Table of Contents
( Starts 1 minutes 50 seconds in )
We were talking about the litany of the defendant’s lies and we were at a point where we were going to talk about the lies to the police officers. And you’ve heard so much about that that almost there’s a … it affects such as well, she did it, it’s .. it’s , you know, let’s accept it and move on but it is an important factor, not because … it is important because she lies, but because of how it fits into her particular plan. And one of the things that we have to think about when we talk about lies is that, and you think about what she told the police officers, is that maybe there was some exaggeration that were going on with regard to what she told the police officer, or maybe there was some minimization that was going on. In terms of exaggeration, one of the points that needs to be made is that, uh, Robert Geffner, who was here yesterday talking to you and said, well, exaggeration really isn’t a lie. Well, it is because it’s not the truth, and so some of the things that the defendant told the police officers, somebody may say, well no, that’s a little bit of an exaggeration, maybe it isn’t, but at the time that she spoke to the police officers, it had been some time; it was July 15th of 2008 that she was arrested. It had been over a month since she had killed Mr. Alexander and during that time she had to have time to think about what was going to happen if she spoke to the police.
And so it’s important from the aspect of somebody who’s thinking about it, somebody who is planning; it shows that this individual had the forethought to have a story ready when the police officer came to her. And this individual is of such strong will that even in the face of what police officer was talking to her about, she would actually not budge initially when she was spoken to by the police officer. For example, one of the things that she was asked out on the first interview, well isn’t true that you were there? She kept saying no, I wasn’t even there, how could I have possibly done this if I wasn’t even there? And then she was asked, well isn’t it true that your fingerprint, or palm print, it was actually a palm print, but the fingerprint, isn’t it true that the fingerprint in blood was there? And she said, well of course it’s there. I’ve been there all this time.
And so it shows you the adaptability and how nimble this individual is such that when she gets in any situation, whether it be involving Mr. Alexander or here in court, this individual is quick thinking and is good on her feet, and so that when she is talking to you on cross examination, and you get those answers, those answers are designed to manipulate. And so that’s why those statements to the police are important because they show how she can attempt to manipulate things and is able to say whatever fits the story at the time. So initially, when the police came to her, when Detective Flores came to her and asked her, well this is what we have, let’s talk about it.
She denied everything and she kept saying, let me see the photographs. I want to see the photographs. The reason she wanted to see the photographs is because she wanted to conform her story to what the police knew, or what she thought the police knew. And in fact, in other conversations, during the telephone conversations, they discussed it. And that’s … that just shows you this type of individual that can adapt, if you will, as she is going along with the interview with the police officer. And in asking to see the photographs, it’s interesting that she asks that, and the only reason that I mention it, is because previously when the state, when I showing the photographs of the killing of Mr. Alexander, we have the defendant crying. Well, why did you want to see the photographs when the police officer was there?
You knew what had happened, and she is still asking to see it. Again, it’s just another form of manipulation to have you feel some sympathy for her, as she sits there with a red nose, face down, apparently crying.
But yet she asks the police officer, you know, could I take a look at these photographs? The police officer, of course, did not show her the photographs. So the first story on July 15th, is wasn’t even there, wasn’t even there; then has overnight to think about it and on July 16th, changes it, changes it to something else because it will make much more sense, because now she knows about, a little bit about what they have there, she wants to now be able to say that she was there, but what does she do? She says not just that she was there, but she makes herself the hero, just, switching it up. Not only does she say that she was there, but she makes herself the hero, in the sense that she pushes the woman down, and has the gun pointed to her head, and, and you know, by luck, is not killed. But she is able to push people aside, and then she wraps it up by saying, but oh, you know, I wish I could have stayed there. I should have fought more, I did fight but I should have fought more, and then away I went. Again, trying to paint herself, not only that she was there, but again, that she was this hero, attempting to not only tell a different story, but to manipulate that story to make her look better. Years ago by, and then we have the story that we have now. This nonstop litany of lies by the defendant just does not stop. She has lied to various groups of people. She has lied, as we have said to you, she has lied to the medical health care professionals, she has lied to the police, and she’s even lied to the media, something that she has craved.
