death may be in.
Speaker 3 (02:36:40):
Heard from circumstantial evidence. You will refer to the court's
earlier instruction on direct and circumstantial evidence. The type and
number of wounds inflicted, as well as the instrument used,
may be considered as evidence of the perpetrator's intent, and
from such evidence and inference.
Speaker 2 (02:36:56):
May be drawn that there was an intent to cause death.
The inference that may be drawn from.
Speaker 3 (02:37:01):
The nature of the instrumentality used and the manner of
its use is an inference of fact to be drawn
by you upon consideration of these and other circumstances in
the case in importance of my previous instructions. Such inferences
are not necessary, but they are inferences you may draw
if you find they are reasonable and logical and in
importance with my instructions on circumstantial avitats, declarations and conduct
(02:37:25):
of the accused before or after the infliction of wounds,
and may be considered if you find they tend to
show the defendants intent. This inference is not a necessary one.
That is, you are not required to infer intent from
the defendant's alleged conduct, but it is an inference you
may draw off you find it reasonable and logical and in.
Speaker 2 (02:37:42):
Importance of my instructions on circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 3 (02:37:46):
Element two, cause and depth. Second element is not the
defend in acting with the intent to cause the death
of James McGrath, pause the death of James Legrath. This
means that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the.
Speaker 2 (02:38:02):
Of James the Broth's death. You're going to refer to.
Speaker 3 (02:38:05):
The court's earlier instruction on proximate cause. You must find
it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that James and Grapp
died as a result of the actions of the defender.
In summary to the prime of the murder, the state
was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one.
Speaker 2 (02:38:21):
The defendant intended to cause the death of James.
Speaker 3 (02:38:23):
Mac grath, and two, in accordance with that intent, the
defendant caused the death of James nebrath.
Speaker 2 (02:38:29):
If you unanimously.
Speaker 3 (02:38:30):
Find that the state has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt all the elements of the offensive murder, you
shall find the defendant not guilty of the crime of murder,
and shall then next move on to consider lesser included
offenses to murder below, in the manner in order therein instructed.
Therein proceed to the Court's instruction un lesser included defenses
to murder below.
Speaker 2 (02:38:52):
If, however, you.
Speaker 3 (02:38:53):
Unanimous and find that the state has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of murder,
you shall the defendants claims of self defense and defense
of others. You'll refer to the ports instruction on self
defense and defense of others below at twenty two.
Speaker 2 (02:39:10):
If you unian in some fine that the state is
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not
act in.
Speaker 3 (02:39:15):
Self defense and the defense of others, or that the
state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt one of the
statutory disqualifications, you shall inject the defenses and find the
defindant guilty of murder and violation of the Connecticut General
Statute Section fifty three.
Speaker 2 (02:39:30):
A dash fifty four a sub section a Act.
Speaker 3 (02:39:33):
Count one, please not state in proving statutory disqualifications has
to prove the statutory disqualifications also beyond a reasonable doubt.
This will enter deliberations on count one. You will not
deliberate less our included defenses to murder. You will now
deliberate on count.
Speaker 2 (02:39:52):
Twos to give over to courts instruction unless our included
defenses to murder to proceed directly with the Court's.
Speaker 3 (02:39:57):
Instruction on count two, assault in the first pretty intentional
below guess, However, you unanimously find that the state failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did
not act in self defense or in the defense of others,
or was not proved one of the statutory disqualifications beyond
beyond a reasonable doubt. But on the strength of the
defenses alone, you must find the defendant not guilty of
(02:40:20):
murder at count one, even though you have found the
elements of that crime proven.
Speaker 2 (02:40:24):
Beyond a reasonable debt. This will end your deliberations. On
count one.
Speaker 3 (02:40:28):
You will now deliverate unlesser included defenses to murder, You
will now delivery On count two. You will skip over
the Court's instruction on lesser included defenses to murder, and
proceed directly to the Court's instruction on count two, assaulting
the first intentional a well lesser recruiter defenses to murder
in importance with the Court's previous instructions. You will consider
(02:40:50):
lesser included defenses to murder under this section if and
only if you have unanimously found, but.
Speaker 2 (02:40:54):
The state is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (02:40:57):
All the elements of the crime of murder, and therefore
I found the defendant not guilty of murder.
Speaker 2 (02:41:02):
The defending at count.
Speaker 3 (02:41:03):
One, the substitute information is specifically charged with the crime
of murder.
Speaker 2 (02:41:07):
The offensive murder under.
Speaker 3 (02:41:09):
Our penal code is such that it may include the
elements of the crimes of manslaughter in the first degree
intentional and manslaughter in the first degree.
Speaker 2 (02:41:17):
Reference.
Speaker 3 (02:41:18):
This brings into play the rule of law known as
lesser included defenses. You will consider lesser included defenses to
murder in the order and under the circumstances.
Speaker 2 (02:41:27):
Set fourth parent.
Speaker 3 (02:41:29):
The fact that I am instructing you on lesser included
defenses should not be interpreted by you that I believe
the evidence proved the accused guilty of any lesser included defense. You,
the jury, are the sole judges of the facts in
this case, and you must determine whether the defendant is
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder at count one,
or is guilty of any respective.
Speaker 2 (02:41:49):
Lesser incruded defense.
Speaker 3 (02:41:51):
You will first consider the lesser included defense of manslaughter
in the first degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes, Section fifty
three A fifty.
Speaker 2 (02:41:59):
Five A one directly below.
Speaker 3 (02:42:01):
A Subsection A, and proceed to the parts instruction sub
Section A Manslaughter in the first degree intentional the statutory
reference directly below Subsection A. Manslaughter in the first degree intentional,
Connecticut General Statute, Section fifty three A fifty five AM.
Statute defining this defense reason impertinent.
Speaker 2 (02:42:22):
Part as follows. A person is guilty of manslaughter in
the first degree when, with intent to cause serious physical
injury to another person, he causes the depth of such person.
For the defendant to be found guilty of this.
Speaker 3 (02:42:38):
Charge, the state was through the following two elements beyond
a reasonable doubt. Element one intent to cause serious physical injury.
First element is that the defendants specifically intended to cause
serious physical injury to another person. Serious physical injury is
something more serious than mere physical injury, which is defined
as impuremidi.
Speaker 2 (02:42:58):
Physical condition of pain. It is more than a minor
or superficial injury.
Speaker 3 (02:43:03):
It is defined by statute as a physical injury which
creates substantial risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement,
serious impairment of health, or a serious loss or impairment
of the function of any bodily organ You will note
that the basis of the charge under this statue is
not that the defendant intended to kill, but that he
(02:43:26):
intended to in afflict serious physical injury.
Speaker 2 (02:43:29):
A person acts.
Speaker 3 (02:43:30):
Intentionally with respect to a result when its conscious objective
is to cause such a result to refer to the
court's earlier instruction on specific intent at fifteen. The intent
to cause serious physical injury may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
Refer to the Court's earlier instruction on evidence of intent
at seventeen.
Speaker 2 (02:43:50):
Element to cause death.
Speaker 3 (02:43:53):
The second element is that the defendant, acting with the
intent to cause serious physical injury to a person, caused
the death of as. This means that the defendant's conduct
was the proximate cause of the deceding's death. Refer to
my earlier instruction on proximate cause at fourteen. You must
find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that James McGrath
(02:44:14):
had died as a result of the actions.
Speaker 2 (02:44:16):
Of the defendant.
Speaker 3 (02:44:17):
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that one, the defendant intended to cause serious physical injury
to James McRath, and two, in accordance with that intent,
the defendant caused the death James macroth.
Speaker 2 (02:44:29):
If you unanimously find if the state.
Speaker 3 (02:44:31):
Has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the
elements of the manslaughter and the first degree intentional, you
shall find the defendant not guilty of manslaughter in the
first degree intentional account one, and you shall next consider
the lesser included defense of the ansulatter in the first
degree redless.
Speaker 2 (02:44:45):
Proceed to the Court's instruction.
Speaker 3 (02:44:47):
Be manslaughter in the first degree reckless. Connecticut Channel Statutes,
Section fifty three fifty five days three.
Speaker 2 (02:44:53):
Beleve if, however, you unanimously find the state.
Speaker 3 (02:44:57):
Has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements the
crime of landslaughter and the first degree intentional, you shall
not consider any additional lesser included defense. You shall, however,
consider the defendant's claims of self defense and defense of others.
Prefer to my instruction on self defense defense.
Speaker 2 (02:45:13):
Of others below at twenty two.
Speaker 3 (02:45:16):
Yeah, you're unanimously fine that the state has proved beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in
self defense or in defense of others, or that the
state has proved one of the statutes whory disqualifications beyond
a reasonable doubt, you shall reject the defenses and find
the defendant guilty of manslaughter and the first degree intentional,
a violation of Connecticut General Statute Section fifty three A
(02:45:38):
fifty five A one at count one. This will end
your deliberations at count one. You will next deliberate on
count two for state to the court's instruction of count
two assault and the first degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes.
Speaker 2 (02:45:51):
Fifty three eight fifty nine A one below.
Speaker 3 (02:45:53):
If, however, you unanimously find that the state has failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did
not act in self defense or in defense of others,
or has not proved and of the statutorys momplications beyond
reasonable doubt that on the strength of the defense is alone.
You must find the defendant not guilty of manslaughter in
(02:46:13):
the first degree intentional violation of Connecticut General Statutes.
Speaker 2 (02:46:17):
Fifty three fifty five A one, Account one, even though
you are found the elements of that time proven beyondre
reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (02:46:25):
This will and your deliberations at count one, you will
not consider any additional lesser included defenses to murder. You
shall skip over the court's instructions at subsection be below,
and next deliberate on Account two B manslaughter in the
first degree reckless Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A fifty
five A three. You will deliberate on this lesser included
(02:46:47):
defense to murder if and only if you have unanimously found.
Speaker 2 (02:46:50):
But the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (02:46:53):
All the elements of murder, and therefore you have found
the defendant not guilty of murder. And further, you have
unanimously found that this date did not prove beyond a
reasonable doubt all the elements of manslaughter in the first
degree intentional, and therefore you have found the defendant not
guilty of manslaughter in the first degree intentional. The statute
defining this offense wheads impertinent partness follows. A person is
(02:47:15):
guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when, under circumstances
evincing an extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages
in conduct which creates a grave risk of depth to
another person and thereby causes the death of another person.
For the defendant to be found guilty of discharge, the
(02:47:35):
state must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable debt.
Element I conduct creating a grave risk of death. The
first element is that the defendant engaged in conduct that
created a grave risk of death. Element too recklessness. The
second element is that the defendant acted recklessly. A person
acts recklessly with respect to a result of circumstances when
(02:47:58):
he is aware of consciously disregards as substantial and unjustifiable
risk that such result will occur, or that such circumstances exist.
The refer to the court's previous instruction on recklessness at sixteen.
Element three extreme indifference to human life. The third element
is that the defendant's conduct demonstrated in extreme indifference to
(02:48:21):
human life. Indifference means simply not caring. It means lacking
any interest in a matter one way or the other
extreme means existing in the highest or greatest possible degree.
Speaker 2 (02:48:32):
Extreme indifference is more than ordinary and difference.
Speaker 3 (02:48:36):
It is anonymous with excessive and is the greatest departure
from the ordinary.
Speaker 2 (02:48:41):
What evinces an extreme and.
Speaker 3 (02:48:42):
Difference to human life is a question of fact. An
element four pause death. The fourth element is that the
defendant's conduct paused death of James McGrath. This means that
the defendant's conduct was a proximate clause of the decedent's
death the Sordinate Court's previous instruction approximate clause at fourteen teen,
You must find it proved beyond.
Speaker 2 (02:49:02):
A reasonable doubt that James grap died as a result
of the actions of the defendant.
Speaker 3 (02:49:07):
In summary, the state was proved beyond a reasonable doubt
that won the defendant engagement conduct that created a brave
less of depth to the defendant acted replessly.
Speaker 2 (02:49:16):
Three, he acted under circumstances evincing an.
Speaker 3 (02:49:18):
Extreme indifference to human life, and for the defendant cause
of debt that James and Bread. If you unanimously find
that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt all the elements of the manslaughter in the first
degree repless, you shall find.
Speaker 2 (02:49:31):
The defendant not guilty and manslaughter in the first degree.
Speaker 3 (02:49:34):
Repless account won the center of deliberations that count one.
You shall next yvan to deliberate on count two and
proceed to the Court of instruction. On count two is
a first degree intentional Connecticut General Statute fifty three, eight
fifty nine to a one below. If, however, you're unanimously fine.
Speaker 2 (02:49:52):
But the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all
the elements.
Speaker 3 (02:49:56):
Of the crime and manslaughter in the first degree reference,
then you shall knit consider the defendant's claims of self
defense and defense of others, recording the Court's instruction on
self defense defense of others below.
Speaker 2 (02:50:07):
At twenty two.
Speaker 3 (02:50:08):
If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in
self defense or in defense of others, or that the
state has proved one of the statutory disqualifications beyond a
reasonable doubt, you shall reject the defenses and find the
defendant guilty of manslaughter.
Speaker 2 (02:50:27):
And the first three reckless, in violation.
Speaker 3 (02:50:30):
Of Connecticut General Statute to fifty three eight fifty five
eight three account for this whole.
Speaker 2 (02:50:34):
Ende of deliberations account one, you shall move on to
deliberate on.
Speaker 3 (02:50:38):
Count two, proceed or its substruction on count two assault
for three intentional Kinetican General Statutes fifty three eight to
ninety one blow if, however, after considering the defenses, you
unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in
self defense or in the defense of others, or has
not proved one of the statutory DEAs qualifications beyond a
(02:51:01):
reasonable doubt, but on the strength of the defense is alone,
you must find the defendant not guilty of man's own
in the first degree racklest that count one, even though
you have found the elements of that crime proven beyond
a reasonable doubt, this will and deliberations that count one.
Speaker 2 (02:51:16):
You shall move on to deliberate on count two to.
Speaker 3 (02:51:19):
Precede to my instruction on count two, assault in the
first degree intentional.
Speaker 2 (02:51:22):
Connecticut General Statute, Section fifty.
Speaker 3 (02:51:25):
Three a dash fifty nine to a one below. All right,
I'm going to give you a few minutes.
Speaker 2 (02:51:32):
To stand up on stretch.
Speaker 3 (02:51:33):
We're going to take a short break some more to
take a ten minute rain. Right, now, give you some
time to go back into the deliberations, and then again
you can't talk in the middle of the charge. Allowed
to deliberate stands tens.
Speaker 2 (02:51:50):
Thank you, Thanks that, y'all. Thank you.
Speaker 3 (02:51:55):
I welcome ath Luties and Johnathan Jury. I want to
thank you for the occasions during the evening of these instructions.
Speaker 2 (02:52:01):
I know that it's a long time to be suited,
so thank you for your attention. Council. Please stipulate to.
Speaker 4 (02:52:07):
The return of hard steel stipula.
Speaker 5 (02:52:10):
Defense stipulates John Hi.
Speaker 2 (02:52:11):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (02:52:11):
I'm going to continue, so I'll be continuing with Count two,
Assault in the first degree intentional. Connecticut General Statutes to
fifty three A fifty nine am Stay charges the defendant
of Count two with assault the first degree, charging that
in the County of Fearfield City is shelting honor, about
the fourteenth day of May twenty two utter near forty
(02:52:32):
three Laurel Gland Drive in said city, the defendant would
intent to cause serious physical injury to one Ryan Hines,
did cause serious physical injury to the said Ryan Hines
with a dangerous instrument to win a knight in violation
Section fifty three A fifty nine A one of the
Connecticut General Statutes. The statute defining this defense needs impertinent
part as followed. The person is guilty of assault the
(02:52:54):
first degree when we intend to cause serious physical injury,
so another first it causes such such injury to such
person or to a third person by means of a
dangerous instrument. For you to find the defendant guilty of
this charge, the state must prove the following three elements
beyond a reasonable doubt. Elament I intend to cause serious
(02:53:17):
physical injury. The first element is that the definant intended
to cause serious physical injury to another person. A person
acts intentially with respect to a result when his conscious
subjective is to cause such result.
Speaker 2 (02:53:29):
To refer to the court's earlier instruction on specific intent.
Speaker 3 (02:53:33):
Serious physical injury is something more serious than mere physical injury,
which is defined as impairment of physical condition or pain.
Speaker 2 (02:53:40):
It is more than a minor of superficial injury. It
is defined by a statute that.
Speaker 3 (02:53:44):
Has physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death,
or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or
serious laws of impairment of the function of any bodily
organ element too caused serious mist injury. The second element
is that, acting with that intent, the defendant caused serious
physical injury to Ryan Hines.
Speaker 2 (02:54:05):
This means that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause
of the person's injuries. Refer to the Court's earlier instruction
on proximate cause.
Speaker 3 (02:54:13):
We must find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
Ryan Hines was seriously injured as a result.
Speaker 2 (02:54:18):
Of the actions of the defendant.
Speaker 3 (02:54:20):
It does not matter whether Ryan Hines was the person
upon whom the defendant intended to inflict serious physical injury.
It is sufficient if you find that the defendant intended
to cause serious physical injury to another person, and that
gain fact cause serious physical injury to that person or
to some other person.
Speaker 2 (02:54:37):
Element three with a dangerous instrument, the third.
Speaker 3 (02:54:40):
Element is that the defendant caused that injury by means
of a dangerous instrument. Dangerous instrument means any instrument, article,
or substance which, under these circumstances in which it was used,
or attempted or threatened to be used.
Speaker 2 (02:54:56):
Is capable of causing death or a serious physical injury.
Speaker 3 (02:55:00):
Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a substantial
risk of death, or causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health,
or a serious loss or impairment of the function of
any bodily organs. It is important to note that the
article need not be inherently dangerous. All that is required
is that the article was capable of causing death or
serious physical injury under the circumstances in which it was used.
(02:55:23):
Any article or substance without limitation, and even though harmless
under normal use, may be found by you to be
a dangerous instrument if under the circumstances of its use
or threatened or attemptive use, it is capable of producing
serious physical injury or death. The state need not prove
that in fact death or serious physical injury resulted, only
that the instrument had.
Speaker 2 (02:55:44):
That potential under the circumstance.
Speaker 3 (02:55:47):
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that one, the defendant had the specific content to cause
serious physical injury to another person, the defendant did cause
serious physical injury to Vine, and three the defendant causing
injury by means.
Speaker 2 (02:56:03):
Of a dangerous instrument.
Speaker 3 (02:56:05):
If you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all the elements of assault
and the first degree intentional. You shall find the defendant
not guilty of the crime of assault and the first
degree intentional account two, and shall move on to consider
lesser included defenses to assault in the first degree.
Speaker 2 (02:56:21):
Intentional below in the manner and order prescribe them.
Speaker 3 (02:56:26):
You will proceed to the Court's instruction on lesser included
defenses to assault in the first degree intentional under deception below. If, however,
is you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of assault
and the first degree intentional, you shall mixt consider the
defendant's claims to self defense and defensive others refer to
(02:56:48):
my instruction and self defense defense of others below at
twenty three. If you unanimously find that the state has
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not
act in self defense or in defense of others, or
that the state has proved one of the statutory disqualifications
beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall reject the defenses
(02:57:08):
and find the defindant guilty of assault and first degree
intentional in violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty three a
fifty nine to a one at count two, this will
end your deliberations at count two. You will not consider
less or included defenses. You will move on to deliberate
count three, So you will skip over less or included
defenses to the assault and the first degree intentional below
(02:57:29):
to proceed directly to the court's instruction on count three,
Assault and the first degree intentional Connecticut.
Speaker 2 (02:57:35):
General Statutes fifty three A fifty nine to a one below.
Speaker 3 (02:57:39):
If, however, you unanimously find that the state has failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did
not act in self defense or in the defense of others,
or has not proved one of the statutory disqualifications beyond
reasonable doubt, then on the strength of the defense alone,
you shall find the defendant not guilty of assault in
the first degree intentional at count two, even though you
(02:58:03):
have found the elements of the crime of assault and
the first degree intentional proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This
will lend your deliberations as to count two. You shall
then move on to deliberate count three.
Speaker 2 (02:58:14):
You will skip the.
Speaker 3 (02:58:15):
Court's instruction unlesser included defenses to assault, the first degree
intentional below to proceed directly to the Court's instruction on
count three, Assault and the.
Speaker 2 (02:58:23):
First degree intentional.
Speaker 3 (02:58:24):
Connecticut General Statutes fifty three eighth of tiney A one
below lesser in theater defenses to assault in the first
degree intentional in accordance with the Court's previous instructions. You
will consider lesser included defenses under count two if and
only if you have unanimously found, but the state does
not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all the elements of
(02:58:46):
the crime of assault and the first degree intentional, and
therefore have found the defendant not guilty of assault the
first degree intentional at count two.
Speaker 2 (02:58:54):
The defendant at.
Speaker 3 (02:58:55):
Count two in creation is specifically charged with the crime
of assault and the first degree intention The offense of
assault and the first degree intentional under a or penal
code is such that it may include the elements of
the crimes of assault in the first degree reckless and
assault in the second degree, both intentional and reckless.
Speaker 2 (02:59:11):
This reason, a player rule of law known as lesser included.
Speaker 3 (02:59:15):
Defenses at count two as applicable to the crime of
assault and the first degree intentional. You will consider lesser
included defenses as to count two in the order under
the circumstances instructed, you're in the fact that I am
instructing you unless er included defenses to the assault in
the first degree intentional account too, should not be interpreted
by you that I believe the evidence proves the accused
(02:59:35):
guilty of any lesser included defenses.
Speaker 2 (02:59:38):
You, the jury or the sault judges of the facts
of the space.
Speaker 3 (02:59:40):
You must determine whether the defendant is guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of assault in the first degree intentional, or
as guilty of any respective less or included defense. You
will first consider the lesser included defense of assault and
the first degree reckless. Director below proceed to the port's instruction.
A A assault in.
Speaker 2 (02:59:57):
The first degree reckless Connecticut General Staff.
Speaker 3 (03:00:00):
It's fifty three A fifty nine eight three directly below
A assault and first degree reckless Connecticut General Statutes.
Speaker 2 (03:00:08):
Fifty three A fifty nine eighth grade.
Speaker 3 (03:00:10):
The statute defining this offense reads impertinent part as follows.
A person is guilty of assault and the first degree when,
under circumstances evncing an extreme indifference to human life, he
recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of death
to another person and thereby causes serious physical injury to
another person.
Speaker 2 (03:00:29):
For you to find the defendant guilty of.
Speaker 3 (03:00:30):
His charge, the state must prove the following floor elements
beyond a reasonable oubt. Element I conduct creating a risk
of death. The first element is that the defendant engaged
in conduct that created a risk of death. Element two recklessness.
The second element is that the defendant acted recklessly. The
person acts recklessly with respect to a result of circumstances
(03:00:52):
when he is aware of unconsciously disregards to substantial.
Speaker 2 (03:00:55):
And unjustifiable risk that such will result.
Speaker 3 (03:00:59):
I'm sorry that such result will occur, or that such
circumstances exist. They refer to the forts previous instruction on
rethlessness at sixteen.
Speaker 2 (03:01:11):
Element three extreme indifference to human life.
Speaker 3 (03:01:14):
The third element is that the defendant addsid under circumstances
evincing an extreme indifference to human life.
Speaker 2 (03:01:19):
In difference means simply not hearing, It.
Speaker 3 (03:01:21):
Means lacking any interest in a matter one way or
the other. Extreme means existing in the highest or greatest
possible degree. Extreme indifference is more than ordinary indifference. It
is synonymous with excessive and.
Speaker 2 (03:01:33):
Is the greatest departure from the ordinary. What evinces an
extreme in difference to.
Speaker 3 (03:01:37):
Human life is a question of fact. An element four
caused serious syst injury. The fourth element is that the
defendant cause serious physical injury to another person. This means
that the defendant's conduct is the proximate cause.
Speaker 2 (03:01:50):
Of a person's injuries.
Speaker 3 (03:01:51):
Refer to the for its previous instruction on proximate cause
at fourteen.
Speaker 2 (03:01:56):
You must find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
Ryan Heinz was injured as a result to the actions
of the defendant. Serious physical injury.
Speaker 3 (03:02:03):
Is something more serious than mere physical injury, which is
defined as im pyramid of physical conditional pain. It is
more than a minor or superficial injury. It is defined
by statue of this physical injury which creates a substantial
list of death, or which creates serious disfigurement, serious impairment
of health, or a serious loss or impyrament of the
function of any bodily organ In summary, state, mus proved
(03:02:25):
beyond a reasonable doubt that we won the defendant engaged
in conduct that created a risk of death.
Speaker 2 (03:02:29):
Two he acted recklessly.
Speaker 3 (03:02:31):
Three he acted under circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to
human life, and four he caused serious physical injury to find.
If you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt while the elements of assault
and the first degree reference, you shall find the defendant
not guilty of assault and the burst of free represent
(03:02:52):
account two, and you shall then consider the lesser incruded
defense of assault and the.
Speaker 2 (03:02:56):
Second degree intentional.
Speaker 3 (03:02:57):
You'll proceed to the Court's instruction of the assault and
second degree intentional Connecticut General.
Speaker 2 (03:03:03):
Statutes fifty three A sixty A two below.
Speaker 3 (03:03:06):
If, however, you unanimously find that the state has proved
beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime
of assault and the first degree reckless, then you shall
next consider.
Speaker 2 (03:03:16):
The defendant's claims of self defense and defense of others.
Speaker 3 (03:03:18):
Refer to the Court's instruction on self defense defense of
others below at twenty two.
Speaker 2 (03:03:23):
If you unanimously find the state has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act.
Speaker 3 (03:03:28):
In self defense or in the defense of others, or
that the state has proved one in the statutory disqualifications
beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall reject the defenses and
find the defendant guilty of assault and the first degree
reckless and violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty three eight
fifty nine eight three Account two, This will lend your
deliberations at count two. You shall not consider any other
(03:03:51):
lesser included defense.
Speaker 2 (03:03:52):
Account two. You will skip the Court's instructions and.
Speaker 3 (03:03:54):
The subsections BE and C below, and shall next mulan
to deliberate on count three. Will proceed to the Court's
instruction on Coount three, Assault and the first degree intentional
Connecticut General Statutes fifty three, eight to fifty nine A
one below. Yes, However, you unianimously find that the state
has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self defense or in the
(03:04:15):
defense of others, or has not proved one of the
statutory disqualifications beyond a reason of the doubt, but on
the strength of the defense is alone, you must find
the defendant not guilty of assault in the first degree
reckless at count two, even though you have found the
elements of that prime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This
will lend your deliberations at count two. You shall not
(03:04:36):
consider any other less or included defenses at count two
included offenses. At count two, you will skip the court's
instructions as sub sections being c below.
Speaker 2 (03:04:46):
You will move on to deliberate on countering.
Speaker 3 (03:04:49):
You'll proceed to the court's instruction on count three, Assault
the first degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A
fifty nine A one below. Still under lesser included defenses
be assault in the second degree intentional, Connecticut General Statutes,
fifty three A sixty A two. You will deliberate on
(03:05:09):
this lesser included defense if and only if you have
unanimously found that the state did not prove beyond a
reasonable doubt all the elements of assault and the first
degree intentional, and therefore have found the defendant not guilty
of assault the first degree intentional. And further that you
have unanimously found that the state did not prove beyond
a reasonable doubt all the elements of assault in the
first degree reckless, and therefore you have found the defendant
(03:05:31):
not guilty of assault in the first degree reckless.
Speaker 2 (03:05:33):
That count to the statute defining this offense reason pertinent
part is followed.
Speaker 3 (03:05:38):
A person is guilty of assault of the second degree
when with intent to cause physical injury to another person
he causes such injury to such person by means of
a dangerous instrument, other than by means of the discharge
of the fire air.
Speaker 2 (03:05:54):
For you to find the defendant guilty of.
Speaker 3 (03:05:56):
This charge, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
three elements.
Speaker 2 (03:06:02):
Element one intent to cause physical injury. The first element is.
Speaker 3 (03:06:05):
That the defendants specifically intended to cause physical injury to
another person. A person absentential with respect to a result
when his conscious objective is to cause such a result.
Speaker 2 (03:06:15):
You will refer to the court's previous instruction on specific intent.
Speaker 3 (03:06:19):
Aten Physical injury is defined as impairment of physical condition
or pain. It is a reduced ability to act as
then would otherwise have acted. The law is not required
that the injury be serious, it may be minor. Element
two pause physical injury. The second element is that the
defendant cause physical injury to another person. This means that
(03:06:39):
the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the person's injuries.
You must find it proved beyond the reasonable doubt that
Ryan Hines was injured as a result to the actions
of the defendant. You will refer to the court's previous instruction.
Speaker 2 (03:06:50):
On proximate cause. At fourteen.
Speaker 3 (03:06:53):
It does not matter whether it was the person upon
whom the defendant intended to inflict physical injury. It is
sufficient if you find that the intended to cause physical
injury to another person and that he in fact caused
physical injury to that person or to some other person.
Element three with a dangerous instrument, third element is that
the defendant caused their injury by means of a dangerous instrument,
(03:07:16):
other than by means of the discharge of the firing.
Dangerous instrument means any instrument which, under the circumstances in
which it is used or attendable threatned to be used.
Speaker 2 (03:07:26):
Is capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
Speaker 3 (03:07:29):
Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a substantial
risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment
of health, or serious loss or impairment of the function
of any bodily organ It's important to note that the
article need not be inherently dangerous. All that is required
that the article was capable of causing death or a
serious physical injury.
Speaker 2 (03:07:49):
Under the circumstances in which it was used.
Speaker 3 (03:07:52):
Any article or substance without limitation, and even though harmless
under normal use, may be found by you to be
a dangerous instrument if under the circumstances of its use
or a threatned or attempt to use, it is capable
of producing serious physical injury or death.
Speaker 2 (03:08:06):
The state need not through that in fact other.
Speaker 3 (03:08:08):
Serious physical injury resulted, only that the instrument had that potential,
and if so, in summary, the state must prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that one, the defendant had the specific
intent to cause physical injury to another person. Too, the
defendant did cause physical injury to Ryan Hines, and three
the defendant caused the injury by means of a dangerous
instrument other than by means of the discharge of a
(03:08:30):
fire er. If you unanimously find that the state has
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements
of a sat and secondary intentional.
Speaker 2 (03:08:39):
You shall find the defendant not guilty of assault and
the second degree intentional account.
Speaker 5 (03:08:43):
Two.
Speaker 3 (03:08:43):
And you shall then consider the lesser included defense of
assault and the second degree reference. You'll proceed in my
instruction on sea assault and second degree reference.
Speaker 2 (03:08:52):
Connecticut General's Statutes fifty three A sixty eight three below.
Speaker 3 (03:08:56):
If, however, you unanimously find that the state is proved
beyond a reasonable dead out all the elements of the
prime of the slot and the second degree intentional, then
you shall considered the defendant's claims to self defense and
defense of others. You will refer to my instruction on
self defense.
Speaker 2 (03:09:10):
Defense of others below at twenty two.
Speaker 3 (03:09:12):
If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in
self defense or in defense of others at or but
the state has proved one of the statutory disqualifications beyond
a reasonable doubt, you shall reduct the defenses and find
the defendant guilty of assault and the second degree intentional
and violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A sixty
(03:09:34):
A two.
