Accused Uncle’s Defense Rips Apart Murder Case

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, David Prevatt did not rape, did not sexually assault, and did not murder taking appeals. Mr. Smith told you you have two birth forms that you will receive. He showed them to you. Is David Prevatt guilty of first-degree statutory sex offense? He's David Prevatt guilty of first-degree murder. When we started this case, there were three charges. Three. First-degree statutory rape. That is no longer for your consideration. Statutory rape, or rape of any kind, requires proof. Proof that a man inserted his penis, penetrated into a woman's vagina. Much of this evidence that you've heard suggests, suggests that Peyton Fields was raped. What is it that supports that? There was semen under her clitoral hood. The semen doesn't get there. [00:01:30] Speaker 2: Hold on. Members of the jury, you are to consider the facts as you recall or remember them, based on your own recollection of the evidence. [00:01:42] Speaker 1: There was testimony that there was semen under her clitoral hood. [00:01:47] Speaker 3: Objection. [00:01:48] Speaker 1: Facts not in evidence. Sustained. There was seen, it was suggested that there was semen. [00:01:59] Speaker 3: Objection. Facts not in evidence. Sustained. [00:02:02] Speaker 1: There was no semen found in her vagina. But yet, Mr. Smith argued a moment ago, that Dale's semen was found in her vaginal area. Objection. Sustained. That there was male DNA found in her vagina. But it could not be identified. He also argued it shouldn't be there. And with that, I agree. But that doesn't mean that David Perbat is the person who perpetrated these crimes. Each of you said, during jury selection, that you recognized a defendant's right and privilege to be presumed innocent. Each of you said that you could apply that principle, that right, that privilege, to David Perbat. And that privilege, that cloak of innocence, stays with him throughout this trial until and unless the state can take it away from him. And based upon this evidence, they have not done that. Based upon the testimony of witnesses, they have not done that. What happened on the morning of November 13th, 2017? You have a glimpse. You have in your window. You have speculation in the state as to what happened. But do you really have the facts? You have to determine the facts from this evidence. It's not something you get to guess about. It's not something you get to speculate about. It's something that you have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that happened. Peyton Fields was taken to the hospital here in Burgall. Taken by her uncle who held her, who tried to save her life because he had seen that she was struggling to breathe. He was trying to give her mouth to mouth. Her grandfather, Dale Hunt, driving as fast as that little car could go to get them there because they believed they could get to the hospital faster than an ambulance could get to them at 104 Blackwater Drive and then back to the hospital. And when I asked how far the distance was, he said, probably 15 miles. Well, how long did it take you to get there? Eight or nine minutes. Eight or nine minutes without stopping. And what did you see in the first video? You saw a distraught young man with a young girl in his arms banging on the door of the emergency room so he could get in. He got out of the car, holding her, clutching her, and runs to the door. He goes in and he immediately tells them they need help. He turns her over to the nurses and the doctors. And yes, he was crying. Yes, he was distraught. Why? Because his niece was on the verge of dying. She was on the verge of leaving everything that she had. And they want to say that's consciousness of guilt? No. That's pure emotion. That's concern for people. It's not, oh, I've done something horrible so I've got to act like this. He went down and he sat down with the registration lady, hand in his hands, talking to her. After talking to her, he goes and he sits down again, he is still emotional. No one knows. He doesn't know what's happened to Peyton. And if he did, where's their evidence? David doesn't have to come into this courtroom and prove he did not do this. Simply because he is charged does not mean he did this. He does not have to present evidence. He does not have to take the sheriff's department evidence. He doesn't have to bring it to the DA. Why? Because he's presumed to be innocent. They have to go out and find him. They have to bring it in here to prove what they believe happened. And when you don't get the evidence, you don't prove your case. And that is what has happened in this very trial that you have sat in for the last two weeks. There's a lot of stuff they try to hang their hat on. Detective Leatherwood, the original investigating officer. Who did he focus on? Who did he focus on? Dale Hunt? No. But David Prevath. David Prevath. David, who yesterday, Detective Short, who took over this investigation, said