This individual here, craves the media, loves the media; went on national television to talk about this. And what did she do? Not only did she lie to them, but she made herself seem like such a calm person. Oh no, I wouldn’t do that; didn’t tell any of the things that we see here today. And of course, it’s not a confessional when you go there, but it is demonstrative of the fact that she is a chameleon and she’ll adjust to the situation and make up whatever stories are appropriate for her at the time, whether it be the media or somebody else. The same can be said is true about her friends, the people that she has, the friendships that she has. She lies to them, and she does things that … that almost make you step back and say, what .. what could you possibly gain by that? When, for example, when she talks to Leslie Udy and makes up this thing about her and her kids and Mr. Alexander’s kids playing together. She didn’t have to go that far. The point I’m trying to make is that these lies are lies, but then she goes even further with them, just to sell them, to manipulate the person into thinking that they are actually true. For example, with Leslie Udy, she could have just said, oh yeah, you know, I speak to Travis every now and then, but then she adds, oh, but I want our kids to play together. When Dan Freeman calls her, well she didn’t have to, after he called her and said I don’t know, you know what happened, but Travis is dead; she didn’t have to then go and talk to the bishop.
She does these things because she is such an ornate liar. She just has to add the extras to it, to really sell it. And that’s what she did for you, for all those times, all those days that she testified to you. And the reason that I bring up this ornate storytelling, is because it applies to her defence about … and her defence, really is based on lies, it really is. And if you can say, for example, oh this was .. she presented it as if it was in self defence, but not only did she present it as if it were self defence, she added some ornate lies to it. For example, one of the things that she added was is this physical violence that supposedly Mr. Alexander um inflicted upon her. But she doesn’t just say that he inflicted these four incidents of violence, she goes into great detail about it. For example, she talks about the one in August of 2007 where he goes upstairs and he’s banging his head up against the wall, just very flowery, very out there, because then she’s then again, the centre of attention. She is being the calm one, she’s being the person that is, the .. the individual that you would look to for the answers. It’s not just the lies, she’s a very good liar, but she on top of that, is a very sophisticated liar in a sense that she adds these extra elements to it. Um, and she did that with regards to the acts of domestic violence. And they are lies.
If we are to look at her journals and sit back and take a look at what she writes, those journals tell you that there were no acts of domestic violence. Have you been given any reason whatsoever, other than this Law of Attraction, and other than another, Alyce LaViolette, somebody who has trouble with the truth? Other than that vouching for them, do you have any reason to doubt what is being written there? Do you have anything that the defendant has said that has corroborated, in terms of the domestic violence? You have the journal entries indicating that they did not happen. You have friends indicating that they never saw it; you don’t have any medical reports, any police reports. You don’t have anything and as we get talking about this, there are lies and then there are monumental, huge lies. And she made this up because that fit her defence.
And one of the other things that she did with regard to this is that, not only did she make up that .. this lie for her defence, the other thing that she did is that she created a lie that really involves behaviour that involves a hot-button kind of topic. How horrific it is to be accused falsely of being a pedophile. He’s not here; he’s not here to say no, that’s not true. She can say to Alyce LaViolette that it was on the computer, the images, but then Alyce LaViolette comes in and says no, that’s not what she told me. But remember Alyce LaViolette has a problem with the truth, and so, the state goes to the computer and doesn’t find anything there. Oh no, no, no, I changed my mind. It was actually images, they were like this. How does one defend that when there are no images there? The police looked through the attic, the police looked everywhere. How absolutely hateful that allegation is and how absolutely extensive she was with it, but remember I said that she went a little too far with these thoughts?
