CT v. Cooper Ouellette Verdict

Judge (09:26):

We in detail went over the final charge, including the following topics that I believe the court should address, that both parties agreed that inconsistent statements and Whalen instruction will be included in the final instructions. State?

Attorney Ferriola (09:50):

Yes, Your Honor.

Speaker 1 (09:51):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge (09:52):

Defense? Okay. I went over the expert instruction. And I've heard no objections from any of the parties. Is there any ... I'm sorry.

Speaker 1 (10:06):

Oh, no. I'm just-

Judge (10:07):

Is there any objection to the proximate cause instruction that the court intends to give to the jury?

Attorney Ferriola (10:14):

Not from the State.

Speaker 1 (10:15):

No, Your Honor.

Judge (10:16):

All right. It was by agreement by the parties and a request, I believe, by defense that you wanted me to include a general intent instruction, and that would only apply to count two; is that correct?

Speaker 1 (10:30):

That's correct, Your Honor.

Judge (10:31):

State?

Attorney Ferriola (10:32):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge (10:34):

All right. The State had asked or requested for lesser included offenses, which the court included the charges of manslaughter in the second degree as well as criminal negligent homicide, correct?

Attorney Ferriola (10:51):

Just to correct, the State requested man two. Defense then requested the further lesser.

Speaker 1 (10:57):

That's correct, Your Honor.

Judge (10:58):

I appreciate that. There is the adequacy of investigation, and that was discussed late in the day yesterday. And I just have one question. One of the sentences read, "Is this to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty of the counts for which he is charged and the information?" Is this going to both counts, the adequacy of investigation?

Attorney Ferriola (11:31):

Yes, Your Honor.

Speaker 1 (11:31):

Yes, Your Honor.

Attorney Ferriola (11:31):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge (11:32):

Okay. All right. So we'll leave that in. We discussed unanimity. There was no request for unanimity instruction. The delivery of alcohol to a minor was agreed upon by the parties, correct?

Attorney Ferriola (11:46):

Correct.

Speaker 1 (11:47):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge (11:48):

Relative to the charges where we speak of the ... Where the court instructs on the information, the court took out a portion that dealt with if there was any changes in the information. I took that section out because there's been no changes to the information, correct?

Attorney Ferriola (12:04):

Correct.

Judge (12:05):

All right. And relative to inconsistent statements, I did add that the law treats an omission in a prior statement as an inconsistent statement. Is there any disagreement to that?

Attorney Ferriola (12:27):

No, Your Honor.

Attorney Minnella (12:27):

No, Your Honor.

Judge (12:28):

No? All right. Has the State had enough ample time? And I'll give you more time again right before the jury comes down to review the final instructions.

Attorney Ferriola (12:39):

We will.

Judge (12:40):

Okay. There's no significant changes from yesterday than there is today, okay? But I'll-

Attorney Ferriola (12:48):

Understood.

Judge (12:48):

... let you review those again. Has the defense had enough time?

Speaker 1 (12:52):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge (12:52):

All right. Any other requests from the defense?

Speaker 1 (12:56):

No other requests.

Judge (13:00):

Okay. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Attorney Minnella (13:02):

Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge (13:09):

All right. Attorney Minnella, I believe you wanted to be heard prior to my ruling on your motion for judgment [inaudible 00:13:15].

Attorney Minnella (13:14):

Yes, Your Honor. As far as questions of fact that we talked about, and the important question of fact, the evidence, Your Honor, even if it's a question of fact, has to be enough that the jury could at least infer that. Our claim is there is no evidence that's been produced in this particular case, whether it's a question of fact or not, that would allow them to pursue this manslaughter in the first degree, Subsection three. That's the only thing I want to add, Your Honor.

Judge (13:55):

Thank you, Attorney Minnella. All right. On November 4th, in chambers, the defense alerted the court that it would move for a judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the evidence. At the conclusion of the evidence yesterday, the defense orally moved for judgment of acquittal. Practice book Section 42-40 provides, in relevant part, that after the close of the prosecution's case in chief or at the close of all the evidence, upon motion of the defendant or upon its own motion, the court shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal as to any principle offense for which the evidence would not reasonably permit a finding of guilty. Such judgment of acquittal shall not apply to any lesser included offense for which the evidence would reasonably permit a finding of guilty. In ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal, the trial court must determine whether the evidence would reasonably permit a finding of guilty.

(14:55)
The determination of whether the evidence can reasonably support finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any jury can find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard gives full play to the responsibility of the jury to fairly resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. In other words, while the jury must find every element proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense, each of the basic and inferred facts underlying those conclusions need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

(15:53)
If it is reasonable and logical for the jury to conclude that a basic fact or an inferred fact is true, the jury is permitted to consider the fact proven and may consider it in combination with other proven facts in determining whether the cumulative effect of all the evidence proves defendant guilty of all the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is charged with manslaughter in the first degree of reckless indifference in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 53A-55(a)(3) and delivery of alcohol to a minor in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 30-86(b)(2).

(16:35)
For the defendant to be found guilty of manslaughter in the first degree of reckless indifference, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The first element is that the defendant engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of death. The second element is that the defendant acted recklessly. The third element is that the defendant's conduct demonstrated an extreme indifference to human life. Indifference means simply not caring. What evinces an extreme indifference to human life is a question of fact. And the fourth element is that the defendant caused the death of Sophie R. This means that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of Sophie R.'s death.

(17:18)
The evidence would permit the jury to reasonably find the following. On May 20th, 2023, the defendant planned to attend the party at the Schultz Corporation in Terryville, accompanied by Sophie. Before attending the party, the defendant picked up Sophie from her home, then purchased beverages at Edgewood package store, which he brought to the party in a Yeti cooler. The defendant and Sophie arrived at the party. Most of those attending were minors. Both the defendant and Sophie consumed alcohol, as did other attendees. Some of the alcohol consumed at the party came from the defendant's Yeti cooler. The defendant became intoxicated, argued with Sophie, and at one point, kicked her. Sophie then sought alternative rides home. At approximately 11:18, the defendant and Sophie left the party in the defendant's Chevy Silverado truck with the defendant driving and Sophie in the passenger seat. The defendant traveled away from the Schultz Corporation on Route 72 in Terryville.

(18:21)
Life360 data indicated that his speed exceeded 70 miles per hour at certain points. He then turned left onto Locust Road. At approximately 11:24, while the truck was traveling on Locust Road, Sophie began recording a selfie video on her iPhone. This video, State's Exhibit 18D, will permit the jury to reasonably infer that the truck stopped and that as Sophie was exiting, the defendant accelerated away, causing Sophie to say, "Ow." Sophie then texted her friend a text message saying she was scared. Shortly thereafter, approximately two minutes, the defendant returned in his truck, and Sophie entered the passenger seat.

(19:04)
Video footage and Life60 data indicate that approximately between 11:38 and 11:42 PM, the defendant drove his truck circuitously along several roads in the neighborhood, specifically Polly Dan and Fieldview Drive. At times, he stopped, turned around, bypassed Sophie's residence multiple times and retraced portions of his route, which included the area where Sophie was ultimately injured. At one point, the truck stopped for a period of time, after which Sophie sent a picture of her with a bloody nose to a friend. Sophie's mother, Lynne R., testified that the defendant originally told her Sophie was driving, then corrected himself and said he was driving. The defendant told Lynne R. that Sophie had to throw up, and to let him know when he should pull over, but that she did not give him enough time and fell out of the vehicle while it was still moving at approximately 20 miles per hour.