Speaker 2 (03:09:35):
At count two. This lender deliberations at count two. You
shall not deliberate on any other lesser incluty defenses. You
shall move on to deliberate count three. Proceed to the parts.
Speaker 3 (03:09:46):
Instruction on count three is on the first degree intentional
Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A fifty nine eight for
ay one bell. If however, you unanimously find that the
state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant did not act in self defense or in
the defense of others. More, has not proved one of
the statutory disqualifications beyond a reasonable doubt, And on the
(03:10:09):
strength of the defenses alone, you must find the defendant
not guilty of assault and the second degree intentional at
count two, even though you have found the elements of
that crime proven.
Speaker 2 (03:10:19):
Beyond a reasonable debt this one hundred deliberations.
Speaker 3 (03:10:22):
At count two, you shall not consider any other lesser
included defenses at count two. You shall then move on
to deliberate count three. You will skip subsection CE below
proceeeds to the Court's instruction on count three, Assault a
first degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A fifty
nine A one below. Still on lesser included defenses, see
(03:10:45):
assault and second degree reckless Connecticut General Statute fifty three
A sixty eight three. You will deliberate on this lesser
included defense if and only if you have unanimously found
that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt
all the elements of assault the first degree intentional, and
therefore you have found the defendant not guilty of assault
the first degree intentional. And further that you have unanimous
(03:11:07):
and found that the state did not prove beyond a
reasonable doubt all the elements of sault and the first
degree reckless, and therefore you have found the defendant not
guilty of assault in the first degree reckless. And further
that you have unanimously found that the state did not
prove beyond a reasonable degree beyond a reasonable doubt, all
the elements of assault and the second degree intentional, and
therefore have found the defendant not guilty of assault the
(03:11:29):
second degree intentional.
Speaker 2 (03:11:31):
The statute defining this offense reason per and paris folls.
Speaker 3 (03:11:35):
A person is guilty of assault in the second degree
when he recklessly causes serious physical injury to another person
by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. For
you to find the defendant guilty of his charge of
states through the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Element one recklessness. The first element is that this defendant
acted recklessly.
Speaker 2 (03:11:53):
A person acts.
Speaker 3 (03:11:53):
Recklessly with respect to a result or circumstances when he
is aware of and consciously just or it's a substantial
and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur, or that
such circumstances exist. Refer to my previous instruction on reckless
disk at sixteen. Element two cause serious physical injury. The
second element is that the defendant cause serious physical injury.
(03:12:16):
This means that the defendant's conduct was the approximate cause
of a person's injuries.
Speaker 2 (03:12:20):
Refer to the Court's previous instruction on proximate cause at fourteen.
You must find it.
Speaker 3 (03:12:26):
Proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Maryannheins has injured as
a result to the actions of the defendant. Serious physical
injury is something more serious than their physical injury, which
is defined as impyramid of physical condition or pain. It
is more than a minor a superficial injury. It is
defined by a statute as a physical injury which creates
a substantial risk of death, a law which causes serious disfigurement,
(03:12:46):
serious impairmential health, or serious loss or impairment of the
function of any bodily organ Element three dangerous instrument. The
third element is not the defendant used a dangerous instrument
in causing the serious physical injury to Anothererous instrument means
any instrument, article, or substance which, under the circumstances in
which it is used or attempt it or threat to
be used, as capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
(03:13:09):
Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a substantial
risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment
of health, or a serious loss of impairment of the
function of any bodily organ It is important to note
that the article may not be inherently dangerous. All that
is required is that the article is capable of causing
death or serious physical injury under the circumstances in which
(03:13:31):
it was used.
Speaker 2 (03:13:33):
Any article or a substance without.
Speaker 3 (03:13:34):
Limitation, and even though harmless under normal use, may be
found by you to be a dangerous instrument if under
the circumstances of its use or a threat under attempted use,
it is capable of producing serious physical injury or death.
Speaker 2 (03:13:47):
The state need not prove that in fact death.
Speaker 3 (03:13:49):
Of serious physical injury results in only that the instrument
had that potential under the circumstances.
Speaker 2 (03:13:55):
In Smorate, the state was.
Speaker 3 (03:13:56):
Proved beyond reasonable doubt that one the defendant acted recklessly
to the defendant caused serious physical injury to Ryan lines
and three, the defendant caused the injury by means of
a dangerous instrument. If you unanimously find that the state
has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the
elements of sault the second degree reckless, you shall find
(03:14:16):
the defendant not guilty is want in the second degree
reckless account two. This will enter your deliberations at count two.
You shall next me want to deliberate on count three.
Proceed to the court's instruction. Count three saw the first
degree intentional. Connecticut General Statutes Section fifty three A fifty
nine A one below. If, however, you unanimously find that
(03:14:37):
the state is proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the
elements of the crime of assault the second degree reckless,
then you shall next consider the defendant's claims to self
defense and defense of others. Refer to my instruction on
self defense defense of others below the twenty two. If
you unanimously find that the state is proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendants did not act and self.
Speaker 2 (03:14:56):
Defense or in defense of others, or that.
Speaker 3 (03:14:58):
The state is proved one of the statutory dis qualifications
beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall reject the defenses and
find the defendent guilty of assault and second degree reckless
violation of Connecticut General Statutes, Section fifty three A sixty
eight three at count two. This will end your deliberations
on count two, and you shall move on to deliberate
on count three. They'll proceed to the port's instruction and
(03:15:20):
count three assault and the first degree intentional Connecticut General
Statutes fifty three fifty nine A one below. If, however,
you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act
in self defense or in defense of others, or has
not proved one of the statutory disqualifications beyond a reasonable doubt,
(03:15:41):
then on the strength of the defenses alone, you must
find the defendant not guilty of assault and the second
degree reps at count two, even though you have found
the elements of that prime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This will under deliberations at count two. You shall move
on to deliberate at count three, proceed to the port's instructions,
count three assault, and the first three and ten Connecticut
(03:16:01):
General Statutes fifty three eight fifty nine A one below
Count three assault the first degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes
fifty three eight fifty nine A one. The state charge
of the defendant account three with assault the first degree,
charging that in the County of fear Field City is
shout in honor about the fourteenth day of May twenty
(03:16:21):
twenty two, out of a near forty three world wind drive,
and said see the defendant, with intent to cause serious
physical injury to one Thomas Connery Junior, did cause serious
physical injury to the.
Speaker 2 (03:16:32):
Said Thomas Connery Junior with a dangerous instrument.
Speaker 3 (03:16:35):
To rid a knife in violation the section fifty three
A fifty nine A we wanted to Connecticut General Statutes.
Speaker 2 (03:16:41):
The statute defining this offense reads impertinent part as qualies.
Speaker 3 (03:16:45):
The person is guilty of salt the first degree when,
with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person
he causes the student three to such person to a
third person.
Speaker 2 (03:16:54):
By means of a dangerous instrument.
Speaker 3 (03:16:56):
For you to find the defendant guilty of his charge,
the state must through the following three elements beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (03:17:01):
Element one intent to cause serious physical injury.
Speaker 3 (03:17:05):
First element is that the defendant intended to cause serious
physical injury to another person. A person ass intentional respect
for a result when his conscious objective.
Speaker 2 (03:17:14):
Is to cause such a result.
Speaker 3 (03:17:15):
Refer to my earlier instruction on specific intent at fifteen.
Serious physical injury is something more serious than their physical injury,
which is defined as impairment of physical condition or pain.
Speaker 2 (03:17:27):
It is more than a minor or a superficial injury.
Speaker 3 (03:17:30):
It is defined by statue as physical injury which creates
a substantial list of depth, or which causes serious disfigurement,
serious impairment of health, or a serious loss or impairment
of the function of any bodily organ element to cause
serious physical injury with the second element is that, acting
with that intent, the defendant caused serious physical injury.
Speaker 2 (03:17:52):
To Thomas Connery Junior.
Speaker 3 (03:17:54):
This means of defendant's conduct with the approximate cause of
the person's injuries.
Speaker 2 (03:17:57):
Refer to my earlier instruction on the clause at fourteen.
Speaker 3 (03:18:02):
You must find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
Thomas Cowery Junior was seriously injured as a result to
the actions.
Speaker 2 (03:18:07):
Of the defendant.
Speaker 3 (03:18:08):
It does not matter whether Thomas Collery Junior was the
person upon whom the defendant intended to inflict serious physical injury.
It is sufficient if you find that the defendant intended
to cause serious physical injury to another person and that
he in fact caused serious physical injury to that personer
to some other person. And element three with a dangerous
weapon or instrument, the third element is that the defendant
(03:18:31):
clause that injury by.
Speaker 2 (03:18:32):
Means of a dangerous instrument.
Speaker 3 (03:18:34):
Dangerous instrument means any instrument, article, or substance which, under
the circumstances of which it was used, or attempted or
threatened to be used, is capable of causing death.
Speaker 2 (03:18:43):
Or serious asplinder.
Speaker 3 (03:18:45):
Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a substantial
risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment
of health, or serious lass or impairment of the function
of any bodily organ It is important to note that
the article.
Speaker 2 (03:18:58):
May not be inherently damed injurious.
Speaker 3 (03:19:00):
All that is required because that the article is capable
of causing death or serious physical injury under the circumstances.
Speaker 2 (03:19:06):
In which it was used.
Speaker 3 (03:19:08):
Any article or substance without limitation, and even though harmless
and a normal use may be found by you to
be a dangerous instrument. Under the circumstances of its user,
threatened or attempt of use, it is capable of producing
serious physical injury or death.
Speaker 2 (03:19:22):
The state need not prove that in fact death.
Speaker 3 (03:19:23):
Or serious physical injury resolved at, only that the instrument
had that potential of its circumstances. In summary, the state
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one the defendant
had the specific intent to cause serious physical injury to
another person. To the defendant did cause serious physical injury
to another person. To the defendant did cause serious physical
(03:19:48):
injury to Thomas Connery Junior. I'm sorry, I'm going to
strike the in summer that I just gave. Let me
just speak through that again. In summary, the state must.
Speaker 2 (03:20:02):
Proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one the defendant had.
Speaker 3 (03:20:05):
The specific intent to cause serious physical injury to another person.
Two the defendant did cause serious physical injury to Thomas
Connery Junior. And three the defendant caused the injury by
means of the dangerous instrument.
Speaker 2 (03:20:20):
If you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond.
Speaker 3 (03:20:23):
A reasonable doubt all the elements of assault and the
first degree intentional you shall find the defendant not guilt
to the crime of assault and the first degree intentional
at count three, and you shall next consider the lesser
included defenses, starting the assault in the first degree reckless.
Proceed to the Court's instruction on lesser included defenses to
assault in the first degree intentional below. If, however, you
(03:20:45):
unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable
doubt all the elements of the crime of assault and
the first degree intentional, you shall next consider the defendant's
claim to self defense and defense of honors. Refer to
the Court's instruction on self defense defense of others below
at twenty two. If you unanimously find that the state
is proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant did not
(03:21:07):
act in self defense or in defense of others, or
that the state has proved one of the statutory disqualifications
beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall reject the defenses and
find the defendant guilty of assault in the first three intentional,
in violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A DASH
fifty nine A one at count three. This will enter
deliberations at count three. You will not consider lesser included defenses,
(03:21:31):
you will move on to deliberate on count four.
Speaker 2 (03:21:33):
Skip the Court's instruction below on less.
Speaker 3 (03:21:36):
Or included defenses to assault in the first degree intentional,
and proceed directly to the Court's instructions on accounts will
assault and second degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three
A sixty A two below. If, however, you unanimously find
that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense
(03:21:56):
or in the defense of others, or is not proved
one of the status tory disqualifications beyond a reason of
a doubt, but on the strength of the defenses alone,
you shall find the defendant not guilty. I'm not guilty
of assault in the first degree intentional Account three. Even
though you have found the elements of the crime of
assault and the first degree intentional proof beyond reason of
adult the line of your deliberations as to cal three,
(03:22:18):
you will not consider lesser included defenses.
Speaker 2 (03:22:21):
You shall move on to deliberate on account four.
Speaker 3 (03:22:24):
Skip to courts instructions below on lesser included defenses to
assault the first degree intentional, and proceed directly.
Speaker 2 (03:22:30):
To the Court's instruction on count four assault and.
Speaker 3 (03:22:33):
Second degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A sixty
A too below. I am going to give you another
five minutes just to stand up, take a break and
take a five one of these guests, because I know, okay,
or it's going.
Speaker 2 (03:22:48):
To stand in Resa's I find it's again. Please do
not discuss the case and explore it stands Theresa, Thank you,
(03:23:09):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (03:23:14):
Do you want to thank you again?
Speaker 2 (03:23:16):
Sitting through this, I appreciate your focusing and attention. I
know this is not easy.
Speaker 3 (03:23:22):
Count some plea stipulate the return of our jury. I'm
going to talk to you now about lesser included defenses
to assault in the first three intentional. In accordance with
the Court's previous instructions. You will consider lesser included defenses
under account three if and only if, you have unanimously found,
(03:23:43):
but the state does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt,
all the elements of the crime of assault and the.
Speaker 2 (03:23:47):
First degree intentional, and therefore you have found.
Speaker 3 (03:23:50):
The defendant not guilty of assault and the first degree
intentional at count three.
Speaker 2 (03:23:54):
The defendant at count.
Speaker 3 (03:23:55):
Three of a substitute information is specifically charged with the
crime of assault and the first degree intent.
Speaker 2 (03:24:00):
The offense of assault in the first degree.
Speaker 3 (03:24:03):
Intentional under our penal code is such that it may
include the elements of the crimes of assault in the
first degree reckless and assault in the second degree, both
intentional and reckless.
Speaker 2 (03:24:13):
Similar to Count two.
Speaker 3 (03:24:14):
This brings into play the role of law known as
lesser included defenses at count three.
Speaker 2 (03:24:20):
As applicable to the crime of assault.
Speaker 3 (03:24:23):
The first degree intentional. You will consider lesser included offenses
as to count three in the order and under the
circumstances instructive human The fact that I am instructing you
on lesser included.
Speaker 2 (03:24:34):
Defenses to assault in the first degree.
Speaker 3 (03:24:36):
Intentional at count three should not be interpreted by you
that I believe the evidence proves the accused guilty of
any lesser included defense, either jury or the assault judges
of the facts in this case, you must determine whether
the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If it's
not the first degree intentional, or is guilty of any
respective lesser included defense. You will first consider the less
(03:24:56):
or included defense of assault in the first degree reckless
directly below.
Speaker 2 (03:24:59):
It's section A.
Speaker 3 (03:25:01):
You'll proceed to the court's instruction a assault the first
degree reckless Connecticut General Statutes.
Speaker 2 (03:25:05):
Fifty nine A three directly the low a assault in
the first.
Speaker 3 (03:25:09):
Career reckless fifty three A fifty nine A three statute
defining this defense.
Speaker 2 (03:25:15):
Reads impertinent part as follows.
Speaker 3 (03:25:17):
A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when,
under circumstances eventing an extreme indifference to human life, the
recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of death
to another person and thereby causes serious physical injury to
another person. For you to find the defending guilty of
the charge, the state must prove the following four elements
beyond a reasonable debt. Element one, conduct creating a risk
(03:25:39):
of death. The first element is that the defendant engaged
in conduct that created a risdom of death. Element to recklessness.
The second element is that the defendant acted recklessly. For
uson acts recklessly with the respect to a result or
circumstance when he is aware of and consciously disregards the
substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur more than.
Speaker 2 (03:25:59):
Such substances exist. You refer to the court's previous.
Speaker 3 (03:26:02):
Instruction on recklessness at sixteen. Element three extreme indifference to
human life. Third element is that the defendant act and
under circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to human life. In
difference means simply not caring. It means lacking any interest.
Speaker 2 (03:26:19):
In it in a matter one way or the other.
Speaker 3 (03:26:21):
Extreme means existing in the highest or greatest possible degree.
Extreme indifference is more an ordinary and difference. It is
synonymous with excessive and is the greatest departure from the ordinary.
Speaker 2 (03:26:34):
What evinces an.
Speaker 3 (03:26:34):
Extreme indifference to human life is a question of fact.
An element, who are caused serious?
Speaker 2 (03:26:39):
It's wondering?
Speaker 3 (03:26:40):
Fourth element is that the defendant cause serious physical injury
to another person.
Speaker 2 (03:26:44):
This means that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause
of the person's injuries.
Speaker 3 (03:26:48):
You refer to the Court's previous instruction on proximate clause
at fourteen. You must find it proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that Thomas Connery Junior was injured as the result
of the.
Speaker 2 (03:26:58):
Actions of the defendant.
Speaker 3 (03:27:00):
Serious physical injury is something more serious than mere physical injury.
It is defined as impairment and physical condition of pain.
It is more than a minor of superficial injury. It
is defined by statute as physical injury which creates a
substantial risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious
impairmentive health, or serious loss or impairmentive the function.
Speaker 2 (03:27:20):
Of any bodily organ In salary, the state.
Speaker 3 (03:27:22):
Must proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one the defendant
engaged in conduct that created a risk of death, too
he acted reathlessly, three he acted under circumstances evincing an
extreme indifference to human life, and four he caused serious
physical injuries to Thomas Connery Junior. If you unanimously find
that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable
(03:27:43):
doubt all the elements of assault in the first degree reference,
you shall find the defendant not guilty of assault in
the first three reflace account three, and you shall then
consider the less or included defense.
Speaker 2 (03:27:53):
Of assault and the second degree intentional.
Speaker 3 (03:27:55):
Will proceed to the court's instruction on the assault and
the second degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A
two below sorry fifty three Ash.
Speaker 2 (03:28:05):
Sixty a two below.
Speaker 3 (03:28:07):
If, however, you unanimously find that the state has proved
beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime
of assault and the course degree reckless. Then you shall
next consider the defendants claim to self defense and defense
of others.
Speaker 2 (03:28:19):
You will refer to the point's instruction on self defense
defense of others below at twenty two.
Speaker 3 (03:28:24):
If you unanimously find that the state is proved beyond
a reasonable doubt but the defendant did not.
Speaker 2 (03:28:28):
Act for self defense or in defense of others.
Speaker 3 (03:28:31):
Or that the state has proved one of the statutory
exceptions beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall reject the defenses
and find the defendant goal to the desault and degree
refle and violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A
fifty nine eighty three of count three at count three.
This will end your deliberations at count three. You will
not consider any additional less or incruded defenses under count three.
(03:28:53):
You shall move on to deliberate counts four, will skip
subsections being see below, and proceed directly to the courts
instruction on count four assault and the second degree intentional
Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A sixty A two below. Yes, However,
you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act
in self defense or in the defense of others, or
(03:29:15):
has not proved one of the statutory disqualifications.
Speaker 2 (03:29:19):
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (03:29:21):
Then, on the strength of the defense is alone, you
must find the defendant not guilty of assault in the
first degree reckless at count three, even though you have
found the elements of that crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This will end your deliberations at count three. You will
not consider any other lesser incruded defenses under count three.
You shall move on to deliberate on count four, skip
(03:29:43):
sub sections B and C below, and proceed directly to
the court destruction on count floor assault and second degree
intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A sixty A two.
Below the assault the second degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes,
fifty three A sixty A two.
Speaker 2 (03:29:59):
You will deliberate and.
Speaker 3 (03:30:00):
On this less or included offense if and only if
you have unanimously found that the state did not prove
beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of assault the
first degree intentional, and therefore you have found that the
defendant is not guilty of assault in the first degree intentional,
and further that you have unanimously found that the state
did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements
of assault and.
Speaker 2 (03:30:19):
The first degree reckless, and therefore you have found the
defendant not guilty of assault in the first degree reckless.
Account three.
Speaker 3 (03:30:27):
The statue defining this offense reason permaparts follows. A person
is guilty of assault in the second degree, but with
intent to cause physical injury to another person he causes
such injury to such person by means of a deadly
weapon or a dangerous instrument, other than by means of
the discharge of firearms. For you to find the defindite
guilty of this charged, the state must prove the following
through the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (03:30:47):
Element one, intent to cause physical injury.
Speaker 3 (03:30:50):
First elements that the defendants specifically intended to cause physical
injury to another person. A person acts intentially with respect
to a result when its conscious objective.
Speaker 2 (03:30:59):
Is to such a result.
Speaker 3 (03:31:00):
You will refer to the court's previous instruction on specific
intent at fifteen. Physical injury is defined as impuremid of
physical condition or pain. It is a reduced ability to
act as one would otherwise have acted.
Speaker 2 (03:31:13):
The law does not require that.
Speaker 3 (03:31:14):
The injury be serious, it may be miner caused physical injury.
The second element is that the defendant caused physical injury
to another person. This means that the defendant's conduct.
Speaker 2 (03:31:23):
Was the proximate cause of the person's injury.
Speaker 3 (03:31:26):
You will refer to the court's earlier instruction on proximate
cause at fourteen. You must find a proof beyond a
reasonable doubt that Thomas Connery Junior was injured as a
result of the actions of the defendant. It does not
matter whether it was the person upon whom the defendant
intended to inflict physical injury.
Speaker 2 (03:31:43):
It is sufficient if you find that the defendant intended
to cause physical.
Speaker 3 (03:31:46):
Injury to another person and that he in fact caused
physical injury to.
Speaker 2 (03:31:51):
The person or to some other person. Element three with
a dangerous weapon.
Speaker 3 (03:31:57):
The third element is that the defendant caused the injury
by means of a dangerous instrument, other than by means
of the discharge of the firearm. Dangerous instrument means any
instrument which, under the circumstances in which it is used
or attemptible threaten to be used, is capable of causing
death or serious physical injury. Serious physical injury means physical
injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which
(03:32:18):
causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious loss
or impairment of the function of any bodily organ. It
is important to note that the article may not be
inherently dangerous. All that is required is that the article
was capable of causing death or serious physical injury under
the circumstances in which it was used. Any article or
substance without limitation, and even though harmless under normal use,
(03:32:40):
may be found by you to be a dangerous instrument
if under the circumstances of its use or threatened or
attempted use, it is capable of producing serious physical.
Speaker 2 (03:32:48):
Injury or death.
Speaker 3 (03:32:49):
The state need not with them in fact death or
serious physical injury resulted, only that the instrument had the potential.
Speaker 2 (03:32:55):
Under its instance in some way.
Speaker 3 (03:32:58):
The state must prove beyond a reasonable death out that
one the defendant had this specific intent to cause physical
injury to another person to the defendant did cause physical
injury to Thomas Cottery Junior, and three the defendant quasi
injury by means of a dangerous instrument other than by
means of the discharge of a firearm if you unanimously
find that the state has failed I'm sorry, Yes. If
(03:33:24):
you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements.
Speaker 2 (03:33:29):
Assault and the second degree intentional, you.
Speaker 3 (03:33:31):
Shall find the defendant not guilty of assault and the
second degree intentional account flor and you shall then consider
the lesser included defenses of assault a certain degree reckless.
We'll proceed to the Court's instruction and see assault in
the second degree reckless Connecticut generalist at It's fifty three
A sixty A three below. If, however, you unanimously find
(03:33:52):
that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all
the elements of the crime of assault and the second
degree intentional, then you shall next consider the defendants claim assault,
defense and defense of others. You'll refer to the Court's
instruction on self defense defense of others below the twenty two.
If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in
(03:34:12):
self defense or defensive others, or has proved one of
the statutory disqualifications beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall reject
the defenses and find the defendant guilty of assault and
the second degree intentional violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty
three A sixty one two At count three, this wi
lend your deliberations. At count three, you shall not deliberate
and an unlesser included defenses You shall move on to deliberate.
Speaker 2 (03:34:34):
Account four will skip subsection.
Speaker 3 (03:34:36):
Seed blown proceed directly to the court's instruction I account
for assault and the second degree.
Speaker 2 (03:34:41):
Intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A sixty a two below.
Speaker 3 (03:34:46):
If, however, you unanimously find that the state has failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (03:34:51):
That the defendant did not act as self defense or in.
Speaker 3 (03:34:53):
The defense of others, or has not proved one of
the statutory disqualifications beyond a reasonable doubt that on the
the length of the defense is alone, you must find
the defendant not guilty of assault and the second degree
intentional account three, even though you have found the elements
of that crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (03:35:10):
This will end your deliberations at count three. You shall
not consider any.
Speaker 3 (03:35:14):
Other lesser included defenses, and instead shall move on to deliberate.
On count four, you will skip the sub section three
below and proceed to the court's instruction on count four
assault and the second degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes Section.
Speaker 2 (03:35:27):
Fifty three A sixty a two below.
Speaker 3 (03:35:32):
See Assault and the second Degree reckless section fifty three
A sixty eight three. The statute defining this defense reason
impertinent part as follows. A person is guilty of assault
in the second degree when he recklessly causes serious physical
injury to another person by means of the deadly weapon
or dangerous instrument. For you to find the guilty of
this charge, the state must prove the following three elements
(03:35:54):
beyond a reasonable doubt. Element one recklessness. First element is
that the defendant acted recklessly. A person acts recklessly with
respect to a result or circumstances when he is aware
of unconsciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such
results will occur, or that such circumstances exist, or refer
to the Court's previous instructions on recklessness at sixteen. Element
(03:36:18):
two caused serious physical injury. The second element is that
the defendant caused serious physical injury. This means that the
defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the defendant's injuries.
Refer to the Court's previous instruction on proximate cause at fourteen.
You must find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
Thomas Connery Junior was seriously physically injured as a result
(03:36:39):
of the actions.
Speaker 2 (03:36:40):
Of the defendant.
Speaker 3 (03:36:41):
Serious physical injury is something more serious a mair physical injury,
which is defined as impairment of physical conditional pain.
Speaker 2 (03:36:48):
It is more than a minor or a superficial injury.
Speaker 3 (03:36:51):
It is defined by statute it as a physical injury
which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes
serious disfigurement, serious impairmental health, serious loss, or impairment are
the function of any bodily organ Element three dangerous instrument.
The third element is that the defendant used a dangerous instrument.
Speaker 2 (03:37:11):
And causing the serious physical injury to another.
Speaker 3 (03:37:14):
Dangerous instrument means any instrument, article, or substance which, under
the circumstances in which it is used, or attempted or
threaten to be used, is capable of causing death or
serious physical injury.
Speaker 2 (03:37:25):
Serious physical injury means serious.
Speaker 3 (03:37:26):
Physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or
which causes serious disfigurement, creates a substantial risk of death
or which causes I'm sorry, creates backup, and I'm going
to redefine serious physical injury for you, So strike that
power of my charge.
Speaker 2 (03:37:43):
Under dangerous instrument Element.
Speaker 3 (03:37:45):
Three, Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a
substantial risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious
impairment of health, or serious loss or impairment of the
function of any bodily organ It is important to the
article may not be inherently dangerous.
Speaker 2 (03:38:02):
All that is required is that the article was capable
of causing death or serious physical injury under the circumstances
in which it was used.
Speaker 3 (03:38:08):
Any article or substance without limitation, even though harmless under
normal use, may be found by you to be dangerous
instrument if under the circumstances of its use, are threatened
or attempt to use it is capable of producing serious
physical injury or debt. In the summary of the state
must proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one the defendant
opted recklessly to the defendant cause serious physical injury to
(03:38:29):
Thomas Connery Junior, and three the defendant causer injuries.
Speaker 2 (03:38:33):
The injury might means of a dangerous instrument.
Speaker 3 (03:38:39):
If you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable but out of all the elements
of solve a second degree reckless, you shall find the
defendant not guilty of.
Speaker 2 (03:38:46):
Assault a second degree reckless. Account three WI.
Speaker 3 (03:38:49):
Lend your deliberations at count three. You shall next bend
to deliberate on count four. Proceed to the Court's instruction
on countful assault and the second degree intentional can get
General Stef fifty three A sixty A two below. If, however,
you unanimously find the state has proved beyond a reasonable
doubt all the elements of the crime of assault the
second degree repless, then you shall next consider the defendants
(03:39:12):
claims of self defense and defensive others.
Speaker 2 (03:39:14):
Refer to the Court's instruction on self.
Speaker 3 (03:39:16):
Defense defense of others below at twenty two. If you
unanimously find that the state has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the defendant did not act in self defense or
in defense of others, or that the state has proved
one of the statutory disqualifications beyond a reasonable doubt, you
shall find the defendant guilty of assault in the second
(03:39:37):
degree repless in violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty three.
Speaker 2 (03:39:41):
A sixty eight three Account three.
Speaker 3 (03:39:43):
This will end your deliberations account three, and you shall
then next move on to deliberate account four. You'll proceed
to the court's instruction on account for assault and the
second degree intentional Connecticut General Statute, Section fifty three A
sixty a two below. If, however, you unanimously fine, but
the state is found beyond a reasonable doubt, but the
(03:40:04):
defendant did not act in self defense or defense of others,
or has not proved one of the statutory disqualifications beyond
a reasonable doubt, then on the strength of the defenses alone,
you must find the defendant not guilty of assault the
second degree reckless account three, even though you have found
the elements of that crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This will end your deliberations at count three, and you
(03:40:27):
shall move on to deliberate on coount fur So you
will proceed to the court's instruction on account for assault
and the second degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes, fifty three
A sixty eight.
Speaker 2 (03:40:39):
Two immediately belowe all right, ladies, and donamo of the jury.
Speaker 3 (03:40:44):
It has been a long day of sitting, and we
are about little older I would save three.
Speaker 2 (03:40:52):
Quarters of the way done with my charge.
Speaker 3 (03:40:54):
However, it is for thirty so I am going to
go ahead and I I am going to rejourn for
the day.
Speaker 2 (03:41:03):
So what that means is go over this again. You
have heard all the evidence.
Speaker 3 (03:41:09):
You've heard closing arguments, You've heard part of the jury charge, part.
Speaker 2 (03:41:14):
Of importance instructions to you that apply in this case.
You have not heard all of those instructions, nor have
you been told to engage unil oration. You still remain under.
Speaker 3 (03:41:25):
The obligation of your oath and your journal conjunct. Fools
still abide, I still need to be a light abide,
So please do not discuss this case. You cannot even
discuss it with one another.
Speaker 2 (03:41:37):
Please please. It's a long weekend. We're not here tomorrow.
Tomorrow's July forth.
Speaker 3 (03:41:41):
It is a holiday, so I know this is a
little bit longer than I had initially anticipated.
Speaker 2 (03:41:48):
Hopefully this is not too much of an inconvenience, and
I do apologize to the jury, but July fourth is
a holiday.
Speaker 3 (03:41:54):
We will next convene on this case Monday, July seventh,
so you can come back on Monday July seventh.
Speaker 2 (03:42:02):
I will finish up the.
Speaker 3 (03:42:03):
Jury charge at that time in the morning, so we'll
get on the record right at ten and then you
will start your deliberations, all right, So no discussing the
case again. I can't impress upon you the extent to
which this case is being covered in the news, social
media and other outlets. Please do your best to avoid
(03:42:24):
the news, social media, and any other outlets where something
like this may be posted. I mean, I can't control
your actions, but I am going to ask please please
take this case seriously and your duties relevant to your
conduct seriously. Have this fantastic holiday, have a nice long weekend.