First of all, her journal indicates that there wasn’t such an event. Second of all, the text messages also indicate the same thing. And what human being, if that is the allegation, if they really are caring, what human being doesn’t go to the police and say, or somebody else, this person is a pedophile? For her, instead what she does is she says, no. And she talks about all these phone calls going back and forth, and that also doesn’t match; what she does, well it’s the new approach; it’s the new approach to pedophilia. What does she do? Well, let’s jump in the sack. That’s what we’re going to do. At least that’s what she tells you now, but with regard to Alyce LaViolette, no, she didn’t. She can’t even keep that together. If that is the truth, and if that is what happened wouldn’t you expect that her journals, if she didn’t write about it, at least wouldn’t have said that nothing noteworthy has happened? She has gone too far at least with regard to that particular allegation. And at least in this allegation, it is fortunate that the police did have Mr. Alexander’s laptop and there weren’t any images of children on it, none whatsoever. They checked throughout the house. There was nothing inside of the house that indicated anything like that. There weren’t any photographs, there wasn’t anything. And so this allegation of hers, whether it was on the computer, or whether it was in photograph form, just went a little bit too far. These lies to take from Mr. Alexander, the only thing that he has left, his reputation, is just a little bit too much to, uh, in the light of what we know, and in the light of she says, it’s just too much even in this particular case. It is a hateful allegation, with nothing to support it, but can you imagine what goes through somebody’s head when they hear it for the first time? That person does not deserve justice, that person doesn’t deserve anything because of what he did. It’s so easy for her to make these allegations. It’s so easy for her to get on the witness stand, as you’ve seen, and lie. And this is really the pinnacle. It doesn’t get any higher, or worse or lower, whatever way you want to look at it, than that. Well, how do you judge that allegation? Well, the judge has. How you judge these sorts of allegations? Well, just like everything in this case, there are rules and those rules are the jury instructions, such as the ones that have been read to you today. And one jury instruction particularly deals with this aspect.
It’s the credibility of witnesses’ instruction. I know, the judge has read it, but because it’s so important it is worth my referencing it again, because it directly relates to the two primary allegations in this case, that of physical abuse and the fact that Mr. Alexander was interested in little boys and girls, according to her.
It tells you that in deciding the facts of this case, you should consider what testimony to accept and what to reject. What it’s telling you there, is that you ultimately decide whether or not this person here, who is the epitome of a liar, whether this individual, whether you are going accept or reject what she tells you. Are you going to pick and choose some things of what she says and then accept some other things? How is that you can know with any certainty whatsoever whether or not she’s telling the truth about anything? It says you may accept everything a witness says or part of it, or none of it. The state submits to you that you are, based on what you’ve seen, based on what you’ve heard, and based on the testimony of others, you should accept none of it. It doesn’t mean that the eighteen days that she was on the witness stand are wasted, no, what that means is you are finally able to see this individual in the light of day. You’re able to see how she reacts. You’re able to see that when push comes to shove, she’ll look each and every one of you in the eye and lie. It doesn’t matter where. And this instruction then goes on and says, in evaluating testimony you should use the tests for truthfulness that people use in determining matters of importance in everyday life. Important matters, what kind of matters would those be? Medical care; would you, would anybody, not you but anybody, go to a doctor who has lied to them consistently about major aspects of their life? No, people would not go to a doctor who lies to them. And the factors that you are to consider are the witness’s ability to see or hear or know the things the witness testify to; that when we’re talking about the defendant, she was there. She knows. The quality of the witness’s memory; the quality of her memory is incredible, absolutely incredible, down to follicles of hair. Unless it hurts her; then the fog rolls in. Then there’s an excuse, then there’s a reason why she doesn’t remember.