(20:04)
Defendant did not tell Lynne R. where Sophie fell out. Jackson R., Sophie's brother, testified that the defendant gave him two different accounts of the event. The inconsistencies in these accounts were relative to the location of the incident and the speed of the truck. Jackson R. also testified that the defendant told him he had only one beer, but that Jackson R. believed it was more than one, based on the odor of beer on the defendant's breath. Although the defendant maintained that Sophie had to vomit and fell out of the truck at a dip in the road on Polly Dan Road, the defendant's version of events on Polly Dan and Fieldview leading up to Sophie's separation from the truck was inconsistent with other evidence and testimony presented at trial. The medical examiner, Dr. Vincent, concluded that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Sophie's injuries were caused by a run over by the wheel of a motor vehicle.

(21:02)
Dr. Vincent determined the cause of death as blunt impact injuries of the torso, and the manner of death as homicide. In short, prior to Sophie separating from the truck, the circumstances presented at trial included the defendant and Sophie consumed alcohol and argued. The defendant kicked Sophie, prompting her to unsuccessfully seek alternative rides home. The defendant drove home, driving fast. On Locust Road, Sophie parted from the truck and the defendant accelerated away, leading her to exclaim, "Ow." Sophie texted a friend that she was scared. Sophie then got back in the defendant's truck. He drove circuitously and irregularly on Polly Dan Road and Fieldview Drive, passing Sophie's house. At one point, the truck stopped for a period of time, after which Sophie sent a picture of her with a bloody nose to a friend. The defendant continued to drive around the neighborhood. And Sophie separated from the truck on Fieldview.

(22:03)
After careful consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances leading up to where the State alleges Sophie separated from the vehicle and was fatally injured, the court finds that the jury could reasonably find, based upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn from them, the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, specifically the defendant's conduct caused Sophie to separate from the truck. And as a result of that separation, she received crushing injuries that led to her death. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on count one, manslaughter in the first degree, is denied. In count two, the defendant is charged with delivery of alcohol to a minor in violation of Connecticut General Statute 30-86(b)(2).

(22:53)
For the defendant to be found guilty of delivery of alcohol to a minor, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The first element is that the defendant willfully delivered alcoholic liquor to a minor. The second element is that the item or items that the defendant delivered were alcoholic liquor. And the third element is at the time of the defendant's conduct, the person or persons to who the alcoholic liquor was delivered was under 21 years of age. The evidence would reasonably permit the jury to reasonably find that the defendant purchased alcohol from the Edgewood package store, placed it in his Yeti cooler in the back of his Silverado, and transported it back to Schultz Corporation where minors were present. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on count two is denied. All right. Anything before the jury comes in for closing argument?

Attorney Minnella (23:54):

Your Honor, I understand that we're going to have ... I understand that they get to speak first and then last. I also understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, that we each have one hour.

Judge (24:07):

You do.

Attorney Minnella (24:08):

Is that correct?

Judge (24:09):

Sure.

Attorney Minnella (24:10):

Thank you.

Judge (24:13):

All attorneys here are very seasoned veterans. And I just want to, again, lay some ground rules that I know all of you are aware of, that the permissible closing arguments include those based on facts of record and reasonable inferences supported thereby, those which reference and properly describe principles of law, which the court will instruct the jury, those which respond in kind to improper arguments by an opponent. Impermissible closing arguments include those based on facts not in evidence, those in which counsel ... They read from documents not in evidence, personal attacks on opposing counsel, those in which counsel appeal to sympathy, and also where an attorney expresses an opinion on the ultimate issues. I know both parties will comply with permissible closing arguments and avoid impermissible closing arguments.

Attorney Minnella (25:13):

Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge (25:14):

You're welcome.

Attorney Ferriola (25:16):

We appear to be having some technical difficulties. Could we just have a few minutes-

Judge (25:19):

Absolutely.

Attorney Ferriola (25:19):

... to figure this out before the jury?

Judge (25:20):

Yeah.

Attorney Ferriola (25:20):

Thank you.

Judge (25:21):

So let, Attorney Ferriola, the clerk know when you're ready. She'll let me know, and then we'll bring in the jury.

Attorney Ferriola (25:27):

Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge (25:28):

You're welcome. Recess.

Speaker 2 (34:00):

(silence)

Judge Pelosi (01:35:00):

All right. We met in chambers relative to the charge, and there's been some discussion relative to the lesser-included of criminal negligence regarding a criminally negligent homicide. The parties met, and I believe the parties agreed that that particular statutory section should come out, and it should be misconduct with a motor vehicle as a lesser- included and then negligent homicide with a motor vehicle as a lesser-included. Is that correct?

State (01:35:36):

Yes.

Judge Pelosi (01:35:36):

The Defense?

Defense (01:35:37):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge Pelosi (01:35:39):

All right. And that's your request, correct, Defense?

Defense (01:35:41):

Yeah. I just want to say, for the record, Your Honor, because we explained that to our client two minutes ago, and so he understands.

Judge Pelosi (01:35:50):

Do you need time? Additional time?

Cooper Ouellette (01:35:52):

[inaudible 01:35:53].

Defense (01:35:53):

You need time or no?

Cooper Ouellette (01:35:55):

No.

Judge Pelosi (01:35:56):

He's understanding, he did shake his head in the affirmative. All right. You sure?

Cooper Ouellette (01:36:00):

Yes.

Defense (01:36:03):

He says, "Yes," Your Honor.

Judge Pelosi (01:36:04):

All right. Instead of going into that, just right now, I'm going to go to final argument, and then we'll address any changes in the final charge during the break. Ready for the jury?

Speaker 3 (01:36:17):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge Pelosi (01:37:58):

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The parties stipulate to the presence of the jury.

Defense (01:37:59):

Yes, Your Honor.

State (01:38:00):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge Pelosi (01:38:00):

All right. Thank you. Again, we apologize for the delay. However, we are ready for closing arguments, ladies and gentlemen. So you're going to hear closing arguments of the parties at this point. The State will have the opening or first argument, and closing or third argument, while the defendant will have the second argument.

(01:38:19)
The State open and closes the arguments because it has the burden of proof in a criminal case. Though the State has two arguments, each party will be allotted the same amount of time to argue. Bear in mind, importantly, that these arguments do not constitute evidence, but are rather to assist you in understanding and interpreting the evidence, and understanding the claims of the parties. With that said, the State?

State (01:38:42):

Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning. I did still make it. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before I begin my closing argument, I'm going to start by saying thank you. I know it's been trying at times in the courtroom, out of the courtroom, early exits, delayed starts, but it's been clear to everyone throughout that we've had your full attention. You haven't wavered and stuff like that. And I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say thank you.

(01:39:11)
Now, before I begin my closing argument, I want to give you four rules about what I'm going to argue here. First, if there's anything that I say about the evidence or what the testimony shows differs from what you remember, disregard what I say. It is your memory that controls. You are the ultimate arbiter of the facts in this case. Second, if there's anything that I say about the law or the instruction that I expect Judge Pelosi to give to you in a few moments differs from what Judge Pelosi tells you, again, disregard what I say. Judge Pelosi is the ultimate arbiter of the law.

(01:39:42)
Third, probably not surprising, but I'm going to be making arguments about what the State submits the evidence shows. But to save time, I'm not going to add that little preparatory statement. So when you hear me arguing the facts or inferences to be drawn from those facts, just add that little statement. The State submits to you, or the State submits the evidence shows, because again, you are the arbiters of the facts.

