Apologetic Boyfriend Killer Will Serve Decades Behind Bars: Full Sentencing

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Good afternoon, Ms. Smith. Can you please tell us your full name? Cassandra Sue Smith. And your relationship to the victim in this case, Colton Wright? Colton was my nephew. Do you have a statement that you would like to read to his honor this afternoon? Yes, please. Your Honor, with your permission, Ms. Smith will read her statement. [00:00:23] Speaker 2: Judge Krug, thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts. Colton was a beloved and precious part of our family. Everyone that knew him loved him deeply and unconditionally. His loss is indescribably painful. Our family has been shattered to its core. On the night of December 9th, 2021, my life was forever changed. Colton was more like a son to me than a nephew. We were extremely close. There have been times I have been paralyzed with grief. Having to witness my youngest sister bury her beautiful, amazing, full of life, youngest son will forever haunt me. My nephew was a bright light in our family. And every birthday, every holiday, every milestone that he is missing is absolutely heartbreaking. I will never understand why the defendant chose to end Colton's life in such a brutal way. He had a choice and chose to end my sweet nephew's life, which is unforgivable. He took away my nephew, but he certainly does not have the power to take away my beautiful memories and love that is in my heart. I ask that Brennan Wakey please receive the maximum sentence that can possibly be given. Thank you, ma'am. Go for your first step. [00:01:55] Speaker 1: Go for your first step. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Smith. [00:02:06] Speaker ?: Next. [00:02:07] Speaker 1: State calls Olivia Spangler. [00:02:23] Speaker 3: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth and the truth and the truth and the truth and nothing but the truth? [00:02:40] Speaker 1: Good afternoon, Ms. Spangler. Hello. Will you tell us your full name, please, and spell your last name? [00:02:45] Olivia Grayson Spangler: Olivia Grayson Spangler. S-P-A-N-G-L-E-R. [00:02:49] Speaker 1: And will you tell us your relationship to Colton, please? [00:02:53] Olivia Grayson Spangler: He was a dear friend of mine. [00:02:55] Speaker 1: Would you like to read a statement to his honor? I would. Yes, please. May we have your permission to continue? [00:03:06] Olivia Grayson Spangler: Judge Krug, my name is Olivia Spangler and I'm here today to speak about my dear friend, Colton Wright. Excuse me. Sorry. Colton and I grew up together in Covington, Indiana. Later in life, we both ended up living here in Sarasota, Florida. No matter where life took us, that connection of growing up together always stayed with us. One of the things I loved most about Colton was the way he could make me laugh. Some of my best memories in life are with him. We spent so much time growing up riding our mopeds, driving around on the golf cart, and just enjoying being young and carefree. In high school, we had so many moments together that I'll never forget, even things like skipping school and driving around in the snow. Those memories might seem small, but to me, they were some of the happiest times in my life. Colton was always there for me. He was someone who stood in my corner and supported me no matter what. We shared so much life together growing up, and he was the kind of friend everyone deserves to have. Losing Colton has left a hole in my life that will never be filled. He should still be here making people laugh, making memories, and living the life he deserved. He would have even been invited to my upcoming wedding. Instead, his life was taken by someone he trusted. Someone who was supposed to care about him. That betrayal is something that is still hard to understand. It has been more than four years since Colton was taken from us, but the pain of losing him is still very real. His family, his friends, and everyone who loved him continued to live with that loss every single day. Colton deserved to live his life. He deserved to grow older, to build his future, and to continue bringing joy to the people around him. Because of that, Your Honor, I respectfully ask that you impose the maximum sentence allowed for the person responsible for taking his life. Colton deserved a lifetime, and the person who took that from him should face the full consequence of that choice. Thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of one of my best friends. Sincerely, Olivia Spangler. Ms. Thank you. Ms. Thank you. [00:05:31] Speaker 1: Ms. Your Honor, the next person that I'd like to address the court is Lisa Williams. And that is a statement that she's asking me to read in her behalf. May I? [00:05:57] Speaker 5: You may. [00:05:58] Speaker 1: Ms. Judge Krug, Colton Wright was my nephew. We