Colorado Move Theater Trial - Day 49 - Closing Arguments

Gee, I hope I don't get interrupted at work to do something away from my computer so that I miss any of this ...

There was brief video earlier where the parties and the judge discussed some last minute stuff, then the judge took a break so the lawyers could review each other's "demonstrative" exhibits.  These appear to be exhibits that the lawyers will use in their closing arguments, but may not necessarily be exactly as the evidence was when it was used in court.  For example, there might have been a 2 hour long video, but they've decided to use only 2 minutes of it.

Now they're back ... and the jury has been brought in.

165 charges or counts in this case.  However, one # was skipped, so the numbers end at 166.  There are 165 verdict forms, the judge has picked 5 sample forms randomly, one of each type, to review with the jury (so he doesn't have to review all 165).  The charges are:

Two charges per deceased victim (x 12) - 1st degree murder after deliberation and 1st degree murder with extreme indifference.  Total 24 charges.

Two charges per injured victim (x 70) - attempted 1st degree murder after deliberation and attempted 1st degree murder with extreme indifference.  Total 140 charges.

One charge for possession or control of an explosive or incendiary device (due to the explosives found in Holmes' apartment). Total 1 charge.

Grand total charges = 24 + 140 + 1 = 165

Now the judge is reviewing the jury instructions, of which there are 30.  The judge is reading this verbatim.  First he's reviewing the 'admonishments' which are similar to the ones he's been giving the jury throughout the trial.

Basically, he's telling them:

• they cannot read, watch or listen to any news associated with the case, or other similar cases
• they cannot talk to anyone, including their family members, about the case, or other similar cases
• they cannot post comments about the case, or other similar cases, anywhere
• they cannot do any independent investigation about the case (i.e. visit the locations and look around or ask questions)
• they cannot do any research about similar cases on their own time
• they aren't allowed to have a cell phone or other electronic device inside the jury room during deliberations
• they can only discuss the case when all 12 jurors are present and are in the jury room
• they're allowed to refer to their notes, but they do not need to put any weight towards one person's notes over another, but rather they should rely on their own memory

The instructions are (in summary):

1. [missed]
2. The charges are not evidence.  They do not prove that he committed the crimes.  [He listed the charges.]  The defendant has pleaded not guilty by means of insanity, which includes a plea of not guilty.
3. Everyone charged of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  They have to presume the defendant's innocence until they have reviewed ALL the evidence.
4. The number of witnesses testifying for or against a fact does not in and of itself prove anything.
5. You are the sole judges of the credibility of each witness, and the weight to be given to their testimony.  You can believe all, part or none of the testimony of each witness.
6. You are not bound by the testimony of expert witnesses.  You may believe all, part or none of their testimony.
7. A fact may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence.  Under the law both are allowed.  Direct evidence means a first person observation of the actual event.  Circumstantial evidence is indirect observation of an event.
8. There is some evidence that can only be considered for the limited purpose for which it was presented, and they were informed at the time what that was.
9. Every defendant has a constitutional right not to testify.  You cannot use this choice as evidence against them.
10. A separate offence is charged against the defendant on each count.  The defendant can be found guilty, not guilty, not guilty due to insanity for any one or all of the charges.
11. The defendant is charged with murder in the first degree after deliberation for each of the 12 counts [listed the murdered victims].  
12. [missed]

**********

Damn, after the instructions were read the jury was sent on a morning break.  For some of that break the lawyers argued about some items and then the rest of the court got to go on a break.  But I missed it when they came back (damn work!).

I guess they had more to talk about either just the lawyers or with the jury as it's now 2:22pm and the prosecution is still doing their closing statement.  Brachler has a max of 2 hours, but he was going to stop around 1.5 hours.  Then King has a max of 2 hours.  Then Brachler can use the remainder of his 2 hours to finish up after King is done.

I suspect they'll stick around today until both sides are done, but they won't start deliberations until tomorrow.  I wonder if they'll be any court video while the jury is in deliberations.  I imagine the lawyers have some items to discuss with the judge that need to be done - for example, I know today they brought up again their concern about their witnesses for the sentencing hearing not being available until August.  