(01:40:04)
And finally, I don't intend to give you my personal opinion on anything during this closing argument. If there is a statement that you believe is me expressing a personal opinion, please disregard that. That is not my intention. So I'm going to begin by discussing the burden of proof in the case. You've all heard it before, you were asked by the jury selection, and soon you're going to get the legal definition from Judge Pelosi, what is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? What I want you to focus on is what does the State need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? I expect that you will hear that the State does not need to prove each and every fact beyond a reasonable doubt, simply the elements which comprise each offense. Each crime has specific elements that have to be met, and the State must prove those beyond a reasonable doubt. You as reasonable men and women come together and decide what facts have been proven in this case, you apply it to the law that the judge gives, and you come up with whether the State has met its burden of proving those elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

(01:41:04)
So the State has charged the defendant, Cooper Ouellette, with two crimes, manslaughter in the first degree and delivery of alcoholic liquor to a minor. I'd like to start with the crime that I don't expect there to be much argument about, delivery of alcoholic liquor to a minor. You'll hear from Judge Pelosi that there are three elements. The defendant has to deliver, what he delivers has to be an alcoholic liquor, and it has to be delivered to a person who is a minor.

(01:41:29)
So let's review the evidence. It is completely uncontradicted that Cooper Ouellette delivered alcoholic liquor to that party at the Schultz Corporation. You heard all the testimony about the YETI cooler, you've seen the receipts of that purchase when their phones were co-located at that Edgewood Wine and Spirits, and Judge Pelosi will tell you that "deliver" has its everyday meaning. When you call up and order a pizza, the delivery driver simply brings you the pizza. He doesn't make it, he delivers it to you. Cooper Ouellette driving that YETI cooler full of alcoholic beverages to that party...

State (01:42:00):

Driving that YETI cooler full of alcoholic beverages to that party is delivering that alcoholic liquor. So, that gets us to that second element, alcoholic liquor. Lawyers love to define terms and that is a legally defined term. What Judge Pelosi I expect will tell you is that alcoholic liquor includes beer and wine, includes spirits like Dr. McGillicuddy's, and it is anything that has more than one-half of 1% alcohol by bottle.

(01:42:29)
You've seen the contents of that cooler, ladies and gentlemen. All of those beverages are alcoholic liquor. You heard testimony about that. There's no Dr. McGillicuddy's there. You saw the receipt of 20 being bought. You heard testimony about everybody drinking those beverages. That alcohol being delivered to that party, that alcoholic beverage satisfies that second element of the defendant delivering alcohol to the party.

(01:43:01)
So, the third element, probably the simplest, right? A minor in terms of this charge is anyone who has not attained 21 years of age. There's testimony from the people at the party, only one person was over 21. Everybody else testified at the time of that party, they were under 21. Most specifically, there's clear evidence of Sophie being 17 years old at the time and ended up with a 0.151 blood alcohol content. Cooper Ouellette delivered that alcoholic beverage to those minors, including Sophie. I submit to you that the state has proven that crime beyond any reasonable doubt.

(01:43:42)
So, let's get to where I expect there will be a great deal of disagreement, manslaughter in the first degree. Judge will tell you that there are four elements to that crime that the state needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant's conduct created a grave risk of death. He acted recklessly. He evinced an extreme indifference to human life and he caused Sophie's death. So, let's start with that first element, conduct creating a grave risk of death. What evidence in this case is there that the defendant's conduct created a great risk of death? That car ride, ladies and gentlemen.

(01:44:19)
Let's break it down. They're at the Schultz Corporation. You heard about all what the witnesses described as an argument between Cooper and Sophie. You heard about him kicking Sophie. You heard about him shoving her into his truck. You heard about loud arguments. You heard about Cooper knocking the phone out of Sophie's hand when she's trying to get another ride. And you heard him yell to, "Get in the truck and let's go."

(01:44:44)
He tears out of that parking lot and begins to drive. So, what happens next? You heard a lot of testimony about Locust Road, right? Take a look at the exhibit here. You can see he's driving up Route 72. That connects with Route four. Why does he turn off Locust Road, which goes to Harmony Hill where he lives at the time? And we also know what happens on Locust Road is that Sophie takes out her cell phone and starts recording on her camera. Why? I submit to you that a reasonable and logical inference is that the defendant has decided he's not going to take her home.

(01:45:26)
He's kicking her out of his truck and that's why she picks up the phone. She hits recording, throws it into her purse. Why would she be recording if this was her choice? There's not a single word said on that video until Sophie says, "Ow." She knows something is going wrong here. That's why she's starting to record. That video also shows us the defendant's conduct at the time of that first separation. The defendant speeds off in the words of Devon Krol, " Like a bat out of hell."

(01:46:05)
You can see through those points as he's driving down Locust Road. That fast acceleration, ladies and gentlemen, you know from your common sense and life experience that he is accelerating away. His truck strikes Sophie causing her to cry out. What happens next? She's alone. She's in an area of woods, and she's scared. So, she texts her friend, "I'm scared." Shortly thereafter, Cooper Ouellette comes back, picks her back up, their phones start co-locating again, and they start traveling at speeds consistent with being back in that truck.

(01:47:11)
So, does he take her home now? No. You heard testimony about Snap Maps at Country Pizza and you've seen in this animation that he stops at Country Pizza for about a minute. Why? It's 11:32. She's already two minutes past her curfew. Why are we stopping? I submit to you that Cooper Ouellette is not done arguing. So, they continue their ride and they go back, turn onto Polydan, and now we get to what has been referred to as the dip. A lot of testimony about the dip and what the defendant's saying happens there.

(01:47:50)
Take a look at those points, ladies and gentlemen. He makes statements about stopping. He makes statements about slowing down. He's doing 56 miles an hour through the dip. There's no stop event at that dip. So, then what happens? Starts driving towards Fieldview, right? Easiest way to get home, take that left turn. Is that what he does? No. Why? You saw in animation one that he took that turn when he was going to pick her up for the night. Why doesn't he take it here?

(01:48:35)
He's on camera revving his engine. That's in the animation and that's in the surveillance footage from 6 Fieldview. He's causing fear to Sophie. He's not done arguing. His car tears through the intersection and goes around Polydan. So, again, the geolocation data from both phones corroborated by those surveillance footage shows that he does not take that left turn onto Fieldview. He goes straight onto Polydan. I submit to you they are still arguing. Cooper is not done.

(01:49:48)
As the phones come around this curve here, you're going to see them come up Sophie's residence and that's the defendant's first opportunity to take her home. What does he do? Does he make that simple right turn into the driveway of Sophie's residence and drop her off? The phones show that he does not, ladies and gentlemen. He's not done arguing. So, if we pause here, you can see those geo points are at 11:37 PM.

(01:50:53)
She's seven minutes past curfew and he's still not stopping. Why? Because he needs to get up to that wooded area to continue that argument. Continue. And we know what happens at that wooded argument because of the cell phone records, because of the Snapchat records. We know that there's more violence there. If we look at what occurs up there, state's exhibit nine, we see that Sophie has a bloody nose. She's crying. Side of her face is swollen as if she's been struck, but take a look at the bottom left of that photograph.

(01:51:38)
She still has her necklace. That's when they're stopped in that wooded area on Polydan and that argument is continuing. Now we know from the animation that their phones continue back on Polydan after stopping for a while in that area. And does he take her home then? No, he stops, turns his truck around and goes back up Polydan towards Johnnycake Mountain Road. Why?