She has an incredible memory alright, when it comes to lying. And the witness’s manner while testifying, how it was that she testified, how it was that the defendant testified? Well, you saw her at times attempt to cry, you saw her at times get angry, you saw her at other times just sullenly stand there, and you saw her at times, when the questions were getting difficult snap out, and try to, somehow, make the person that was asking the questions, the villain. Saying, well you’re scrambling my brain. It’s not my fault. Again, it’s not my fault. It is the fact that you asking me these questions just like Travis. That’s exactly what’s going on here. So that’s not my fault that I keep lying here on the witness stand; it’s yours, because of the way you’re asking me the questions; the fact that you’re raising your voice, that’s whose fault it is. And that’s why I can snap at you from the witness stand; I can smirk at you from the witness stand, and look knowingly towards the jury, because it’s not her fault. It’s the person who’s asking the questions. Whether or not the witness had a motive, bias or prejudice; if there is any witness in this case, who had motive to lie, it’s this defendant. She’s the person that’s charged.
All of the other witnesses that came here, some of them had a motive, for example, Alyce LaViolette, she had a motive to lie. I mean, um, maybe perhaps it was her reputation that she was interested in, or things like that.
Um, all the other individuals, for example, Ryan Burns, why would he want to lie about anything? He lives in Utah; he just met her that one time. There’s no reason to believe that he was going to be making these things up. Amanda Webb, why would she want to come in here, after all the work that she’s done and make things up?
The only person with a motive is the defendant. So when evaluating her testimony, that’s something that you need to consider. When it’s to her benefit, she’s going to lie. Whether the witness, the defendant, was contradicted by anything the witness said or wrote before trial. Well, she wrote, for example, in terms of these two allegations involving the pedophilia and involving the domestic violence that they didn’t happen. Additionally, she never told anybody, and, the reports out there, if, there aren’t any reports, that would corroborate what she said. So, in terms of the pedophilia, well, she says it was on the computer. Well the computer doesn’t show that, and they even back looked and traced and looked everywhere, the house. There were no implements, if you will or anything associated with that kind of conduct. And so in this case, nothing supports what the defendant said. And then you’re asked to take a look at the reasonableness of her testimony, in light of the other evidence. In light of the … in order for her to prevail in this case, in order for you to believe her, because it actually comes down to, whether or not you believe her;if you believe her, then certainly, you could apply the jury instructions, but it comes down to whether or not you believe her.
The other evidence, all of the other evidence that’s out there, contradicts her. So you have to go against all the evidence that’s out there, turn your back on all of that, and say I believe her, therefore, I’m going to find in her favour. The state submits to you that in light of everything, that’s not something that you should do. So what standard do you apply? Well, the standard that you apply is the burden of proof instruction which tells you, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt, firmly convinced is the term.
Not any of the other terms that you may have heard anywhere else in life, it’s just firmly convinced. And it does tell you there are very things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, so absolute certainty is not required. And it does say in criminal law that the law does not require proof that overcomes every doubt. That’s not what we’re talking about here. You just need to be firmly convinced. If based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced, that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find her guilty. That’s how it reads, and that’s the procedure that you indicated that you would follow should you be chosen to go back there to resolve this case. Once you make that enquiry, once you find the defendant guilty, that’s the end of the enquiry. The other language that falls after that, involves you finding reasonable doubt, but if you find, based on your consideration of the evidence, that you are firmly convinced, that’s the end of the enquiry, you don’t need to go any further.
And there is only one charge in this case; and the charge is first degree murder. And first degree murder can be committed in one of two ways. Obviously you noticed that there are no, there is not two charges of first degree murder, there is only one.
But there are different ways in which these can be committed. The first is premeditated murder, or second, is felony murder.
With regard to felony mur … with regard to premeditated murder, there are lesser included offences, as the jury instructions have told you.
There are other offences, not necessarily lesser, but other offences that are involved. With regard to felony murder, there are no lesser included offences. So for example, if you are considering felony murder, there are no other offences that are to be considered. The only issue with regard to felony murder is whether or not, in the course of a felony, she killed him. That’s basically what the law says, and if you find that, that’s the end of the enquiry. You don’t consider other lesser included offences.