Interestingly, they've brought that up several times now.  Originally when they brought it up the judge said they'd worry about it when the time came, but they brought it up again.  It makes me think that the defense believes Holmes will be found guilty and a sentencing portion of the trial will be required.  And based on the fact that they mentioned some of their witnesses would be available this week, I can't help but wonder if they think the jury will be quick in their deliberations.  Those thinkings are a stretch.  They might just be getting themselves prepared for all eventualities.  But if it were me I would hold off until it was absolutely necessary.

Brachler ended his closing statement with the story of Ashley Moscher (sp) who was pregnant and had a 6 year old daughter with her in the theater.  Her daughter was killed and she lost her baby, and she can't have anymore children.  Then they played the 911 call where you can hear the shots in the background over and over and over and over.

[break]

I left work before they came back from break. I eventually went on Livestream around 6pm and found they were still going. The judge was just wrapping up telling the jury who would be deliberating and who would be an alternate. Then he let them go. 

The judge asked that the lawyers be available to come to court within 15 minutes of the jury had a question. But he told the jury he'd need 3 hours when they reach a verdict. 

Now that live court has finished, I've gone back to watch the defence's closing statement. King just isn't as good a speaker as Brachler. He has too many weird pauses and breaks in his speech. He talks like he's making it up as he goes, even though you know that's not true. 

He's trying to convince the jury that Brachler thinks Holmes isn't mentally ill - which isn't true. Brachler never said Holmes isn't sick, he thinks he wasn't in a state as to be considered legally insane. King is also trying to convince the jury that the prosecution cares more about form than substance when it comes to the psychiatric experts - this also isn't true. Brachler pointed out many mistakes and oversights in the substance of the expert's testimony. 

King admitted that he wishes now that he had Dr Gur videotape her sessions with Holmes. Well duh! Of course you can say that now!  He claims he didn't think it was that important at the time. Bullshit!  He's a smart lawyer - he knew full well what videotaping those sessions would mean, and how it might be used later. It's easy to say that now to the jury to make you look like you have nothing to hide. 

Another one of King's arguments is that Brachler doesn't think the mental breakdown Holmes had in November 2012 are relevant. King says they are relevant because it shows the disease he has and how bad it is. Gee, I hope the jury sees through that - because it's so not true. How someone behaved in November isn't proof of how they were in July of that year. What if the court case had happened in September of 2012?  The November breakdown wouldn't have yet happen, but that makes no difference because that's not the timeframe of the criminal activities. If Holmes had a breakdown tomorrow it would also make no difference. 

Interestingly King keeps arguing that these types of diseases get better and worse, etc., and then progressively worse and worse. This is true. But it means that there is a point at which the disease becomes bad enough that a person could be legally insane. The thing is, in my opinion, this didn't happen to Holmes until long after July 2012 - and possibly hasn't actually ever happened. I'm not entirely sure that Holmes has ever reached a point where he's legally insane. I believe he's sick, very sick. I think he has had delusions and has possibly heard voices in his head. But based on everything I heard, I just don't believe Holmes was ever in a state where he didn't know that what he was doing was wrong. I agree with Brachler that he did too many things to try to hide his actions from the police and public to make it seem like he didn't know what he was doing was wrong.   Not only did he plan extensively, but his plans included steps to avoid detection. If he thought that what he was doing was okay, would he need to hide his actions?

I believe he thought his "mission" was right. I believe he thought that what he was doing would help him. But I also think he knew that the authorities would think his "mission" was bad, and he knew that in order to get away with it he'd have to hide his actions so as not to get in trouble. 

King is arguing that in Colorado to be legally insane you have to not understand society's moral objections. That basically you think that, while illegal, society wouldn't think that what you were doing was morally wrong. King admits that Holmes knew what he was doing was legally wrong and that he was trying to hide what he was doing. But King is arguing that Holmes didn't think that society would think what he was doing was morally wrong. I have a problem with that ... some laws, like murder, are created based on the moral standards of society. I find it hard to believe that you could know murder was legally wrong but still believe that society would be okay with you doing it. I believe that he thinks the victims should be grateful to him, but I don't believe that means he thinks they do actually feel grateful to him. 

I have to admit, King's closing got better and better. I think he actually did a good job in the end. I don't agree with a lot of what he said, but he was still good. 

Now we wait ...