(01:52:11)
She's now 7 minutes, 11 minutes past her curfew and he's not taking her home. Ladies and gentlemen, when that photo's taken by Sophie and snapped, what do you think her emotional state is? When he dropped her off in the woods, she said she was scared. Do you think that fear intensified at this point? So, when we get to that second turn on Polydan, it's 10 minutes past curfew, but he still doesn't drop her off. He turns around, goes back up. And again, surveillance footage is corroborating all of these times in all of these geopoint locations.

(01:52:53)
Then he finally comes down Fieldview and we're at the third pass of the house at this point. And we know at that time from the Snapchat records that this is when Sophie sends that snap to Morgan Peace. 11:41 PM, you heard testimony from Morgan, you heard testimony from Devon about receiving it at that time. You've seen the Snapchat records depicting that that snap was sent at that time. And we know that the separation event happens at 11:41.

(01:53:23)
She is snapping that photo because he has now driven her not to her home. Three chances. If you could just fast-forward to the separation event. In the video, you can see the headlights of the truck going through. Again, we have those snapshot records, that photo being snapped to Morgan Peace. Keep going. So, recall the testimony about Mark Sanders about that red line being the area of that scene map.

(01:54:50)
Pause here. This is where we have the phones coming up to that event where she strikes the ground, right? The testimony from Mark Sanders and it's clearly depicted on these geo points in this animation. I submit to you ladies and gentlemen that this is Locust Road part two. The defendant is arguing, he's angry, he's upset, he struck Sophie. He's not going to drop her off. He's past her house on three separate occasions. He's just driven by her driveway here, but this time he's not even going to stop. He slows down to about 15 miles per hour and unlocks the door.

(01:55:33)
Sophie then separates, and you know from Dr. Vincent that she got run over by that car. That is conduct which creates a [inaudible 01:55:41] risk, Sophie. I submit to you the state has proven that element beyond a reasonable doubt. Second element is that the defendant acted recklessly. Judge Pelosi will instruct you that reckless conduct means that you are aware of and consciously disregard an unjustifiable risk. And you know that from your common sense or common usage of that word.

(01:56:04)
What is reckless when you're operating a motor vehicle, ladies and gentlemen? Drunk driving. Let's take a look at State's Exhibit 79 on page three. You can see these texts from Cooper Oulette to CJ McIntyre, "Are we drinking tonight?" That was his plan. That's why he went to Edgewood. That's why he bought that liquor. That's why he delivered it to that party. And you heard the aftermaths of that drinking. You heard that voicemail, and I submit to you ladies and gentlemen that he was drunk.

(01:56:37)
I'll answer my own question. What's more dangerous than drunk driving? Speeding while drunk driving. Recall animation two from state's exhibit 87. Mark Sanders testified about getting geolocation points of all the road signs along that route and adding them into that animation. You can see what the speed limits are and then take a look at Cooper Oulette's speed. There are points where he's doing 70 miles per hour.

(01:57:00)
There are points where he's more than 20 over the speed limit, excuse me, more than double the speed limit. I submit to you that that is reckless. He is consciously aware of the risk and he is doing it anyway. And of course, add to it everything that we've already talked about, the fights, the dangerous contact towards Sophie, unlocking the door. All of these things are reckless.

(01:57:28)
The third element is that the defendant's conduct evinces an extreme indifference to human life. Now here's the point where conduct after the fact becomes relevant because the law allows you to consider not only what he did, but what came next to determine if his conduct evinced an extreme indifference to human life. So, what does he do? He's at the side of the road for eight minutes. He doesn't call 911. He doesn't get her in the truck and take her to the hospital.

(01:57:58)
He takes her home, and what does he tell Lynn and Scott? Something happened to Sophie. I don't know what happened to Sophie. He knows exactly what happened to Sophie, ladies and gentlemen. He ran her over with his truck, and he didn't say a word. He's more concerned with himself than for Sophie's life. Recall what he originally told Jackson, what he told the kids on the next day, what he told Lynn. His story kept changing, didn't it?

(01:58:31)
When he first talks to Lynn, Sophie was driving. I mean, I was driving. He talks to Jackson about pulling over to the left side of the dip, then pulling over to the right side. His story keeps changing. He talks about almost stopping when she separated. He talks about doing 30 tops when she separated. He stoved the brakes. The cars found no evidence of skid marks. Consult your common sense, your life experience, ladies and gentlemen.

(01:59:02)
When we spoke during jury selection, I asked you if you would have any problem bringing your common sense and your life experience into this courtroom and credibility assessments without witnesses. I implore you to use it now. You know from your common sense and life experience that it's easy to tell a story when it's true. You simply remember the event and talk about it. But when you have to concoct a story, your brain inherently remembers the actual event.

(01:59:27)
You must then put that memory away, and tell your story. That's why the details keep changing, ladies and gentlemen, and that's why some of the actual facts keep seeping into these stories. So, let's talk about Dr. Vincent's testimony when we talk about extreme indents in human life. Dr. Vincent got up and talked to you about that pattern of abrasion on Sophie's back, how that was significant, how that was correlated with those injuries to the ribs and that crushing force about the tire and the road pushing together, causing those ribs to break.

(02:00:04)
He was given information by cars that they did not believe it was a rollover event, and he evaluated it and said, "That doesn't explain my injuries." But he's a scientist. He's a doctor. He doesn't simply reject opinions that he doesn't like. He considers them. He evaluates them. He wanted more information. He asked for more information. He's trying to figure it out. But recall on redirect the commentary about the consensus conference. What were the doctors in the medical examiner's office talking about? Manner of death.

(02:00:40)
There was no disagreement from any medical examiner in that office about cause of death or about mechanism of injury. Everyone agreed this was a rollover event. This is not a battle of experts, ladies and gentlemen. This is the entire Connecticut medical examiner's office versus a hired gun. Let's examine the statements of that hired gun, Dr. Williamson. Dr. Vincent talked about taking over 40 photographs during his autopsy. He prepared his autopsy report.

(02:01:10)
He reviewed all that information. What did Dr. Williamson review? He read the report. He looked at, I think, he said a dozen photographs. Is that a conscientious, objective review or is he simply trying to have that statement that he's already come up with? Recall that he had spent five hours reviewing this before he sent out that four sentence opinion report the day before he testified. And when he comes in to testify after he's already issued his opinion, now he wants to look at the photos, the evidence and the shirt. Ladies and gentlemen, take a look at that shirt.

(02:01:47)
State's Exhibit 13. Don some gloves, pull it out, turn it inside out. He said he spent five minutes looking at it, spent five minutes looking at it. You will see that abrasion from Sophie's back is mirrored on the inside of that shirt where her right shoulder blade would be. You will see a color of staining and a clear notch, a color of staining and a clear notch, just like there are those notches.

(02:02:10)
If he can't see that pattern and you can, ladies and gentlemen, ask yourselves why he can't see it, because he doesn't want to. He simply wants to come in here and render the opinion he's been paid for. Also consult your common sense and life experience. 15 miles an hour, 3.5 feet resulting in those injuries. Does that offend your common sense?

(02:02:39)
The only way these injuries happen to Sophie is when he runs her over. I submit to you that the state has proven that he events an extreme indifference to human life because he ran Sophie over, didn't tell anyone about it. He waited eight minutes. He didn't seek medical attention. He didn't take her to the hospital. He simply went home and went to sleep. That evinces an extreme indifference to Sophie's life, ladies and gentlemen.