Premeditated murder does have these lesser offences, but in terms of the tabulation that takes place at the end, for example, nine of you could find that this is premeditated murder, three of you could find that this is felony murder, and it’s still first degree murder. You do not have to unanimous as to the theory involving the murder. Or you could be six and six, or it could be twelve for premeditated murder and twelve for felony murder. It’s still only one charge; you do not have to unanimous as to the theory of the crime. And let’s talk about premeditated murder; well, it requires that it be proven that the defendant caused the death of another person. Well, exhibit number 207, he’s dead. That element is proven.
Well the defendant intended or knew that she would cause the death of another person. That’s also proven; one of the things that we know in this particular case is that, amongst other things, she slit his throat, she stabbed him in the heart, and, we also know that she shot him. There are three different ways that she killed him, so did she intend? Sure. Did she know? Absolutely, she knew. Remember I was talking about directed it was to the throat? If you do that thing you know, anybody knows that if you do that to the neck, you’re going to kill somebody; so she both intended it or knew, in other words it could be either/or. In this case, she knew, and also intended it, based on what we see in this particular case. So those elements are satisfied in this case. There is no doubt about that those two elements are satisfied. Now the issue is whether or not she acted with premeditation. And premeditation means that a defendant intended to kill another human being, and there’s the disjunctive or knew. It doesn’t say the defendant intended to kill another human being and then it stops. It says intended to kill another human being, or knew she would kill another human being. That is the element that’s above in number two. She knew that she was going to kill him. There’s three different ways that she killed him; one of those three satisfies this “knew that she would cause the death of another person”.
And after forming that knowledge; after knowing that she was going to kill him, because it talks about intending or knowledge; after knowing, after forming that intent or knowledge, reflected on the decision before killing. And the key here is, what is reflection? What does that mean? And it defines it for you. It tells you that it is this reflection regardless of the length of time in which it occurs, that distinguishes first degree murder from second degree murder. What that is telling you is that you don’t have to have a month of thinking about it or knowing about it, you don’t have to have a week between the thinking and knowing and the killing; you don’t even have to have a day between the thinking and the knowing. You just have to have a length of time, regardless of the length. So it can be very short.
After a couple of minutes
It can be as short as stabbing him in the shower, and then after a couple of minutes, chasing him down and going for the throat. No one can dispute that he walked that way to get away from her; no one can dispute that he was already injured, he was already going to die. When this was applied, by this I mean, the strike to the throat, she already knew he was going to die, but that type of injury indicates you want that person to die. This way, when she shot him in the head, although he was already dead, that also indicates that she wanted him to die. It does say that while reflection is required for first degree murder, the time needed for reflection is not necessarily prolonged. Again, it’s telling you, it doesn’t have to be days, it doesn’t have to be hours; it doesn’t even have to be minutes. And then it tells you, and the space and time between the intent, or knowledge to kill, and the act of killing may be very short. In this case, I guess it depends on who you ask; this was a long period of time for Mr. Alexander to be going through this, just a long period of time between the stab wounds to the heart in the shower when he was defenceless, to the time that he was trying to get away and pulling along the wall, and absolutely falling down. So in this case, it could be very short, she killed him three different ways. She knew that she was going to kill him. Additionally, not only that, she brought the implement.