Speaker 2 (03:42:42):
And we will see you back here on Monday for
the continuation of the Churnal. Thank you before it stands
a journey
Rise horse down session JNA will Judge Merpher resided the morning.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
You're on.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
To the garding we York here today to continue the
trial and a matter of state commit versus Valley.
Speaker 4 (00:15):
At his good morning, you're on a market for the
state of Connecticut.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Connecticut money on Kevin Smith for the defending Rewel Valley,
who's at my side.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
So would just like to note for the graphs that
or did prepare a draft jury charge which was presented
to Council for a review prior to closing arguments this
morning for a dated.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Cloud a brief informal conference with the Council.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Regarding that particular jury charge.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Which will be marked as a course that has been
put in the court file as a draft how jury charge.
I do usually go through each of the sections just
to to turn as whether or not there are any
questions or any changes or the requests that have not
(01:07):
been made to the charge and importance is anything submitted
by counsels. So I'm first going to start with the
state and ask the state did you have an opportunity
to review the draft during.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
Charge that was provided The state has had an opportunity
to review the draft your owner and.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Let me just ask the hichportance that it just would
be in terms of reference.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
And orgy it would be exhibit number three important to do, right,
So this is all right, and then move over to
the defense attorney Spike.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Have you had an opportunity or you have an opportunity
to review the first charge in the space? Yes?
Speaker 3 (01:44):
Right, And so I'm just going to go through sort
of each of these sections.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
To make sure the court is not kissing any argument
that which is a toy.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
They have the charge that the coortan tends to provide
to the jury and try.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
So we're going to start with courts duty to instruct
and caution.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
No, your honor, nothing from the state, none from the
nothing for nothing from the state your owner.
Speaker 5 (02:12):
That's from the defense your owner.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Redacted to exhibits.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
I know that counsel is of the opinion that there
aren't any redacted full exhibits in.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
This trial, so I will be changing that language to
accommodate that concern. So it's basically going to read if
there are.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Any exhibits that have been accepting into evidence that adapted
commers of the original please note these adaptions to the
need by way of agreement and the childs making too.
Is there any comment or concerned regarding that words change
that section?
Speaker 5 (02:46):
Not from the defense your honer, nothing from the state,
your owner.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
I'm reading forward credibility any questions or comments regarding.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
That session for Coach Courge.
Speaker 5 (02:58):
No, your honor nothing from the state, not from the
defense runner.
Speaker 4 (03:02):
No, no, uh nothing, No concerns from the state your honor,
not from the defense runner.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Just concerned and pure to these states specific's ninety four
and ninety fifths in the respect the Jacks Water Tyler
to struggle and respectivated background.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Yes, yes, you're nothing from the state, not from the
defense runner, all right, For it has.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
An inserted doctor James Gale, doctor lyon jobs pa or
clapping doctorself.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Probably those who have sus stand and provide it.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Came a relative to certain conditions, with certain results, in
certain definitions and approaches of certain standis so, is there
anyone that should be included here or anyone that you
should not be included?
Speaker 5 (03:44):
I don't believe so. Your are not from the defense
yourn it, thank.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
You defendants testimony and proximate cause anything on the self section.
Speaker 5 (03:53):
Nothing from the state, your honor, not from the defense
all right.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Specific inspecting movie like truvies.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
I just want to make sure that the cow is
right and that or is charging with respect.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
To the intent required to be proven about the state
relative to the charges.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
I want to go through it to count long runner
and their first degree intentional?
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Is that correct?
Speaker 5 (04:16):
Yes, Yes, your honor.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Actual result in the first degree intentional and assault of
sevenree intentionals or lesser included.
Speaker 5 (04:22):
Yes, your honor account.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Free assault in the first free intentional and assaults that
in your intentional of lesser de.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Lessly count for assault and secondary intentional.
Speaker 5 (04:32):
That's correct. Yes, you're.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Moving forward to that business and you change your comments.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Nothing from the state your owner other than the with
regards to the concept of recklessness. Just so the juries
aware that it is a lesser included defense to count
one in that.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
Yet mindset that has to be proven by through state
relative to the charges count one are in the first
degredactaeys and lesser creature. Yes, your honor how to assault
the first degree up and says it loves to including
the assault in the second degree.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
About the second less included, Yes, your honor think you accounts.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
Re assault the first three about it says a lesser
and also assault.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
The second to believe that yes.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Loss account cool assault and secondary.
Speaker 5 (05:14):
Round the loss of srue. Yes, your honor.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Av the seven tents and earlier, are there anything under those.
Speaker 6 (05:20):
Sections you pint to discuss nothing from the snail yard.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Consciousness of guilt. T U again had an opportunity to view.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
The state's claims to any concernings or questions or promised
then never wants them to be again nor no your
honor identification and defend into any touch business nothing from
the state, not from the defense specific charge is brought
by the state again the court, you'll be modifying.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
The charge to repeat substitute information as a first just information.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Or you'll be providing additional built and highlight the substance
of theay.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Is there anything.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Regarding first the introduction to the specific charges that.
Speaker 5 (05:57):
Abted to discuss, No, your honor not from the sense
all right, and.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Again as to each of the four counts when we
discuss elements, even.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
On the last where included, I will be directing the
jury as to the number of elements that must be found.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
As well, so that will be added so account will
murder anything substances substantively.
Speaker 5 (06:16):
Under that pount that you to nothing from the state,
not the defense.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Last including the first.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
To murder, start the astor the first three intentional?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Anything about I'd like to.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Discuss substantie nothing from the state, not from the defense, Yonner.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
Manslaughter in the first degree, up is anything substantively like.
Speaker 6 (06:36):
To discuss here nothing from the state.
Speaker 5 (06:38):
Your owner, nothing from the defense.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Yon and nothing from the defense.
Speaker 5 (06:42):
Correct, that's correct, John, I thank you, all right?
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Pleasant, How to them solve in the first gree anything
regarding assault in the first very intentional?
Speaker 6 (06:53):
Are do you'd like to discuss nothing from the state,
your owner.
Speaker 5 (06:55):
Not from the defense.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Yon?
Speaker 3 (06:56):
It all right, that's an included that advice to assault
in the first three intention.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
We'll start with the introduction. Anything there.
Speaker 5 (07:08):
That red dispass nothing from the state, us, not from
the defense, your honner.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
I think alright, first less or include your assault a
first pretty raptiss anything suss to be.
Speaker 5 (07:16):
There, nothing from the state, no your honor.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Satings at the assault and second degree intentional.
Speaker 5 (07:21):
And it takes sens to be that nothing from the state,
your owner, no your honor.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
And moving on to see them assault the second degree
is I think anything substitute be uh incorrect or in
our green.
Speaker 6 (07:34):
Common the states.
Speaker 5 (07:35):
He's not your owner, not from the defense your owner.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
Okay, and again I just wanna add here we do
discussing homs that ideally the instruct the journy immediately their
order that they're.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
Only to degree if any, if they have found the
defensive uh, not to as.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
You, I mean, all their respective purges. So I just
wanna make clear that uh again relative to help to the.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Only last route to the defenses that have the ex
trusted on the paths of state the fe assault in
the first three rapeless assault and the sectary intentional and
assault in the.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
Second year rapless a sect that's correct and defense not
from the defense you.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Why have you been on to count three assault in
first three intentional as to a different tols and talks junior?
If anything substantively under.
Speaker 5 (08:24):
That account, nothing from the state around, not from the defense.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
N I will post get to the spelling pof are
the egyptive?
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Thus all right?
Speaker 3 (08:33):
So I have the same lesser included charges all count
three asier on count two. I've heard from you on
pound two.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Is there anything additional relative to how to three that'd
be like to discuss? All right? Any same questionion, same
lester recruited defenses.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
Were there any additional different.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Ut defense and offenses of the state is requested?
Speaker 5 (08:59):
And nothing from nothing from the defense even.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
On the health for ressault and secondary intentional Indituator three,
is there anything substantial or any comments.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
That to enjoying that you're gonnaccount the.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
Way that it's said nothing from the state guard, nothing
from the defense.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
You alright? And then if we have.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Less or acreated defense to these secretary intentional uh other
one that's a tuated that includes assault.
Speaker 6 (09:23):
The secondary about that's everything on nothing.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
So's the first uh to have houses stipulate on the reas.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
State will stipulate your anur defense will stipulate.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
You're alright, so beplorant, be can you maybe see things
ladies and gentlemen, you're nailed that you're closing argument.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
The omni house of the party the state.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
You won't have the opening your first argument and joining
emplois and marketing independent.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Or have an opportunity to.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
Also make an icy too. And then you you're from
the state again, perhaps it's my opertunity that you will.
You're in the state, you know, perfect times person to
be now, although the state has two arguments full diskies
get the same amount.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Of time to present their.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Argued to me, that time is a toll of one hour.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
The state gets two opportunities to present to.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
You at the States don't have in your purity of
this particles to author. So we build care for the
days were here from the defense and in those words
states again, there may come a point in time where I.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Have to inter love defense counsel if timing is a
lot a little bit, so please don't know that forgets anyone.
That's my falls So I hate into compito and like healthy.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
See how the prosings going, then side what we're going
to do that to our minister. Thank you so much
for your communications as well as your attention to this
particularly tall. Lastly, I see a lot of people with
your notebooks, and that's my bad. I should have had
a third states you. I'm going to ask you during
(11:04):
the reason that I doom.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Are not out of number one? Are you? So I
will help you listen to you, and then I'll thank
you so much.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
I thank you good morning, ladies and gentlemen. So I
was actually just going to address that that arguments are
not evidence. This is argument, right, You've heard all the
evidence that you need to hear. At some point in time,
you're going to decide this case based on what you're
heard in the court. But I wanted to take a
moment to thank each and every one of you for
(11:45):
giving us your time. Spend two weeks. Over two weeks,
AH got you. All of you have listened diligently. You've
given your time, you've given your obviously your lives outside
of this court and more important. But this is very
important civic duty and it does not go out unrecognized.
So we thank you very much. As the court indicated,
this is my first of two opportunities to talk to
(12:07):
you about this case. And in this case, there have
been many witnesses who testified it's happened three years ago.
They provided different perspectives on what they saw, what they heard,
what they did, and the majority of the witnesses were
teenagers when this happened. It was a horrific event. But
(12:29):
the main story is the same. The main story is
the same. The horrific event that was etched in their
minds was the same. This case is not about who
did it, what happened, how it happened, When it happened,
what happened This case is.
Speaker 1 (12:46):
About Raoul Valley, the defendant who brought a knife.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
To forty three Laurel Glenn on May fourteenth of twenty
twenty two and provoked to fight and stabbed four kids
nine times, killing one. That's what this case is about.
So what happened on May fourteenth of twenty twenty two.
You heard testimony about this party at Lazybrook where it
(13:15):
was a Saint Joe's party. Kids were hanging out, they
were drinking, typical high school party. Probably not the first
time it's been an alcohol at a high school party, right,
Not that anybody's condoning it, but it happens. So there's
this party. The defendant's there with his friends, He's wearing
this helmet and income in some Shelton High school kids,
(13:36):
Ryan Hines and Griffin marsinsic and because this is a
Saint Joe's party, not Shelton party, they can't come in.
So the defendant and mister Snyder and the Silva take
it upon themselves to kick them out. They steal the
beer from Ryan Hines. At some point in time, it
gets heated. They're arguing, they're arguing back and forth, and
(13:57):
at some point it ends out into the driveway, and
when it's out into the driveway, there's this agreement, I'll
fight you for my beer. So Jack and Ryan square up,
and just as they're squaring up, who starts to fight.
The defendant starts to fight. He socker punches him in
the back of the head. And then after he sucker
(14:18):
punches him in the back of the head and the
fight goes to the ground. He takes his helmet and
uses it as a weapon and slams it into Ryan's head.
You heard the defendant testify. He would have to believe
that that was a push, that he pushed Ryan Hines,
and that he didn't hit him with the helmet. I
would submit to you that if you watch that fight,
(14:38):
you could judge for yourselves what you see in the fight.
And by the way, while I'm talking about witnesses, judge
are gonna give you a credibility instruction, right, You're all
gonna have to assess the credibility of each and every
witness who testified. If you were call during vaider, I
think I asked each and every one of you the
same questions. You think it's pop that somebody could get
(15:00):
on a stand raise their right hand and tell the truth,
and you all said yes. I also asked all of
you you think it's entirely possible that somebody could scare
to tell the truth, believe they're telling the truth, and
simply be mistaken about someone. And you all said, yeah,
that's possible. But I also asked you, do you think
it's possible if somebody could get on that stand, swear
to tell the truth and look all of you in
the eye and out right lie to you. So again,
(15:21):
when you're assessing the credibility each and every one of
the witnesses were testified, that's what you have to go through,
and you have to go through what they said and
how does it line up with the rest of the case. Right,
The defendant who took the stand is also subject to
that same credibility and truth. He put his credibility and
issue as soon as he took that over. The video,
I would submit to you tells a very different story
(15:43):
than what the defendant testified to a couple of days ago. So,
after this fight, they get in Jack's car and they
leave Laserbrook. Can they go to Trumble High School, And
at some point in time as they go to Trumble
High School, there's this basketball group chat. You heard tests
money that Shelton kids were in it. You heard testimony
(16:03):
that Ryan Hines was in it. You heard testimony that
the defendant was in it. You heard the testimony that
the Silva and Snyder were in it. And you also
heard testimony that they wanted to fight the Shelton kids
at Trumble High School. They were there for about twenty minutes.
This wasn't over. Of course, there was an argument and
heated emotions about what had just happened at Lazybrook. But
(16:23):
now they want to meet up at Trumble High School.
So what does the defendant say. The defendant tells him
to slide on over to Trumble High School. Multiple times
in the group Jets slide right over because they want
to fight Shelton kids. Don't want to go to Trumble
High School. Somebody puts an address forty three Layred Glenn.
In the group Jet come to Laurel Glenn. So they
(16:45):
go over to Laurel Glenn. The defendant would have you
believed that he had no idea that they were going
to fight, that they were just going to another party.
I would submit to you that you need to assess
whether or not that's credible when you're during your deliberations.
But in any event, you heard testimony from several witnesses
that the defendant wanted to go to Lazybrook or Laurel
Glenn to fight. He wanted to fight at Tumple High School,
(17:06):
and he wanted to fight over at Laurel Glenn, and
that's why they were going. And as a matter of fact,
when they got to Trump when they got to Laurel Glenn,
the defendant lets all the kids know that they're there.
There's a few kids outside, more kids come outside, and
at some point in time, Tyler Rich and his friends
(17:26):
were outside. They're around the car in the front of
his house at forty three Laurel Glenn. And there's some
testimony that at first it was peaceful, some testimony that
got heated, arguing back and forth, things were being thrown.
You heard testimony from Aidan King. I saw Raoul sitting
behind Jack Snyder, who was driving Tyler to Silva, was
in the front seat. The defendant even said Aiden King's
(17:49):
boy and Aiden King got up here and said. At
some point in time, the defendant said, get your friends
away from my car. I'm gonna break the break a
bottle over somebody's head. Again, all of these things going
to what was his intent that night. So things are
thrown at the car. The car shape was being shook
by the shelting kids. There's some testimony things were being
(18:11):
thrown back. Car takes off, drives up and down the street,
things thrown from the car, things being thrown at the car.
At some point in time, they end up at the
end of the street, close to the intersection of Farmhouse
Road near thirty six Lord Way. Now this is eleven
forty at night. You heard testimony. This is Jack Snyder's car.
(18:32):
The defense already out of the car. Tyler G. Silva
gets out of the car. I would submit to you
that the defendant being mad, angry about what had just
happened Jack Snyder's car happens just prior to this video starting,
and that's the point when he asks him for the knife.
He asks him for the knife. He said, Jack, give
(18:53):
me the knife. Where's that knife? Give me the knife?
He gets out of the car. Tellers Silva gets out
of the car. Keenan Dmitri will Kenzie walking away. Everybody
with an earshot of that conversation. You heard people testify
about what they heard about the knife. How you heard
Keenan Keenan Fraysich. He was going insane. He was pissed
off about about what happened, what had just happened to
(19:13):
the car. You heard Dimitri he was he was angry
about what had happened to the car. Tyler de Silva,
Jack Snyder. You heard Mackenzie say, I heard somebody asking
about a knife, but I don't know exactly who it
was because she's walking away, right, so we know the
knife comes out at that point in time. He's angry.
(19:36):
He arms himself with a knife at that point. But
then the shelting kids come down the street, after having
just told them get out of here, get the heck
out of right now. Look, was it right that things
were thrown at the car? One hund percent? No, it
was not right at all. Wasn't wasn't right that people
were hitting the car, shaking the car, and people throwing
things from the car. The kids are at the cars
parked on the side street. That wasn't right right either,
(19:58):
But at that point in time, nobody called the police.
They drove down the street could have called the police
at that point, And I said, hey, someone just damaged
my car. I want to arrested for criminal mischief. They
didn't do that. The defendant at that point in time,
thought it was very important to arm himself with a
three inch bladed knife at that point. So the kids
(20:18):
come down the street. Tyler Heard, Tyler Rich, Charlie Connery,
ty Wood, Ricky Fiola, a few other kids go down
the street and yeah, there's things thrown at the car.
They throw things back, right, but there's no physical altercation
between between the parties down the street. Because if there
(20:41):
was going to be a physical altercation initiated by the
Shelling kids, it would have happened right then and there.
But it didn't. Right again, Tyler Rich running down the street,
Get out of get out of here. You guys got
to get out of here.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Now.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
You heard some testimony that somebody threw this can of
WD forty or PB blaster back at Tyler Rich. And
he's walking away, and at some point in time he
sees the defendant and the defendant's walking towards him, so
he sprays him to get him away. Ricky Fiola sees this.
He's within a short distance to see this happening. At
some point in time, Ricky Fiola approaches the defendant and
(21:16):
has a conversation and what did you hear him testify
to He said, listen, hey man, it's really messed up
what he did. He shouldn't persuade you with that stuff.
But look, there's a lot of us and there's only
like five of you. Guys should probably just get out
of here. And while he's having that conversation, what is
Ricky Fiola say. Ricky Fili sees the defendant holding a
knife in his hand. Ricky Fiola turns around, walks back
to the rest of the shell and.
Speaker 7 (21:37):
Kids walk back to Tyler Rich's house again, no physical altercation.
Speaker 4 (21:41):
Down the road, McKenzie Trappaconti's calling her sister, I need
to ride home. At some point in time, Will Dimitri
and Keenan get out of the car and they don't
want to be a part of anything. They want to
ride home. They stay down the end of the street.
Riots are being called. Will calls his girlfriend come pick
me up. I think you heard testimony for Mackenzie traffic Coante.
(22:02):
He was that you Ledo would just stay down here,
stay with me, come home with me. That's not that's
not what he wanted to do because Ryan Hines, who
had just punched Sucker punched in the head earlier that
night and helmeted back at Lazybrook, who is now at
this party. Now, he wanted to go back and face
(22:24):
those kids. But he wasn't going back just him. He
was going back with a knife, because who else goes
back to a house, right? I mean, you heard testimony
when he was in the car with a bunch of
other people and the car was being shook and rocked
and thrown at that he was panicked, he was frightened,
(22:45):
he was scared, he was terrified. If you're if you're
all those things, why are we not staying down the road.
Why are we not waiting for Mackenzie's sisters to come
pick come pick us up? Why are we not calling
somebody to come pick us up? Because he wasn't scared, terrified, panicked,
(23:07):
He's simply not, that's not the case. He was mad,
he was pissed, he was angry, and he had a knife.
So they wanted to go back and go and confront
those kids. Now there's some testimony, yet Tyler wanted to
go talk about the damage. And he knows Tyler Rich
maybe he could work something out. But the bottom line
(23:28):
is he's the one that was going going ballistic about
the car. Yeah, sure, Tyler and Snyder were angry, but
he's going he's going crazy, and he's the one that
arms himself with the knife. So he gets back in
that car. He makes the wilful decision right to get
back in that car, armed with the knife and go
back to the very house he was told to leave.
(23:48):
But he would have you believe he was panic, scared, frightening,
all those things. So Jack pulls up to the He
pulls up to the forty three log land. The defendant
and mister de Silva get out. You've heard testimony from
several witnesses that, uh, Tyler's on the left, the defendants
(24:09):
on the right. They move on to property. They were
told to leave, so now they're trespassing. Some kids were
outside got a little bigger when people hurt out. People
are here. You heard Tyler Tyler Rich say, I told
him to get the thought of the out of my property.
The defendant walks up, Ryan Hines, Faison Teal, Tommy Connery
(24:34):
somewhere behind them, but closer in proximity to the defendant
ty Wood. There is also there and you heard Tyler
rich say, I was yelling at these kids, get the
hell off my property. I looked out a little krmie
and I saw Rabul cock his arm like he was
gonna punch ty Wood. And that's when I just hold
(24:54):
off and cracked him in the face. And it was on.
So I would submit to you if the defendant walked
on the proper confronted those kids and started to throw
a punch or pretend like he was gonna throw a punch,
he was the initial aggressor in the altercation. By coming back,
by approaching those kids, and by cocking his arm, he
(25:15):
was the initial aggressor. He provoked the fight and started
the fight. He gets hit, it's on all right, Now
I can claim self defense. Now I can take this
knife out that I have in my pocket while I'm
on the ground, open it up right, all intentional conduct,
and start stabbing kids. Right. You heard him tested by it.
I was flailing my arms. I would submit to you
(25:36):
if you look at any of the injuries on these
on these kids from three years ago, those are deliberate
stab wounds. Those are not flailing slash marks, stab wounds.
So he stabs Ryan Hines three times. He stabs Faison
Teal in the arm again upper right left arm here
(25:57):
kinds up in the chest as you working his way
down down and Tommy Connery, you heard testimony from Tommy Connery,
who comes over and he's try to push him away
and he's on the ground, the defense on the ground,
and he comes right after him and starts stabbing him
in the leg four times. Deliberate again, what was his intent?
(26:19):
This wasn't self defense he used. He went into that
fight already armed. His response to this fight was unreasonable
when you look at it in totality. It was a
fistfight that escalated by his doing because he was the
only one there with the weapon. At some point in time,
(26:40):
the defendant goes back to the car that's waiting for him.
He would have you believe he was chased. I would
suggest to you that the video shows a different story.
But nevertheless, he's back at the car, looks back and
wants to run back in. He purposefully runs back in
with the knife, and you hear Charlie Connory yelling he's
(27:01):
got a knife. He's got a knife. He's got a knife,
and there's another person there yelling get out of here
bro because again the Shelton kids didn't want them there.
There was a communication to leave. Again, all of these
things could have been prevented. This is Jimmy McGrath just
before he gets stabbed at the end of the fight.
He's not engaging the defendant, but he would have you
(27:23):
believe that he or somebody else was, so that he
can cloak himself with self defense or defense of third parties.
He had a duty to retreat and not even go
after Jimmy McGrath. He was unarmed and he did nothing wrong.
And even if you even if you believe from the
evidence that Jimmy was involved somewhere in the fight somewhere,
(27:43):
which there's been no evidence of that, but even if
that's what you can infer from the video, I would
submit to you that self defense is not retaliatory. It's defensive.
You can't come back and stab somebody just because you're mad.
And that's exactly what happened here. He came back from
the car, he ran back at people who were already
the fight was already done. Tyler de Silva. Clearly in
(28:06):
the road, the fight was over. Kids were screaming back
and forth. Tyler de Silva even said the fight was over.
At that point, you hear get out of here, bro.
And at the very end of the video you see
Jimmy McGrath step back like this to try to avoid
the fight. The stab wound, the deliberate stab wound in
his chest. He didn't stab him in the foot, he
(28:26):
didn't stab him the lower leg. He stabbed him right
in the chest. What was his intent when he did that?
When that, when that happens, you hear Jimmy McGrath yell,
I've been stabbed and he collapsed. He collapses, so he
(28:53):
unnecessarily stabs Jimmy. Right, you're gonna hear an instruction about intent. Right,
I'm sure the fence turns gonna get upre and argue
he didn't wake up that morning kill anybody or stab anybody.
It's not what intents about. Intent can be formed an instant,
It can be formed within a moment. I would submit
to you. At the beginning of that fight that was
(29:14):
not on video. As soon as he got hit, he
informed the intent, the specific intent to stab people and
cause serious physical injury. Right. He went back to the
car and he formed the same intent when he turned around,
saw Jimmy, I'm gonna stab this kid and get out
of here. Why else would you stab him in the heart.
He stab him right in the chest, piercing his heart.
(29:37):
After he gets back to the car, he tells you that,
or Snyder indicates gets back in the car and he says,
I just stabbed like four kids. So he knew how
many kids he stabbed. He knew how many kids. He stopped,
but he knew he stabbed kids. He got to on
the stand here. I don't know if I stabbed anybody, right,
we heard that or heard that testimony. I don't know
if I stabbed am. I was only one with a knife.
(29:57):
But you know, he couldn't even say it, but he
said it that night. He knew he stabbed He stabbed
kids that night, So don't we know he did it.
They go back down the road. No, before we get there,
they take off the Silva, jumps in the car, they
take off, They take a left, They go down Adams Drive.
They're at the cul de Sac. He says, stop the
(30:19):
car and throws the knife into the woods. Why Constius,
there are an instruction about consciousness a gill. Why are
we getting rid of the weapon?
Speaker 7 (30:26):
Right?
Speaker 4 (30:28):
Gets back in the car, Go, Go Go. They go
back down to thirty six flore Lend McKenzie's sister. The
sister's there. He tells Jack and Tyler, I'm going home.
McKenzie jumps in the car with McKenzie and the cars
leave the area. McKenzie drops off Keenan and Dimitri, and
then they subsequently drop off the defendant at his house.
McKenzie was mad, right, she told you. I was pissed.
(30:49):
I didn't want to be there. I was mad at him.
They were going there to fight. I didn't want to
be there. I didn't want to be involved in any
of that. Now they were all going there to fight
that night. But after the defense gets dropped off, you
hear about the text messages that go back and forth
between McKenzie, who is his then girlfriend, and Raoul, and
(31:10):
he's saying things like, I can't text anything. I wasn't there.
You know, I wasn't there. Nothing is happening. Don't text me,
I'm going to Florida. I didn't do anything that was
text message. You didn't want to put anything in writing.
You also hear that he spoke to Taylord Silva on
the phone and when he spoke to Telerdisilva on the phone.
He says, Dude, I fucked up. I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
(31:32):
I don't know what to do because he knew what
he was doing that night and now he's having buyer's remorse.
So again, what was his intent? Right? You guys are
really going to be able to examine what his intent was,
and the judge is going to give you an instruction
such as there's no particular length of time necessary for
(31:53):
the defend to inform the intent. Intent can be formed
in an instant, it can be created in a moment,
may be and usually is inferred from the circumstances of
the crime. Since no witness can come into court and
testify that they looked into a defense's mind and saw
what his intention was, you can look at the number
(32:15):
of wounds inflicted, the location of those wounds on each
person's body, the type of instrument used to cause those wounds,
and his conduct during all of this, I would submit
you could even look at the conduct from Lazybrook. What
was his conduct during that fight and for what his
intent was later on that night. In this case, the
(32:38):
state intends that there were nine stab wounds inflicted by
this defendant on four different individuals. There were stab wounds,
not slashes. I would suggest to you that a person
who stabs multiple people multiple times and areas of the
body that would cause serious physical injury and death intended
to cause those serious physical injuries and death. There's no
(32:58):
other rational conclusion. So that's what this case is about.
The defendant was enraged about what had happened earlier. He
armed himself and he returned to a house to face
those kids with the intempt to stab somebody. He could
have waited down the street. They could have called the cops.
He didn't have to go back. He did potentially went back.
(33:21):
It doesn't make sense when someone says I was very scared, frightened,
and paniced to go put yourself back in that situation.
Speaker 5 (33:29):
It makes zero sense.
Speaker 4 (33:32):
And because of his conduct, three people are going to
have to live with scars for the rest of their lives,
both mentally and physically. And James McGrath lost his life
unnecessarily in the ripple effects that that's caused his family.
The credible evidence in this case shows that on that
day he intentionally caused physical injury to fasee on teal.
(33:57):
He caused that injury by stabbing him in the upper
arm with a dangerous instrument. With regards to Tommy Connery,
the credible evidence shows that he intentionally caused serious physical
injury to Tommy Connery. He specifically intended to cause that
injury by stabbing him four times in the upper leg,
causing deep stab wounds. You heard testimony from his doctor.
(34:21):
She was concerned about compartment syndrome and him losing his leg.
Deep stab woles, deep stab woms. These are not flailing
slash marks. These are deep stab wooms. Again, the manner
in which the wounds are, the wounds are inflicted, it's
not corroborative of slash marks. And he did that with
(34:41):
a dangerous instrument. With regards to Ryan Hines, he intentionally
caused serious physical injury to Ryan Hines. He had the specific,
specific intent to cause that injury by stabbing him three
times in the upper torso, causing a collapse lung and
other injuries to his lower abdomen in hip area. And
(35:04):
he did that again with the dangerous instruments. And with
regards to Jimmy McGrath, he formed the specific intent to
kill Jimmy McGrath at the moment he came back from
that car, turned to him and plunged the knife into
his heart. He didn't slash Jimmy McGrath. He plunged the
(35:25):
knife into his heart, through his rib cage and through
his heart, and the poor Kate bled to death right
there on the front lawn. You know, the judge is
going to give you an instruction on sympathy, and need
to follow that instruction. And I apologize for getting a
(35:47):
little choked up here because I have a son as well,
and I can't imagine what it feels like to have
that happened. And I hope no one else arrasked it.
I hope no one else has to go through this effort.
(36:08):
It's terrible. I apologize for taking a moment, but again,
the church are going to give you an instruction on sympathy,
so please follow that instruction on sympathy. But we are
confident that after you review all this evidence, you will
find the state has proved each and every element with
charge beyond reasonable doubt. You'll find the potentially cause the
(36:31):
death of your ma, regret, potentially cause assault the first
degree to both Ryan Eines.
Speaker 5 (36:39):
Good morning everyone.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
Yeah, they're probably tired of seeing me come up here
and set up with all my stuff, So I'll just
get right into it. This might be a hard case
because it involves young people. It might be difficult because
it involves young people, right, but it is not a
complicated case. It is a case about the most basic
(37:03):
right that any of us have, is the right to
defend ourselves when we're faced with people that are intent
on doing us serious physical harm that could be as
much as death, serious disfigurement, and all the other things
you're gonna hear about.
Speaker 5 (37:20):
Master.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
You've heard from the state here telling you, I guess
that Leedo Valley is a criminal mastermind who came over
there with plan to be able to use all of
this so that now I can claim self defense. You
(37:43):
heard mister Vallely get on the stand. Mister Valley, a
criminal mastermind can put together a plan like that, and
back home, you know, we'd say, son, bless your heart.
But that was mighty stupid. There was a whole lot
of stupid to go around that night. There was a
(38:04):
fire that got lit earlier in the night, and it
started with all that drinking that was going on, and
nobody there to say, what are we doing? How do
we come into all of this. That's the first fire
that was lit. There were a lot more along the way,
(38:28):
but again not a complicated case. Mister Valley took the stand,
he talked to you.
Speaker 5 (38:33):
He didn't have to do that.
Speaker 1 (38:37):
Mister Valley used a three inch pocket knife that Jack
Snyder gave him, that Jack Snyder brought that mister Valley
didn't even know existed prior to that night. Mister Valley
didn't even know existed prior to mister Snyder getting it
(38:59):
to him. Where was Leeder Valley seated when Jack Snyder
pulled that knife out and had it on his lap.