(02:03:05)
The final element is that he caused Sophie's death. Obviously, everything that we've talked about with lead into that, he's the one driving. He runs her over. Those are the injuries which caused her death. The judge is going to give you an instruction on proximate cause, okay? And proximate cause is a legal concept. It basically means it does not need to be the last event in the chain of sequence that caused him death. So, in other words, Sophie leaving that vehicle is not something that stops it from being Cooper's fault under the law.

(02:03:36)
Because of his conduct, because of his installation of that fear in Sophie where the only thing she felt was safe at that point was to exit that vehicle, it's still his fault. Her conduct of exiting that vehicle is the natural consequence of his campaign of terror that night, ladies and gentlemen. There's a reason why the defendant didn't tell anyone about taking laps around Fieldview and Polydan.

(02:04:04)
There's a reason that he didn't tell anyone about the assaults, and there's a reason that he didn't tell anyone about ripping the necklace from her neck because he knows what he did was wrong and he's trying to hide from it. Let's break down some of the defendant's statements that have been disproven in this trial. We spoke about the dip on Polydan. You know that he's told everybody that this happened at the dip on Polydan. Multiple witnesses came in and talked about that conversation on May 21st where he said the dip.

(02:04:37)
He's doing 50 miles an hour through the dip, ladies and gentlemen. The geolocation evidence proved that that was untrue. He said that he was stopped when Sophie fell out. Geolocation evidence says that was not the case. He was moving. He said he stoved the brakes. There's no indication on that road that there was any kind of a stoving with the brakes. He told Miranda Lawlor that he turned into the driveway before Sophie told him to go somewhere else.

(02:05:11)
The evidence from those surveillance footage, the evidence from those cell phone geolocation data shows he never turned into that driveway until 10 minutes after the fact. His statement to Miranda Lawlor was untrue. He told his mother, Carrie Ouellette, that Sophie walked into the house. We know from the surveillance footage that was untrue. He told his mother, Carrie Ouellette, that she was talking when she was in the house.

(02:05:37)
We know from Lynn, Scott, and Jackson that that was untrue. You can see it on the surveillance footage what Scott described as a limp body. But let's talk a little bit about that conversation with his mother. If you take a look at State's Exhibit 77, specifically call 30, you'll see he was on the phone as he's driving home, speaking with his mother for 6.5 Minutes, and we know that they're talking about the event because Carrie Ouellette admitted it.

(02:06:05)
When he gets home at 12:24, they continue talking about it. She wants to get all the details and she's getting every information, all the information that she can from Cooper. Cooper Ouellette told Miranda Lawlor that after it happened, he didn't think it was deadly. Ladies and gentlemen, what was Carrie Ouellette's first question to the police 20 seconds into their contact? Is she dead? Two more times in the next 40 seconds. Is she dead? Is she dead?

(02:06:36)
What Cooper Ouellette told Carrie Ouellette the night and the early morning hours of what happened to Sophie made her think Sophie was dead. She thought it was deadly. That's why she's coming out and asking the cops, is she dead? He knew what he had done. Now I expect that the defense is going to raise some claims and try to allege that the state has not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but let's examine some of the questions asked to these witnesses, and why are they asking these witnesses?

(02:07:08)
They're asking the questions to the wrong witnesses. Why is Lynn being asked about the police investigation when Detective [inaudible 02:07:17] isn't? Why is Detective Harrington being asked about pattern recognition when Dr. Vincent isn't? Why is Sergeant Pearson being asked about the FBI lab when she didn't have anything to do with it? Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that this police investigation was lengthy because they were chasing down every lead. They wanted to be fair to both sides.

(02:07:43)
Every lead they were given, they investigated and they ran it down to the extent that they could. They secured every interview that they could. They secured search warrants based upon probable cause for all the records that they could. Based upon that investigation, they submitted this case and it is now before you. Yes, the path went down originally based upon that information, but where did that information come from?

(02:08:10)
The defendant, he's the one that misleads the police and distracts them in the beginning. I would ask you not to let him distract it at the end of this investigation. Hold him accountable for his actions, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you.

Judge Chris Pelosi (02:08:39):

Thank you [inaudible 02:08:40].

Attorney Minnella (02:08:39):

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I have the opportunity to address you at this point in time. First of all, I want to thank you for taking time out of your busy lives to be here. The second thing I want to say to you is sympathy. I'm a father, I'm a grandfather, and I'm a human being. Of course, I have sympathy for Sophie and her family. One thing is indisputable. No one knew how serious Sophie's injuries were. No one, not her mother, not Cooper, not her brother, not the brother's girlfriend.

(02:09:22)
No one knew that. It's an indisputable fact. One thing I'm not going to do, which the state likes to do, is put words where they don't belong. Innuendo, what we believe has no place in this courtroom. Detective Slaby had two roles in this case. His first role was as an investigator. His second role was an affiant on a 30-page arrest warrant. Those were his roles. Detective Slaby turned a tragic accident into a crime.

(02:10:07)
That's what he tried to do. Slaby knew his first priority, even though he testified that he was only involved... He's been a cop for 19 years, but he was involved at Torrington with motor vehicle accidents, serious motor vehicle accidents, and as a state policeman. So, he's one month into his role as lead detective in this case. I believe the judge will tell you that inadequate police investigation started from minute one when Slaby and two other officers came to that hospital, whether it was 3:00 or 3:30, they knew they were coming here for an accident.

(02:10:57)
Number one, they knew that there was a fatality. Number two, the first priority, not to put a state trooper to watch Cooper's truck. The first priority was to send one trooper to his house to confront him, ask him if he would take a test, either urine, blood, or breath. The second task that he was to perform that he didn't was to send a trooper to a judge of the superior court. These accidents, he didn't want to admit it, predominantly happened in the evening.

(02:11:40)
So, judges routinely get woken up, they sign what they signed, a search warrant to get his blood. They never did that. That was the most important thing that Slaby could do. He failed. That was an adequate Police procedure. He failed in that. His second obligation, as I said, was to attempt to do everything necessary, not rely on children days or weeks afterwards to say how much Cooper Ouellette, what was his condition, what was his condition at 11:30, not what was his condition at 9:00 or 10:00.

(02:12:37)
However, he chose not to do that. He sent an officer to guide and guard his truck. For what reason, I don't know. Now, as I said, he was not only the lead investigator, and I had him tell you, what does an investigator have to do? He has to gather all the evidence. Now, I asked him, you can judge his demeanor. In fact, he said, "This is the first time a defendant or a defense had to call me as a witness."

(02:13:13)
This is in 20 years. Why didn't the state call him as a witness? I'm sure you could tell from his credibility or incredibility on the witness stand, because when Sophie first left that vehicle for 11 months, he thought that vehicle stopped on Route 72 by Reservoir 4 and she got out of the vehicle. That's what he thought. Why did he call [inaudible 02:13:48] ? Why did he call Mark Sanders? You heard him testify.

(02:13:53)
In 700 prior investigations, Mark Sanders never used Life360. Remember my question to him. Did you ever hear of anyone using Life360, any police officer to determine speed? But that's not why he was called, ladies and gentlemen. He was called not to make an animation. He was called to tell Slaby where locations were. And Life360 can give you, it's a consumer app, it can give you a general location. We all agree to that, but it can't determine speed. And what they're trying to do in this case is have him do something he's never done in all the years he's a police officer, and no one has ever done.

(02:14:47)
Speed. And speed, ladies and gentlemen, if a truck has pipes, loud pipes, that doesn't determine speed. And talking about that speed, think of what Detective Bronson said. What did he say? He did a recreation of this accident. What did his recreation show? It showed through, I believe he called it Searle's Law. He examined the scene. And what did he say? "Searle's Law said my client was going 13 to 15 miles an hour when Sophie herself left the vehicle."