have a large family, and each and every one of us have been affected by his death. He was very much loved by so many people, not just our family. He was full of life and always had a smile on his face. To have someone rip him away from us is probably the hardest and most heartbreaking thing I have ever gone through. To see my sister's face now, his mother Amy, there is a sadness, an emptiness, and a hurt that I know will never leave her. This hurts me terribly. Nothing will ever take that away. Therefore, I ask that Brian Wakey receive the maximum sentence for the hurt he has caused us all. We will never have the joy of seeing Colton again, but we'll always have our memories. Thank you. I now would like to ask Your Honor to hear a statement from Hillary Wright via Zoom. [00:07:04] Speaker 5: All right, can Ms. Hillary Wright please unmute? [00:07:15] Speaker 1: I saw her name up there earlier. I don't know what happened to the… [00:07:22] Speaker 6: Okay, I don't see a Hillary Wright in the Zoom call. Do you have anybody up? [00:07:28] Speaker 1: Yes. Ms. Thompson, Ms. Amy Thompson, Colton Wright's mother would like to address the court. [00:07:36] Speaker 5: All right, can Ms. Thompson please unmute? [00:07:41] Speaker 1: No, Ms. Thompson is here in person. Okay. [00:07:54] Speaker 3: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to get will be the truth and will be the truth and will be the nothing but the truth? [00:08:17] Speaker 1: Ms. Thompson, before you start, tell us your full name, please. [00:08:20] Speaker 7: Ms. Amy Jo Thompson, T-H-O-N-P-S-O-N. [00:08:23] Speaker 1: Okay, and your relationship to Colton? [00:08:26] Speaker 7: Ms. I am his mother. [00:08:27] Speaker 1: Okay, I need you to sit up a little closer to the microphone and speak into it. [00:08:38] Speaker 7: Judge Krug, as you can imagine, this is extremely difficult and certainly nothing I would ever have imagined I would have to do. I sit before you as a mother who has been grieving the loss of her son for over four years. Colton was killed in one of the most unimaginable ways. I want to now tell you about my son, the person, not the case number or that guy as so rudely referred to during the trial by the defense team. My son, Colton John Wright, was born on June 30th, 1997 in Denver, Illinois. He was my second child. He has an older brother, Clayton, who is also grieving immensely by the loss of his brother. When God gave me Colton, he immediately gave me a son that would soon become a constant sidekick. Everywhere I went, he went. Colton and I shared a bond that not many other mothers who I know share with their sons. From a young age, Colton was extremely smart. He was a great student and very gifted when it came to his knowledge about any type of electronics. He began having a love of anything motorized by the age of three years old. He loved four-wheelers, go-carts, golf carts, and vehicles of all types. He would drive down the highway and we would point out a vehicle and he could immediately tell us what type of vehicle it was. He was the go-to young man for so many people when it came to knowledge about electronics and vehicles. Colton was loved by everyone. When I say that, no truer words could be spoken. If he had any enemies, I certainly didn't know it. Colton was a worker. He knew in order to have the things he wanted that he needed to work for those things. He had his own car detailing business at the age of 14 as well as his own lawn care business. He also bussed tables at the age of 14 at a local restaurant in our hometown. His dad, step-dad, and I would take him all over to mow lawns. When he wasn't detailing a vehicle, then he was mowing the lawn and eventually, at the age of 16, started working at a job where he was quickly known as the best worker, constantly receiving compliments from customers, management, and peers. At his visitation, his family, friends, co-workers, and customers came from all over. There were hundreds of people that attended his visitation. At his funeral, it was standing room only. I'll tell you these things so you can get an idea of just who he was and how many people's lives he affected. Colton would immediately light a room when he entered it. He had a heart of gold. He always wanted to see the best in everyone. That trait of his was both a blessing and a curse at times. He was an avid animal advocate. He was an honorable student in his entire school career, achieving many scholastic honors and awards. He loved family gatherings. He played t-ball, baseball, basketball, and soccer. He was homecoming king of his senior class. He was a volunteer at the local nursing home where I worked, attended and helped with many different fundraisers, attended numerous charity events, and would always root for the underdog in any situation. He truly cared about other people. His first trip here to Florida was when