that there were multiple statements made during the course of this investigation by David to members of law enforcement. Did the state choose to use those? No. Why? Because they're not evidence. They're not evidence that helps them prove their case. But Detective Leatherwood and then Detective Short. Detective Short can sit up here and say, no, I didn't make up my mind about what happened or who did it. It's the same report that Detective Leatherwood put together. What other evidence did Detective Short go out and gather to try to prove that David Prevath did this? He sent stuff for the lab. Oh, these weren't tested. This wasn't tested. This wasn't tested. Oh, let me Photoshop a picture to see if these hooks on these red earphones look like the hook on her neck. And then what does he do? He sends emails to Dr. Kelly How many years after this? How many years after this is alleged to have happened? Oh, could this have been the ligature? Could this have been the ligature? And Dr. Kelly's response, what is it that you want me to do? What is it you want me to say? If you say that it could be or it's consistent with then I can charge it. You looked at these. You've examined these. You've seen the picture. I'm not going to put on the gloves but when Mr. Smith stood up here and doubled them and said, oh, if you double it it's the same size that's less than a quarter of an inch. Well, let me ask you this, ladies and gentlemen. What didn't they say? What didn't they say? Because when you look at that picture there's a J here and there's one over here. So if you double it how do the two hooks end up imprinted on her neck? [00:11:42] Speaker ?: How? [00:11:44] Speaker 1: That's for them to explain. Detective Short tried to do it yesterday and said, oh, if you take it and you double it and the person could have pushed back from front to back. Well, the problem with that argument is there are marks on the back of her neck that are consistent with the marks on the front of her neck which means the cord had to be wrapped and if the cord is wrapped once, twice there's still more than enough that both that the hooks are going to be in either one end in one hand or the other. So how did this happen? They have to tell you that. They have to prove that. Is David's DNA on there? Yes, because they're his. Is Peyton's DNA on there? Yes, because it was there in the house and she could play with it. It's balled up. It's balled up found on top of a nightstand or a bedside table. Do you really believe that David Pervat used these earbuds to choke, to strangle, to kill Peyton Fields? Why is it sitting in a spot that's so easily detected? Mr. Smith said oh, the defense said this was about a dog leash. How many dogs are in this house? Three. How many of you own dogs? I don't know of a single solitary person that owns a dog who does not have a dog leash. And you have three different sized dogs. One small, one medium, and one larger. what was it that Lisa Hunt said about why Savannah was in trouble that day? Because Savannah and Peyton played a game where Savannah wrapped the dog leash around Peyton's neck. and Lisa had caught her and taken it away. Mr. Smith said, well, why didn't they bring the dog leash in? Why? It's not our job. It's not our job to present their case. Why didn't Detective Lee, the crime scene, man, why didn't he find it? Why didn't he find a lot of things that were discovered on other trips? Part of it's the condition of the house. There's no dispute about that. But Lisa Hunt had told them, had told them about Savannah and Peyton and the dog leash. objection facts, not an evidence. [00:15:22] Speaker 2: Members of the jury, recalling and remembering the evidence, be guided exclusively by your own recollection of the evidence. [00:15:31] Speaker 1: Did they believe her? Did they think it was worth pursuing a parent or not? Why? Because that changed Detective Leatherwood's theory that it was dated. The theory that died from November the 13th of 2017 until February of 2021, 22, when he was arrested. The day that Provide had to live with that cloud over his head, that the Pender County Sheriff's Department believed he had committed murder. But yet they hadn't arrested it. Why? Because they didn't have the evidence. They had these. Why do you think Savannah was interviewed three times? More importantly, why was Savannah interviewed two days? Two days on the very day that Payton died? why was Savannah interviewed at that point? Don't you think that was a little premature? What did they really expect to get if Savannah had witnessed what happened? Put her through that trauma again so soon? But they interviewed attempted to interview her and what did she say? I don't want to talk about it because it makes me sad. Was there any evidence that she knew that Payton had died at that point? No. Was it she didn't want to talk about it? Not only because it made her sad but perhaps Savannah her sister and when they brought her back in January of 2018 