(02:15:34)
What does Sanders say in his animation? I believe he says 20 miles an hour, 18 to 20. That's about 35% or 40% off. So, all the speed they're talking about in this animation, ladies and gentlemen, is the product of Life360. And Life360 specifically says, and it's the disclaimer, if you go to its app, it says what? It says, don't use this...

Attorney Minnella (02:16:00):

... [inaudible 02:16:00] if you go to its app, it says what? It says, "Don't use this to determine speed." It just shows general location. That's why. That's why. And they're using this for something and you hear the state referring to it many times as speeding. Loud pipes do not equate with speed. Slaiby, instead of doing proper police procedure, as I said, does what? He uses the testimony of children. Now, you got to remember this, ladies and gentlemen, there was no problem with these kids after this incident. You heard testimony that a number of these kids went to comfort my client. They went to comfort him. Why? He had a three and a half year relationship with this girl, since they were 13 and 14. You didn't hear anyone say that Cooper Ouellette was ever abusive. And you heard Lynn talk. Lynn never said anything except they've had hundreds of interactions between them.

(02:17:21)
And there's no evidence whatsoever to say that Cooper Ouellette ever did anything like push her out of the car, like push her against the car, like kick her. They tell you what happened that night and what they don't tell you, or what you have to judge the credibility of some of these people that came into this courtroom. And credibility and demeanor, you heard some of the language these same people are using. They're not my witnesses, they're their witnesses. You can tell somebody's demeanor by their respect, not only for me, not for them, not for you, but for a judge in a superior court. They have no respect, none. All of a sudden their stories changed. What do I mean by that? Devin. Devon Krol, who is he? He's 21 years old, hosting... Remember his testimony. Hosting parties for 17-year- old kids and 18-year-old kids. And when I asked him about it, he goes, "Well, I buy alcohol, but all these parties, I'm the only one who drinks alcohol."

(02:18:43)
You never heard from this investigation, this lengthy investigation, you never heard the fact that his credit cards were run, and how many parties he did have where he had all these kids over. And he goes to the prom, he's 21 years old, and when he comes from the prom, what does he do? He brings liquor and alcohol, alcoholic beverages. A 21-year-old man. Not a 17-year-old kid, a 21-year-old man. And he gives a statement over the telephone to Slaiby, that Slaiby doesn't like. Now, he asked you to imagine things. Can you imagine when Slaiby took him after he made a telephone statement, that doesn't say anything about what he came in here and testified to? Can you imagine Slaiby bringing him to [inaudible 02:19:46] and saying, listen, you're 21 years old, you know what risk of injury to minors, you know what that charge is? You know what you could face? How many counts of that could you face? So, guess what? You better tell me what I want to hear. And remember, Slaiby for 11 months had the wrong location.

(02:20:14)
And he met at least three times with the medical examiner. And at one time they had a three-hour meeting. And at that three-hour meeting, 11 months later, the medical examiner still had not ruled this a homicide. Still, after 11 months, after three or four meetings with Slaiby. And remember one thing, Life360 does not give you the speed of a vehicle, and that animation attempts to. And look at or listen to the testimony because you have a right to have read back. Listen what the accident reconstruction says about what he found the speed of the vehicle to be at the time Sophie left. And remember this, the road was wet. And I asked him, "What did you know about deceleration? Did it start at 15? And when Sophie tried to leave the vehicle, did it go down to 13?" There's not going to be... Ladies and gentlemen, don't leave your common sense on the steps of this courtroom when you come in here.

(02:21:33)
That's why we don't have professional jurors. We don't. And you got to remember when you hear the laws, that man gives you the law, you must follow it. And follow it when he talks about, if he gives you that charge, inadequate investigation by the police. Inadequate. Nevermind what the state's attorney says... "Oh, they did a broad investigation, they looked over every rock. They looked under everywhere." Just take his words, because those words are just his words, they're not what occurred here. And if that did happen, believe me, they would've called him as a witness. Remember, lead investigator, he investigated everything and the affiant on the warrant. The reason why we're here is he swore the facts that were true, in his eyes. And I'm going to tell you one thing. We have an expression in the law, you can indict a ham sandwich, and you can always arrest a ham sandwich. You know why?

(02:22:44)
Because when Slaiby makes those statements to a judge, there's no defense lawyer in there questioning him. There's no cross-examination of Slaiby. You saw his demeanor, you saw he didn't even know how many pages were in the report that he didn't give me for months. I never got those notes. And I had to then go through all his notes, read it and digest it in a short period of time.

(02:23:19)
It's their burden of proof, it doesn't shift to the defense. We don't have to call any witnesses. Look who we had to call, we had to call a medical examiner, we had to call someone who is an expert, worked for six years with the Michigan State Police. Testified why, why can't you use Life360? Because there's too many variables. Remember what the testimony showed, that if you have GPS in a vehicle, that GPS would go directly to a satellite. And I asked the detective, I said, "Detective Bronson, what does that mean?" I said, "How many points does the satellite give you that tells you that the data is reliable?" I'll never forget it. He said, "One million." You know how many points of data that's not even correct data that was given by Mr. Sanders when he did that animation? 700.

(02:24:26)
One million points of data, 700. So, they use Life360 when they want in their animation. They use it when they want. It's important for you to understand that. They use it to plot location, a general location. Locust Road, they find out 12 months because they go to NESPIN, NESPIN says this didn't happen on Route 72, it happened on Locust Road. The state wants you to think there's no evidence, no evidence whatsoever. That man gets up here and says to you, "They were arguing." How does he know they were arguing? How does he possibly know that? Was he in the car? The only person who we can say was legally intoxicated on that evening, unfortunately, was the decedent, because we know she was twice the level of intoxication by the toxology that's taken by the medical examiner. And look at the Ring footage. Look at the Ring footage in the house of the decedent. It shows my client going down the driveway. What does he do when he goes down the driveway? He attempts to get Sophie out of the car, he can't. It'll show him running up into the house to get her mother.

(02:26:13)
What does her mother say? Her mother says a number of things, and I hated that... And I apologized before I cross-examined her. I have really deep sympathy for her, I really do. Believe me. I had to ask her a number of things. Relevant things are this. "Did you believe Sophie was seriously injured?" "No." "Did you try to get an ambulance?" "We did, but we thought maybe she just had to get her stomach pumped." And then the state wants to bring up text messages. They didn't ask Lynn at 8:38 in the evening, that evening we're talking about, " Did you text your daughter?" And she said, "Yeah, I texted my daughter." And I asked her, "What did you text your daughter?" Remember what she said. "Try to control your drinking this evening." Why would she say that? Why would she say that? She didn't say, tell Cooper to control his drinking, she knew Cooper was going to be driving the car. She knew Cooper for three and a half years. There's never been any kind of incident like this.

(02:27:38)
The mother, Lynn, testified there's been hundreds of encounters with these people. They loved each other. Whether it be... This is a tragedy, a tragedy. If I were to talk about what kind of tragedy, think of Romeo and Juliet, because Juliet is dead, and when he finds out she is dead... Look at their exhibit. They don't come in and say... They may talk to the mother. They don't come and say to Cooper, oh, sorry, your girlfriend is dead, they begin to start questioning him, and they got body cams on, so you'll see that. And then at some point in time they say, "Sit down." And what does Cooper do? He's in disbelief. He's in disbelief because when she went to the hospital, when he texted her mom, "Is she okay?" The mother first said, "Yeah, okay. She's okay." And then there's another conversation and the mother says... And it's your memory that controls. And what does the mother say?