he was three years old. We went to Disney World and he immediately fell in love with Florida. He later had the opportunity to go on vacation with his grandparents and aunt to Florida several times during school breaks. Once he turned 18, he and some of his friends would come to Florida on vacation. When Colton turned 23, he decided that he wanted to move to Florida. This was in 2020 when the restaurant he worked at closed due to COVID. Florida was his favorite vacation spot. He did not really have a solid plan other than knowing a few people in the area he was moving to and he felt he would not have a problem getting a job as a server. Unfortunately, this move proved to be the worst mistake Colton would make other than being the individual, Brennan Lakey, who took his life. In both February 2021 and July 2021, I came to Florida to spend time with Colton. Both times, I went in hopes of showing him how much he was loved and supported and to make sure he was okay, needing to see it for myself. All I wanted was for him to come home, come to the decision to move back home. He felt he still wanted to live in Florida and give living there a little longer to see if it worked out. He lived with his friend Chandler at that time and I knew she was a good person whom I could trust. Unfortunately, after my visit in July is when things started spiraling once he met Brennan Lakey. It was within just a few days of me leaving that Colton met him online. Colton called to tell me about him and at first things seemed fine. Brennan had his own vehicle, his own home, a job and seemed to not want for anything. At least that was the picture he painted to Colton. I'm certain this was appealing to Colton because he had the companionship of a new friend. I spoke to Brennan on the phone a few weeks after he and Colton met. He told me how much he cared for Colton and as a mother, of course, I was very skeptical, especially since they had seemed to become so close so fast. I warned Colton to please be careful as this person seemed to be too good to be true. The immediate vibe I got from him was con artist. The relationship quickly became what I would describe as toxic. As time went on, Colton told me he was afraid of Brennan and of Brennan's father and an uncle. Of course, this upset me extremely and I kept reiterating him to get away from him. Brennan had some type of hold on him and I assumed that was through him providing drugs and a place to stay. Our last phone conversation, other than texting, Colton said he was getting away from Brennan and that he was going to move back home. I told him my husband and I would help him as we had always done. I will never be able to forget the night a police officer came to my home to tell me my son was found dead in a hotel room in Sarasota, Florida. As I typed this letter, I can still feel the pain in my stomach in the immediate shock I went into. I felt as if a hole had just been ripped right through the middle of my heart. I was in denial. This could not be true. This is what I kept telling myself. That was on December 9th, 2021 at 11:30 PM. All I wanted to do was get on a plane and go see my son, my baby whom I love with every ounce of my being. I just wanted to see him and to hold him. I remember calling my husband telling him to get home from work and then my son Clayton telling him to come to the house right away. Those moments still haunt me and seem unreal. That was by far the worst night of my entire life. I then called Brennan Rickey's cell number, which I had programmed in my phone. I knew right away it was him without even being told. My intuition knew it. I was in total shock. I didn't even know why I did that other to scream into the phone asking him what had he done to Colton. The way that Colton's death has affected me has been beyond traumatic. I do not sleep well. I have horrible dreams. I am sad, angry, upset, and miserable many times. My work has suffered. I've had to take weeks of my life off from my job due to these trips back and forth to Florida for hearings, meetings, and for my own mental health. My relationships are not what they used to be. I went from being a happy and outgoing person to being withdrawn, depressed, and unhappy much of the time. I think about Colton constantly. I worry if he knew just how much I loved him. I worry if he knew just how many family members and friends loved him who are grieving this tragic loss. Was Colton perfect? No one is. He had the share of mistakes like we all do. I do know that by his life being taken in such a horrendous and horrific way that the void in my life feels as if I will never find complete happiness again. I still wait to receive a text, a phone call, or to see a post online from him. You always hear of parents who lose a child and wonder how they even go on with their own life. Now I am that parent. Every single day of my life, I have