again can you tell me about Payton? I don't want to talk about it. It makes me sad. That wasn't coached. That wasn't rehearsed. But when they brought her back four years later and what was it that Detective Short said yesterday that's so key? I wanted to have an interview with Savannah at the carousel clinic one more time before we made the arrest. It didn't happen because he said it had to be canceled because Savannah had code. And what did he do? What did Detective Short do? He calls the lady with whom Savannah has lived her aunt from shortly after this occurred through today to tell her that they were going to arrest David. David where was Nora? Was Nora in this courtroom during the Stagg's case? Did anybody point her out to you? Was she even called her as a witness? She wasn't here. They didn't call her as a witness. Why? Maybe it's perhaps Nora who was telling Savannah what had happened during this period from November of 2017 to when they decided they would arrest David. Nora, as Detective Short said, the only family member who ever inquired about the status of the investigation. Nora, who brought Savannah to this very courtroom, why? So they could practice what Savannah was going to say from this witness stand. and Nora, who Savannah said was here, ends up in the back room with Detective Short. Why? Perhaps Nora was more involved in this practice session than they want you to know. So when she goes back to that interview after David has been arrested, don't you know she's been told that Peyton was killed by David? And so when that interview starts, the forensic interviewer says, oh, it's been a long time since we've talked. you've been here before. And what is it that Peyton says? Because the first time, the first time she talks to Peyton, excuse me, Savannah, the first time she tells her story. She tells her story about a little boy and a little girl who are outside, they're playing, little boy picks up a rock, and he throws it out of the house and he breaks a window. And when the lady comes out of the house, she immediately asked the little boy, did you throw that rock? The little boy said, no, she did. And so when she asked the little girl, she says, I didn't throw the rock, he did, he's telling you a story. That's in November, on November 15, 2017. in January of 2018, when she's brought back, the same interviewer starts telling Savannah that story. And Savannah cuts her off and she says, yes, I know what happened. You told me that they were playing the little boy through the rock at the house and broke the window. The lady accused him of doing it. He said, no, the little girl, and the little girl said, no, he had done it. She remembered that. She remembered that. But when she comes back, even later, in 2021, 2022, she starts to tell the story and Savannah doesn't remember it. she doesn't say, oh, you told me that before. And each time will you tell me about Peyton, except on the last time. She doesn't ask her, will you tell you what happened to Peyton? Can we talk about Peyton? She said, oh, you've been here before. And before she can even ask a question, Savannah responds and states, I saw Uncle Boo-Boo. he was standing by the couch beside Peyton and then he walked to his room. When I asked why she woke up, did she hear anything? No. Did the dogs bark? No. did you need to go to the bathroom? No. I woke up. I woke up. And that's when I saw Uncle Boo-Boo. And he says, she says, oh, he was wearing blue shorts. Let me ask you this. TV wasn't on it. Where's the light that's coming into that room? She says, the light in the kitchen was on. The light in the stove. when you turn the stove lay on, above your cooktop area, it's designed to shine down, not out. She was, that stove was in a kitchen that from the living room is covered by two walls. And the doorway is to the right of the front door as you step into the entryway into that house. And which walls are on? They showed you the picture. Would the stove have been shining, light been shining out in the direction of the doorway? No. It wasn't. Use your own common sense, your own experiences. How bright are those lights really? Is it enough to illuminate the living room where they are basically in this back corner? Is it enough for her to see? TV's not on, there's no other light on in that room. I'll submit to you none. and if she actually did see David, why didn't she say something? Like, are you okay? What's going on? Hang on with that boo-boo, why are you up? No. She doesn't. She says that at some point she goes into her grandparents room to say, hey, something's wrong with Savannah. Her eyes are twitching, her eyes are rolling back in her head. How does she see that? She didn't say she got up and walked over to where Savannah was, excuse me, Peyton was, and looked down on her as she was on the sofa. She's saying she's in the same position she was in when she says David was in, the opposite end of the sofa. And if it's dark, how is she seeing her eyes twitch, her