Was he in the front passenger seat? Und silver? Leedo
Valley's behind him with Mackenzie traffic canty on his lap.
(39:24):
There's no way he can see that knife in Jack
Snyder's lap. And Jack Snyder's the one who told you
he took that out and put it in his own
lap because he was so scared about what was going on.
So Leedo Valley can't see that knife, doesn't know it exists.
Mister Snyder told you he didn't that. There was no
(39:44):
way that mister Valley could have known it was there before.
He never brought it out. He never said to him, Hey,
I got this knife, let's go riding over to forty
three LGD and get a little payback.
Speaker 5 (39:53):
None of that happened.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
So it doesn't make any sense when Jack Snyder tells
you the Lito Valley asked him for a knife that
he didn't even know existed. Now I get it. Maybe
some of you want to believe Jack Snyder and Tyler
de Silva. Maybe you say to yourself, Gosh, those kids
(40:19):
got nice looking kids that get up here on the stand.
Why shouldn't I believe them? Well, ask yourself, why should
you believe them over mister Valley. Is there something about
mister Valley and the way he came up here and
took the stand and testified that tells you you should
disbelieve him, but believe those two. I didn't hear the
(40:43):
state talk at all about exhibits ninety four and ninety
six when they're up here.
Speaker 4 (40:47):
Did you.
Speaker 1 (40:51):
What are exhibits ninety four and ninety six? I bet
you remember. I hope it weighed heavily on your mind.
Imagine if I came up here and asked you to
believe witnesses. I can't even call them paid witnesses. They
have something more valuable than any money they could ever
(41:11):
be given. What is more valuable than a complete immunity agreement? Anything?
Is there anything that a eighteen nineteen twenty year old
kid would not come up here and do or say
in order to avoid any penalty whatsoever for their actions?
(41:36):
Does that bother you? Does that disturb you? It should?
Does that sound like justice for all? Does that sound
like justice for some? Does that sound like equal justice
to you? Gonna give those two kids immunity agreements? Jack
(41:56):
Snyder drove the car over there, gives the knife over
to my client. Tyler de Silva gets in that same car,
rides over there to forty three Laurel glen Drive, says
he's gonna go make peace. Listen, there was a lot
of stupid going around that night. Tyler de Silva got
(42:16):
up here on the stand and told you, well, I
thought I could go up and talk to them because
I didn't have a problem with them. Maybe he did.
Maybe some of you sitting here look at these kids
and think of your own kids. State's Attorney, did.
Speaker 3 (42:32):
I know I did?
Speaker 1 (42:34):
Would any of you put your faith in something as
important as this in a sixteen or seventeen year old,
would you have reason to doubt that maybe they would
fail to go to the grocery store and get everything
that you had for them on a list. But we're
gonna sit here and expect these folks to give us
(42:57):
the evidence that we need in order to convict somebody
of murder who's charged with the same things that these
folks could and should be charged with. They told you
that they know what they're exposed to. I went over
it with them. I asked him about it. They know
(43:17):
exactly what they're doing when they're coming in here. Jack
Snyder's story doesn't make any sense. He gave him the
knife because he asked for the knife that he didn't
know existed. It's not just implausible, it's not just improbable.
(43:42):
It is impossible. You don't ask for something that you
don't know exists. He didn't know it existed before that moment.
So we watched the ring video. The ring video is
the thirty six log Glenn Drive. That's Exhibit forty four.
You'll have that available team. You see the car stop,
(44:05):
you see Mackenzie get out. She's walking up ahead, rolls
already on the curb a little ashamed in a bad situation. Here,
Mackenzie's obviously upset with him. She's walking down towards the curb.
Tyler de Silva gets out of the front and then
the car stops and it's there for some time before
(44:30):
it drives off. And mister Valley told you that's when
Jack Snyder threw him the night and said, just in case,
just in case, what just in case? This situation that
I caused over here at forty three, Laurel Glenn Drive
(44:50):
comes running down the street at you, throwing things and
hollering things, and I'm about to drive off and leave you.
Does that make more sense than he was pissed off.
He was the most pissed off. He was angrier than
anybody else there. And he asked me for that knife
(45:11):
that he didn't know existed. Jack Snyder has every incentive
in the world to make these folks and you promises
that he just can't deliver on. He's got no more
powerful There is no more powerful incentive in the whole
world than what he's got. What are the terms of
(45:34):
that agreement that he was given. He's got to come
in here and testify truthfully. But who makes that determination?
Who's he working for when he's under that immunity agreement?
Not me, not you, the state? And what did they
(45:59):
all tell you, almost without fail, about what they did
before they came in here. They met with the state's
attorney a number of times to do what to get ready,
to make sure that when they took that stand, they
were going to testify truthfully. I put air quotes around that,
(46:22):
because what does truthfully mean in this instance? To those guys,
as they told you, it meant not deviating from the
things that they had said, the things that they waited
seven months and after they'd gotten an immunity agreement before
they were going to say anything. When we were in
(46:43):
here during jury's selection, some of you said, well, now,
there can be a lot of gray. There's more than
two sides to every story that was a bit of truth.
How many sides to a story did we get here?
(47:04):
And some of you said, well, you know, a lot
of people will lie. And you said that maybe you
had a little bit of an idea about what happened here,
You've got way more of an idea now about what
happened here. And some of you said, well, you know,
I don't expect everyone to testify truthfully. People may want
(47:25):
to defend or protect their families. You need more than
just common sense to determine credibility.
Speaker 5 (47:33):
Some of you said.
Speaker 1 (47:37):
You had an experience with a kangaroo court, and you
know what that's like. Don't turn this into a kangaroo
court by putting any more weight into the testimony Tyler
de Silva and Jack Snyder than what it deserves. And
(47:57):
it doesn't deserve any more weight than the paper and
the ink on which it is written, because that incentive
is overwhelming. That's more than just defending your friends or
your family. That's defending yourself. And some of you said,
(48:17):
you know, if we don't follow the law, our system
wouldn't work. It's not here just for one person. It's
not here just for a few people. It's here for
all of us.
Speaker 5 (48:27):
And that's right.
Speaker 1 (48:29):
You all take seats that were laid out for you
hundreds of years ago. You come in and you take
those seats, and you got to put your sympathy aside,
sympathy for the victim, sympathy for the complainant, sympathy for
any body. It's got no place here. Some of you
have experience taking things through a process, doing quality control
(48:55):
and making sure that everything has been met along the
way that experience here. Does this make sense? Would this
pass through quality control? You know I told you before
some of these witnesses, if not all of them, are
promising more than they can deliver. Imagine if somebody tells
(49:20):
you something that you know just can't be true. Somebody
tells you they've got to make a delivery and it's
going to take them an hour and a half to
get from here in the middle of the day through
the city down to DC in three and a half hours.
(49:42):
They're making you a promise because they want you to
believe them. They know you'd be really happy if they
could actually make that trip, but they can't deliver on that.
That's more than what they could possibly do. That's what
these witnesses are doing for you, telling you things that
they can see that couldn't have been seen. Why are
(50:04):
they doing that? They want to avoid consequences, the mister
Valley is now saddled with. They want to protect themselves,
they want to protect their friends, and they want to
(50:27):
protect the memory of a loved one that they lost. Now,
during the jury selection, I asked you all if you
could be open to the idea of self defense, and
to a person, you told me that you could. Some
of you said you'd had to use some self defense before,
(50:51):
and you said you'd be open to it, and you
could understand that the law allows you to use self
defense to defend yourself, to defend loved ones, and whether
or not you had experience with doing that, you said
you'd be open to it. I don't know what you
thought you were gonna hear or what you thought self
defense looked like. Some of you had experience with it,
(51:13):
some of you don't. But this is what self defense
looks like. It's messy, it's chaotic, it transpires quickly, and
you don't have to make the best decision. That's not
what the law requires. That's not it's a higher bar
(51:35):
than anybody could be expected to make. It requires that
you make a reasonable decision, that you make a decision
that you had a reason for. You watch those videos,
you know there's a reason for the defense that he used.
He's down on the ground, he's getting kicked, stomped, punched,
(52:02):
and he's being given no reason to believe that that's
going to stop unless he makes it stop. Nobody's saying
that's enough guys, everybody up, just a few licks and
then we'll let him go. That didn't happen. What did happen?
People joined in the fray. There were at least fifteen
(52:24):
to twenty people out there at a minimum. And you
know that because if you watch that video, you can
count them. Michael sam Perry, Sal Perry, Jacob Illo, Loovos,
Matthew Lockovich, Ryan Hines, ty Wood, Tanner, Chernowski, Tommy Connery,
(52:48):
Charlie Connery. The list goes on. We heard about all
of them. We see some of them, Alex burns them.
Some of them couldn't be identified. Those are at least
the people that we can see. And mister Valley's down
(53:09):
on the ground getting kicked punched, can't tell what's going
on around him. Ryan Hines is on top of it,
and Ryan Hines is punching him in the face. And
Ryan Hines tells you, I didn't think he was aiming
for me necessarily, because he wasn't. He reaches in his
(53:33):
pocket and he takes out the only thing that he's
got there, the only thing at that point that he
thinks is gonna make them stop, because they've not given
him any reason to believe that they're gonna do so
on their own. And maybe you're thinking to yourself, well, yeah,
but he said he brought a knife to a fistfighter. No,
(53:55):
he didn't bring that knife to that fist fighter. He
had that knife in hiscket because Jack Snyder took it
out and threw it to him, and he's got some
kids running down the way. He picks it up, sticks
it in his pocket. Now you heard the state argue
to you, well, you know they submit that that's when
(54:19):
he gave it to him. Now is when we see
it on that ring video. Agreeing, I guess with what
mister Valley tells us, which is, in fact, as you
will recall, entirely different than what mister Snyder says than
what Keenan fray Sick says. Snyder tells you he doesn't
(54:40):
give him the knife until it's asked for, which again
is completely ridiculous and unbelievable. But he tells you that
happens after they're looking at the car, after he's dropped
them off, driven down the street, leaving them there, comes
back and then everybody else who is still in the
car gets out. Do you remember that that was Jack
(55:02):
Snyder's testimony. He didn't tell you that he threw it
to him while they were right there and keenan Fresich.
What does he describe? A mad scramble through the console,
through the glove compartment, where's that knife? Give me the
fucking knife? Didn't happen. It's just unbelievable. It's not what
(55:24):
Jack Snyder or anybody else describes. But Jack Snyder and
Tyler de Silva and all these other kids that are
in that car, all these kids that had once been
his friends, all these kids who haven't talked to him
ever since that night, though they still remain very close
with one another. Those kids all told you the mister
(55:48):
Valley was the most upset of anyone there, more upset
than Jack Snyder about his car, more upsnet than Tyler
d Silva, who was worried about the damage and how
much it was gonna cost. He was the most upset
of anybody there. And he went into a rage. He
(56:09):
was so angry. I've never seen anybody that angry in
my life. He goes digging through the car and this
and that and the other. Why does that make any sense?
Of course not not unless you start to think about
what's motivating them to ostracize and distance themselves from mister Valley,
(56:35):
to aggrandize what he was doing so they can demonize it,
so they can wipe their hands in Mister Valley, I
had no idea.
Speaker 5 (56:48):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (56:50):
He was so mad, he was so angry. I just
thought we were just gonna go get back in the car,
and I was gonna go make peace. It doesn't make
any sense. Mister Balley told you he and Tyler Disilva
were best friends. Again, it might have been mighty stupid
to get back in that car, but there was so
much stupid running around that night, and now mister Valley's
(57:13):
the only one sitting here and facing anything for it,
because he got in that car and had a pocket
knife in his pocket. You'll recall not a single witness
telling you that he got out of that car and
came onto that lawn with that knife displayed. None of
them saw it. He didn't get out dancing around with it,
(57:34):
licking the blade, asking who wants a piece of this?
None of that. He's not a person who carries a knife.
It wasn't his knife. And mind you, one of the
charges that you don't hear here is criminal trespassing. It
was stupid to go on that lawn. I would agree
with you. We could argue about that, and I would
(57:57):
concede that, but it wasn't criminal under those circumstances. Those kids,
for whatever their reasons were, had invited them there and
wanted them on that long. What do they tell you?
Did we hear a series of witnesses come in here
(58:19):
and tell us all the things that they could remember
so clearly, And they all could remember. I looked in
the car. I might have been a long way away,
but I could see mister Valley, and I could see
Tyler DeSilva, and I could see mckenseye traffic Caanty, and
I could see Jack Snyder. But then when it came
(58:39):
time to tell us, well, who else was there with you?
Who else went out into the front yard with you?
I can't really recall, really, but you told us that
all those folks were your friends, lifelong friends, grew up
with them from childhood, been over to their homes so comfortable,
and when they got to the house, they could walk
(59:01):
right up and go in through the bill codors that
they could go downstairs. Nobody would even blink an eye
right and when they got down there, they could see
their friends, they knew who was there. But then when
they all went outside, do you remember this? It was
everyone got up, all of us went together. Oh really,
(59:25):
who were you beside? I can't recall that actually, now
that you mention it. Oh okay, Well, who was at
the car? Some of them told you, you know, there
was a couple of us at the car, right, maybe
three or four of us at the car. And then
others told you, no, there was maybe ten of us
that went to the car, And there were others that
(59:46):
told you there was more like fifteen or twenty of us,
and we were all around the car. Some of them
told you, I didn't see anybody touch the car. I
didn't see anything going on over there. It was peaceful
what I saw. And you had others told you, no,
we had our hands on the car. We were rocking it.
There was somebody bouncing up and down on the rear
(01:00:07):
bumper who I can't recall. Oh okay, but you just
went through a whole list of folks that you could
tell us were there, that you saw downstairs, and you
all went out together. So surely you must have seen
Tyler rich by the car. I don't recall. Oh okay,
what about ty Wood? Where was he? I don't recall.
(01:00:29):
You will have the opportunity to see all the evidence
here as long as you want, as many times as
you wish. Do a test, do an experiment. Go through
those witnesses, see when they can't remember things, and ask
yourselves if that's convenient, if it seems like they're protecting
their friends, or ask yourselves, is there something wrong with
(01:00:55):
their memories? Why is it so selective? Why can they
remember some things but not others? And do those things
seem designed to protect their friends and themselves? Tyler rich
has got to tell you that he told Tyler to
(01:01:17):
Silva to get the fuck out of here when he
sees him on his lawn, Because what he can't come
in here and tell you is he didn't tell him
get the fuck out of here. He wanted him on
that lawn, and he wanted for his friends and him
to be able to jump them and get some payback.
Speaker 4 (01:01:34):
Because if he tells you that, and.
Speaker 1 (01:01:35):
If he tells the cops that, then he and his
friends could get charged. Maybe they get an immunity agreement.
Who knows, but they certainly have to admit to some
conduct that is criminal and they're not gonna do that.
They didn't do it that night, to the extent that
(01:01:58):
they came in here and told you things that were
different from what they.
Speaker 4 (01:02:01):
Told the cops before.
Speaker 1 (01:02:05):
I tried to point that out. I asked every single
one of you during jury selection, probably looking at me, like,
what in the world is this all about. I gave
you the parking lot example. Everybody, Remember the parking lot example, right?
I said, what would you be interested in knowing?
Speaker 2 (01:02:23):
Right?
Speaker 1 (01:02:23):
If you came out and you saw two strangers that
you've never met before, and they're each pointing at each
other and saying he did it, and you look at
your white car.
Speaker 4 (01:02:31):
Remember the white car.
Speaker 1 (01:02:32):
It's got a long red gash. Remember the red gash?
I said, would you be interested in knowing whether either
of them drove a red car? He just looked at me,
or kind of like I guess. I said, okay, would
you be interested in knowing whether or not there was
any objective other evidence that you could look at, like
surveillance camera footage. He said, yes, yes, that would be
(01:02:54):
interesting to me. And I said, okay, would you be
interested in whether or not there were any eyewitnesses or
people who claimed to be eyewitnesses, and you all said yes,
I think I would be interested in that. And I said,
would you be further interested in knowing where those people
were standing and whether or not it was possible for
them to have seen.
Speaker 5 (01:03:15):
What they claimed to have seen?
Speaker 1 (01:03:17):
And you all said yes. And then I finalized that
and I said, and would you be interested in seeing
how all of that evidence either aligns or doesn't? And
you all said yes. I know you did, because I
wouldn't have chosen you otherwise. That's your job is to
(01:03:38):
look at that evidence. It's my job, based on what
you told me, to try and show you those things
about the evidence that gives you some doubt about what
you're being told. You're being asked to align yourself with
(01:03:58):
Tyler de Silva and Jack Snyder. You're being asked to
condone that testimony and accept that and say I don't
have a reasonable doubt about what those two fellas told me. Again,
(01:04:22):
would you trust those two fellas knowing that that had
that kind of incentive under any other circumstances where you
had a decision as serious as this to make. If
they were the two guys, the paid spokespeople that were
telling you about a surgery that you should get. Would
you want to know what sort of value they were
(01:04:44):
being given to tell you that that was what you
needed to do? Of course you would. Would you make
a serious decision and not have a reasonable doubt about
it on the basis of those two folks. Would you
trust that kind of a evidence under those circumstances. Of
course you wouldn't. Don't start doing it now, Why would you?
(01:05:07):
You'll never forgive yourself if you do that. Don't overlook
your reasonable doubts. This system is built on reasonable doubt.
It's fundamental. Because none of us were there, we're looking
at it after the fact, and we're trying to determine
(01:05:29):
has the state proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. You
may feel inclined to try and solve the crime or
somehow make things right.
Speaker 5 (01:05:42):
That's not your job.
Speaker 1 (01:05:46):
You can't fix all the ills that led up to
that night. Your job is to determine whether or not
you have a reasonable doubt about what happened that evening
based on the evidence that you've been presented. And I
think you've got more than a single reasonable doubt. You've
(01:06:10):
got reasons to doubt. Jack Snyder You've got reasons to
doubt Tyler Desva, and you should heed those doubts. That's
what the law tells you to do. Listen to your doubt,
give your doubt credence. It is, in fact what binds us,
because it's there for.
Speaker 4 (01:06:31):
All of us.
Speaker 1 (01:06:32):
And if you don't follow that doubt and give it
the credence that it deserves, you're not following the law,
and you're leaving these seats in a lower place than
they were there when you took them. Just as fundamental
to our system is a presumption of innocence. And again,
I know I asked every single one of you whether
(01:06:54):
or not you could uphold that, whether or not you
could tell me as you sat there and looked at
mister Valley, that you could presume him to be innocent
despite the fact that he had been.
Speaker 5 (01:07:07):
Charged with these things.
Speaker 1 (01:07:10):
And again, you know, we made it kind of easy
for you. This is not a case of a who
done it. This is not a case where we're claiming
somebody else who knows no. This is not a case
about who did what. With the exception perhaps I guess
a faison tell as I think about it, there's no
(01:07:31):
evidence really to show you that what happened to Faison
cut on his arm there was as a result of
a stab anymore than Faison coming in and getting in
a couple of stomps, somebody pushing him from behind and
him getting a cut there. There really isn't. But it's
not about who had the knife. It's about why and
(01:07:55):
whether or not that was reasonable. Did he have a
reason to do that or was he just out there
to kill somebody. The State gets a lot of things
wrong about this case, but it got one thing absolutely right.
This is a specific intent case, but it's not specific
(01:08:21):
intent to murder. You know that you sat here through
all of this. There was no specific intent to go
out and murder. In order to believe that there was
specific intent to murder Jimmy McGrath, you would have to
believe that mister Valley was some sort of trained knife
fighter who knew that by taking a three inch pocket
(01:08:41):
knife and inserting it between the sixth and seventh intercostal,
that he could strike directly into mister McGrath's heart. Again,
he's no criminal mastermind, and he's certainly no trained knife fighter.
What he was was a sixteen year old boy down
(01:09:05):
on the ground getting stomped and kicked, and the numbers
were overwhelming. Was it fifteen? Was it twenty? Were they
all focusing their attention on him at one point? Were
they all focusing their attention on Tyler de Silva in
that chaos. That's not a determination he could or had
(01:09:25):
to make. None of us likes violence. We're not up
here saying violence is okay. That's not part of the argument.
But what we're saying, and what the law says, is
that when you have a reason to believe that you
need to defend yourself, that you have a right to
(01:09:48):
do that and to use the force necessary. And that's
what he did. And how do you know that that's
what he did?
Speaker 4 (01:09:59):
Well?
Speaker 1 (01:10:00):
I guess if the state's now conceding that he got
that knife during that exchange down on thirty six Laurel
Glen Drive when we see those folks coming up, then
the states should also have to concede the following. He
had that knife in his pocket, and he didn't take
it out when those folks came up, and he didn't
(01:10:20):
take it out when he got sprayed in the face
with WD forty or PB blaster. Forgive me, I have
no idea what pp blaster is, but I understand it's
something that you could spray out from an aerosol can.
And he didn't use it then either, despite having it
right in his pocket. That's a lot of control for
(01:10:46):
a person that they want you to believe. It's basically
a homicidal meaning.
Speaker 4 (01:10:53):
He can't be.
Speaker 1 (01:10:54):
Both now when he's down on the ground. You may
recall Ryan Hines till you again, I didn't feel like
he was aiming at me. What else did he tell
you about his position? Do you remember you can see
his arm doing this thing, but it looked like his
(01:11:14):
other arm and his bicep were somehow stuck under him
or pinned beneath him. Sure, because he told you he
was in the fetal position down on the ground before
he was able to get that knife out and start
using it, and he had not just Ryan Hines on him,
(01:11:37):
but all those other boys. You can see it in
the video. You've got a couple different versions of that video,
and I gave you defensive zebit B and I'd ask
you to use it a frame by frame that you
can go through as fast as slow. Focus in on
a single frame, and you can see that there are
(01:12:01):
two groups that peel all that there are two folks
that are wearing very similar outfits, and those outfits look
very much like the lighter bottoms, dark blue tops, graphic
on the back Jimmy McGrath and Tommy Connery admitted to
(01:12:24):
having been wearing that night. And you can see in
some of those frames feet attached to those figures kicking
a figure down on the ground that is clearly not
Tyler d Silva because he's being subjected to a separate
beating over to the left. And you heard about how
there were two fights that developed and that one goes
(01:12:48):
down over to the right and one's going.
Speaker 5 (01:12:51):
On over to the left.
Speaker 1 (01:12:53):
And think about what he's facing at that moment when
he's down on the ground, because that's what self defense requires,
not us sitting here later in the cool hindsight of
this room, the ability to say this at that No,
it's at that moment when you're sixteen years old and
(01:13:15):
you're down on the ground and you're facing the entire
shelf in the high school football team that's pissed off,
and they already know about the fight at five Lazy Broke, right.
You heard a testimony They got there and everybody was
already asking them about. One of the first puttersons that
came up to ask Ryan Hines about it was Jimmy McGrath.
Griffin Marsinsk told you, Jimmy McGrath is one of the
(01:13:36):
toughest kids.
Speaker 2 (01:13:36):
I knew.
Speaker 1 (01:13:39):
There was already a building fury in that basement. They
didn't know about that. This bunch of idiots are in
the car. They just got added to a group chat.
People are talking shit to them, as they said, people
that they claimed they knew on social. Can we all
(01:13:59):
agree that if you think you know somebody on social,
you don't know that person. I think you guys have
all gleaned what a luddite I am by my inability
to work this contraption over here. Knowing somebody on social
you just don't know anything about that person. These were
all strangers, at least to my client. Now you know
(01:14:21):
they're not all strangers to Tyler de Silva. He told
you about growing up with some of them. He told
you about they knew cousins and things of this nature.
And here they are texting in the group chat, talking shit,
and he says he thought it would be funny to
tell them to come over to trumble High School because
(01:14:44):
they were gonna leave Trumbull High School and if they
showed up, they'd be gone. Then he told you, I
saw a picture that got sent on the group chat,
and I realized, oh man, I know some of these kids.
And he left.
Speaker 4 (01:14:57):
He left the group child.
Speaker 1 (01:15:00):
There's Tyler de Silva, Jack Snyder in the front seat.
They're still going back and forth, and they're still going
at it. Jack Snyder Gryffin Marsensic are really going at
it right. Gryffin Marsinsic has taking photos of the car
out front, saying sitting ducks, that's what he was facing
when he's down on the ground, not you and I
(01:15:26):
coming up around him and saying, what's going on here,
my friend? Perhaps you should not be here right now.
This appears to be a bad idea. No, that's not
what that video shows. And let's talk about the existence.
Speaker 5 (01:15:39):
Of that video.
Speaker 1 (01:15:42):
These kids were ready. They came out with their phones
going this was gonna be a trophy, just like a
hunter hanging a head up on the wall. Let's document this,
let's record this. Not oh gosh, we don't want this
(01:16:03):
to be going on. This seems a little too violent. Gentlemen,
let the young man up. No, we're filming this thing
and we're celebrating. You remember Tanner Chanowski up on that
stand when I asked him, can you identify whose voice
that is saying.
Speaker 4 (01:16:20):
Yes, sir? That was me?
Speaker 1 (01:16:24):
That was you, and you're saying yes, sir? Is that celebratory?
Speaker 5 (01:16:31):
I don't know what you mean.
Speaker 3 (01:16:32):
Self.
Speaker 5 (01:16:32):
Try I don't know.
Speaker 1 (01:16:33):
I just I don't know why I said it. Oh,
I did somebody ask you a question to which the
answer was yes, sir?
Speaker 4 (01:16:39):
Is that what happened?
Speaker 2 (01:16:40):
No?
Speaker 1 (01:16:40):
I don't think so. No, I don't think so either.
And again, how many times did these guys tell you
something here that they admitted they hadn't told anyone before?
And how often were they telling you we were all
doing something? Everybody just went I couldn't see this and
that and the other. But then on cross examine they
would tell you, oh, well, you know yet everyone was
(01:17:04):
throwing something, but actually that was me that was throwing something.
Everyone was screaming stuff, but actually that was me that
was doing that. They wanted to minimize their involvement, generalize
what they were doing, anonymize it, and scrub it clean
so they could come in here and tell you we
(01:17:26):
were just shocked, shocked to find this going on. You
know that's not true. If you want to believe that,
ask yourselves, why why do you want to believe that sympathy?
Do you have any reason not to doubt that when
(01:17:46):
they tell you that these are people that are filming
a beating, not just one. Ricky Fiola's filming too, right,
we just don't have that film. Ricky Fiola's over there,
he's got the camera out. He's doing this. You can
see him in any of these free strings that they
show you, right, He's like this, and you can almost
kind of see when he turns over and he looks
(01:18:08):
at the camera and the light shines right in his eyes.
The book wild get that little red and he's kind
of like, oh shit, right, oh, I didn't realize somebody
else would be filming me filming. Then he goes and
what does he do with that? He goes and gives
it right to the cops.
Speaker 5 (01:18:24):
Right.
Speaker 1 (01:18:26):
He takes it and he shows it to some girls
that we're watching that thing go on. He wants to
show them Tyler da Silva getting beat because he thought
one of the girls would like seeing Tyler get and
then he kind of drifted off, and I asked him,
can you finish that for us? And he couldn't remember
(01:18:48):
what it was that he wanted to show him for
it that there's no reason to believe that those folks
were gonna stop unless they were made to stop. And
if you tell yourself that, there's a reason to believe
that they were going to stop unless they were made
to stop. If somebody back in that jury room tells you.
Speaker 4 (01:19:05):
No, no, he didn't have to do that.
Speaker 1 (01:19:07):
They were just gonna stop and then let him up, well,
what's the reason to believe that? I'm asking, what's the
reason to believe that? What's the psychology of a mob?
What's the psychology of eighteen to twenty boys and men?
(01:19:29):
Don't forget this is a boy at that time. Some
of those folks there were men, They had already graduated,
they told you, Taylor Capella told us it was mostly
older kids there that night. What is the psychology of
a mob? The problem with the mob is not what
(01:19:51):
they do as much as what they might do, because
you don't know what they might do. So when you're
down on the ground and you're getting kicked and punched
and stopped, and again we know there's at least fifteen
to twenty people there. It doesn't matter what these witnesses
(01:20:12):
got up here and told us on the stand as
far as saying no, no, it was just a one
on one or maybe it was two of them talking
with them. That's just simply unbelievable based on what we
see there and.
Speaker 5 (01:20:23):
What's going on on that video.
Speaker 1 (01:20:28):
And we heard a little bit from some of the
witnesses trying to tell us Rolls there on the lawn
beside Tyler d. Silva, they're facing this big group of
Shelton High football players that have started to circle them.
He's not got the knife out, but he's gonna pull
(01:20:50):
back like he's cocked and ready to punch somebody.
Speaker 4 (01:20:56):
And who was that supposed to be?
Speaker 1 (01:20:57):
Ty Woods? You didn't hear ty Woods tell you that?
Speaker 2 (01:20:59):
Did you?
Speaker 1 (01:21:00):
Oh? Can hear a thing from ty Woods? You heard
the people that are trying to protect themselves from what
they did tell you that. That's why Tyler rich just
had to haul off, even though he was over here
talking to Tyler to Silva and punch mister Valley, who
again still had not pulled out at night, even though
(01:21:22):
he's got it in his pocket, didn't even pull it
out to say, hey, whoa, guys, this is looking a
little dangerous here. I think maybe you should all know,
you know, back off. At that point, Tyler and Silva
still thinking he's gonna make peace because he knows somebody's cousins.
Speaker 5 (01:21:39):
They know his cousins.
Speaker 1 (01:21:43):
Ricky Fiola and Tanner Chanowski are proof that everybody there
knew what they were planning to do, because they had
their cameras ready to go. So those are the kind
of folks that are kicked and stomping and punching Tyler
de Silva, mister Valley while they're down on the ground.
(01:22:06):
And the first three folks that get stabbed look at
their wounds again, aison till he told you you know, well,
I was sort of over on the side, and then
I came in and I started getting in a few what.
Speaker 4 (01:22:22):
Did he call them?
Speaker 1 (01:22:23):
Light stomps? Medium stomps? Ever been medium stomped?
Speaker 5 (01:22:28):
Anybody?
Speaker 1 (01:22:29):
What's a medium stomp? A stomp is a stomp. A
stomp is somebody down on the ground. You don't stop
somebody who's standing up, do you no, No more than
you stab somebody in the legs unless you're down on
the ground. Look at those wounds. One to the back
(01:22:52):
of the leg, couple to the front. Those are wounds
that you give somebody when you're down on the ground.
You don't then down give a couple here and well there,
and let me get one.
Speaker 4 (01:23:04):
On the back.
Speaker 1 (01:23:05):
It's just not how that happens. It happens fast because
you're frightened and you're panicked, and you're scared, and you
have a reason to believe that you've got to do
that because nothing else is stopping them. In fact, you
heard mister Valich. It scared him even more after he
had to do that because it didn't stop. And you've
(01:23:28):
got Ryan Hines. Look at his injuries. One to the ribs.
What when you're over top of it, when you're punching
them in the face, then further down on the side,
and finally one down on the hip flank area. Again,
what did he do? Mister Valley was standing with him
and went one here, one here, one here, I'm gonna
(01:23:50):
get one there. It makes no sense. It's not the
way this happened. It's not the way self defense happens. Again,
it's not complicated, doesn't mean it's not hard. Doesn't mean
it's not difficult the decision that you have to.