She brought the gun. If she didn’t bring the gun, and it was Mr. Alexander’s, then you have a burglary and that implicates felony murder, because she came and she took his gun. If what she’s saying is she that stole his gun, did she have his permission to take that gun? According to her it was his gun. If she took his gun, then that’s a burglary and if during the burglary somebody dies, ie stealing the gun then that’s premeditated murder.Either way you look at it, but we’ll talk about it a little more. And an act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or a heat of passion. How do you know if it was or wasn’t the instant effect of sudden quarrel or heat of passion? Well, you could take a look at some of the photographs that we have and they will tell you that it wasn’t the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. 160 tells you, does that guy look like he’s going, ready to fight, does that guy look like he’s ready to fight? And who’s telling us that this is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion? A liar is somebody who is telling us that, a liar who was dressed at the time, a liar who was poised to strike. If she didn’t have a plan, why does she have her clothes on? Why does she need to have her clothes on? And why is that the gun is with her? She says, oh no, the gun belonged to Mr. Alexander. But if you remember on June 10th of 2008, she called unsolicited to this police officer and said to him, oh no, Travis never had a gun, Travis never had a gun. The only thing that he had were his fists. So, and you have that on tape, there is no doubt that she said it. In fact, we also … there is a tape that says Jodi Arias’s number is whatever it was and you heard her voice and you also heard her saying, he did not have a gun. At that time of the investigation, she didn’t know how important it was going to be. She didn’t know what lies she was going to be telling in the future. She said he did not have a gun. So if he didn’t have a gun, she brought it and you know that … that she did bring it. You know about the burglary, supposed burglary of her grandparent’s house. And so, she says that. In order for you to believe that this was a sudden quarrel, or a heat of passion, you have to say to yourself, well you know, she called the police on her own and she lied to them, but since she’s been such a liar, and she lied to us in this courtroom, I’m now going to decide to believe her when she makes up a story and says, oh his father gave it to her. And in addition to that, I’m going to have to believe that the shooting did not occur in the closet, as she told Alyce LaViolette, cause that’s what she told Alyce LaViolette, the person who took the fifth
Nurmi: Objection, misstates the evidence.
Isn’t that what she told Alyce LaViolette; do you remember what Alyce LaViolette testified? That that’s what she told her, and in fact, there was a,a ah a recording of the conversation between the prosecutor and her at an interview that took place in November of last year in which you heard say, oh yeah, she told me that the shooting happened in the closet. You are going to have to disregard all of that so that you can even get to the sudden quarrel or heat of passion. That’s the problem for the defendant. Are you going to be willing to do that? Especially when the police have looked in that place and there wasn’t anything indicating that there were any bullets there. There’s nothing to indicate that he had any cleaning supplies, nothing to indicate that there was a gun.
The other thing that is problematic that it would allow you to reach that is, these shelves. You would have .. you know the shelves, you’ve seen what the shelves look like, those shelves that were in the corner; and by her own admission, she stepped on the second shelf as she was going to get the gun. You saw what happens to those shelves when you put a little bit of pressure. They move down this way and you saw the photographs. There was nothing that was, the shoes that were there, there is nothing that looked like there had been any activity there.
Everything, everything, the photographs, the forensic evidence, her statement says that there was no sudden quarrel or heat of passion; because she brought the gun. You would have to, again, throw aside everything else she has said to find that there was an instant effect from sudden quarrel or heat of passion in this case. What do you want to do as you sit back and deliberate? What do you want to do with one of the first conversations that she ever has with the police before she knows what the issues are, in fact, he didn’t have a gun.
What possible reason can, or justification can she give you to say at that time, I lied to him. Why? Well, she said before, well I was afraid initially she said when she spoke to the officer back on July 15th. That’s why I made that first story. Then the second story, well I was trying to not get in trouble, but those weren’t present, those reasons were not present on June 10th of 2008, when she called this detective unsolicited to talk. It’s because she wanted to learn about what the police knew so that she could incorporate it in her story, should something come up. But with the truth you ain’t got to remember nothing, and she forgot about some things and made that statement involving the gun. And that’s problematic for her; it will stay as part of this record, and it will require you to sit back there and listen to that, and say, you know what? She was lying there instead of telling the truth there.
And that would require you to disregard the fact that a .25 calibre hand gun was taken during a supposed burglary of her grandparent’s house. And that was the gun that was used to kill him. The issue of the gun will not go away. Especially since she said that he didn’t have one, especially since, she also indicated that there was this secretous route through the closet, that, especially when she could just walked out; the guy’s naked. He’s not going to run after her outside naked. And then indicating she came through the closet, shoots him in the closet, according to some accounts, shoots him outside of the closet in the bathroom, and grabs a gun that she believes is unloaded. If she believes the gun is unloaded, what is she going to do with it, throw it at him? Why stand there with a gun if you know it’s unloaded? None of it, absolutely none of it is true; you could even be charitable and say it doesn’t make sense, I’m not asking you to be charitable. It’s an absolute lie, of this issue about the gun. She said it and she is wedded to it.