eyes rolling back in her head? So she gets up and she goes into the bedroom and she says something's wrong with Savannah, with Peyton. She's acting funny. Savannah, Savannah says Peyton is acting funny. Dale wakes up if he was asleep. Dale says go back to bed. And so she does. she goes back to the sofa, she turns on the TV, she says she sits there. She said anything else about what Peyton was doing? No. She's not acting funny. She doesn't say anything about her eyes rolling back in her head, that she's twitching, she's shaking, her arms are moving. No. No. Dale gets up and goes to the restroom. Does Savannah say that? No. Lisa, who was in bed, says Dale gets back in bed. Says she was awakened. But that's not when she gets up. She told you she got up between four and five o'clock to go make coffee because Dale had to leave to go to work, to be at work by five o'clock. That's why she woke up. She didn't get up because Dale said something to her. Oh, Savannah says Peyton's acting funny, do you want to go check on it? No. Nothing is said to Lisa about Peyton supposedly acting funny in the living room. What Lisa said was the television was really loud. When she got up, she went in, she turned it down. And when she went in there, she sees Peyton. There's much more light in there at that point. And she screams. Screams. And calls for Dale and David. Was the door to David's room opened or closed? I would submit to you it was closed. Because Smokey was sleeping in the room today. Excuse me. Part of closing the door was to keep the dog in there. But Savannah says all three dogs were on the sofa when she woke up. How does Smokey go from being in David's bedroom to being on the sofa when she wakes up? He doesn't. And she screams. Is it out of unusual that David would come in and gone to bed and still clothed? No. Stace is old. He put his pants on before he came out. He got out there before Dale did. And David does what? David takes paper from his mom because he can see the distress she's under. And he's trying to help her. Dale comes out in his pajamas and clothes he sleeps in and goes back in and gets dressed. and then they go to the hospital. And at the hospital, the doctor comes out and he says what? You have a very sick child. A very sick child. A child that he recognized and saw who had pneumonia from having and had vomited and had gone down a windpipe into her lungs. He doesn't say at that point she's been sexually assaulted. But they're going to transfer her from Pender to New Hanover because New Hanover has a higher degree of care than Pender. They have a NICU, neonatal intensive care nursery or unit, specifically designed for children. And Peyton didn't transfer, the transport starts after six o'clock in the morning. She's in the ER at Pender for almost two hours. now in his examination the doctor sees evidence that he believes she has been sexually assaulted. So he calls for the same nurses. The same nurses come in and they tell you, they go through their regimen, they're examining her and they say that they can see semen under the pletorial hood. [00:32:42] Speaker 2: All right. Members of the jury, we're going to take a little bit of a break. Go ahead and close up your notebooks. As you exit the courtroom, do not discuss this case amongst yourselves. Do not have any contact with any of the parties, attorneys, or witnesses. Do not discuss this case with anybody else. Do not conduct any independent investigation. Do not post on any social media sites. Excuse you for a few minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Make sure your notebooks are closed. Your chairs when ready front row and back. This way, please. judge, let the record reflect with the jury's exit of the courtroom. Mr. [00:33:46] Speaker 3: Smith. Judge, as you know, I keep objecting because he is referring to semen. There is no facts and evidence to suggest that anybody saw semen. There's no lab report. There's nothing. We have not even referred to semen. So I'm asking that Mr. Britt refrain from mischaracterizing the evidence, Judge. [00:34:07] Speaker 2: Mr. Britt. [00:34:08] Speaker 3: Sir. [00:34:10] Speaker 2: Anything you wish to say? [00:34:12] Speaker 1: My recollection of testimony was they observed semen under the clitoral hood. [00:34:16] Speaker 2: There's been no semen, absolutely none, that has been presented or accepted into evidence. There's been evidence of male DNA under the clitoral hood, but there's been no semen that has been detected on Peyton. All right, thank you. So no mention of semen anymore from this point onward. Let's bring the jury back in. Bring it to Jerry. Judge, are you going to give a... I will give an instruction to the jury regarding the fact that there has not been anything presented in evidence as far as semen. [00:35:14] Speaker 3: Thank you. [00:35:23] Speaker ?: for the jury. [00:35:53] Speaker 1: through seat. [00:35:58] Speaker 2: Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has ran to the courtroom