Speaker 4 (01:24:10):
Make, But it is not complicated.
Speaker 5 (01:24:12):
It is simple.
Speaker 1 (01:24:15):
He's down on the ground, he's getting me, he's getting stopped.
The same thing is happening to his friend. Nothing is
telling them that that's gonna end unless he makes a stop.
So with his arm pinned behind him while he's getting
stopped and kicked, bhoom, Ryan Hines, Tommy Connor, he tells
(01:24:39):
you he comes over and separates them, right and he
takes his place, takes his place.
Speaker 4 (01:24:44):
Over to.
Speaker 1 (01:24:46):
No, he's over there as well, getting in his kicks,
his leg gets stuck, gets the side side the back right.
Speaker 4 (01:24:55):
Now.
Speaker 1 (01:24:56):
Ryan Hines tells you after he got stabbed, you know
that was it. He had nothing to do with what
happened to Tyler de Silva. You know that's not true
because you saw that video. You saw that green hoodie,
black shorts with the white trim right over there on
(01:25:16):
top of Tyler de Silva, kicking him and stomping him
with the rest of the group. Part of the state's
argument here is simple, who are you gonna believe, are
witnesses or your lion eyes? Look at the video, watch
(01:25:39):
it and you will see there are two groups here.
You will see one group breaks off. That's the group
that is beating on mister Valley. And then you can
see them shove him into the road.
Speaker 4 (01:25:52):
He walks to the car.
Speaker 1 (01:25:55):
Thank goodness. At that point Tanner Turnaskusville, because what do
we see? Camera pan's over, He's looking what's he looking at?
He's looking at where mister Valley is. Mister Valley's by
the car. He opens the door. Briefly you see the
light come on inside the interior light, and then you
(01:26:16):
see his head go just like this right and we
can see the side of his face. We see the
profile and you can almost hear the wheels clicking inside
Tanner Chanowski's mind, It's like, what's he looking at? You
see the camera pans again?
Speaker 2 (01:26:33):
Oh what is that?
Speaker 1 (01:26:34):
Camera pan right to Tyler de Silva on the ground,
surrounded getting pounded on by a number of kids, right,
kids that are saying.
Speaker 4 (01:26:47):
Yeah, come on, get some who wants a piece of this?
Speaker 1 (01:26:50):
Yes, sir, that's what's going on. Any indication those kids
are gonna just stop that at that point, no, not
a single reason to believe that they're gonna stop. They
didn't stop with my client until he had used that knife,
(01:27:12):
and they gave him no reason to think that they
were gonna until he used that knife. That knife was
a tool. It was the only tool that he had
available to him to survive. That that was the specific
intent that he had. The States charge specific intent crimes. Again,
they're right about specific intent, but it's not specific intent
(01:27:33):
to murder. It's not specific intent to assault, specific intent
to survive. Because he had no reason to believe they
were gonna just let him that that was gonna stop.
They were intent on pummeling him into unconsciousness at best,
serious physical harm almost certainly, and no way to know
(01:27:58):
whether or not that was gonna stop until he was dead.
Speaker 4 (01:28:01):
Just not.
Speaker 1 (01:28:02):
If you want to believe otherwise, ask yourself why you're
gonna get an instruction on implicit bias. Is there something
about the way my client looks the way I am
that makes you think he's any less believable than those kids,
that he deserves to have self defense available to him,
any less than any one of us. That those kids,
(01:28:23):
if they were down in that same position, wouldn't have
done that exact same thing. Would it change your mind
if he'd had a screwdriver with a three inch shaft
in his pocket, and that he'd pulled that out and
used it, he'd have the same wounds, stabs, and punctures.
(01:28:45):
This is what self defense looks like. Most of us
have never had to think about that before. Right, what
does self defense look like?
Speaker 3 (01:28:53):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (01:28:53):
Hey, I saw it in a movie or something. There's
no manual for self defense when you're down on the
there's no handbook that you can pull out and be
like page what getting stomped by a group of how
many of you are here? Okay, okay, doesn't work like that.
(01:29:14):
The law doesn't require you to go through that, because
if it did, he'd be done. Maybe that's something that
you've never thought about with the law. But I asked you, guys, I.
Speaker 3 (01:29:26):
Know I did.
Speaker 1 (01:29:27):
Can you follow the law even if you don't like it?
And I probably gave you some ridiculous example, like have
you ever heard the song I Can't drive fifty five?
There's a guy who doesn't like the speed limit holes
and he says he can't follow them. Well, this is
a lot more serious than that, right, This is can
you follow the law even if you don't like the
(01:29:50):
fact that somebody died. But the law is you just
have to make a reasonable choice. Did he have a
reason to do what he did?
Speaker 2 (01:30:03):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (01:30:06):
Do you have any reason to doubt that? What is it?
Because Tyler de Silva told you that the fight was
over when he got back over there. You saw Tyler
de Silva in that video. He didn't think the fight
was over. He's in the street hitching up his pants,
(01:30:27):
facing back towards the group, and we can't see Raoul
at that. Tanner's perspective is over here. We can see
Jimmy McGrath a little bit on the side. And you
heard mister Balley tell you they were forming a semicircle.
Speaker 4 (01:30:41):
They were forming a horseship.
Speaker 1 (01:30:45):
And I asked all of those witnesses who watched that video,
where did those kids go? Where was Charlie Connery coming from?
Followed by one, two, three, four, five kids? Who were
those kids that were following him? One of them was
(01:31:06):
Matthew Lodge, one of them was Jimmy McGrath. Where were
they coming from? Watch that video? Use the frame by frame,
go through that part closely. You'll see exactly where they
were coming from. They're coming from just having been involved
with the fight with Ledo that shoved him out into
(01:31:27):
out into the street. That's exactly where they're coming from.
Speaker 2 (01:31:33):
Now.
Speaker 1 (01:31:34):
He didn't have time to identify anybody. He didn't know,
Jimmy McGrath. That's probably the tragedy, the most tragic thing
of this whole thing. These kids are practically strangers, at
least when it comes to mister Valley, as to all
of them. And with a stranger, you can't know what
is that person going to do. You have to make
(01:31:56):
your decisions based on the information that they're giving you
at that moment. Again, what's the information that he's got.
These are kids that are going to attack the car.
These are kids that are going to stomp, kick, punch,
gang up on film it record it for what? I
asked Tander Tchernowski, why are you recording this? Oh? I
(01:32:19):
don't know.
Speaker 2 (01:32:20):
I just do that.
Speaker 1 (01:32:23):
And at some point he admitted to collect memories. He
thought this was going to be a memory that he
wanted to keep before he knew what the tragic outcome was.
But when he thought it was just a beating and
an assault that was going to go on, Yep, that
(01:32:44):
was a memory he wanted to collect. That's who Tanner
Tchernowski is. That's who these other kids were. Now, some
of you might be thinking, well, when he comes back
on to the grass and he passes by Tyler de Silva,
at that point, you know, I can't see any of
those other kids that are there. I just see Tyler,
(01:33:05):
and then I see a little bit of Jimmy. Well,
you see a little bit more than that. You see
that hand under that hand down here around the back
on Jimmy. It's not his hand, it's Matt Lakovich's hand.
Because they're side by side, because they are part of
a semicircles. This is a group that has been acting
(01:33:29):
as a group the entire time. You're telling me, all
of a sudden, this group has decided, oh, let's split up,
let's single out. No. And in fact, you can see
in the video across the way there's another person on
the other side of mister dam He's got on the
dark top and there's some sort of white lettering.
Speaker 4 (01:33:47):
Across the top.
Speaker 1 (01:33:48):
You may remember I was trying to point that out.
You're gonna have that evidence to take a look at
it and ask yourself about perspective, right, because when we're
looking at things, one way. We can see like this,
and these things look appear to be very distant and
far apart. But if I shift over here, now it
looks like something else is in front, and ask yourself,
(01:34:09):
wait a second. He steps into that place. These kids
are all around him. They don't just disappear. And you say, okay,
well hold on, Charlie Connery's yelling he's got a knife.
He's got a knife. These kids are all backing up. Right,
makes perfect sense, right, thank you, Charlie. You solved that
(01:34:31):
one for us. I think he did inadvertently. Do you
tell somebody who's running out of a house fire, fire, fire,
I gotta warn you about the fire that you're running
away from.
Speaker 5 (01:34:48):
No, you don't.
Speaker 1 (01:34:52):
You warned somebody about a danger that they are running into.
And that's exactly what was happening here. He's got a knife.
He's got a knife. Guys, don't go rush him. You
need to back up. That's who you warn You don't
call off people that are already calling themselves off. Again,
(01:35:16):
that just doesn't make sense. And you don't have to
believe those witnesses just because it's their friend who died.
You don't, and you shouldn't and you wouldn't under any
other circumstances. Some of you have experienced doing workplace investigations.
(01:35:40):
You know this is way more serious. These stakes are
so hot. Why are you going to believe these witnesses
and this evidence under circumstances like this when you wouldn't
believe these folks, knowing what you know about them, their
selective memory, their efforts to minimize and generalize and anonymize
(01:36:03):
not put themselves or their friends in any danger.
Speaker 4 (01:36:08):
Lay it all on him.
Speaker 1 (01:36:10):
Your duty is to look at this situation, the circumstances
that my client faced as they were at that time.
It's at least twenty verses two. It's at least that
could have been more. Some of these folks told you, oh, oh,
there's people watching. They're just sitting, they're just watching. You
(01:36:35):
want to believe that, there's probably nothing I can tell
you or should even argue to you. These folks had
sprayed WD forty in his face. These folks twenty verses two.
That's forty fists, forty feet and legs. There's nothing that
says the force he uses to defend himself under those
(01:36:58):
circumstances has got to be identical. Just because they have
fists and feet. Doesn't mean he can only punch and
kick back. That's not what self defense requires. It simply
requires reasonable. Is it reasonable to use a three inch
pocket knife that you didn't bring, but that you have
(01:37:20):
in your pocket because your friend gave it to you
under those circumstances, of course it is. Look at these wounds,
Jimmy McGrath. One wound, that's it. He's not trying to
stab him over and over and over. He steps into
(01:37:44):
this situation. Look at the amount of time between the
time he steps onto the grass and again. In perspective,
they want to try and tell you that that kid
on the far side of him is not lined up
with mister Valley. Look at the grass underneath their feet.
Valley's on the grass. That kid's on the grass too.
The line of the curve, the curve goes just like this,
you know about horizon and perspective. They're almost side by
(01:38:07):
side those two kids. The other kids haven't gone anywhere.
It's wet. You remember me asking all these kids is
it dark? Wet, rainy, misty? I don't remember, I don't remember.
You can see it in the video. You can see
rain beating on the windows. Of the cars. Of course,
it's wet and you hurt. Tailor Kapella tell us he
(01:38:28):
came onto the grass and he slept. He spun around,
and mister Valley told you he got punched. Somebody swung
at him. You see Matt Lockovich's hand on Jimmy's back.
Then all of a sudden it's gone. You can infer
what happened there. Matt Lockovich takes a swing at him,
(01:38:53):
and mister Valley told her, I just swung. I put
everything I had into it. I was terrified. These kids
hadn't stopped before when they were stopping me, and I
had to use that they weren't stopping now. Did he
have a safe retreat that he could completely and safely retreat.
Speaker 2 (01:39:10):
Of course not.
Speaker 1 (01:39:12):
Last time that he had tried to get up. These
kids tackle them and went down again. And here they
were coming again, and we know they were coming again
because we hear them being worn. He's got a knife.
He's got a knife again. You're not telling that to
somebody who's not walking towards that danger. You're trying to
walk them off, who's not rushing towards that person. Once againing,
(01:39:37):
mister McGrath is holding the edge. These are all football players, right,
they know what it means to hold the edge. He's
holding the edge, that horseshoe, that semi circle. He is
a threat just as much as anybody else in that
mob at that bellows are the circumstances and mister value
(01:39:58):
of the space. That's what you have to judge him.
And if you want to believe these kids. Look, you've
heard about consciousness of guilt, right, Why have we heard
this evidence about consciousness of guilt. It doesn't change anything
about what happened down there on the ground at that point.
It's just another effort to make my client look like
(01:40:20):
some sort of criminal mastermind. He knew to go out
and throw the knife into the woods. Well, let's talk
about that. Who told us that that's what happened. Only
one person, Jack Sniper. When he's in here singing for
his supper, the jailhouse keys ringing in his ear, he's
(01:40:45):
trying to give you something, trying to give the States
something to believe him. Oh, they haven't found a knife.
Speaker 4 (01:40:54):
I'll tell him.
Speaker 1 (01:40:55):
He threw the knife down at the end of Edwards
of Adams in the cul de Sac. And then Chelton
PD Detective Bango tells you we went out, we look
for a knife. I couldn't find it.
Speaker 5 (01:41:09):
No knife.
Speaker 1 (01:41:10):
I guess that means Jack Snyder must be true. You
have every reason to believe that.
Speaker 2 (01:41:18):
Well a little bit over if we wrap it up.
Speaker 4 (01:41:20):
Thank you, folks.
Speaker 1 (01:41:24):
I'm not gonna apologize for taking up a little bit
more time. I do want to thank you for listening.
I hope you will look at that evidence. I hope
you will take your time with it. I hope you
will all understand this is probably the most important thing
you've ever been asked to do.
Speaker 4 (01:41:41):
In your lives.
Speaker 1 (01:41:42):
And I will tell you that the law requires you,
despite the tragic ending in this case, the law requires
you to find my client not guilty.
Speaker 5 (01:41:57):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (01:42:00):
Thank fifteen. I am going to go ahead and take
a quick break before we can keep on up. Then,
so we standon you said until quarta rapher cloud. I'll
come back a.
Speaker 5 (01:42:18):
Save silence step.
Speaker 2 (01:42:20):
I wouldn't find some state that to thank you.
Speaker 4 (01:42:28):
Good afternoon. That's my second opportunity to address for all
of you. It's it's funny that listening to counsel's argument
about there was a lot of Tyler to Silva. Jack
Snyder in there. This case does not rise and fall
with Tyler Silva Jack Snyder. The warrant was signed. That
(01:42:48):
you heard from Detective Bango on Monday the sixteen, So
the warrant was signed. There was enough probable clause at
that point, and then the investigation was still unfolding, but
there was enough to arrest the defendant for when he
did that. Tyler Desilvan Jack Snyder approached us six months
later because they had information and they want you to
(01:43:09):
discredit everything that Tyler Disilva and Jack Snyder said. Of course,
what you have to look at it. Remember when we
what d I asked all of you, how do you
determine credibility that you're just gonna sit there and look
a here, listen to what they have to say? What's
their demeanor? But isn't it use your common sense? How
does what one witness say? How does it marry up
(01:43:30):
to other witnesses testimony? In the entire case, Tyler Disilvan
and Jack Snyder are not the only people that hurt
the defendant asked for the night that Keenan Frasik did,
Demetrius our Fanis did a Kenzie Trafficcotty heard somebody ask
him for a night while she's walking away. There are
other people that heard these things. So again, whether or
not you're ready to just discredit them because they have
(01:43:53):
an immunity, agree with the State of Connecticut. I suggest
to you see how they're The information they provided to
you in this case marries up with the rest of
the case, and I would agree with the defense that
there was a lot of stupidity that night, absolutely, But
the bottom line is, you can't bring a knife to
a fistfight. It just can't. Look at the defendant's injuries
(01:44:16):
days after the after the incident, he's not completely beat up.
It's because he took the knife out immediately and started
stabbing people. You would think he would have huge contusions
all over his head, and he didn't even go to
the hospital. I would submit if if he was that
(01:44:38):
badly beat up and the only way out was I
could I could not. I had to fight for my life.
But there's the physical evidence does not show that. And
there's you know, there was testimony his arms pinned under
his under his own body. How did he get the
knife out with one hand and opened it up with
one hand? I would submit, that's next tosiball unless you're
(01:45:00):
a pro at it. I think the more likely thing
that you can infer from what happened is that he
took the knife out of his pocket while he was
involved in the fight, immediately opened it up and started
stabbing people. He wasn't on the ground you like they
would have you believe. He went after Tommy Connory. He
stabbed Ryan Hines in the chest. It's just not reasonable
(01:45:23):
to bring a knife to a fist fight. He went
there looking for trouble, that's the bottom line, because if
he doesn't go back, none of this happens. But he
went back. Imagine if he didn't go back with a knife,
it would have just been a fist fight, that's all.
But he went back with a weapon. You can't use
more force than what's being used against you, and he would.
(01:45:45):
The defense would have you believe that being punched is
deadly force. It's just simply not true. By the way
they want you to discredit everybody that is testified in
this case, this is not a who done it? And
they read it's not a who done right. He used
that that the defense Turney used that the parking lot example.
(01:46:08):
I was actually thinking about this during the break. Now,
the kids that testified, they saw what happened, right, It
was chaotic, but they saw what happened. Then when they
go and they give a statement to the.
Speaker 7 (01:46:19):
Police, you know where they asked who's to the right
of you, who's to the leftia Probably not did they
know at the time, maybe, but now it's three years later, right,
So it's kind of like a situation where you're in
a parking lot and you park your car.
Speaker 4 (01:46:33):
Now, all of you came here and you parked your car.
Did you look to the right? Did you notice what
color of the car was next to you? Maybe some
of you did, maybe some of you didn't, But you know,
you parked next to a car, right now, imagine that
happening and then you see somebody being chased in the
parking lot and getting stabbed with a knife. Right now,
that's a horrific event that you've just witnessed. And you
give a statement to the police, right and you see,
(01:46:56):
you're not gonna say yourself, why parked next to the
red car? Maybe you were remember that at the time.
So now fast forward three years later. I guarantee you
never one of you would recall that horrific event. Happening.
But if you got on the stand and I said, well,
what color was the car to the writing of if
you can't recall what car was the car that left him,
I can't recall do you know if there were cars
(01:47:17):
next to ye? Yeah? I know there were cars next
to me. I just don't recall one color. So the
reality is, is the color of the car or the
person that was standing next to anybody necessarily in and
around that air in this this fight, this this chaotic scene,
is that important in the grand scheme of things? Right?
Does it make a fact in evidence more or less? Probably?
Probably not right because listen, there were a lot of
(01:47:39):
people around, a lot of people were watching. There was
two or three kids fighting at any given time. Right,
we've seen that, We've seen the video. But does it
really make a difference. If you know Taylor, I mean
Taylor capelotole she was standing next to who, Mikayla Holt, right,
she remembered her, Maybe there was somebody else next to her.
She can't recall Tommy Connor, who was standing in the
driveway at any given time when when.
Speaker 2 (01:47:57):
The car first arrived.
Speaker 4 (01:47:58):
Yeah, I knew what I was there. I was talking.
I just can't remember exactly who I was talking to.
But does that really matter in the grand scheme of
things when we know the car arrived at forty three
log Lend, there was this confrontation, the car was shook,
the car was hit, and they took off, and according
to people inside the car, it was it was scary.
We didn't want to be there, and we wanted to
(01:48:19):
get out of there. And the defendant told me that. Again,
assess his credibility because when he's down the street he
arms himself with a knife and comes back. If you're
really that scared, why would you go back and confront
thirty kids who just shook the car. I mean, that
makes no sense to me. Disrespected of Jack Snyder's car.
(01:48:40):
Let's go back. Let's go back. If things go sideways,
guess what. I got a plan. B that was your plan.
Might have been a stupid plan, but that's what happened.
That's the bottom line. This is not something that happened,
you know. I mean, I would say instantaneously, as soon
as he gets hit, he takes the knifebok. He's not
waiting to get pounded on. No, there's no way. If
(01:49:01):
he was getting pounded on the way the defense suggests
you he was, he would have more injuries that we
would have seen after the fact, and he simply did not.
And by the way the defendant testified, when he was
running out of there, after he stabbed a graph in
the chest, he dropped the knife. The cops looked for
the knife all in that area. They couldn't find the knife.
They actually walked up and down the street. They held
(01:49:23):
the area. They looked for the knife. The next day,
no knife. And the information that Jack Snyder in telliged
Silva gave us right, we didn't know where the knife
came from. We knew had a knife, we didn't know
how he had a knife or where it came from.
Jack Snyder gave us that information. He came to us.
We didn't go to him. But even if you don't,
(01:49:45):
if you don't, if you seek the Silva and Snyder
out of it, it's still the defendant. Going back to
forty three, Laurel Glass with the knife, there were people
in his car that he went to high school with
the heard a mask for a knife and went there.
He got out of the car, he went in and
provoked the fight and instigated the fight, and it started,
(01:50:06):
he took it out and started staffingkins because that's what
he wanted to do. And then once he was able
to get out of there, he went back in for more.
And they have to have you believe that, oh, being
he was being approached or surrounded when he came back
into the fold.
Speaker 1 (01:50:21):
He hasn't do it in retreat.
Speaker 4 (01:50:23):
He can't come back into a fistfight with a knife.
It's just not reasonable. It's not reasonable, even if you believe,
even if you believe that that self defense applies to
the first three kids that are stabbed, even if you
believe that, it certainly does not apply to mister Ricgrath,
because again, self defense is not retaliatory, it's not punitive,
(01:50:48):
it's defensive. You can't you can't do things like this
and then turn around and claim self defense. He came
back from the car, Charlie yelled, he's got a knife
and with an I can see turned around his stabmographic chest.
They want to have you believe that he slipped.
Speaker 1 (01:51:05):
He slipped. It was a purposeful stab in the chest. Right.
Speaker 4 (01:51:11):
So again, when we're talking about intent, specific intent, the
areas of where the wounds were inflicted, right, the number
of wounds inflicted, the defendant's manner and how he conducted
himself that night, both at lazy Brook and later that night.
He did not have to go back to that house.
It's as simple as that. He did not have to
go back. But if he was going back, he was
(01:51:32):
going back with the player.
Speaker 5 (01:51:33):
That's as simple as that.
Speaker 4 (01:51:36):
And that that conduct cannot be excused. It's a horrific event.
It's terrible to tragedy that cannot happen because if that
happens all the time, then this is a very different
world we live in. And I asked him on a
cross examination, when you got out of there, and you
left and you went home, after you texted Mackenzie, you
didn't call the cops at that point, did you? Nope?
(01:51:58):
You went to Florida, right, yep. Did you call the
cops were here in Florida?
Speaker 3 (01:52:00):
Nope?
Speaker 4 (01:52:01):
After you learned the Saveria the situation, did you call
the cops and tell them, Hey, this is what happened.
I was pummeled, I was acting in self defense. Nope.
So again I would submit to you that, yeah, he
knew what he was doing as soon as he stabbed
those kids, and he told Jack and I got out
of there, and they went down at Adam's Rise and
he got rid of the knife. Why are we getting
rid of the knife? All the cops? I you know,
(01:52:23):
I just this just happened terrific. But this is what
got rid of the knife, got rid of the evidence,
you know, tells his girlfriend, I wasn't there. Didn't want
to put anything right. And God forfit because if he said, yeah,
you know what, I was really getting pumbled. I had
established kids, get out of there. He was very fighting
for my life. Didn't say that in the text, just
said nope, I wasn't there. It wasn't me. I don't
know what you're talking about. You know, I wasn't there.
(01:52:45):
And then he told Tyler to Silver subsequent to that
that he messed up. He knew, he knew. You know,
the judges going to give you, you know, the self
defense instruction. And again it's only justified when a person
reasonably believes that such force is necessary, reasonably believes the
first thing he did he didn't do is he didn't punch,
(01:53:07):
punch back, he didn't kick grab that knife. Again, you're
gonna hear the judge instruct that a person must not
use more force than he reasonably believes is necessary. I
would submit on that night he used more force than
was reasonably necessary, and I state submits that we've proven
that beyond a reasonable doubt. We also submit that he
(01:53:30):
provoked the fight. You're gonna hear some disqualif disqualifiers. If
you believe the state has proven the disqualifiers one or
all of it doesn't matter. You believe we've proven those
disqualifiers beyond a reasonable doubt, that he cannot avail himself
of the self defense claim. So in a provocation the circumstance,
you're gonna hear the judge instruct that a circumstance under
(01:53:52):
which a person is not justified in using any degree
of physical force and self defense against another person is
when he provokes the other person to use physical force
life against him. The defender must have specifically intended to
provoke another into using physical force and then use force
to defend himself from the ensuing force that he provoked
that person to use against him. You're also going to
(01:54:14):
hear about the initial aggressor the instruction that with regards
to that is another circumstance under which a person is
not justified in using any degree of physical force and
self defense against another is when he is the initial
aggressor in the encounter with which with the other person
and does not both withdraw from the encounter and effectively
communicate his intent to do so before using physical force.
(01:54:38):
He also has a duty to retreat. You're going to
be instructed that two conditions must be bet must be met.
A complete safe retreat is available to him, and he
knows he can avoid the necessity of using deadly force
at deadly physical force by making a complete, complete safe retreat.
Self defense cannot be retaliatory. It must be defensive. It's
(01:55:01):
not punitive.
Speaker 8 (01:55:05):
You know it's again if you don't if you look
at the whole, if you look at everybody's testimony, they
wouldn't need you to disbelieve everybody's testimony.
Speaker 4 (01:55:20):
In this case for you to not find that the
state has proven his case.
Speaker 6 (01:55:24):
Being a reasoned with them.
Speaker 4 (01:55:25):
If you looked at Jack Snyder and Tyler Stiville, took
them out of it, and just listen to everybody else's testified,
I would submit that there is enough more than enough
evidence to determine that this defendant brought a knife to
a house. He should have been a and he used
that knife should though, and after he used it, he
went back in and he stabbed my grath for no
(01:55:48):
good reason. But I would submit that he formed the
intent to kill him when he turned to him and
lunge at him and stabbed him in the chest. You
heard the testimony of the doctors of the medical examiner.
These were not slash wounds. These were punctual rooms, purposeful punctures.
Speaker 2 (01:56:09):
Remember that some rules that I love. A new day
to day. We are going to move alur lunch break.
Speaker 3 (01:56:15):
After our lunch break, I'm going to come jack onto
the bench to a few administrative things, and then I
am going to have you.
Speaker 2 (01:56:22):
Brought back into the courtroom and at that time I
will provide those.
Speaker 3 (01:56:27):
Instruction to otherwise. Hearing is good jury charge. So enjoy
your lunch, get a little bit of extra time for lunch.
Speaker 2 (01:56:36):
You'll hear the charge. You'll hear from that. There's a charge.
At some time into my later today, I expected you
will begin your little bility. However, now it's not the time. Okay,
thank you so much. A Council of part is prepared
(01:56:57):
to charge, and important with.
Speaker 3 (01:56:59):
The jury charge that's been provided, which does refilt the
changes that we're just during the formal charging conference. The
only additional change that's been made is adding some language
regarding the action to the lawyers during the trial in
addition to their statements, and just some typographical.
Speaker 2 (01:57:20):
Years, maybe a common here and there, ramatical things. That's
about it. But so I am prepared to move forward
on this.
Speaker 3 (01:57:28):
I intend to take a break during the charge because unfortunately.
Speaker 9 (01:57:33):
This charge is a rather repea charge, so I do
want to provide the jury a few minutes to stand
up and stretch. It's going to be difficult to offer
everyone to get through just sitting, so I will give
them some time to do that with take it.
Speaker 3 (01:57:48):
Pretty Additionally, I had asked about an exhibit list going
in with the jurate during deliberations, so I will be
asking too make sure that.
Speaker 2 (01:57:59):
You agree that there's nothing on the list that you.
Speaker 3 (01:58:02):
Know and absolutely represents the exhibit as an exhibit that
provides concern to you one way or the other regarding
whether or not that.
Speaker 2 (01:58:11):
List should go in, So you'll have additional time to
do that after the court's done. Charving, is there anything
that the court needs to address of these times?
Speaker 5 (01:58:20):
No, your honor not from the defense honor, saying I'm going.
Speaker 2 (01:58:24):
To go ahead the jury and then thank you. I
just want to actually give me one moment. I'm so sorry.
Speaker 3 (01:58:28):
I just want to address everyone in the courtroom. You're
welcome to be here. There are some courts.
Speaker 2 (01:58:38):
That close the doors, don't allow anyone in and out
of the courtroom during the judges charged the jury. I
do not do that.
Speaker 3 (01:58:48):
However, I am going to pass for your collaboration in
staying and remaining in place during the courts charge the jury.
This is a very import in part of the trial.
This is the law that the jury has to apply
to the facts they find. If you do have to
leave the courtroom, I am going to ask you to
(01:59:10):
respect the court and the process enough at this point
in time to not return to the courtroom during the
court's charge. I will be taking a break during the charge.
Speaker 2 (01:59:18):
Okay. If it's an emergency that requires you to leave
and you have to come back in, that's fine. But
I am going to be asking the marshalls to keep
an eye on that people coming in, you know. Okay,
So if you have to leave, that's fine. Just to
be the cognizant of where we are in the proceedings.
Speaker 3 (01:59:35):
If in fact you're attempting to come back in, I
want the least amount of distraction to the jurors at
this time.
Speaker 2 (01:59:41):
Thank you for your cooperation.
Speaker 3 (01:59:47):
Defense stipulates right, So once again, if you let me
in those pads, I am going to ask you to
step on a side.
Speaker 2 (01:59:53):
This is the jury's instructions, So I am going to
instruct you on the law that is true. If actually
find in.
Speaker 3 (02:00:01):
This case, you will have a copy of your court
jury charge with you during the deliberations. This is going
to be rather lengthy, so I do intend to give
you a grade comparing the parts in my charge so
that you can get up scraps, cheese facilities and sort of,
you know, get comfortable.
Speaker 2 (02:00:20):
And be seated again for some period of time.
Speaker 3 (02:00:23):
So you have heard the evidence presented in this case,
I am now going to instruct you as to the
law that you are to.
Speaker 2 (02:00:29):
Apply in this case.
Speaker 3 (02:00:30):
During these instructions, I will for the most part be
reading from prepared material. I do this so that I
do not inadvertently give you incorrect instructions.
Speaker 2 (02:00:41):
So if I use eye contact with you from time
to time, please bear with me the reading of these instructions.
Like I said, earlier is going to do some time.
The function of the court in jury.
Speaker 3 (02:00:52):
It is exclusively the function of the court to see
the rules of law that govern the case, with instructions
as to how you are to apply them. It is
your obligation to accept the law as I stated. What
I tell you, not what the attorneys tell you, is.
Speaker 2 (02:01:06):
The law that you are to follow.
Speaker 3 (02:01:08):
If the law as I give you differs in any
way from the claims of law made by counsel dismissed
from your minds your counsel have said to be extended
differs from what I tell you, you must follow all
my instructions and not single out some and ignore others.
Speaker 2 (02:01:23):
They are all equally important.
Speaker 3 (02:01:25):
Also to note in these instructions the Court does use
the terms first count and count, one, second count and count, two,
third count and count, free, fourth count and count for
crimes and offenses, and information and substitute information interchangingly.
Speaker 2 (02:01:45):
You, assures, are the sole judges of the facts. It
is your duty to find the facts.
Speaker 3 (02:01:49):
You are entitled, in the course of evaluating the evidence,
to draw any and all inferences that you find reasonable
and logical from the evidence to hear. You are to
recollect and weigh the evidence and form your own conclusions
as to what the ultimate facts are. You may not
go outside the courtroom or the evidence introduced in court
to find the facts.