(02:28:51)
"Well, she's having X-rays and people are putting lines in her." What does that indicate to you? I don't know if you've ever been involved in a fall or an accident, if you think it's so unusual that an emergency room would take X-rays or take blood, it's not unusual, that happens every day. She didn't say, Cooper, she's in intensive care, we don't think she's going to make it. That was never said. In fact, she basically said at the end of the conversation, "Go home and get some rest," that's my understanding. I may be wrong, but that was what my notes showed me. Now, let's talk about Locust Road. On Locust Road, you'll look... Because Life360 is good for one thing, location. Life360 shows, I believe it's 451 Locust Road. He says they were arguing, I have no idea, I could never say that to you because I'd be imagining something that didn't exist, there's nothing in the evidence that shows that. But there's evidence that she's drunk. She says, "Let me out. I have to get out." What does he do? Does he go fast? No.

(02:30:19)
You're going to see on that map location, and it shows 000 from speed, I believe. And you hear the ring, that's her opening the door. You'll hear her saying, "Ow." Well, ladies and gentlemen, from the top of that seat, we already heard through the detectives to the ground, in that area, that's wooded and rugged, she goes down. Whether she twisted her ankle, I don't know, because I'd be making it up. But she says, "Ow." And then Cooper then takes off. There's no indication he hit her with a car, there's no indication. And what did Sanders tell us? Well, she was at that location and I asked Slaiby, "Was she in the woods?" I must have asked him 10 questions before he admitted, "Yes, on that animation, she's in the woods." And she's in the woods for two minutes.

(02:31:26)
And remember, she doesn't have a bloody nose until this girl, who's under the influence is walking in the woods, where there's trees and sticks and branches. What does she say? He said she says, "I'm scared." Ladies and gentlemen, she texts her girlfriend and says this. As Cooper is coming back to pick her up, she says, "I'm saved." You know what texts are, they don't say everything. The next text said, "Scared." Did she say, I was scared? Maybe that's what she meant. She saw him coming back, she says, "Now I'm saved." She was out in a dark, desolate area. It shows his car moving away, then it shows his car coming back and stopping. And what occurs then? She voluntarily... She gets into his vehicle. She's scared of him. He wants you to think she's afraid, she's scared. And it's important to listen to Detective Bronson. I didn't have to call an accident reconstructionist to refute what his findings were. He told you what his findings was, what he used is Cyril's law.

(02:32:45)
It's what every reconstructionist uses. And guess who makes the animation? Sanders. And guess who puts the speed of the vehicles in? Sanders. He does exactly what he told us that he's never done before in 700 investigations by NESPIN. He's never done it before. So, he's going to do it now, he's going to make an animation, where he doesn't know the speed, he fills it in. He fills it in. Is that objective or is it subjective? He wants you to rely on that, he wants you to say that my client exercised an extreme indifference. Now, she exits the vehicle, Sanders tells you that she goes 12 feet down the road, he finds biological material, he finds some clothing. He finds that. But he also, my client, is 50 some feet past where she is. So, they talk about eight minutes. What do you think he's doing? Sitting there for eight minutes? They know the slope of that hill. They know that. Slaiby knows it better than anybody.

(02:34:07)
Sanders doesn't know it because he's never been there. How does he do this animation and never, ever go to the site? He never does. What does that mean to you? He's just doing an animation on a map, where he's never been there. That makes a lot of sense. And he had how many years, even before this trial? Even after he testified in a preliminary hearing, he doesn't ever go back there. He can't justify that animation. What he can do, legally do, is show you a general location of the phones. Remember this, ladies and gentlemen, he does not, he does not attempt to tell you speed because he can't. What he does is put it on a map of speed. And remember, that's based on nothing except Life360, exactly what the disclaimer in Life360 says you can't do. He does, and if his investigation is incorrect, that animation is incorrect. Now, they want you to believe that animation, they want you to think that that eight minutes when he's 54 feet away from her body, that it takes him eight minutes to go where he is to pick her up.

(02:35:41)
And remember the other testimony, she was heavy. They had trouble picking her up. So, she's on the road, he picks her up, and what does he do? He puts her in his truck. Now, all this baloney about she's seven minutes late from curfew, 10 minutes late for curfew. Do you think that means anything, after this girl he knows goes out of the car? Do you think they're talking about that, or he's thinking that? And I want to say one more thing about that. He's driving a truck that's 21 feet long. For him, he's facing down that road, Fieldview. For him to go down there and turn, make two or three turns of that truck and drive back to her house is going to take a hell of a lot longer than going around and getting to her house. And maybe it was 15, 20 seconds longer. You didn't hear anything. Because you got to remember one thing, we don't have to do anything. We don't have to prove anything. He makes it sound like we've got to prove his case. His case is based on Slaiby. Slaiby and the information that Slaiby gets, and you would've never heard Slaiby or his incredibility or his testimony unless I called him. I can tell you right now, after 50 years of being a lawyer, I've never called the main investigator on a case or the affiant on a warrant, and he told you he's never been called. And I'm going to tell you, I took no pleasure when I cross-examined Lynn. Her testimony, I told you what it was, but what also did Lynn say? Lynn never talked about an abusive relationship. Lynn, to give her credit, didn't exaggerate, didn't stretch the truth. She could have, and she could have a number of times. Once her poor daughter had passed away, she corroborates what Cooper had said when he got there, that she had to vomit. She had to throw up. It's corroborated one hour after her daughter was pronounced dead.

(02:38:17)
And what else did she say? She said, "Cooper didn't smell like alcohol." She was in close proximity to him, I asked. "He did not smell like alcohol." They want to do what they should have done correctly and follow the law. They didn't do it. Slaiby, after all his bumbling, then comes 6:10 in the morning with two other troopers with body cams. As I said before, they come, you have the film, you can see how they come and ask him questions before they tell him she passed away. And he's trying to tell you in the six and a half minutes that he talked to his mother, he's trying to tell you that that's where he made up some kind of story. You have the body cam, you look at his reaction when he found out she was dead. This was the love of his life. Whether he's 18, 19, 30 or 40, this is a person he spent every day with, every day with. You look at how he reacted. You ask yourself, are those crocodile tears or is that real remorse? Not for anything he did, but now knowing that his love was dead.

(02:39:56)
It's the state's obligation and duty to present all the evidence. It's the duty to present all the evidence. For him to even tell you that I'm going to ask this, tell you this... Listen, I've never been an officer of this court for 52 years, I've never lied to a judge, a jury or a client. I've never done that. He talks about extreme indifference to human life. You know what that is? That is, if this incident happened on Fieldwood, and he got in his truck and just left her in the road, like a dog. And ladies and gentlemen, it happens, that's reality. That's what reckless indifference is, when you don't care about the person. You're trying to tell me that when he goes back to the house and Lynn doesn't have her phone, he backs out of the driveway. You've been told it's a long driveway. He backs out of it.

(02:41:04)
And what does he do? He finds her phone. And what does he do? He brings her phone back to her mother, and gives it to their mother. But he wants to take that eight minutes and wants you to draw an innuendo or an unfair inference what happened on that roadway, with that 21 foot truck. Well, ladies and gentlemen, by the way, that truck weighs 7,400 pounds. You heard that in the testimony. And you heard our medical examiner what he said. And our medical examiner agrees with their accident reconstructionist. Do you think that's just a coincidence? It's far from a coincidence. You take your common knowledge and sense. If a 7,400 pound truck runs over 130 pound young girl, what is going to be the result of that on the human body? No, they want to talk about the inside of the shirt. Listen, they had plenty of chances to send that to the FBI lab and do what they call forensic testing.