members of the jury after a review of the evidence. And just for clarification, there has been no semen that has been detected on Peyton Fields. All right, Mr. Britt, you may continue. [00:36:12] Speaker 1: Thank you, Your Honor. State's Exhibits, [00:36:15] Speaker ?: 13 and 20. [00:36:19] Speaker 1: States Exhibits, 13 and 21, sexual assault kits. One that's marked as 13 was item 11 in the inventory of evidence. Other ones marked as item 16 in the inventory of the evidence. item 13 contents of this box as they were when it was sealed for items that were swabbed with Peyton Fields. They did vaginal swabs, they did inside the vagina, they did outside the vagina, they did the perineal area between the vagina and the anus, and they swabbed the anus and the rectum. And they created stains. Why? Because the nurses believed that she had been sexually assaulted. The results from the lab in swabbing those items were that the vaginal swabs did not contain c. When they were sent to Bodie, Bodie tested a different part of the swab because the part that was tested in the lab had been cut off. They were taking it from another area. But all they could tell you at Bodie was there was a small amount of semen. Objection? Approach? Thank you. [00:38:59] Speaker 2: The previous instruction, when you entered, there was no seen I found on Peyton Fields. [00:39:06] Speaker 1: Bodie testified that they found a small amount of DNA. So small that it couldn't be quantified or amplified to determine if it was male or not. Dr. Kelly during the course of the autopsy said that she examined Peyton, examined her vaginal area and she saw lacerations her veins. But she did not examine her veins. She deferred that to the same nurses, that they were in a better position to do that than she was. This is a forensic pathologist who was trained to determine if there are injuries and the possible causes of injuries. But she did not bother to examine [00:40:18] Speaker 3: Peyton's anus. Objection. Facts not in evidence. Sustained. [00:40:29] Speaker 1: There was no DNA in the swabs of Peyton Zangis. There was no DNA of David Pravats in any of those swabs. And that's key. That's key. Why? Because it leaves open a question that the state has to answer. The state has to answer the who, what, when, and where and how of the case. They can't answer the fact that David's DNA is a part of the sexual assault if he's the perpetrator. They now want to argue that it could be a finger, it could be an instrument, it could be something. But they can't point to anything. They can't point to his penis. They can't point to his fingers. Oh, they try to get there with his nails and hands being washed. His hands were washed, his hands were clean, but he hadn't washed himself. How many times you come in from work or having done something and the first thing you do is wash your hands? It's natural. It's instinctive. It's not an issue of, oh, he asked me about my nails, he looked at my nails, and I went home and I washed them and cut them, make them look nice. No, his hands were dirty. And had they thought at the time that his hands may have contained evidence, why then didn't the sheriff's department collect it, get the scrapings, get the DNA that they believed was there or could have been there? Was that just overlooked? No. No, you heard the detective. He was the first person to interview David about this case. Didn't bother to collect it. That leaves another question. Why? Mr. Smith says, oh, he had the opportunity. where's the opportunity? Where's the motive? Talk about motive. What's David's, what would have been David's motive to have sexually assaulted and murdered his three-year-old niece? There is none. Oh, he had just moved back in two or three days before. That's not the motive. Lisa Hunt told you he came home because he and his girlfriend had broken up. He lived sometimes with them, sometimes with an aunt, and there was no definite time period when he would go from one to the other. She was somewhat surprised to see him. She didn't know that they had broken up. So what is his motive for having allegedly done this to Payton? Zero. Zero. All of this evidence that is here with the exception of one thing, and those are the ear buds. DNA is left open. We don't know whose it is because there's simply not enough. The ear buds, ask yourselves this question, how did the mark get here and here and here? And you know what? When you look at that picture that Mr. Smith showed on the television of the mark on this part of her neck, I'm sorry, the left here and then here, if those were used as, one, how do they get separated? Number two, why is there a mark here and a mark here? And you know what? Look at the lines from whatever the ligature was. It was that and look at the lines on her neck. It was the earbud portion underneath. The wire was on top. And if someone was truly choking her with these, where are the knots and why it has one loose and one tight? If this was pulled, if it was