Speaker 2 (02:02:08):
This means that you may not resort to guess for
conjecture or suspicion, and.
Speaker 3 (02:02:12):
You must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices,
or sympathy.
Speaker 2 (02:02:19):
You should not be influenced.
Speaker 3 (02:02:21):
By my actions during the trial and ruling on motions
or objections by counsel, or in comments to council, or
in questions to witnesses, or in setting forth the law.
In these instructions, you are not to take my actions
as any indication of my opinion as to how you should.
Speaker 2 (02:02:37):
Determine the questions of fact.
Speaker 3 (02:02:39):
If I asked any questions of witnesses, you must not
assume that I hold an opinion on the matter to
which my questions may relate. Remember that you, as jurors,
are at liberty to disregard all comments or questions of
the court and the witness's responses to those questions, in
arriving at your own findings of the facts. You must
not take any thing I said or did during the
(02:03:01):
trial as indicating what I think the evidence or what
your verdict should be. Any reference I make to the
evidence is only for the purpose of clarification of some
point of law or a point of illustration, or.
Speaker 2 (02:03:13):
To refresh your recollection.
Speaker 3 (02:03:14):
As a general nature of the testimony, I do not
intend to emphasize any evidence I mention, or limit your
consideration to it. If I do not mention certain evidence,
you will use the evidence from your recollection.
Speaker 2 (02:03:27):
If my recollection of the evidence does not comport with
your recollection, then it is your recollection which must prevail.
Speaker 3 (02:03:34):
Because you are the exclusive trier of the facts, the
defendant justly relies upon you to consider carefully his claims,
to consider carefully all the evidence, and to find him
not guilty. If the facts and the law require such
a verdict. The defendant rightfully expects fear and just treatment
at your hands. At the same time, the state of
(02:03:55):
Connecticut and its people look to you to render a
verdict of guilty if the facts law, which if I
are such, urdict The law for gibbitts the state's attorney
or the friends counsel from giving personal opinions as to
whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. During my
instructions to you, I may repeat certain instructions. I apologize
in advance. I do this for the purpose of organization.
Speaker 2 (02:04:18):
You are not to.
Speaker 3 (02:04:19):
Consider a repeated instruction more important than any other instruction.
All instructions are equally important. Also, during my instructions, I
may refer you to previous or subsequent instructions given. When
I do this, I will identify it for you and
direct you to the section to which I am referring.
If there is an inconsistency in the number and the
(02:04:42):
title of an instruction to which you are referred, it
is the title of the instruction that shall be controlling
in my reference to it.
Speaker 2 (02:04:51):
Presumption of innocence.
Speaker 3 (02:04:53):
In this case, as in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant
is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. This presumption of innocence is with the
defendant when he was first presented for trial.
Speaker 2 (02:05:05):
In this case, it continues with.
Speaker 3 (02:05:07):
Him throughout the trial and less and until such time
as all evidence produced here in the orderly conduct of
the case considered in the light of these instructions of
law and deliberated upon you in the jury room, satisfied
you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. The
presumption of innocence as to each crime charge and as
to any lesser included defense as instructed by the court,
(02:05:30):
may be overcome only after the state introduces evidence that
establishes the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If and
when the presumption of innocence has been overcome by evidence
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty
of a crime charge or any applicable lesser included defense
as instructed by the court, than it is the sworn
(02:05:51):
duty of the jury to enforce the law and render
a guilty verdict. Burden of proof, the state has the
burden approving that the defendant is guilty of the crimes
with which he is charged or lesser included defense as
instructed by the court.
Speaker 2 (02:06:06):
The defendant does not have to prove his innocence.
Speaker 3 (02:06:08):
This means that the state must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt each and every element necessary to constitute a crime
charge or lesser included defense as instructive. Whether the burden
of proof resting upon the state is sustained depends not
on the number of witnesses, nor on the quantity.
Speaker 2 (02:06:26):
Witness of testimony, excuse me, but on.
Speaker 3 (02:06:29):
The nature and quality of the testimony. Please bear in
mind that one witness's testimony is sufficient to convict if
it establishes all the elements of a crime beyond a
reasonable doubt reasonable doubt. The meaning of reasonable doubt can
be arrived out by emphasizing the word reasonable. It is
(02:06:49):
not a surmise, guess, or mere conjecture. It is not
a doubt raised by anyone simply for the sake of
raising a doubt. It is such a doubt as in
serious affairs that concern you would heed. That is such
a doubt as would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate.
Speaker 2 (02:07:06):
To act upon it in matters of imporance.
Speaker 3 (02:07:09):
It is not hesitation springing for many feelings of pity
or sympathy for the accused or any other person who
might be affected by your decisions. It is, in other words,
of real doubt, an.
Speaker 2 (02:07:19):
Honest doubt, a doubt that has its foundation in the
evidence or a lack of evidence.
Speaker 3 (02:07:24):
It is doubt that is honestly entertained and is reasonable
in light of the evidence. After a fair comparison and
careful examination of the entire evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable
doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt. The law
does not require absolute certainty on the part of the
jury before it returns a verdict of guilty. The law
(02:07:45):
requires that, after hearing all the evidence, if there is
something in the evidence or lack of evidence, that leaves
in your mind, as reasonable men and women, a reasonable
doubt as to the guilt of the accused, then the
accused must be given the benefit of.
Speaker 2 (02:08:00):
That doubt and acquitted.
Speaker 3 (02:08:02):
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that precludes every
reasonable hypothesis except guilt, and is inconsistent with any other
rational conclusion evidence. The evidence from which you are to
decide what the facts are consists of one so aign
testimony of witnesses, both on direct and cross examination, regardless
(02:08:23):
of who called the witness, To the exhibits that have
been received into evidence as full exhibits, including any pictures, videos,
or documents.
Speaker 2 (02:08:30):
That have been marked as full exhibits.
Speaker 3 (02:08:32):
Three, any facts that the court judicially noticed, and for
any stipulation of the parties.
Speaker 2 (02:08:37):
In reaching your verdict, you should.
Speaker 3 (02:08:39):
Consider all the testimony in full exhibits admitted into evidence.
Certain things are not evidence and you may not consider
them in deciding what the facts are. These include one arguments,
statements and questions by lawyers. The lawyers are not witnesses.
What they have said and are closing arguments is intended
to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence.
Speaker 2 (02:09:01):
Likewise, any emotion, re.
Speaker 3 (02:09:03):
Enactment, or other actions displayed by counsel during this trial
is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them
differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your
memory of them controls. It is not proper for the
attorneys to express their opinions on the ultimate issues in
the case or to appeal to your emotions. Also, attorneys
(02:09:24):
have a duty to object when they believe a question
is improper under the rules of evidence. You should not
be influenced by the objection or by the court's ruling
on it, and you are not told against any party
for making objections. During the first of the trial, you
may have heard counsels stand up and make comments without
questions made by opposing counsels. You are not to regard
any comments that counsel may have had what may have
(02:09:46):
made in your deliberations.
Speaker 2 (02:09:48):
Any comments on the propriety of.
Speaker 3 (02:09:50):
Questions are not proper for trial, or your consideration should
not be used in your deliberation. Lastly, the questions the
lawyers as scope witnesses are not evidence. It is the
testimony of the witnesses in a response to the attorney's
questions that is evidence.
Speaker 2 (02:10:08):
Two testimony that has been excluded or stricken.
Speaker 3 (02:10:11):
If I have excluded certain testimony, you must follow my
instruction to disregard the testimony. In fact, I'm telling you
to do what may be difficult, but which you will
have to do your guest to accomplish, and that is
to accept in your minds that such stricken testimony is
not evidence and must not be considered in your deliberations.
Three anything you may have seen or word when the
(02:10:33):
quote was not in session, or anything you may have
seen or heard from any spectators.
Speaker 2 (02:10:38):
During the trial. Five the document called.
Speaker 3 (02:10:42):
The substitute information, which you will have with you at
the time of your deliberations. The information is merely the
formal manner of accusing a person of a crime to
bring that person a trial. You must not consider the
amended information as any evidence of the guilt of the
defendant or draw any inference of built because he has
been charged with crimes. You will note that each count
(02:11:04):
in the information contains within it the alleged date and
location of the offense. The state does not have to
prove the exact time, date, or location of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the state must prove each
element of each offense, including identification of the defendant, beyond.
Speaker 2 (02:11:22):
A reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (02:11:24):
Direct and circumstantial evidence. There are generally two kinds of evidence,
direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is testimonied by a witness
about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.
Speaker 2 (02:11:37):
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence.
Speaker 3 (02:11:40):
That is, evidence from which you could find that another
fact exists, even though it has not been proved directly.
Speaker 2 (02:11:47):
There is no legal distinction between.
Speaker 3 (02:11:49):
Direct and circumstantial evidence as far as private of value.
The law permits to give equal weight to both, but
it is for you to decide how much weight to
give to any particular evidence.
Speaker 2 (02:12:00):
Circumstantial elevenance of an.
Speaker 3 (02:12:02):
Event is the testimony of witnesses as to the existence
of certain facts or evidence, or the happening of other
events from which you may logically conclude that the event
in question did happen? By way of example, let us
assume that it is a December night and you're preparing
to retire for the evening. You work out the window
and you see it as snowing. You wake up the
(02:12:24):
next morning, come to court and testify that the night
before it was snowing in the area of your house.
That is a direct evidence of the fact that it
snowed the night before you saw it, and you came
to court and testified to that fact. Now assume that
it is another December night, the weather is clear, there
is no snow on the ground, and you retire for
the evening. You wake up the next morning, you look
(02:12:44):
out the window and you see snow on the ground
and foot prints.
Speaker 2 (02:12:48):
Across your lawn.
Speaker 3 (02:12:50):
You come into court and you testify to those facts.
The evidence that the night before there was no snow
on the ground and the next morning there was snow
on the ground.
Speaker 2 (02:12:59):
And foot prints across your lawn is direct evidence.
Speaker 3 (02:13:02):
That direct evidence, however, is circumstantial evidence of the fact
that sometime during the night it snowed, and that sometime
thereafter someone willant to cross your lawn. The only practical
difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that when you
have direct evidence of some fact, the main thing you
have to do is determine the believability of the direct
(02:13:24):
testimony given the credibility of the witness. With circumstantial evidence,
you must first determine the credibility of the witness and
witnesses and decide whether.
Speaker 2 (02:13:35):
The facts testify to did exist.
Speaker 3 (02:13:38):
Then you must decide whether the happenings of those events
or the existence of those facts leads logically to the
conclusion that other events occurred or other facts exist, and
ultimately whether the crimes alleged were committed by the accused.
There is no reason to be prejudiced against evidence simply
(02:13:58):
because it is circumstantial life evidence. You make decisions based
on circumstantial evidence in the everyday affairs of life. There
is no reason why decisions based on circumstantial evidence should
not be made in the courtroom. In fact proof five,
circumstantial evidence may be as conclusive as would be the
testimony of witnesses speaking.
Speaker 2 (02:14:19):
On the basis of their own observation. Circumstantial evidence, therefore.
Speaker 3 (02:14:25):
Is offered to prove a certain fact from which you
are asked to infer the existence of another fact.
Speaker 2 (02:14:30):
Or set of facts.
Speaker 3 (02:14:32):
Before you decide that a fact has been proved by
circumstantial evidence, you must consider all the evidence in light
of reason, experience, and common sense. Redacted exhibits If there
are exhibits that have been accepted into evidence as redacted
versions of the original Please note that these reactions were made.
Speaker 2 (02:14:52):
By way of agreement by council or by order of
the court, and you must not speculate as to why
the information was redacted or what was redacted.
Speaker 3 (02:15:00):
Redacted information is not evidence, and as indicated earlier, you
may not go outside the evidence introduced in court to
find the facts.
Speaker 2 (02:15:08):
This means that you may not resort to.
Speaker 3 (02:15:10):
Guess, work, conjecture, or speculation credibility. In deciding what the
facts are, you must consider all the evidence. In doing this,
you must decide which testimony to believe in which testimony
not to believe.
Speaker 2 (02:15:24):
You may believe all, none, or any part of any
witness's testimony.
Speaker 3 (02:15:29):
In making that decision, you may consider a number of factors,
including the following One was the witness able to see
or hear or know the things about which that witness testified?
Speaker 2 (02:15:41):
Two?
Speaker 3 (02:15:42):
How well was the witness able to recall and describe
those things. Three, what was the witness's manner while testifying?
Or did the witness have an interest in the outcome
of this case or any bias or prejudice concerning any
party or any.
Speaker 2 (02:15:55):
Matter involved in the case.
Speaker 3 (02:15:57):
Fause how reasonable was the witness is testimony considered in
light of all the.
Speaker 2 (02:16:02):
Evidence in this case?
Speaker 3 (02:16:04):
And six was the witnesses testimony contradicted by what that
witness has said or done at another time, or by
the testimony of other.
Speaker 2 (02:16:13):
Witnesses, or by other evidence.
Speaker 3 (02:16:17):
If you think that a witness has deliberately testified falsely
in some respect, you should carefully consider whether you should
rely upon any of that witness is testimony. Deciding whether
to believe a witness, keep in mind that people sometimes
forget things.
Speaker 2 (02:16:33):
You need to consider, therefore, whether a.
Speaker 3 (02:16:35):
Contradiction is an innocent lapse of memory or an intentional falsehood,
and that may depend on whether that contradiction has to
do with an important fact or with.
Speaker 2 (02:16:46):
Only a small detail.
Speaker 3 (02:16:48):
These are some of the factors you may consider in
deciding whether to believe testimony. The weight of the evidence
presented does not depend on the number of witnesses.
Speaker 2 (02:16:57):
It is the quality of the evidence, not the quantity
of the evidence that you must consider.
Speaker 3 (02:17:03):
Witness with a cooperation agreement, you have heard evidence that
witnesses Jack Snyder and Tyler de Silda have.
Speaker 2 (02:17:10):
Signed a document entitled cooperation Agreement with the State.
Speaker 3 (02:17:13):
Terms which are contained in States Exhibit ninety four and
ninety six, respectively. These agreements are permissible, and the rules
of provide for their use. Although the state is permitted
to present the testimony of someone who has signed a
cooperation agreement in exchange for his testimony, you must examine
the testimony of such a witness who provides evidence against
(02:17:36):
a defendant with greater care and caution than the testimony
of an ordinary witness. While examining the testimony of a
witness who has signed a cooperation agreement and who has
not been prosecuted with offenses for which the state has evidence,
you should keep in mind that he may, in his
own mind be looking or hoping for some favorable treatment
(02:17:59):
in the disposition of his own matters, therefore, may have
such an interest in the outcome of this case that
his testimony may have been colored by that fact. In
considering the testimony of such a witness, you may consider
whether there was any motive developed in the evidence for testifying.
Speaker 2 (02:18:16):
Falsity and in inculpating the accused.
Speaker 3 (02:18:22):
The factors you may consider, among others, when evaluating the
credibility of such a witness, include the extent to which
the witness's testimony is confirmed by other evidence, the specificity
of the testimony, the extent to which the testimony contains details.
Speaker 2 (02:18:37):
And known only by the perpetrator of the alleged effects.
Speaker 3 (02:18:41):
The extent to which the details of the testimony could
be obtained from as well as other than the defendant.
The circumstances under which the witness initially provided information supporting
such testimony to law enforcement or a prosecutorial official. Whether
the witness has received a benefit or expects to receive
a benefit, including immunity from prosecution, leniency and prosecution leniency
(02:19:05):
and sentencing, or personal advantage in exchange for testimony.
Speaker 2 (02:19:10):
And whether the witness has ever changed his testimony.
Speaker 3 (02:19:14):
Further, notwithstanding any language contained and exhibits ninety four ninety
six the cooperation Agreement signed by Jack Snyder and Tyler Disilva, respectively,
it is your exclusive role to.
Speaker 2 (02:19:25):
Determine the credibility and believability.
Speaker 3 (02:19:28):
Of that woman's In other words, you and you alone
are to determine whether any evidence offered by Jack Snyder
or Tyler de Silva is to believe tolly partly or
not at all, very respective of any language in the cooperation.
Speaker 2 (02:19:43):
Agreement that may suggest otherwise.
Speaker 3 (02:19:46):
The determination as to whether the state is proven the
elements of the crime's charge beyond a reasonable doubt rests
solely with the jury after a careful examination of all
the evidence presented. You should carefully scrutinize the testimony of
Jack Snyder and Tyler Desnolva before you accept it. However,
you are not required to disliave a witness because he
(02:20:06):
assigned a cooperation agreement. The law recognizes that there are
many offenses that are of such character that the only
persons capable of giving useful testimony are those who are
themselves implicated in the prime. Like all other questions of credibility,
this is a question for you to determine based on
all the evidence presented to you. It is your duty
(02:20:28):
to decide what credibility to give to any witness. Therefore,
it is your duty to decide whether Jack Snyder and
Tyler de Silva are to be believed fully, partly, or
not at all, testimony police officials. Police officials have testified
in this case, you must determine the credibility of police
(02:20:50):
officials in the same way and by the same standards
as you would evaluate the testimony of any other witness.
The testimony of a police official is entitled to no
special or exclusive weight merely because it comes from a
police official. You should recall the police official's demeanor on
the stand and manner of testifying, and wigh and balance
just as carefully as.
Speaker 2 (02:21:09):
You would the testimony of any other witness.
Speaker 3 (02:21:12):
You should neither leave nor disbelieve the testimony of a
police official just because he or she is a police official.
Expert testimony in this case, certain witnesses have taken the stand,
given their qualifications, and testified as expert witnesses.
Speaker 2 (02:21:28):
A person is qualified to testify as an expert if
he or she has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education sufficient to qualify him or her as an expert
on the subject to which the testimony relates. An expert
is permitted not only to testify the facts that he
or she personally observed, but also to state an opinion
about certain circumstances. This is allowed because an expert from experience, research,
(02:21:52):
and study generally has a particular knowledge of the subject
of the inquiry and is more capable than a lay
person of drawing conclusions from facts and basing an opinion
on them.
Speaker 3 (02:22:03):
An expert witness may state an opinion in response to
a hypothetical question. The hypothetical question is one in which
the witness is asked to assume that certain facts are
true and to.
Speaker 2 (02:22:14):
Give an opinion based on those assumptions.
Speaker 3 (02:22:16):
The value of the opinion given by an expert in
response to a hypothetical question depends upon the relevance, validity,
and completeness of the facts he or she was asked
to assume. The way that you give to the expert
excuse me to the opinion of an expert will depend
on whether you find the facts assumed or approved, and
whether the facts relied on in reaching the opinion were complete,
(02:22:39):
or whether material facts were omitted or not considered. Like
all other evidence and experts, answer to a hypothetical question
may be accepted or rejected in whole or in part,
according to your best judgment. In this case, you are
provided for testimony by the following witnesses. Doctor James Gill,
(02:23:00):
Ryan DAWs, pa Eric Black, and doctor Roselle Crombie. Allowing
someone to give expert testimony is in no way an
endorsement by the cord of the testimony or the prudentials
of the witness.
Speaker 2 (02:23:12):
Such testimony is presented to you to assist you in
your deliberations.
Speaker 3 (02:23:16):
No such testimony as mining upon you, and you may
disregard the testimony, either in whole or in part.
Speaker 2 (02:23:23):
Is for you to consider the testimony with the other
circumstances in the case, and using your best judgment.
Speaker 3 (02:23:28):
Determine whether you will give any weight to it, and
if so, what weight you will give to it. The
testimony is entitled to such weight as you find the
experts qualifications in his or her field entitle it to receive,
and it must be considered by you, but it is
not controlling upon your judgment. You are also to consider
his or her general credibility in accordance with the instruction
(02:23:51):
on credibility applicable to all witnessess defendants testimony. In this case,
the defendant testified person having testified stands before you, just
like any other witness, is entitled to the same considerations
and must have his testimony tested and measured by you
by the same factors.
Speaker 2 (02:24:10):
And standards as you would judge the testimony of any
other witness. You have no right to.
Speaker 3 (02:24:15):
Disregard the defendant's testimony or to disbelieve the defendant's testimony
merely because he is accused of committing multiple crimes. Consider
my earlier instruction on the general subject matter of credibility
and apply them to the defendant's testimony.
Speaker 2 (02:24:30):
Proximate clause.
Speaker 3 (02:24:32):
Proximate cause does not necessarily mean the loss, act, or cause,
or the act and point in time nearest to the
death or injuries.
Speaker 2 (02:24:42):
The concept of proximic clause incorporates the principle.
Speaker 3 (02:24:45):
That an accused of may be charged with a criminal
offense even though his acts were not the immediate cause
of the death or injuries. An act or omission to
act is a proximate cause of the death or injuries
when it's substantially and materially contributes in a natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause to the
(02:25:07):
death or injuries. It is a cause without which the
death or injuries would not have occurred. It is a
predominating cause, a substantial factor from which the death or
injuries follows follow as a natural, direct and immediate consequence.
It does not matter whether the particular kind of harm
that results from the defendants act be intended by the defendant.
(02:25:30):
When the result is a foreseeable and natural result of
the defendant's condom, the law considers the chain of legal
causation unbroken and holds.
Speaker 2 (02:25:38):
The defendant criminally respond from the specific intent.
Speaker 3 (02:25:44):
Specific intent is the intent to achieve a specific result.
A person acts intentionally with respect to a result when
his conscious objective is.
Speaker 2 (02:25:55):
To cause such result.
Speaker 3 (02:25:57):
What the defendant intended is a question of fact for
you to determine. The concept of specific intent applies to
count one murder and manslaughter or in the first degree
intentional as a lesser included defense, Count two assault a
first degree intentional, and assault and the second degree intentional
as a lesser included defense, count free assault in the
(02:26:17):
first degree intentional, and assault in the second degree intentional
as a lesser included defense, and count for assault in
the second degree. Intentional recklessness. A person acts recklessly with
respect to a result or to a circumstance described by
a statute defining an offense when the defendant is aware
(02:26:38):
of unconsciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such
result will occur, or that such circumstance exists. The risk
must be of such nature and degree that disregarding it
constitutes a grous deviation from the standard of conduct that
a reasonable.
Speaker 2 (02:26:55):
Person would observe in the situation.
Speaker 3 (02:26:58):
The standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the
same situation as the defendant is the doing of something
that a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances,
or omitting to do what a reasonably prudent person would
not do.
Speaker 2 (02:27:11):
Under the circumstances. A gross deviation is a greater substantial deviation,
not just a slight or moderate deviation.
Speaker 3 (02:27:20):
There must be a great or substantial difference between, on
the one hand, the defendant's conduct, which is regarding a
substantial and unjustifiable risk, and on the other hand, what
a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances, whether
at risk is substantial and unjustifiable as a pression of
fact for you to determine under all the circumstances. The
(02:27:42):
concept of recklessness applies to count one landswater in the
first degree reckless as a lesser included defense count two
assault in the first degree reckless as a lesser incruded defense,
and a sault in the second degree reckless as a
lesser incruded defense. Count three fault in a reckless degree
assault the first degree reckless.
Speaker 2 (02:28:03):
As a lesson included defense and assault and secondary reckless.
Speaker 3 (02:28:06):
As a lesser included offense, and count for assault and
second degree reckless as a lesser included defense.
Speaker 2 (02:28:15):
Evidence of intent, what a person's intention was is usually
a matter to be determined by inference. No person can testify.
Speaker 3 (02:28:24):
That he or she looked into another's mind and saw
therein a certain knowledge or a certain purpose or intention
to do harm to another, Because direct evidence of the
defendant state of mind is rarely available. Intent is generally
proved by circumstantial evidence. You will refer to the court's
earlier instruction on direct and circumstantial evidence. The only way
(02:28:45):
a jury can wander nearly determine what a person's intention
was at any given time is by determining what the
person's conduct was and what the circumstances were surrounding the conduct,
and from that infer what his or her intention was.
To draw such an inference, as the proper function of
a jury, provided, of course, that the inference draw complies
(02:29:05):
with the standards for inferences as explained in connection with
my instruction on circumstantial evidence. The inference is not a
necessary one. You are not required to infer particular intent
from the defendant's conduct of statements.
Speaker 2 (02:29:18):
But it is an imference that you may draw if
you find that it is reasonable and logically.
Speaker 3 (02:29:23):
I remind you again the burden of prosing intent beyond
a reasonable doubt is on the state. Evidence of motive
or the lack of it, may also be considered value
in determining the issue of intent.
Speaker 2 (02:29:35):
You will refer to the part's instruction on motives below.
Speaker 4 (02:29:39):
The motive.
Speaker 3 (02:29:41):
The law does not required that the state in a
criminal case prove a motive, because it is not an
element of a crime. It is not necessary for the
state to prove what reason the defendant may have had
for committing a crime charged. Because crimes are generally committed
for some motive. Evidence of a motive may tend to
prove the guilt of a defendant. In the same manner,
(02:30:04):
if there appears no adequate motive on.
Speaker 2 (02:30:06):
The part of a defendant to commit the crime, that
may tend to raise a reasonable doubt as to the
guilt of the defendant. If the existence of a.
Speaker 3 (02:30:14):
Motive can be reasonably inferred, that may tend to prove
the defendant's guilt.
Speaker 2 (02:30:19):
If no motive can be inferred, it.
Speaker 3 (02:30:21):
May or may not raise a reasonable doubt as to
the guilt of the defendant.
Speaker 2 (02:30:26):
If the absence of a motive does not raise a
reasonable doubt that.
Speaker 3 (02:30:29):
The defendant is guilty, then the fact that the state
is not proved what the defendant's motive was does not
prevent you from returning a votive of guilty.
Speaker 2 (02:30:39):
Consciousness of guilt.
Speaker 3 (02:30:41):
In any criminal trial, it is permissible for the state
to show that conduct or statements made by a defendant
after the time of the alleged defense may have been
influenced by the criminal act.
Speaker 2 (02:30:51):
That is, the conduct or statements show a consciousness of guilt.
Speaker 3 (02:30:55):
For example, light and unexplained may indicate consciousness of guilty.
Facts and circumstances support it. Such acts, however, do not
raise a presumption of guilt. If you find the evidence
proved and also find that the acts were influenced by
the criminal act.
Speaker 2 (02:31:13):
And not by any other reasons. You may, but are
not required, to infer from this evidence that the defendant
was acting from the guilty conscience.
Speaker 3 (02:31:21):
The state claims that the following conduct is evidence and
all the consciousness of guilt, the defendant's disposing of the knife,
the defendant's denial of his involvement in text messages to
his girlfriend, and the defendant's life from the jurisdiction of Florida.
It is up to you, as judges and the facts
to decide whether the defendants acts is proved in such
(02:31:41):
a consciousness of guilt, and to consider such in your
deliberations and conformity with these instructions.
Speaker 2 (02:31:48):
Identification of the defendant. The state has the burden to
not only prove every element of a crime, but also
the identity of a defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.
Speaker 3 (02:31:57):
You must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the
identiy of the defendant as the one who committed the crime,
or you.
Speaker 2 (02:32:03):
Must find the defendant not guilty.
Speaker 3 (02:32:05):
If you have a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy
of the identification, you must find the defendant no good.
Speaker 2 (02:32:15):
Specific charges brought by estate.
Speaker 3 (02:32:18):
I will now turn to the specific offenses charged in
this case. The substitute information in this case contains four counts.
Speaker 2 (02:32:25):
Against the defendant.
Speaker 3 (02:32:26):
In other words, the state charge is the defendant with
committing four separate defenses or crimes. You are to consider
only the specific charges submitted to you and not concern
yourself of how the information may have read when it
was read to.
Speaker 2 (02:32:40):
You at the start of trial. Please note you.
Speaker 3 (02:32:44):
Will also be instructed to consider lesser included defenses.
Speaker 2 (02:32:47):
We're appliable.
Speaker 3 (02:32:49):
Additional instructions on your consideration of lesser included defenses will
be provided for their long in discharge as it concerns
your deliberations on each count the defendant is entitled to
it must be given by you a separate and independent
determination of whether he is guilty or not guilty as
to each crime charged in each count, including lesser included defenses.
Speaker 2 (02:33:11):
If applicable as instructive in accordance with this charge.
Speaker 3 (02:33:15):
Each of the four counts charge in the information, including
lesser included defenses, were applicable sets forth a separate and
distinct crime. The state is required to prove each element
of each crime charge and account, including lesser included defenses,
beyond a reasonable doubt. Each crime charge under each count,
(02:33:37):
including lesser included defenses were applicable must be deliberated upon separately.
Please note, the total number of counts charge and the
information does not add to.
Speaker 2 (02:33:48):
The strength of the state's case.
Speaker 3 (02:33:49):
You may find that some evidence applies to more than
one count in the information, or more than one crime
under account. The evidence, however, must be considered set as
to each element of each crime.
Speaker 2 (02:34:02):
Deliberated upon.
Speaker 3 (02:34:04):
Each count is a separate encite. You must consider each
count separately, including lesser included defenses, as instructed, and return
a verdict a separate verdict for each count. This means
that you may reach opposite verdicts on the four different counts.
A decision on one count does not find your decision
(02:34:26):
on any other count. I have previously instructed you in
here and reiterate. The substitute information is not evidence. It's
merely a behavior statement of the charges against the defendant
on which the state proceeds to trial. You must not
consider it as any evidence of the guilt of the
defendant or draw any inferensive guilt of the defendant from
the substitute information. You will first deliberate on count one
(02:34:52):
and then follow the order of deliberations as provided by
the court.
Speaker 2 (02:34:56):
In these instructions.
Speaker 3 (02:34:58):
You're going to proceed to parts instruction on count one
murder Statue three Title, which is immediately below one count
one murder. Connecticut General Statutes, Section fifty three A fifty
four a Subsection A. The State charges the defending and
count one with murder, charging that, in the County of
(02:35:19):
Fearfield and the City of Shelt, in honor about the
fourteenth day of May twenty two, out or near forty
three lau Old Glenn Drive and sub city, the said
ray Eliah Valley, would intent to cause the death upon
James McGrath, did stab and cause the death of the
said James McGrath in violation Section fifty three a DASH
fifty four a subsection A the Connecticut General Statutes. The
(02:35:43):
statute defining the offensive murder reads impertinent part as follows.
A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to
cause the death of another.
Speaker 2 (02:35:54):
Person, it causes the death of such person.
Speaker 3 (02:35:58):
For you to find the defending guilty of this charge,
the state must prove the following two elements beyond a
reasonable death.
Speaker 2 (02:36:06):
Element one intent to cause.
Speaker 3 (02:36:10):
The first element is that the defendant specifically intended to
cause the death of James grab There is no particular
length of time necessary for the defendant to harm the
specific intent to kill James McGrath. A person acts intentionally
with respect to a result when his conscious objective is
to cause such result. Murder is a specific INTENTPT crime.
Speaker 2 (02:36:32):
And you will refer to reports earlier instruction on specific intent.
The intent to cause death may be in.
Speaker 3 (02:36:40):
Heard from circumstantial evidence. You will refer to the court's
earlier instruction on direct and circumstantial evidence. The type and
number of wounds inflicted, as well as the instrument used,
may be considered as evidence of the perpetrator's intent, and
from such evidence and inference.
Speaker 2 (02:36:56):
May be drawn that there was an intent to cause death.
The inference that may be drawn from.