I won’t even discuss the lesser included offences because of the issue involving the gun. She brought it herself. Felony murder requires the state to prove two things. The first one is that the defendant committed or attempted to commit a burglary in the second degree. What is a burglary in the second degree? And notice it says attempted or committed a burglary. The crime of burglary in the second degree requires the defendant in this case, to enter or remain unlawfully in or on a residential structure. We don’t know if she was invited in. We really don’t know if she was invited in at all, so, but did she remain unlawfully? I think it’s not a stretch to say that an individual who owns a home, and is being stabbed to death that the person that’s doing the stabbing there, no longer is entitled to remain lawfully in that house. No, uh uh, I maybe charitable, I may be a nice guy but you know what, if you start stabbing me, you`re no longer here lawfully. That consent to come in is longer there; if you keep stabbing me that`s it. It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that. And we understand that, the state understands that Mr. Alexander is not here to say, I revoked my consent. But if he’s being stabbed, and if he’s having his throat slashed and if he’s being shot, it’s not a stretch to say, based on circumstantial evidence to say that she remained unlawfully. So she has remained there unlawfully. Is it a residential structure? It absolutely is. So that’s his house, and she did so with the intent to commit any theft, well, at some point she stole the gun according to her, or a felony therein. You can, you can bet that stabbing somebody is a felony. So he doesn’t want you to be there, and you’re stabbing him, and killing him. That’s a felony. So the elements of burglary have been satisfied. So we go back to the first prong, and it says the defendant committed or attempted to commit burglary in the second degree. Yes, she did accomplish the burglary so that element is satisfied. Number two, in the course and furtherance of committing this burglary, that we know that she committed, or immediate flight from it, in other words, she took off and she took his gun. So that’s the theft right there. And as part of that, even if it wasn’t her fault, even if it wasn’t her fault, the defendant caused the death of another person. If you are committing
Nurmi: Objection, misstates the law.
The defendant caused the death of another person. And she did cause the death of Mr. Alexander during this burglary. She took off and she took off with his gun, after stabbing him. So, she has committed murder in the first degree under both theories; it isn’t just one theory that she has committed this crime under. And so, now you’re left with the decision that you have to make. The one admonition that I leave you with, is that these jury instructions are not advisory; they are mandatory and it’s a situation where you go back there and you read them.
And as you sit back and you decide this case, and you attempt to reconcile the lies with what actually happened, keep in mind that the defendant has attempted to manipulate you, has attempted to paint the picture for you. For example, something like this; this is what she wants you to believe, something like that. There’s Mr. Alexander and her; that’s what she wants you to think, that’s what the feeling that she wants you to have, but actually reality is this, that’s really what we’re really talking about in this case. That’s his back, that’s his throat, but you’ve seen his throat already, and that’s really the reality in this case.
And, as you consider this case, and as you ponder your decision, one of the things that I want to consider that is symbolic of this whole case is that this issue involving the gas can.
What she wants you do, because you know it’s a lie, what she wants you to do is disregard it, but symbolically speaking, when she asks you to disregard it, what she wants you to do, is she wants you to carry those gas cans, for her, she wants you to help her fill them with gas. That’s what she wants you to do, symbolically speaking
What the state is asking you to do is to not leave this courtroom filled with the stench of gasoline on your hands. That’s what we’re asking you to do.
Because it’s not true; but she’s already talked to you about this, these gas cans, it’s not true that she returned them, but she’s asking you to help her. She’s asking you symbolically to help her by carrying them out and taking those cans with you.
What the state is asking you to do is your duty, and the judge has indicated that your duty is to follow the law, as she has given it to you and apply it to the facts. And in asking that, the state is asking you that you return a verdict of guilty and that you return a verdict of guilty as to first degree murder, not only as premeditated murder, but also as to felony murder; for no other reason than it’s your duty and the facts and the law support it. Thank you.