stretched? And if it's done like this, one half and one half, you have a knot on the bottom strand, you have a knot on the top, and then you have this rectangular shape. where is that? Where are they? They're not in those pictures. Nobody's identified any other mark than these. And as much as Detective Short didn't want to admit it, the end that goes in the ear is what you see on the side of her neck, that little hole that shows up. Why didn't they ask that this part be examined? specifically this part. He had that opportunity and he chose not to. So in the end what you have is the death of a young girl. Yes, she was strangled. No one's going to deny that. But she also had pneumonia. She had been sick. She had been coughing. There was a doctor's appointment. Lisa Hunt's testimony was a doctor's appointment the next day for her to check out. She could run in a fever and it would go away. So if she wasn't as sick as the state wants you to believe, why is it necessary that she has an appointment to go to the doctor? And what you're hearing, what you hear is that it wasn't getting any better. Why did the state the sheriff's department fail when they learned that she had aspirated swallowing her vomit? Why didn't they initially see that in the house? Why did that have to be pointed out to Dale and Lisa, by Dale and Lisa? It's on the sofa. It's on the wall. why didn't they just seize the cushions to the couches? Why didn't they seize the mattress from the room? Or both rooms? Because there are two bedrooms. At one point, the state was arguing in their questioning, it was occurring in the third bedroom, and now it's the second bedroom. but the second bedroom, his bedroom, where David slept, that was his room. But that is where the girls had moved their stuff into while he was living with his aunt. It didn't change. Where's the sheet? They made a big deal about showing this sheet and the DNA that's found on the sheet is Hades. the image that, the penis image, again, that's David's. But did they say there was any blood, any DNA from Peyton on that sheet, if that's where it happened? Was there any DNA of Peyton on top of the mattress? Because what you see in the cleansing photographs is that bed did not have any sheets, any blanket, any type of bedding on it. It was just stripped down naked. Why didn't they seize it? Why wasn't it tested? for blood or other substances that would carry DNA. And the Sheriff's Department had plenty of opportunities. Two search warrants to search the entire house. Consent searchers to search the entire house. It's just like the dog leashes that they never looked for. because they believed that Peyton was sexually assaulted on the sofa. Well, then why didn't they take the sofa, take the cushions, take the coverings off of the sofa? because they weren't sure. They had four opportunities that we know of to do that very thing. And they struck out. Now, the pants, the underwear, the analyst didn't say urine wasn't in the best group of substances that have DNA. She said it's in a secondary group. And she told you, urine contains DNA. when they examined David's pants, what did they find? They found DNA on the outside of his pants, which was consistent with what you know that she urinated on David. She defecated on David. She would have been in his lap riding to the hospital. And Dale said you could smell it when she lost control of her vials. There's your cooperation about substances being on David's pants. Why didn't they seize them at the hospital if they observed them? Yes, they were found in the room. Yes, he stepped out of his pants and his boxers at the same time. The DNA substance was on the thigh of his pants. It was on the fly. Some of it, I argue, to seep through into the backside of the zipper area and on to the front of his boxers. But if David Prevatt had sexually assaulted Payton with his penis, wouldn't there have been DNA material found on inside of those boxers? And the answer to that is yes, it would have been. But there wasn't any. None on the inside of those boxers. again, the questions are who, what, when, why, and how that state has to prove. While we in the court have objection. [00:55:38] Speaker 2: Approach. overrule the objection. Let me proceed, Mr. Britt. [00:56:03] Speaker 1: The state has the burden of proof. David has none. So the state has to present evidence that satisfy this question. have you received evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that David perhaps is the perpetrator, the person who did this, that he's a perpetrator of these crimes. It's not just they have to prove the individual crimes, they have to prove it was him. Him. And what does their evidence show, their DNA evidence, that brought people here from Raleigh, brought people, one examiner from Charlotte and another one from Massachusetts. What does it prove? what does it show? The DNA that they were asked to examine was insufficient, insufficient to identify David Prevatt as a perpetrator of these crimes. The