Speaker 3 (02:37:01):
The nature of the instrumentality used and the manner of
its use is an inference of fact to be drawn
by you upon consideration of these and other circumstances in
the case in importance of my previous instructions. Such inferences
are not necessary, but they are inferences you may draw
if you find they are reasonable and logical and in
importance with my instructions on circumstantial avitats, declarations and conduct
(02:37:25):
of the accused before or after the infliction of wounds,
and may be considered if you find they tend to
show the defendants intent. This inference is not a necessary one.
That is, you are not required to infer intent from
the defendant's alleged conduct, but it is an inference you
may draw off you find it reasonable and logical and in.
Speaker 2 (02:37:42):
Importance of my instructions on circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 3 (02:37:46):
Element two, cause and depth. Second element is not the
defend in acting with the intent to cause the death
of James McGrath, pause the death of James Legrath. This
means that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the.
Speaker 2 (02:38:02):
Of James the Broth's death. You're going to refer to.
Speaker 3 (02:38:05):
The court's earlier instruction on proximate cause. You must find
it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that James and Grapp
died as a result of the actions of the defender.
In summary to the prime of the murder, the state
was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one.
Speaker 2 (02:38:21):
The defendant intended to cause the death of James.
Speaker 3 (02:38:23):
Mac grath, and two, in accordance with that intent, the
defendant caused the death of James nebrath.
Speaker 2 (02:38:29):
If you unanimously.
Speaker 3 (02:38:30):
Find that the state has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt all the elements of the offensive murder, you
shall find the defendant not guilty of the crime of murder,
and shall then next move on to consider lesser included
offenses to murder below, in the manner in order therein instructed.
Therein proceed to the Court's instruction un lesser included defenses
to murder below.
Speaker 2 (02:38:52):
If, however, you.
Speaker 3 (02:38:53):
Unanimous and find that the state has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of murder,
you shall the defendants claims of self defense and defense
of others. You'll refer to the ports instruction on self
defense and defense of others below at twenty two.
Speaker 2 (02:39:10):
If you unian in some fine that the state is
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not
act in.
Speaker 3 (02:39:15):
Self defense and the defense of others, or that the
state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt one of the
statutory disqualifications, you shall inject the defenses and find the
defindant guilty of murder and violation of the Connecticut General
Statute Section fifty three.
Speaker 2 (02:39:30):
A dash fifty four a sub section a Act.
Speaker 3 (02:39:33):
Count one, please not state in proving statutory disqualifications has
to prove the statutory disqualifications also beyond a reasonable doubt.
This will enter deliberations on count one. You will not
deliberate less our included defenses to murder. You will now
deliberate on count.
Speaker 2 (02:39:52):
Twos to give over to courts instruction unless our included
defenses to murder to proceed directly with the Court's.
Speaker 3 (02:39:57):
Instruction on count two, assault in the first pretty intentional
below guess, However, you unanimously find that the state failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did
not act in self defense or in the defense of others,
or was not proved one of the statutory disqualifications beyond
beyond a reasonable doubt. But on the strength of the
defenses alone, you must find the defendant not guilty of
(02:40:20):
murder at count one, even though you have found the
elements of that crime proven.
Speaker 2 (02:40:24):
Beyond a reasonable debt. This will end your deliberations. On
count one.
Speaker 3 (02:40:28):
You will now deliverate unlesser included defenses to murder, You
will now delivery On count two. You will skip over
the Court's instruction on lesser included defenses to murder, and
proceed directly to the Court's instruction on count two, assaulting
the first intentional a well lesser recruiter defenses to murder
in importance with the Court's previous instructions. You will consider
(02:40:50):
lesser included defenses to murder under this section if and
only if you have unanimously found, but.
Speaker 2 (02:40:54):
The state is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (02:40:57):
All the elements of the crime of murder, and therefore
I found the defendant not guilty of murder.
Speaker 2 (02:41:02):
The defending at count.
Speaker 3 (02:41:03):
One, the substitute information is specifically charged with the crime
of murder.
Speaker 2 (02:41:07):
The offensive murder under.
Speaker 3 (02:41:09):
Our penal code is such that it may include the
elements of the crimes of manslaughter in the first degree
intentional and manslaughter in the first degree.
Speaker 2 (02:41:17):
Reference.
Speaker 3 (02:41:18):
This brings into play the rule of law known as
lesser included defenses. You will consider lesser included defenses to
murder in the order and under the circumstances.
Speaker 2 (02:41:27):
Set fourth parent.
Speaker 3 (02:41:29):
The fact that I am instructing you on lesser included
defenses should not be interpreted by you that I believe
the evidence proved the accused guilty of any lesser included defense. You,
the jury, are the sole judges of the facts in
this case, and you must determine whether the defendant is
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder at count one,
or is guilty of any respective.
Speaker 2 (02:41:49):
Lesser incruded defense.
Speaker 3 (02:41:51):
You will first consider the lesser included defense of manslaughter
in the first degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes, Section fifty
three A fifty.
Speaker 2 (02:41:59):
Five A one directly below.
Speaker 3 (02:42:01):
A Subsection A, and proceed to the parts instruction sub
Section A Manslaughter in the first degree intentional the statutory
reference directly below Subsection A. Manslaughter in the first degree intentional,
Connecticut General Statute, Section fifty three A fifty five AM.
Statute defining this defense reason impertinent.
Speaker 2 (02:42:22):
Part as follows. A person is guilty of manslaughter in
the first degree when, with intent to cause serious physical
injury to another person, he causes the depth of such person.
For the defendant to be found guilty of this.
Speaker 3 (02:42:38):
Charge, the state was through the following two elements beyond
a reasonable doubt. Element one intent to cause serious physical injury.
First element is that the defendants specifically intended to cause
serious physical injury to another person. Serious physical injury is
something more serious than mere physical injury, which is defined
as impuremidi.
Speaker 2 (02:42:58):
Physical condition of pain. It is more than a minor
or superficial injury.
Speaker 3 (02:43:03):
It is defined by statute as a physical injury which
creates substantial risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement,
serious impairment of health, or a serious loss or impairment
of the function of any bodily organ You will note
that the basis of the charge under this statue is
not that the defendant intended to kill, but that he
(02:43:26):
intended to in afflict serious physical injury.
Speaker 2 (02:43:29):
A person acts.
Speaker 3 (02:43:30):
Intentionally with respect to a result when its conscious objective
is to cause such a result to refer to the
court's earlier instruction on specific intent at fifteen. The intent
to cause serious physical injury may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
Refer to the Court's earlier instruction on evidence of intent
at seventeen.
Speaker 2 (02:43:50):
Element to cause death.
Speaker 3 (02:43:53):
The second element is that the defendant, acting with the
intent to cause serious physical injury to a person, caused
the death of as. This means that the defendant's conduct
was the proximate cause of the deceding's death. Refer to
my earlier instruction on proximate cause at fourteen. You must
find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that James McGrath
(02:44:14):
had died as a result of the actions.
Speaker 2 (02:44:16):
Of the defendant.
Speaker 3 (02:44:17):
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that one, the defendant intended to cause serious physical injury
to James McRath, and two, in accordance with that intent,
the defendant caused the death James macroth.
Speaker 2 (02:44:29):
If you unanimously find if the state.
Speaker 3 (02:44:31):
Has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the
elements of the manslaughter and the first degree intentional, you
shall find the defendant not guilty of manslaughter in the
first degree intentional account one, and you shall next consider
the lesser included defense of the ansulatter in the first
degree redless.
Speaker 2 (02:44:45):
Proceed to the Court's instruction.
Speaker 3 (02:44:47):
Be manslaughter in the first degree reckless. Connecticut Channel Statutes,
Section fifty three fifty five days three.
Speaker 2 (02:44:53):
Beleve if, however, you unanimously find the state.
Speaker 3 (02:44:57):
Has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements the
crime of landslaughter and the first degree intentional, you shall
not consider any additional lesser included defense. You shall, however,
consider the defendant's claims of self defense and defense of others.
Prefer to my instruction on self defense defense.
Speaker 2 (02:45:13):
Of others below at twenty two.
Speaker 3 (02:45:16):
Yeah, you're unanimously fine that the state has proved beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in
self defense or in defense of others, or that the
state has proved one of the statutes whory disqualifications beyond
a reasonable doubt, you shall reject the defenses and find
the defendant guilty of manslaughter and the first degree intentional,
a violation of Connecticut General Statute Section fifty three A
(02:45:38):
fifty five A one at count one. This will end
your deliberations at count one. You will next deliberate on
count two for state to the court's instruction of count
two assault and the first degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes.
Speaker 2 (02:45:51):
Fifty three eight fifty nine A one below.
Speaker 3 (02:45:53):
If, however, you unanimously find that the state has failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did
not act in self defense or in defense of others,
or has not proved and of the statutorys momplications beyond
reasonable doubt that on the strength of the defense is alone.
You must find the defendant not guilty of manslaughter in
(02:46:13):
the first degree intentional violation of Connecticut General Statutes.
Speaker 2 (02:46:17):
Fifty three fifty five A one, Account one, even though
you are found the elements of that time proven beyondre
reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (02:46:25):
This will and your deliberations at count one, you will
not consider any additional lesser included defenses to murder. You
shall skip over the court's instructions at subsection be below,
and next deliberate on Account two B manslaughter in the
first degree reckless Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A fifty
five A three. You will deliberate on this lesser included
(02:46:47):
defense to murder if and only if you have unanimously found.
Speaker 2 (02:46:50):
But the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (02:46:53):
All the elements of murder, and therefore you have found
the defendant not guilty of murder. And further, you have
unanimously found that this date did not prove beyond a
reasonable doubt all the elements of manslaughter in the first
degree intentional, and therefore you have found the defendant not
guilty of manslaughter in the first degree intentional. The statute
defining this offense wheads impertinent partness follows. A person is
(02:47:15):
guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when, under circumstances
evincing an extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages
in conduct which creates a grave risk of depth to
another person and thereby causes the death of another person.
For the defendant to be found guilty of discharge, the
(02:47:35):
state must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable debt.
Element I conduct creating a grave risk of death. The
first element is that the defendant engaged in conduct that
created a grave risk of death. Element too recklessness. The
second element is that the defendant acted recklessly. A person
acts recklessly with respect to a result of circumstances when
(02:47:58):
he is aware of consciously disregards as substantial and unjustifiable
risk that such result will occur, or that such circumstances exist.
The refer to the court's previous instruction on recklessness at sixteen.
Element three extreme indifference to human life. The third element
is that the defendant's conduct demonstrated in extreme indifference to
(02:48:21):
human life. Indifference means simply not caring. It means lacking
any interest in a matter one way or the other
extreme means existing in the highest or greatest possible degree.
Speaker 2 (02:48:32):
Extreme indifference is more than ordinary and difference.
Speaker 3 (02:48:36):
It is anonymous with excessive and is the greatest departure
from the ordinary.
Speaker 2 (02:48:41):
What evinces an extreme and.
Speaker 3 (02:48:42):
Difference to human life is a question of fact. An
element four pause death. The fourth element is that the
defendant's conduct paused death of James McGrath. This means that
the defendant's conduct was a proximate clause of the decedent's
death the Sordinate Court's previous instruction approximate clause at fourteen teen,
You must find it proved beyond.
Speaker 2 (02:49:02):
A reasonable doubt that James grap died as a result
of the actions of the defendant.
Speaker 3 (02:49:07):
In summary, the state was proved beyond a reasonable doubt
that won the defendant engagement conduct that created a brave
less of depth to the defendant acted replessly.
Speaker 2 (02:49:16):
Three, he acted under circumstances evincing an.
Speaker 3 (02:49:18):
Extreme indifference to human life, and for the defendant cause
of debt that James and Bread. If you unanimously find
that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt all the elements of the manslaughter in the first
degree repless, you shall find.
Speaker 2 (02:49:31):
The defendant not guilty and manslaughter in the first degree.
Speaker 3 (02:49:34):
Repless account won the center of deliberations that count one.
You shall next yvan to deliberate on count two and
proceed to the Court of instruction. On count two is
a first degree intentional Connecticut General Statute fifty three, eight
fifty nine to a one below. If, however, you're unanimously fine.
Speaker 2 (02:49:52):
But the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all
the elements.
Speaker 3 (02:49:56):
Of the crime and manslaughter in the first degree reference,
then you shall knit consider the defendant's claims of self
defense and defense of others, recording the Court's instruction on
self defense defense of others below.
Speaker 2 (02:50:07):
At twenty two.
Speaker 3 (02:50:08):
If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in
self defense or in defense of others, or that the
state has proved one of the statutory disqualifications beyond a
reasonable doubt, you shall reject the defenses and find the
defendant guilty of manslaughter.
Speaker 2 (02:50:27):
And the first three reckless, in violation.
Speaker 3 (02:50:30):
Of Connecticut General Statute to fifty three eight fifty five
eight three account for this whole.
Speaker 2 (02:50:34):
Ende of deliberations account one, you shall move on to
deliberate on.
Speaker 3 (02:50:38):
Count two, proceed or its substruction on count two assault
for three intentional Kinetican General Statutes fifty three eight to
ninety one blow if, however, after considering the defenses, you
unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in
self defense or in the defense of others, or has
not proved one of the statutory DEAs qualifications beyond a
(02:51:01):
reasonable doubt, but on the strength of the defense is alone,
you must find the defendant not guilty of man's own
in the first degree racklest that count one, even though
you have found the elements of that crime proven beyond
a reasonable doubt, this will and deliberations that count one.
Speaker 2 (02:51:16):
You shall move on to deliberate on count two to.
Speaker 3 (02:51:19):
Precede to my instruction on count two, assault in the
first degree intentional.
Speaker 2 (02:51:22):
Connecticut General Statute, Section fifty.
Speaker 3 (02:51:25):
Three a dash fifty nine to a one below. All right,
I'm going to give you a few minutes.
Speaker 2 (02:51:32):
To stand up on stretch.
Speaker 3 (02:51:33):
We're going to take a short break some more to
take a ten minute rain. Right, now, give you some
time to go back into the deliberations, and then again
you can't talk in the middle of the charge. Allowed
to deliberate stands tens.
Speaker 2 (02:51:50):
Thank you, Thanks that, y'all. Thank you.
Speaker 3 (02:51:55):
I welcome ath Luties and Johnathan Jury. I want to
thank you for the occasions during the evening of these instructions.
Speaker 2 (02:52:01):
I know that it's a long time to be suited,
so thank you for your attention. Council. Please stipulate to.
Speaker 4 (02:52:07):
The return of hard steel stipula.
Speaker 5 (02:52:10):
Defense stipulates John Hi.
Speaker 2 (02:52:11):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (02:52:11):
I'm going to continue, so I'll be continuing with Count two,
Assault in the first degree intentional. Connecticut General Statutes to
fifty three A fifty nine am Stay charges the defendant
of Count two with assault the first degree, charging that
in the County of Fearfield City is shelting honor, about
the fourteenth day of May twenty two utter near forty
(02:52:32):
three Laurel Gland Drive in said city, the defendant would
intent to cause serious physical injury to one Ryan Hines,
did cause serious physical injury to the said Ryan Hines
with a dangerous instrument to win a knight in violation
Section fifty three A fifty nine A one of the
Connecticut General Statutes. The statute defining this defense needs impertinent
part as followed. The person is guilty of assault the
(02:52:54):
first degree when we intend to cause serious physical injury,
so another first it causes such such injury to such
person or to a third person by means of a
dangerous instrument. For you to find the defendant guilty of
this charge, the state must prove the following three elements
beyond a reasonable doubt. Elament I intend to cause serious
(02:53:17):
physical injury. The first element is that the definant intended
to cause serious physical injury to another person. A person
acts intentially with respect to a result when his conscious
subjective is to cause such result.
Speaker 2 (02:53:29):
To refer to the court's earlier instruction on specific intent.
Speaker 3 (02:53:33):
Serious physical injury is something more serious than mere physical injury,
which is defined as impairment of physical condition or pain.
Speaker 2 (02:53:40):
It is more than a minor of superficial injury. It
is defined by a statute that.
Speaker 3 (02:53:44):
Has physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death,
or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or
serious laws of impairment of the function of any bodily
organ element too caused serious mist injury. The second element
is that, acting with that intent, the defendant caused serious
physical injury to Ryan Hines.
Speaker 2 (02:54:05):
This means that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause
of the person's injuries. Refer to the Court's earlier instruction
on proximate cause.
Speaker 3 (02:54:13):
We must find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
Ryan Hines was seriously injured as a result.
Speaker 2 (02:54:18):
Of the actions of the defendant.
Speaker 3 (02:54:20):
It does not matter whether Ryan Hines was the person
upon whom the defendant intended to inflict serious physical injury.
It is sufficient if you find that the defendant intended
to cause serious physical injury to another person, and that
gain fact cause serious physical injury to that person or
to some other person.
Speaker 2 (02:54:37):
Element three with a dangerous instrument, the third.
Speaker 3 (02:54:40):
Element is that the defendant caused that injury by means
of a dangerous instrument. Dangerous instrument means any instrument, article,
or substance which, under these circumstances in which it was used,
or attempted or threatened to be used.
Speaker 2 (02:54:56):
Is capable of causing death or a serious physical injury.
Speaker 3 (02:55:00):
Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a substantial
risk of death, or causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health,
or a serious loss or impairment of the function of
any bodily organs. It is important to note that the
article need not be inherently dangerous. All that is required
is that the article was capable of causing death or
serious physical injury under the circumstances in which it was used.
(02:55:23):
Any article or substance without limitation, and even though harmless
under normal use, may be found by you to be
a dangerous instrument if under the circumstances of its use
or threatened or attemptive use, it is capable of producing
serious physical injury or death. The state need not prove
that in fact death or serious physical injury resulted, only
that the instrument had.
Speaker 2 (02:55:44):
That potential under the circumstance.
Speaker 3 (02:55:47):
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that one, the defendant had the specific content to cause
serious physical injury to another person, the defendant did cause
serious physical injury to Vine, and three the defendant causing
injury by means.
Speaker 2 (02:56:03):
Of a dangerous instrument.
Speaker 3 (02:56:05):
If you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all the elements of assault
and the first degree intentional. You shall find the defendant
not guilty of the crime of assault and the first
degree intentional account two, and shall move on to consider
lesser included defenses to assault in the first degree.
Speaker 2 (02:56:21):
Intentional below in the manner and order prescribe them.
Speaker 3 (02:56:26):
You will proceed to the Court's instruction on lesser included
defenses to assault in the first degree intentional under deception below. If, however,
is you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of assault
and the first degree intentional, you shall mixt consider the
defendant's claims to self defense and defensive others refer to
(02:56:48):
my instruction and self defense defense of others below at
twenty three. If you unanimously find that the state has
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not
act in self defense or in defense of others, or
that the state has proved one of the statutory disqualifications
beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall reject the defenses
(02:57:08):
and find the defindant guilty of assault and first degree
intentional in violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty three a
fifty nine to a one at count two, this will
end your deliberations at count two. You will not consider
less or included defenses. You will move on to deliberate
count three, So you will skip over less or included
defenses to the assault and the first degree intentional below
(02:57:29):
to proceed directly to the court's instruction on count three,
Assault and the first degree intentional Connecticut.
Speaker 2 (02:57:35):
General Statutes fifty three A fifty nine to a one below.
Speaker 3 (02:57:39):
If, however, you unanimously find that the state has failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did
not act in self defense or in the defense of others,
or has not proved one of the statutory disqualifications beyond
reasonable doubt, then on the strength of the defense alone,
you shall find the defendant not guilty of assault in
the first degree intentional at count two, even though you
(02:58:03):
have found the elements of the crime of assault and
the first degree intentional proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This
will lend your deliberations as to count two. You shall
then move on to deliberate count three.
Speaker 2 (02:58:14):
You will skip the.
Speaker 3 (02:58:15):
Court's instruction unlesser included defenses to assault, the first degree
intentional below to proceed directly to the Court's instruction on
count three, Assault and the.
Speaker 2 (02:58:23):
First degree intentional.
Speaker 3 (02:58:24):
Connecticut General Statutes fifty three eighth of tiney A one
below lesser in theater defenses to assault in the first
degree intentional in accordance with the Court's previous instructions. You
will consider lesser included defenses under count two if and
only if you have unanimously found, but the state does
not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all the elements of
(02:58:46):
the crime of assault and the first degree intentional, and
therefore have found the defendant not guilty of assault the
first degree intentional at count two.
Speaker 2 (02:58:54):
The defendant at.
Speaker 3 (02:58:55):
Count two in creation is specifically charged with the crime
of assault and the first degree intention The offense of
assault and the first degree intentional under a or penal
code is such that it may include the elements of
the crimes of assault in the first degree reckless and
assault in the second degree, both intentional and reckless.
Speaker 2 (02:59:11):
This reason, a player rule of law known as lesser included.
Speaker 3 (02:59:15):
Defenses at count two as applicable to the crime of
assault and the first degree intentional. You will consider lesser
included defenses as to count two in the order under
the circumstances instructed, you're in the fact that I am
instructing you unless er included defenses to the assault in
the first degree intentional account too, should not be interpreted
by you that I believe the evidence proves the accused
(02:59:35):
guilty of any lesser included defenses.
Speaker 2 (02:59:38):
You, the jury or the sault judges of the facts
of the space.
Speaker 3 (02:59:40):
You must determine whether the defendant is guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of assault in the first degree intentional, or
as guilty of any respective less or included defense. You
will first consider the lesser included defense of assault and
the first degree reckless. Director below proceed to the port's instruction.
A A assault in.
Speaker 2 (02:59:57):
The first degree reckless Connecticut General Staff.
Speaker 3 (03:00:00):
It's fifty three A fifty nine eight three directly below
A assault and first degree reckless Connecticut General Statutes.
Speaker 2 (03:00:08):
Fifty three A fifty nine eighth grade.
Speaker 3 (03:00:10):
The statute defining this offense reads impertinent part as follows.
A person is guilty of assault and the first degree when,
under circumstances evncing an extreme indifference to human life, he
recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of death
to another person and thereby causes serious physical injury to
another person.
Speaker 2 (03:00:29):
For you to find the defendant guilty of.
Speaker 3 (03:00:30):
His charge, the state must prove the following floor elements
beyond a reasonable oubt. Element I conduct creating a risk
of death. The first element is that the defendant engaged
in conduct that created a risk of death. Element two recklessness.
The second element is that the defendant acted recklessly. The
person acts recklessly with respect to a result of circumstances
(03:00:52):
when he is aware of unconsciously disregards to substantial.
Speaker 2 (03:00:55):
And unjustifiable risk that such will result.
Speaker 3 (03:00:59):
I'm sorry that such result will occur, or that such
circumstances exist. They refer to the forts previous instruction on
rethlessness at sixteen.
Speaker 2 (03:01:11):
Element three extreme indifference to human life.
Speaker 3 (03:01:14):
The third element is that the defendant addsid under circumstances
evincing an extreme indifference to human life.
Speaker 2 (03:01:19):
In difference means simply not hearing, It.
Speaker 3 (03:01:21):
Means lacking any interest in a matter one way or
the other. Extreme means existing in the highest or greatest
possible degree. Extreme indifference is more than ordinary indifference. It
is synonymous with excessive and.
Speaker 2 (03:01:33):
Is the greatest departure from the ordinary. What evinces an
extreme in difference to.
Speaker 3 (03:01:37):
Human life is a question of fact. An element four
caused serious syst injury. The fourth element is that the
defendant cause serious physical injury to another person. This means
that the defendant's conduct is the proximate cause.
Speaker 2 (03:01:50):
Of a person's injuries.
Speaker 3 (03:01:51):
Refer to the for its previous instruction on proximate cause
at fourteen.
Speaker 2 (03:01:56):
You must find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
Ryan Heinz was injured as a result to the actions
of the defendant. Serious physical injury.
Speaker 3 (03:02:03):
Is something more serious than mere physical injury, which is
defined as im pyramid of physical conditional pain. It is
more than a minor or superficial injury. It is defined
by statue of this physical injury which creates a substantial
list of death, or which creates serious disfigurement, serious impairment
of health, or a serious loss or impyrament of the
function of any bodily organ In summary, state, mus proved
(03:02:25):
beyond a reasonable doubt that we won the defendant engaged
in conduct that created a risk of death.
Speaker 2 (03:02:29):
Two he acted recklessly.
Speaker 3 (03:02:31):
Three he acted under circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to
human life, and four he caused serious physical injury to find.
If you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt while the elements of assault
and the first degree reference, you shall find the defendant
not guilty of assault and the burst of free represent
(03:02:52):
account two, and you shall then consider the lesser incruded
defense of assault and the.
Speaker 2 (03:02:56):
Second degree intentional.
Speaker 3 (03:02:57):
You'll proceed to the Court's instruction of the assault and
second degree intentional Connecticut General.
Speaker 2 (03:03:03):
Statutes fifty three A sixty A two below.
Speaker 3 (03:03:06):
If, however, you unanimously find that the state has proved
beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime
of assault and the first degree reckless, then you shall
next consider.
Speaker 2 (03:03:16):
The defendant's claims of self defense and defense of others.
Speaker 3 (03:03:18):
Refer to the Court's instruction on self defense defense of
others below at twenty two.
Speaker 2 (03:03:23):
If you unanimously find the state has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act.
Speaker 3 (03:03:28):
In self defense or in the defense of others, or
that the state has proved one in the statutory disqualifications
beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall reject the defenses and
find the defendant guilty of assault and the first degree
reckless and violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty three eight
fifty nine eight three Account two, This will lend your
deliberations at count two. You shall not consider any other
(03:03:51):
lesser included defense.
Speaker 2 (03:03:52):
Account two. You will skip the Court's instructions and.
Speaker 3 (03:03:54):
The subsections BE and C below, and shall next mulan
to deliberate on count three. Will proceed to the Court's
instruction on Coount three, Assault and the first degree intentional
Connecticut General Statutes fifty three, eight to fifty nine A
one below. Yes, However, you unianimously find that the state
has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self defense or in the
(03:04:15):
defense of others, or has not proved one of the
statutory disqualifications beyond a reason of the doubt, but on
the strength of the defense is alone, you must find
the defendant not guilty of assault in the first degree
reckless at count two, even though you have found the
elements of that prime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This
will lend your deliberations at count two. You shall not
(03:04:36):
consider any other less or included defenses at count two
included offenses. At count two, you will skip the court's
instructions as sub sections being c below.
Speaker 2 (03:04:46):
You will move on to deliberate on countering.
Speaker 3 (03:04:49):
You'll proceed to the court's instruction on count three, Assault
the first degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A
fifty nine A one below. Still under lesser included defenses
be assault in the second degree intentional, Connecticut General Statutes,
fifty three A sixty A two. You will deliberate on
(03:05:09):
this lesser included defense if and only if you have
unanimously found that the state did not prove beyond a
reasonable doubt all the elements of assault and the first
degree intentional, and therefore have found the defendant not guilty
of assault the first degree intentional. And further that you
have unanimously found that the state did not prove beyond
a reasonable doubt all the elements of assault in the
first degree reckless, and therefore you have found the defendant
(03:05:31):
not guilty of assault in the first degree reckless.
Speaker 2 (03:05:33):
That count to the statute defining this offense reason pertinent
part is followed.
Speaker 3 (03:05:38):
A person is guilty of assault of the second degree
when with intent to cause physical injury to another person
he causes such injury to such person by means of
a dangerous instrument, other than by means of the discharge
of the fire air.
Speaker 2 (03:05:54):
For you to find the defendant guilty of.
Speaker 3 (03:05:56):
This charge, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
three elements.
Speaker 2 (03:06:02):
Element one intent to cause physical injury. The first element is.
Speaker 3 (03:06:05):
That the defendants specifically intended to cause physical injury to
another person. A person absentential with respect to a result
when his conscious objective is to cause such a result.
Speaker 2 (03:06:15):
You will refer to the court's previous instruction on specific intent.
Speaker 3 (03:06:19):
Aten Physical injury is defined as impairment of physical condition
or pain. It is a reduced ability to act as
then would otherwise have acted. The law is not required
that the injury be serious, it may be minor. Element
two pause physical injury. The second element is that the
defendant cause physical injury to another person. This means that
(03:06:39):
the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the person's injuries.
You must find it proved beyond the reasonable doubt that
Ryan Hines was injured as a result to the actions
of the defendant. You will refer to the court's previous instruction.
Speaker 2 (03:06:50):
On proximate cause. At fourteen.
Speaker 3 (03:06:53):
It does not matter whether it was the person upon
whom the defendant intended to inflict physical injury. It is
sufficient if you find that the intended to cause physical
injury to another person and that he in fact caused
physical injury to that person or to some other person.
Element three with a dangerous instrument, third element is that
the defendant caused their injury by means of a dangerous instrument,
(03:07:16):
other than by means of the discharge of the firing.
Dangerous instrument means any instrument which, under the circumstances in
which it is used or attendable threatned to be used.
Speaker 2 (03:07:26):
Is capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
Speaker 3 (03:07:29):
Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a substantial
risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment
of health, or serious loss or impairment of the function
of any bodily organ It's important to note that the
article need not be inherently dangerous. All that is required
that the article was capable of causing death or a
serious physical injury.
Speaker 2 (03:07:49):
Under the circumstances in which it was used.
Speaker 3 (03:07:52):
Any article or substance without limitation, and even though harmless
under normal use, may be found by you to be
a dangerous instrument if under the circumstances of its use
or a threatned or attempt to use, it is capable
of producing serious physical injury or death.
Speaker 2 (03:08:06):
The state need not through that in fact other.
Speaker 3 (03:08:08):
Serious physical injury resulted, only that the instrument had that potential,
and if so, in summary, the state must prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that one, the defendant had the specific
intent to cause physical injury to another person. Too, the
defendant did cause physical injury to Ryan Hines, and three
the defendant caused the injury by means of a dangerous
instrument other than by means of the discharge of a
(03:08:30):
fire er. If you unanimously find that the state has
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements
of a sat and secondary intentional.
Speaker 2 (03:08:39):
You shall find the defendant not guilty of assault and
the second degree intentional account.
Speaker 5 (03:08:43):
Two.
Speaker 3 (03:08:43):
And you shall then consider the lesser included defense of
assault and the second degree reference. You'll proceed in my
instruction on sea assault and second degree reference.
Speaker 2 (03:08:52):
Connecticut General's Statutes fifty three A sixty eight three below.
Speaker 3 (03:08:56):
If, however, you unanimously find that the state is proved
beyond a reasonable dead out all the elements of the
prime of the slot and the second degree intentional, then
you shall considered the defendant's claims to self defense and
defense of others. You will refer to my instruction on
self defense.
Speaker 2 (03:09:10):
Defense of others below at twenty two.
Speaker 3 (03:09:12):
If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in
self defense or in defense of others at or but
the state has proved one of the statutory disqualifications beyond
a reasonable doubt, you shall reduct the defenses and find
the defendant guilty of assault and the second degree intentional
and violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A sixty
(03:09:34):
A two.
Speaker 2 (03:09:35):
At count two. This lender deliberations at count two. You
shall not deliberate on any other lesser incluty defenses. You
shall move on to deliberate count three. Proceed to the parts.
Speaker 3 (03:09:46):
Instruction on count three is on the first degree intentional
Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A fifty nine eight for
ay one bell. If however, you unanimously find that the
state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant did not act in self defense or in
the defense of others. More, has not proved one of
the statutory disqualifications beyond a reasonable doubt, And on the
(03:10:09):
strength of the defenses alone, you must find the defendant
not guilty of assault and the second degree intentional at
count two, even though you have found the elements of
that crime proven.