(02:42:18)
They can do that. This is not 1923, this is 2023. They do that stuff. They can find it microscopically. They can use lasers, they can do it. And I asked Slaiby, "Do you remember that? Do you remember this woman, what she told you from the lab?" And first of all, he didn't know who I was talking about, or he acted like I was making something up, I had him go refresh his recollection. He looks at it for like two minutes, "Oh yeah, that happened, that happened." Listen, it's not an easy job you have, I'm not saying it is, but what I'm saying is this. Sympathy is the biggest factor that I feel that I have to cure in this case. And like I said, I have sympathy. I have sympathy. I don't enjoy asking her, "Have you filed a lawsuit against six other people that you're blaming for the death of your daughter?" I didn't enjoy that. I didn't enjoy reciting some of the things she said, and she basically said she didn't read it. Now, she's been a paralegal for 30 years, she had plenty of time to read that lawsuit.

(02:43:46)
I wish on many occasions that I could come into that jury room and answer some of the questions you may have for me. Unfortunately, I've never had that opportunity and I probably never will. But what I'm saying to you is this. Consider the judge's charge if he gives it to you about the investigation by the police. The investigation that this man says is thorough. It's complete. Remember, they didn't even have the right location on Route 72. And when I asked him, he beat around the bush. Then I said, "Did you get a vape? Did you find the vape there that you claim was part of this case? What do you think I made that up?" He didn't want to answer that. His credibility in this case is far from what I would call a normal witness, even a normal witness. Nevermind a witness who's the head of this investigation.

(02:44:53)
And remember, this is one month after he joins Major Crime. That was probably Major Crime's biggest mistake. I don't know because I'd be doing what he did when he talks about arguing. I don't know where Slaiby is now, I only hope he's out of Major Crime. I hope he's sitting somewhere in an office taking fingerprints. His credibility is zero. His complete investigation as the lead investigator means nothing. He tried to take a tragic accident and incident and turn it into a crime. That's what took 12 months to get a warrant, that's what took 12 months, ladies and gentlemen, putting all the pieces together. Lawyers, when people say, "Well, what does a lawyer do?" Well, a lawyer, or even a prosecutor, what do we do? We're like waiters in a restaurant. The cops are the cooks. They make it, they do the investigation, they give us what evidence they recovered, and we have to present it.

(02:46:03)
So, I don't blame them, but I do blame Slaiby, and I do blame the investigation. And I would ask you, please examine, take as long as you need to decide this case, because one person is lost, we could never bring her back, but I don't want the second half of that tragedy to occur. I don't want my client to be lost forever. Thank you.

Speaker 4 (02:46:34):

I have a motion for the court.

Judge (02:46:44):

In the presence of the jury?

Speaker 4 (02:46:45):

Excuse please.

Judge (02:46:48):

All right. We're going to excuse you for a moment, okay, ladies and gentlemen? Thank you. Again, no talking about the case. [inaudible 02:46:55].

Speaker 4 (02:46:52):

... witness argument made about the state not presenting Detective Slaiby, it was the motions of the jury, there was facts not in evidence, there was [inaudible 02:47:38] upon myself and my office.

Judge (02:47:53):

Regarding the missing witness, how do you determine-

Speaker 4 (02:47:54):

[inaudible 02:47:55].

Judge (02:47:55):

Let me finish my question. Was he missing?

Attorney Minnella (02:47:57):

He didn't testified.

Judge (02:48:01):

He testified. Don't interrupt anybody. He testified. Usually Malave and the cases that follow, Secondino Rule, is that the actual witness didn't testify. In this case, Detective Slaiby did testify, I don't know if it would be a stretch to say he was missing.

Speaker 4 (02:48:15):

Well, the reasoning behind Malave is it did not include a failure to call a witness on the state. The defense is now arguing that the state is being underhanded by not calling a witness, without giving any kind of heads up so the state could put neutral reasons on the record, which the court was well aware of, which was discussed multiple times. Defense counsel knew that, and made the argument anyway.

Judge (02:48:39):

Right. So, it doesn't prohibit counsel from making that comment, but the way I read it, you have to give some advanced notice of that comment.

Speaker 4 (02:48:49):

We did specifically request it.

Attorney Minnella (02:48:54):

We talked about, Your Honor, we talked about that multiple times. [inaudible 02:49:01].

Judge (02:49:01):

All right. I intend to give some type of curative instructions to the jury.

Speaker 4 (02:49:06):

I would just ask that it be directed to defense argument, not general as the court has done in the past.

Judge (02:49:14):

What do you want me to instruct the jury?

Speaker 4 (02:49:17):

That they've heard arguments given to a motion, that they've heard arguments of facts not in evidence, that they've heard arguments making personal attacks, they've heard arguments expressing a personal opinion. [inaudible 02:49:34] Detective Slaiby's credibility [inaudible 02:49:36]. I would ask the court to instruct them that those are all improper arguments and those arguments should be [inaudible 02:49:47].

Attorney Minnella (02:49:54):

[inaudible 02:49:51]. There's nothing improper. What was improper is that man filling in the blanks, they were arguing in the car. Like he was sitting in the back seat of that car.

Martin Minella (02:50:00):

... in the car, like he was sitting in the back seat of that car. He made numerous statements that were not taken from the evidence. Numerous, Judge.

Judge Pelosi (02:50:11):

I intend to give some type of curative argument or instruction to the jury relative to the closing argument issues. Ready for the jury?

Christian Watson (02:51:02):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge Pelosi (02:51:02):

Okay. I'm going to do it at the close of your argument.

Martin Minella (02:51:02):

Your Honor, how much time do we have left? What was the [inaudible 02:51:03]?

Judge Pelosi (02:51:02):

Your argument was from 10:18 to 11:56.

(02:51:02)
Your argument's [inaudible 02:51:15].

Martin Minella (02:51:02):

Yes, sir. Thank you.

Judge Pelosi (02:51:02):

You're welcome.

(02:51:02)
Are all parties [inaudible 02:51:55]?

Christian Watson (02:51:02):

Yes.

Martin Minella (02:51:02):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge Pelosi (02:51:02):

All right.

(02:51:02)
Mr. Watson.

Christian Watson (02:52:03):

Good afternoon. Do you recall the comments that my co-counsel made about any statements that we made during the beginning of his closing argument? Just remember those comments when I address you now, okay? So in the umpteen years that I've been a prosecutor, I'm always amazed that when a jury is impaneled in a case, they come out and as the first witness testifies, they select their seats and they never change from the time in which they select those seats to the time which the trial is over. And you all have done the same.

(02:52:31)
So let's talk about the testimony in this case. Dr. Williamson testified for the defense in this case. Do you recall that? Consider his testimony versus Dr. Vincent's. When you do that, consider his experience versus Dr. Vincent's. Consider what he reviewed when he offered his initial opinion. He reviewed the autopsy report, some of the photographs, and he perused the accident reconstruction. Recall that testimony when he said that.

(02:52:58)
Right before he testified, he reviewed additional items that the state put into evidence, including the sweatshirt Sophie was wearing. He testified he looked at that for a mere five minutes, inside and out, a mere five minutes. He was paid over $7,000 for his testimony in court. Over $7,000 to review those few items. Dr. Vincent reviewed all of those plus numerous investigative reports

‍