other thing you have to realize is that some of this stuff was already back from the lab in Raleigh when they arrested. Did they not read the reports? Or did they think by sending it somewhere else it was going to get better? Well, it didn't. It didn't. So when a person is charged with a crime, it starts from the proposition of, is there a probable cause to arrest someone? Is there evidence that shows a crime was probably committed and it was probably committed by someone? That's the basis upon which they got Lawrence. But when it comes to court, it goes from probable cause, probability, to what is called beyond a reasonable doubt. That means evidence that fully satisfies you, entirely convinces you of David's guilt. and what do they hang their hat on for proof beyond a reasonable doubt? No more than they did when they charged him. Because it wasn't conclusive when they charged him. It wasn't conclusive in this trial. And the difference between probability and beyond a reasonable doubt, because it becomes a higher standard, it's like comparing this wall in front of your jury box. That's to jump over. That's probable cause. you come over here to the bench where the judge sits and it's a higher, it's raised. This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not all doubt, it's not beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it's proof that satisfies you individually and collectively. Because first, you have to determine in your belief, in your mind, have they proven the things that they are required to prove. Then collectively, the twelve jurors who will deliberate this, you talk about it. You may have differences of opinion. That happens. Part of the judge's instruction will be that you as an individual juror will consider the arguments and positions of your fellow jurors before you finally make up your mind. So you can have your opinion about what this shows and other jurors may differ. You may change your position and at the same time, someone else may change theirs. This is not a vote by majority. This is a vote that has to be announced. Each and every one of you have to be satisfied that the state has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt before you can say that David provide is guilty of any crime. It's the same standard that applies in every criminal case in North Carolina and the United States. It's part the makeup of the judicial system. So when you go to the truth you will have heard the judge's instructions about the law. What is it the state has to prove for statutory sex against you? What is it the state has to prove for first-degree premeditated murder? What is it that the state has to prove for first-degree murder under the felony murder? If you find that David is not guilty of statutory sex offense then you will not consider whether he's guilty under the felony murder. because it is that felon that they have alleged he committed during the course of the time that Peyton died. They don't have to show a specific intent to kill him. They don't have to show that it was premeditated. They don't have to show under felony murder that it was deliberated. They don't have to show that he has, as I said, a specific intent to kill. all they have to do is prove she was sexually assaulted and during the course of that sexual assault, she dies. Whereas under premeditated deliberate murder, there are multiple elements. The elements are the parts of the crime. Delighting ingredients and a recipe. if you start off making a cake from scratch, then there's flour, butter, eggs, making soda, maybe some milk, and you're going to mix it together to make your batter. But if you leave one of those out, you don't have the cake that you intend to make. So they have two. every single element under premeditated murder. And I would argue to you, ladies and gentlemen, they haven't done that. David is not guilty of these offenses. He has lived with this nightmare since November of 2017. A little more than a month away. A month and four days, actually. your job is to seek the truth from the evidence that's been presented. That is the highest aim of every legal context, to find the truth. How do you do that? You go back through the recollection of the testimony. You go back through the evidence that's been presented to you. because somewhere in the facts and circumstances of every case, the truth abides. And when the truth abides, Lady Justice, garbed in her robes, swoops in to reveal that truth. Your job is to find the truth and to render a verdict. your job isn't to punish David is not to reward the state. Your job is to let your verdict speak the truth. And that truth is that David is not guilty. Because the state just simply does not have enough evidence to prove that he did it. Thank you. [01:05:55] Speaker 2: Mr. Brick, members of the jury, go ahead and break for lunch. Go ahead and close up your notebooks. As you are out of lunch, again, very important that you not discuss this case amongst yourselves.