Speaker 2 (03:10:19):
Beyond a reasonable debt this one hundred deliberations.
Speaker 3 (03:10:22):
At count two, you shall not consider any other lesser
included defenses at count two. You shall then move on
to deliberate count three. You will skip subsection CE below
proceeeds to the Court's instruction on count three, Assault a
first degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A fifty
nine A one below. Still on lesser included defenses, see
(03:10:45):
assault and second degree reckless Connecticut General Statute fifty three
A sixty eight three. You will deliberate on this lesser
included defense if and only if you have unanimously found
that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt
all the elements of assault the first degree intentional, and
therefore you have found the defendant not guilty of assault
the first degree intentional. And further that you have unanimous
(03:11:07):
and found that the state did not prove beyond a
reasonable doubt all the elements of sault and the first
degree reckless, and therefore you have found the defendant not
guilty of assault in the first degree reckless. And further
that you have unanimously found that the state did not
prove beyond a reasonable degree beyond a reasonable doubt, all
the elements of assault and the second degree intentional, and
therefore have found the defendant not guilty of assault the
(03:11:29):
second degree intentional.
Speaker 2 (03:11:31):
The statute defining this offense reason per and paris folls.
Speaker 3 (03:11:35):
A person is guilty of assault in the second degree
when he recklessly causes serious physical injury to another person
by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. For
you to find the defendant guilty of his charge of
states through the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Element one recklessness. The first element is that this defendant
acted recklessly.
Speaker 2 (03:11:53):
A person acts.
Speaker 3 (03:11:53):
Recklessly with respect to a result or circumstances when he
is aware of and consciously just or it's a substantial
and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur, or that
such circumstances exist. Refer to my previous instruction on reckless
disk at sixteen. Element two cause serious physical injury. The
second element is that the defendant cause serious physical injury.
(03:12:16):
This means that the defendant's conduct was the approximate cause
of a person's injuries.
Speaker 2 (03:12:20):
Refer to the Court's previous instruction on proximate cause at fourteen.
You must find it.
Speaker 3 (03:12:26):
Proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Maryannheins has injured as
a result to the actions of the defendant. Serious physical
injury is something more serious than their physical injury, which
is defined as impyramid of physical condition or pain. It
is more than a minor a superficial injury. It is
defined by a statute as a physical injury which creates
a substantial risk of death, a law which causes serious disfigurement,
(03:12:46):
serious impairmential health, or serious loss or impairment of the
function of any bodily organ Element three dangerous instrument. The
third element is not the defendant used a dangerous instrument
in causing the serious physical injury to Anothererous instrument means
any instrument, article, or substance which, under the circumstances in
which it is used or attempt it or threat to
be used, as capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
(03:13:09):
Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a substantial
risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment
of health, or a serious loss of impairment of the
function of any bodily organ It is important to note
that the article may not be inherently dangerous. All that
is required is that the article is capable of causing
death or serious physical injury under the circumstances in which
(03:13:31):
it was used.
Speaker 2 (03:13:33):
Any article or a substance without.
Speaker 3 (03:13:34):
Limitation, and even though harmless under normal use, may be
found by you to be a dangerous instrument if under
the circumstances of its use or a threat under attempted use,
it is capable of producing serious physical injury or death.
Speaker 2 (03:13:47):
The state need not prove that in fact death.
Speaker 3 (03:13:49):
Of serious physical injury results in only that the instrument
had that potential under the circumstances.
Speaker 2 (03:13:55):
In Smorate, the state was.
Speaker 3 (03:13:56):
Proved beyond reasonable doubt that one the defendant acted recklessly
to the defendant caused serious physical injury to Ryan lines
and three, the defendant caused the injury by means of
a dangerous instrument. If you unanimously find that the state
has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the
elements of sault the second degree reckless, you shall find
(03:14:16):
the defendant not guilty is want in the second degree
reckless account two. This will enter your deliberations at count two.
You shall next me want to deliberate on count three.
Proceed to the court's instruction. Count three saw the first
degree intentional. Connecticut General Statutes Section fifty three A fifty
nine A one below. If, however, you unanimously find that
(03:14:37):
the state is proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the
elements of the crime of assault the second degree reckless,
then you shall next consider the defendant's claims to self
defense and defense of others. Refer to my instruction on
self defense defense of others below the twenty two. If
you unanimously find that the state is proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendants did not act and self.
Speaker 2 (03:14:56):
Defense or in defense of others, or that.
Speaker 3 (03:14:58):
The state is proved one of the statutory dis qualifications
beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall reject the defenses and
find the defendent guilty of assault and second degree reckless
violation of Connecticut General Statutes, Section fifty three A sixty
eight three at count two. This will end your deliberations
on count two, and you shall move on to deliberate
on count three. They'll proceed to the port's instruction and
(03:15:20):
count three assault and the first degree intentional Connecticut General
Statutes fifty three fifty nine A one below. If, however,
you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act
in self defense or in defense of others, or has
not proved one of the statutory disqualifications beyond a reasonable doubt,
(03:15:41):
then on the strength of the defenses alone, you must
find the defendant not guilty of assault and the second
degree reps at count two, even though you have found
the elements of that prime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This will under deliberations at count two. You shall move
on to deliberate at count three, proceed to the port's instructions,
count three assault, and the first three and ten Connecticut
(03:16:01):
General Statutes fifty three eight fifty nine A one below
Count three assault the first degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes
fifty three eight fifty nine A one. The state charge
of the defendant account three with assault the first degree,
charging that in the County of fear Field City is
shout in honor about the fourteenth day of May twenty
(03:16:21):
twenty two, out of a near forty three world wind drive,
and said see the defendant, with intent to cause serious
physical injury to one Thomas Connery Junior, did cause serious
physical injury to the.
Speaker 2 (03:16:32):
Said Thomas Connery Junior with a dangerous instrument.
Speaker 3 (03:16:35):
To rid a knife in violation the section fifty three
A fifty nine A we wanted to Connecticut General Statutes.
Speaker 2 (03:16:41):
The statute defining this offense reads impertinent part as qualies.
Speaker 3 (03:16:45):
The person is guilty of salt the first degree when,
with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person
he causes the student three to such person to a
third person.
Speaker 2 (03:16:54):
By means of a dangerous instrument.
Speaker 3 (03:16:56):
For you to find the defendant guilty of his charge,
the state must through the following three elements beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (03:17:01):
Element one intent to cause serious physical injury.
Speaker 3 (03:17:05):
First element is that the defendant intended to cause serious
physical injury to another person. A person ass intentional respect
for a result when his conscious objective.
Speaker 2 (03:17:14):
Is to cause such a result.
Speaker 3 (03:17:15):
Refer to my earlier instruction on specific intent at fifteen.
Serious physical injury is something more serious than their physical injury,
which is defined as impairment of physical condition or pain.
Speaker 2 (03:17:27):
It is more than a minor or a superficial injury.
Speaker 3 (03:17:30):
It is defined by statue as physical injury which creates
a substantial list of depth, or which causes serious disfigurement,
serious impairment of health, or a serious loss or impairment
of the function of any bodily organ element to cause
serious physical injury with the second element is that, acting
with that intent, the defendant caused serious physical injury.
Speaker 2 (03:17:52):
To Thomas Connery Junior.
Speaker 3 (03:17:54):
This means of defendant's conduct with the approximate cause of
the person's injuries.
Speaker 2 (03:17:57):
Refer to my earlier instruction on the clause at fourteen.
Speaker 3 (03:18:02):
You must find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
Thomas Cowery Junior was seriously injured as a result to
the actions.
Speaker 2 (03:18:07):
Of the defendant.
Speaker 3 (03:18:08):
It does not matter whether Thomas Collery Junior was the
person upon whom the defendant intended to inflict serious physical injury.
It is sufficient if you find that the defendant intended
to cause serious physical injury to another person and that
he in fact caused serious physical injury to that personer
to some other person. And element three with a dangerous
weapon or instrument, the third element is that the defendant
(03:18:31):
clause that injury by.
Speaker 2 (03:18:32):
Means of a dangerous instrument.
Speaker 3 (03:18:34):
Dangerous instrument means any instrument, article, or substance which, under
the circumstances of which it was used, or attempted or
threatened to be used, is capable of causing death.
Speaker 2 (03:18:43):
Or serious asplinder.
Speaker 3 (03:18:45):
Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a substantial
risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment
of health, or serious lass or impairment of the function
of any bodily organ It is important to note that
the article.
Speaker 2 (03:18:58):
May not be inherently damed injurious.
Speaker 3 (03:19:00):
All that is required because that the article is capable
of causing death or serious physical injury under the circumstances.
Speaker 2 (03:19:06):
In which it was used.
Speaker 3 (03:19:08):
Any article or substance without limitation, and even though harmless
and a normal use may be found by you to
be a dangerous instrument. Under the circumstances of its user,
threatened or attempt of use, it is capable of producing
serious physical injury or death.
Speaker 2 (03:19:22):
The state need not prove that in fact death.
Speaker 3 (03:19:23):
Or serious physical injury resolved at, only that the instrument
had that potential of its circumstances. In summary, the state
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one the defendant
had the specific intent to cause serious physical injury to
another person. To the defendant did cause serious physical injury
to another person. To the defendant did cause serious physical
(03:19:48):
injury to Thomas Connery Junior. I'm sorry, I'm going to
strike the in summer that I just gave. Let me
just speak through that again. In summary, the state must.
Speaker 2 (03:20:02):
Proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one the defendant had.
Speaker 3 (03:20:05):
The specific intent to cause serious physical injury to another person.
Two the defendant did cause serious physical injury to Thomas
Connery Junior. And three the defendant caused the injury by
means of the dangerous instrument.
Speaker 2 (03:20:20):
If you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond.
Speaker 3 (03:20:23):
A reasonable doubt all the elements of assault and the
first degree intentional you shall find the defendant not guilt
to the crime of assault and the first degree intentional
at count three, and you shall next consider the lesser
included defenses, starting the assault in the first degree reckless.
Proceed to the Court's instruction on lesser included defenses to
assault in the first degree intentional below. If, however, you
(03:20:45):
unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable
doubt all the elements of the crime of assault and
the first degree intentional, you shall next consider the defendant's
claim to self defense and defense of honors. Refer to
the Court's instruction on self defense defense of others below
at twenty two. If you unanimously find that the state
is proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant did not
(03:21:07):
act in self defense or in defense of others, or
that the state has proved one of the statutory disqualifications
beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall reject the defenses and
find the defendant guilty of assault in the first three intentional,
in violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A DASH
fifty nine A one at count three. This will enter
deliberations at count three. You will not consider lesser included defenses,
(03:21:31):
you will move on to deliberate on count four.
Speaker 2 (03:21:33):
Skip the Court's instruction below on less.
Speaker 3 (03:21:36):
Or included defenses to assault in the first degree intentional,
and proceed directly to the Court's instructions on accounts will
assault and second degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three
A sixty A two below. If, however, you unanimously find
that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense
(03:21:56):
or in the defense of others, or is not proved
one of the status tory disqualifications beyond a reason of
a doubt, but on the strength of the defenses alone,
you shall find the defendant not guilty. I'm not guilty
of assault in the first degree intentional Account three. Even
though you have found the elements of the crime of
assault and the first degree intentional proof beyond reason of
adult the line of your deliberations as to cal three,
(03:22:18):
you will not consider lesser included defenses.
Speaker 2 (03:22:21):
You shall move on to deliberate on account four.
Speaker 3 (03:22:24):
Skip to courts instructions below on lesser included defenses to
assault the first degree intentional, and proceed directly.
Speaker 2 (03:22:30):
To the Court's instruction on count four assault and.
Speaker 3 (03:22:33):
Second degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A sixty
A too below. I am going to give you another
five minutes just to stand up, take a break and
take a five one of these guests, because I know, okay,
or it's going.
Speaker 2 (03:22:48):
To stand in Resa's I find it's again. Please do
not discuss the case and explore it stands Theresa, Thank you,
(03:23:09):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (03:23:14):
Do you want to thank you again?
Speaker 2 (03:23:16):
Sitting through this, I appreciate your focusing and attention. I
know this is not easy.
Speaker 3 (03:23:22):
Count some plea stipulate the return of our jury. I'm
going to talk to you now about lesser included defenses
to assault in the first three intentional. In accordance with
the Court's previous instructions. You will consider lesser included defenses
under account three if and only if, you have unanimously found,
(03:23:43):
but the state does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt,
all the elements of the crime of assault and the.
Speaker 2 (03:23:47):
First degree intentional, and therefore you have found.
Speaker 3 (03:23:50):
The defendant not guilty of assault and the first degree
intentional at count three.
Speaker 2 (03:23:54):
The defendant at count.
Speaker 3 (03:23:55):
Three of a substitute information is specifically charged with the
crime of assault and the first degree intent.
Speaker 2 (03:24:00):
The offense of assault in the first degree.
Speaker 3 (03:24:03):
Intentional under our penal code is such that it may
include the elements of the crimes of assault in the
first degree reckless and assault in the second degree, both
intentional and reckless.
Speaker 2 (03:24:13):
Similar to Count two.
Speaker 3 (03:24:14):
This brings into play the role of law known as
lesser included defenses at count three.
Speaker 2 (03:24:20):
As applicable to the crime of assault.
Speaker 3 (03:24:23):
The first degree intentional. You will consider lesser included offenses
as to count three in the order and under the
circumstances instructive human The fact that I am instructing you
on lesser included.
Speaker 2 (03:24:34):
Defenses to assault in the first degree.
Speaker 3 (03:24:36):
Intentional at count three should not be interpreted by you
that I believe the evidence proves the accused guilty of
any lesser included defense, either jury or the assault judges
of the facts in this case, you must determine whether
the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If it's
not the first degree intentional, or is guilty of any
respective lesser included defense. You will first consider the less
(03:24:56):
or included defense of assault in the first degree reckless
directly below.
Speaker 2 (03:24:59):
It's section A.
Speaker 3 (03:25:01):
You'll proceed to the court's instruction a assault the first
degree reckless Connecticut General Statutes.
Speaker 2 (03:25:05):
Fifty nine A three directly the low a assault in
the first.
Speaker 3 (03:25:09):
Career reckless fifty three A fifty nine A three statute
defining this defense.
Speaker 2 (03:25:15):
Reads impertinent part as follows.
Speaker 3 (03:25:17):
A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when,
under circumstances eventing an extreme indifference to human life, the
recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of death
to another person and thereby causes serious physical injury to
another person. For you to find the defending guilty of
the charge, the state must prove the following four elements
beyond a reasonable debt. Element one, conduct creating a risk
(03:25:39):
of death. The first element is that the defendant engaged
in conduct that created a risdom of death. Element to recklessness.
The second element is that the defendant acted recklessly. For
uson acts recklessly with the respect to a result or
circumstance when he is aware of and consciously disregards the
substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur more than.
Speaker 2 (03:25:59):
Such substances exist. You refer to the court's previous.
Speaker 3 (03:26:02):
Instruction on recklessness at sixteen. Element three extreme indifference to
human life. Third element is that the defendant act and
under circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to human life. In
difference means simply not caring. It means lacking any interest.
Speaker 2 (03:26:19):
In it in a matter one way or the other.
Speaker 3 (03:26:21):
Extreme means existing in the highest or greatest possible degree.
Extreme indifference is more an ordinary and difference. It is
synonymous with excessive and is the greatest departure from the ordinary.
Speaker 2 (03:26:34):
What evinces an.
Speaker 3 (03:26:34):
Extreme indifference to human life is a question of fact.
An element, who are caused serious?
Speaker 2 (03:26:39):
It's wondering?
Speaker 3 (03:26:40):
Fourth element is that the defendant cause serious physical injury
to another person.
Speaker 2 (03:26:44):
This means that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause
of the person's injuries.
Speaker 3 (03:26:48):
You refer to the Court's previous instruction on proximate clause
at fourteen. You must find it proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that Thomas Connery Junior was injured as the result
of the.
Speaker 2 (03:26:58):
Actions of the defendant.
Speaker 3 (03:27:00):
Serious physical injury is something more serious than mere physical injury.
It is defined as impairment and physical condition of pain.
It is more than a minor of superficial injury. It
is defined by statute as physical injury which creates a
substantial risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious
impairmentive health, or serious loss or impairmentive the function.
Speaker 2 (03:27:20):
Of any bodily organ In salary, the state.
Speaker 3 (03:27:22):
Must proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one the defendant
engaged in conduct that created a risk of death, too
he acted reathlessly, three he acted under circumstances evincing an
extreme indifference to human life, and four he caused serious
physical injuries to Thomas Connery Junior. If you unanimously find
that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable
(03:27:43):
doubt all the elements of assault in the first degree reference,
you shall find the defendant not guilty of assault in
the first three reflace account three, and you shall then
consider the less or included defense.
Speaker 2 (03:27:53):
Of assault and the second degree intentional.
Speaker 3 (03:27:55):
Will proceed to the court's instruction on the assault and
the second degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A
two below sorry fifty three Ash.
Speaker 2 (03:28:05):
Sixty a two below.
Speaker 3 (03:28:07):
If, however, you unanimously find that the state has proved
beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime
of assault and the course degree reckless. Then you shall
next consider the defendants claim to self defense and defense
of others.
Speaker 2 (03:28:19):
You will refer to the point's instruction on self defense
defense of others below at twenty two.
Speaker 3 (03:28:24):
If you unanimously find that the state is proved beyond
a reasonable doubt but the defendant did not.
Speaker 2 (03:28:28):
Act for self defense or in defense of others.
Speaker 3 (03:28:31):
Or that the state has proved one of the statutory
exceptions beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall reject the defenses
and find the defendant goal to the desault and degree
refle and violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A
fifty nine eighty three of count three at count three.
This will end your deliberations at count three. You will
not consider any additional less or incruded defenses under count three.
(03:28:53):
You shall move on to deliberate counts four, will skip
subsections being see below, and proceed directly to the courts
instruction on count four assault and the second degree intentional
Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A sixty A two below. Yes, However,
you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act
in self defense or in the defense of others, or
(03:29:15):
has not proved one of the statutory disqualifications.
Speaker 2 (03:29:19):
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (03:29:21):
Then, on the strength of the defense is alone, you
must find the defendant not guilty of assault in the
first degree reckless at count three, even though you have
found the elements of that crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This will end your deliberations at count three. You will
not consider any other lesser incruded defenses under count three.
You shall move on to deliberate on count four, skip
(03:29:43):
sub sections B and C below, and proceed directly to
the court destruction on count floor assault and second degree
intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A sixty A two.
Below the assault the second degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes,
fifty three A sixty A two.
Speaker 2 (03:29:59):
You will deliberate and.
Speaker 3 (03:30:00):
On this less or included offense if and only if
you have unanimously found that the state did not prove
beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of assault the
first degree intentional, and therefore you have found that the
defendant is not guilty of assault in the first degree intentional,
and further that you have unanimously found that the state
did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements
of assault and.
Speaker 2 (03:30:19):
The first degree reckless, and therefore you have found the
defendant not guilty of assault in the first degree reckless.
Account three.
Speaker 3 (03:30:27):
The statue defining this offense reason permaparts follows. A person
is guilty of assault in the second degree, but with
intent to cause physical injury to another person he causes
such injury to such person by means of a deadly
weapon or a dangerous instrument, other than by means of
the discharge of firearms. For you to find the defindite
guilty of this charged, the state must prove the following
through the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (03:30:47):
Element one, intent to cause physical injury.
Speaker 3 (03:30:50):
First elements that the defendants specifically intended to cause physical
injury to another person. A person acts intentially with respect
to a result when its conscious objective.
Speaker 2 (03:30:59):
Is to such a result.
Speaker 3 (03:31:00):
You will refer to the court's previous instruction on specific
intent at fifteen. Physical injury is defined as impuremid of
physical condition or pain. It is a reduced ability to
act as one would otherwise have acted.
Speaker 2 (03:31:13):
The law does not require that.
Speaker 3 (03:31:14):
The injury be serious, it may be miner caused physical injury.
The second element is that the defendant caused physical injury
to another person. This means that the defendant's conduct.
Speaker 2 (03:31:23):
Was the proximate cause of the person's injury.
Speaker 3 (03:31:26):
You will refer to the court's earlier instruction on proximate
cause at fourteen. You must find a proof beyond a
reasonable doubt that Thomas Connery Junior was injured as a
result of the actions of the defendant. It does not
matter whether it was the person upon whom the defendant
intended to inflict physical injury.
Speaker 2 (03:31:43):
It is sufficient if you find that the defendant intended
to cause physical.
Speaker 3 (03:31:46):
Injury to another person and that he in fact caused
physical injury to.
Speaker 2 (03:31:51):
The person or to some other person. Element three with
a dangerous weapon.
Speaker 3 (03:31:57):
The third element is that the defendant caused the injury
by means of a dangerous instrument, other than by means
of the discharge of the firearm. Dangerous instrument means any
instrument which, under the circumstances in which it is used
or attemptible threaten to be used, is capable of causing
death or serious physical injury. Serious physical injury means physical
injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which
(03:32:18):
causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious loss
or impairment of the function of any bodily organ. It
is important to note that the article may not be
inherently dangerous. All that is required is that the article
was capable of causing death or serious physical injury under
the circumstances in which it was used. Any article or
substance without limitation, and even though harmless under normal use,
(03:32:40):
may be found by you to be a dangerous instrument
if under the circumstances of its use or threatened or
attempted use, it is capable of producing serious physical.
Speaker 2 (03:32:48):
Injury or death.
Speaker 3 (03:32:49):
The state need not with them in fact death or
serious physical injury resulted, only that the instrument had the potential.
Speaker 2 (03:32:55):
Under its instance in some way.
Speaker 3 (03:32:58):
The state must prove beyond a reasonable death out that
one the defendant had this specific intent to cause physical
injury to another person to the defendant did cause physical
injury to Thomas Cottery Junior, and three the defendant quasi
injury by means of a dangerous instrument other than by
means of the discharge of a firearm if you unanimously
find that the state has failed I'm sorry, Yes. If
(03:33:24):
you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements.
Speaker 2 (03:33:29):
Assault and the second degree intentional, you.
Speaker 3 (03:33:31):
Shall find the defendant not guilty of assault and the
second degree intentional account flor and you shall then consider
the lesser included defenses of assault a certain degree reckless.
We'll proceed to the Court's instruction and see assault in
the second degree reckless Connecticut generalist at It's fifty three
A sixty A three below. If, however, you unanimously find
(03:33:52):
that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all
the elements of the crime of assault and the second
degree intentional, then you shall next consider the defendants claim assault,
defense and defense of others. You'll refer to the Court's
instruction on self defense defense of others below the twenty two.
If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in
(03:34:12):
self defense or defensive others, or has proved one of
the statutory disqualifications beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall reject
the defenses and find the defendant guilty of assault and
the second degree intentional violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty
three A sixty one two At count three, this wi
lend your deliberations. At count three, you shall not deliberate
and an unlesser included defenses You shall move on to deliberate.
Speaker 2 (03:34:34):
Account four will skip subsection.
Speaker 3 (03:34:36):
Seed blown proceed directly to the court's instruction I account
for assault and the second degree.
Speaker 2 (03:34:41):
Intentional Connecticut General Statutes fifty three A sixty a two below.
Speaker 3 (03:34:46):
If, however, you unanimously find that the state has failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (03:34:51):
That the defendant did not act as self defense or in.
Speaker 3 (03:34:53):
The defense of others, or has not proved one of
the statutory disqualifications beyond a reasonable doubt that on the
the length of the defense is alone, you must find
the defendant not guilty of assault and the second degree
intentional account three, even though you have found the elements
of that crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (03:35:10):
This will end your deliberations at count three. You shall
not consider any.
Speaker 3 (03:35:14):
Other lesser included defenses, and instead shall move on to deliberate.
On count four, you will skip the sub section three
below and proceed to the court's instruction on count four
assault and the second degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes Section.
Speaker 2 (03:35:27):
Fifty three A sixty a two below.
Speaker 3 (03:35:32):
See Assault and the second Degree reckless section fifty three
A sixty eight three. The statute defining this defense reason
impertinent part as follows. A person is guilty of assault
in the second degree when he recklessly causes serious physical
injury to another person by means of the deadly weapon
or dangerous instrument. For you to find the guilty of
this charge, the state must prove the following three elements
(03:35:54):
beyond a reasonable doubt. Element one recklessness. First element is
that the defendant acted recklessly. A person acts recklessly with
respect to a result or circumstances when he is aware
of unconsciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such
results will occur, or that such circumstances exist, or refer
to the Court's previous instructions on recklessness at sixteen. Element
(03:36:18):
two caused serious physical injury. The second element is that
the defendant caused serious physical injury. This means that the
defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the defendant's injuries.
Refer to the Court's previous instruction on proximate cause at fourteen.
You must find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
Thomas Connery Junior was seriously physically injured as a result
(03:36:39):
of the actions.
Speaker 2 (03:36:40):
Of the defendant.
Speaker 3 (03:36:41):
Serious physical injury is something more serious a mair physical injury,
which is defined as impairment of physical conditional pain.
Speaker 2 (03:36:48):
It is more than a minor or a superficial injury.
Speaker 3 (03:36:51):
It is defined by statute it as a physical injury
which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes
serious disfigurement, serious impairmental health, serious loss, or impairment are
the function of any bodily organ Element three dangerous instrument.
The third element is that the defendant used a dangerous instrument.
Speaker 2 (03:37:11):
And causing the serious physical injury to another.
Speaker 3 (03:37:14):
Dangerous instrument means any instrument, article, or substance which, under
the circumstances in which it is used, or attempted or
threaten to be used, is capable of causing death or
serious physical injury.
Speaker 2 (03:37:25):
Serious physical injury means serious.
Speaker 3 (03:37:26):
Physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or
which causes serious disfigurement, creates a substantial risk of death
or which causes I'm sorry, creates backup, and I'm going
to redefine serious physical injury for you, So strike that
power of my charge.
Speaker 2 (03:37:43):
Under dangerous instrument Element.
Speaker 3 (03:37:45):
Three, Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a
substantial risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious
impairment of health, or serious loss or impairment of the
function of any bodily organ It is important to the
article may not be inherently dangerous.
Speaker 2 (03:38:02):
All that is required is that the article was capable
of causing death or serious physical injury under the circumstances
in which it was used.
Speaker 3 (03:38:08):
Any article or substance without limitation, even though harmless under
normal use, may be found by you to be dangerous
instrument if under the circumstances of its use, are threatened
or attempt to use it is capable of producing serious
physical injury or debt. In the summary of the state
must proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one the defendant
opted recklessly to the defendant cause serious physical injury to
(03:38:29):
Thomas Connery Junior, and three the defendant causer injuries.
Speaker 2 (03:38:33):
The injury might means of a dangerous instrument.
Speaker 3 (03:38:39):
If you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable but out of all the elements
of solve a second degree reckless, you shall find the
defendant not guilty of.
Speaker 2 (03:38:46):
Assault a second degree reckless. Account three WI.
Speaker 3 (03:38:49):
Lend your deliberations at count three. You shall next bend
to deliberate on count four. Proceed to the Court's instruction
on countful assault and the second degree intentional can get
General Stef fifty three A sixty A two below. If, however,
you unanimously find the state has proved beyond a reasonable
doubt all the elements of the crime of assault the
second degree repless, then you shall next consider the defendants
(03:39:12):
claims of self defense and defensive others.
Speaker 2 (03:39:14):
Refer to the Court's instruction on self.
Speaker 3 (03:39:16):
Defense defense of others below at twenty two. If you
unanimously find that the state has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the defendant did not act in self defense or
in defense of others, or that the state has proved
one of the statutory disqualifications beyond a reasonable doubt, you
shall find the defendant guilty of assault in the second
(03:39:37):
degree repless in violation of Connecticut General Statutes fifty three.
Speaker 2 (03:39:41):
A sixty eight three Account three.
Speaker 3 (03:39:43):
This will end your deliberations account three, and you shall
then next move on to deliberate account four. You'll proceed
to the court's instruction on account for assault and the
second degree intentional Connecticut General Statute, Section fifty three A
sixty a two below. If, however, you unanimously fine, but
the state is found beyond a reasonable doubt, but the
(03:40:04):
defendant did not act in self defense or defense of others,
or has not proved one of the statutory disqualifications beyond
a reasonable doubt, then on the strength of the defenses alone,
you must find the defendant not guilty of assault the
second degree reckless account three, even though you have found
the elements of that crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This will end your deliberations at count three, and you
(03:40:27):
shall move on to deliberate on coount fur So you
will proceed to the court's instruction on account for assault
and the second degree intentional Connecticut General Statutes, fifty three
A sixty eight.
Speaker 2 (03:40:39):
Two immediately belowe all right, ladies, and donamo of the jury.
Speaker 3 (03:40:44):
It has been a long day of sitting, and we
are about little older I would save three.
Speaker 2 (03:40:52):
Quarters of the way done with my charge.
Speaker 3 (03:40:54):
However, it is for thirty so I am going to
go ahead and I I am going to rejourn for
the day.
Speaker 2 (03:41:03):
So what that means is go over this again. You
have heard all the evidence.
Speaker 3 (03:41:09):
You've heard closing arguments, You've heard part of the jury charge, part.
Speaker 2 (03:41:14):
Of importance instructions to you that apply in this case.
You have not heard all of those instructions, nor have
you been told to engage unil oration. You still remain under.
Speaker 3 (03:41:25):
The obligation of your oath and your journal conjunct. Fools
still abide, I still need to be a light abide,
So please do not discuss this case. You cannot even
discuss it with one another.
Speaker 2 (03:41:37):
Please please. It's a long weekend. We're not here tomorrow.
Tomorrow's July forth.
Speaker 3 (03:41:41):
It is a holiday, so I know this is a
little bit longer than I had initially anticipated.
Speaker 2 (03:41:48):
Hopefully this is not too much of an inconvenience, and
I do apologize to the jury, but July fourth is
a holiday.
Speaker 3 (03:41:54):
We will next convene on this case Monday, July seventh,
so you can come back on Monday July seventh.
Speaker 2 (03:42:02):
I will finish up the.
Speaker 3 (03:42:03):
Jury charge at that time in the morning, so we'll
get on the record right at ten and then you
will start your deliberations, all right, So no discussing the
case again. I can't impress upon you the extent to
which this case is being covered in the news, social
media and other outlets. Please do your best to avoid
(03:42:24):
the news, social media, and any other outlets where something
like this may be posted. I mean, I can't control
your actions, but I am going to ask please please
take this case seriously and your duties relevant to your
conduct seriously. Have this fantastic holiday, have a nice long weekend.
Speaker 2 (03:42:42):
And we will see you back here on Monday for
the continuation of the Churnal. Thank you before it stands
a journey
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2
Season Two Out Now! Law & Order: Criminal Justice System tells the real stories behind the landmark cases that have shaped how the most dangerous and influential criminals in America are prosecuted. In its second season, the series tackles the threat of terrorism in the United States. From the rise of extremist political groups in the 60s to domestic lone wolves in the modern day, we explore how organizations like the FBI and Joint Terrorism Take Force have evolved to fight back against a multitude of terrorist threats.