to live with the fact knowing that a smug, arrogant, entitled individual thought he could get away with murdering my son and that he would not be caught or that he could buy his way out of it, as he loved to brag to people about. Brigham Wakey is not what he loves to portray himself to be. He does not deserve to ever be released from prison. He is a despicable human being who deserves life in prison without the possibility of parole, but unfortunately, since he received the verdict of manslaughter and tampering with evidence instead of murder in the second degree, that is not what he will receive. I ask though, why should he ever be given any freedom? The only thing he deserves is to be behind bars to think about what he did to my son, someone he claims to love and care about, every single day for the rest of his life. He has had four years of freedom. I ask that Brigham Wakey receive the 30-year maximum sentence for manslaughter and the five-year maximum sentence for tampering with evidence. I have waited four years to sit before you, Brigham Wakey, to look you in your face so you can say the pain that you have caused me. Unfortunately, I am well aware that you have zero remorse for killing my son, Colton John Wright. If you had, you would not have shot him, stole his laptop and cell phone, and fled from the Hyatt Hotel to then flee to your home and your father's home and then lie about it all. Let us also not forget that the gun he murdered him with has never been found. A person with a soul and who was remorseful would have immediately called 911. But no, you chose to be the conniving little coward you are and always will be and killed my son shooting him in the face and then firing a second shot. I have had to endure four years of your tauntings on social media posts bragging that you were going to be even more famous than Kim Kardashian and Casey Anthony and watching you in person and via Zoom use your best acting skills to act as if you were the victim. You disgrace me and you are appalling. You may sit there in your orange jumpsuit looking the part of a person who claims he was defending himself, but you and I both know you are nothing other than a cold-blooded, arrogant, entitled little person who thought you would get away with killing Colton. I would love to know what went on in that sick and twisted mind of yours. Did you really think that no one would catch you? I am 100% convinced that part of you hated the fact that you had zero friends and Colton was loved and adored by everyone. I specifically remember asking Colton if you and he ever hung out with any of your friends and he said you did not have any friends other than anyone he introduced you to but none of them liked you because you acted possessive and jealous and made them nervous always carrying a gun and making sure they all knew it. You and your defense team have tried to pull every little trick and delay you and they could think of for four years. I have had to just wait and wait for this day to arrive to let you know that not only in my eyes and everyone who loved Colton that you are nothing short of a walking breathing monster who I hope suffers every single day of your miserable life. You have had the privilege of walking the streets and living your life after killing Colton, all while my family and I have suffered in agony never getting to see or talk to him again. You have celebrated your birthdays and holidays things we will never get to do with Colton again. One thing that did bring you a little bit of joy recently was knowing you were behind bars on your most recent 30th birthday a milestone but most likely still with that smug look on your pathetic face thinking you didn't deserve to be there. You love to wave your gun around it act like a tough guy to try to prove that you have power over Colton. I know this not only through my son but through others but look at you you're nothing but a little man who is going to be well liked in prison I have no doubt. You won't have that gun to wave around and protect yourself then. Your obsession with my son was evident and by you trying to paint him out to be something other than someone you took full advantage of is sick and twisted just like you. You are not some ivy league boy scout that you like to portray yourself to be. I know. Your honor. I am almost done. Your evil vindictive. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on please. I have the ability to consider and not [00:21:03] Speaker 5: consider much of this I will not consider in my decision making process as the law would not [00:21:08] Speaker 7: permit it. Please continue and finish. Your evil vindictive and conniving. May you rot in hell for eternity and may every moment for the rest of your miserable life be spent living in fear just as my son lived his final moments with his cell phone in his hand having enough bravery and mindfulness to take photos of you the monster that killed him. I am a christian and as christians we are taught to forgive others but I can promise you that will never happen when it comes to you. I love you with every ounce of my being and will never forgive you. Amy Thompson, mother of Colton Wright. Thank you, your honor. Thank you, your honor. [00:21:51] Speaker 5: Your honor, can I come forward for a moment? I'm sorry? Can I come forward please? You may? Let's just wait for Ms. Fraiblett to be here. Can you approach as well Ms. Fraiblett? Yes, sir. [00:22:22] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:22:34] Speaker 5: Let me see. Do you plan on showing this at a sentencing hearing Ms. Fraiblett? No, she's not putting this in. Oh, okay. Let's do this. Let's let, oh I see what you're saying. Let's have the state go and then I'll take, I'll consider anything that you want me to as well. Yeah, all right. Look, I sat in this trial. I, you know, I heard all the evidence. I heard the evidence of the drug use, the violence between them. So this is an opportunity for the family to get and give their perspective as well as to the Mr. Wright, other than what I've heard in the trial. But I'll consider everything that I've learned throughout the trial as well. Okay. I think this person named Hillary Wright came back into the courtroom, Ms. Fraiblett. Is this someone who's going to speak? [00:23:31] Speaker 1: Yes, please, your honor. [00:23:32] Speaker 5: Okay. Can Ms. Okay. Is Ms. Hillary Wright there? Yes. Okay. All right. We have her present. Go ahead, Ms. Fraiblett. [00:23:44] Speaker 1: Good afternoon, Ms. Wright. Can you please tell us your full name? Hillary Wright. And spell your last name. W-R-I-G-H-T. And what is your relationship to Colton Wright? He was my best friend. Would you like to read a statement to his honor this afternoon? Yes, ma'am. May we have your permission? [00:24:06] Speaker 6: Yes, ma'am. [00:24:07] Speaker 1: Yes, go ahead, Ms. Wright. [00:24:10] Speaker 8: Thank you. Your Honor, my name is Hillary Wright, and I am here because the defendant took the life of my best friend, Colton. I want to be very clear. Colton was not just a case number and not just a victim. He was my best friend and someone I love deeply. Someone who mattered, someone who should still be here today, and the only reason he is not is because of the choices the defendant made. Colton had the absolute best spirit. He truly didn't know a stranger. Anyone he met became a friend within minutes. That's just who he was. He brought light into every room he walked into, and people were naturally drawn to him. My oldest son loved Colton, and Colton loved him right back. That kind of love and that kind of connection, that's what was taken from us. I still hear his laugh from all of our adventures on the river and our spontaneous trips to Florida we took one night. Those are moments I replay in my mind because they're all I have left now. To the defendant, you didn't just take one life. You destroyed many. You killed our Colton and left him alone in a hotel room. You didn't help him. You didn't call for help. You ran away and left him there like his life didn't matter. Because of you, Colton died alone. That is something I will never be able to understand and something you will never be able to undo. And while Colton was gone, while we were grieving, trying to survive the pain you caused, you were out living your life with no remorse at all. You were granted bond and you got to live freely for over three years. Three years of freedom while Colton has none. Three years of making memories while we were left mourning someone we will never see again. That is not justice and that is not fair. It makes this loss even harder to carry. I am very close with Colton's mother, Amy. I have watched what this has done to her. I've seen the pain, the grief, and the weight she carries every single day. No mother should ever have to live without her child, especially not like this. You didn't just take her son. You broke her heart in a way that can never be repaired. Because of you, I have to live with the permanent emptiness. I have to wake up every day knowing I will never hear Colton's voice again, never laugh with him again, never see him walk into a room. You don't get to undo that. You don't get to fix that because this is forever. You made a choice whether it took seconds or minutes. You made a decision that ended a life and shattered everyone who loved him. And now we are the ones serving the consequences of what you did. I really want you to understand what you've done, if that's even possible. You didn't just end a life. You erased a future. Colton will never get to grow older, never get to reach his dreams, and never get to experience the life he truly deserved. And the rest of us are left carrying that loss. There is anger in me that I will carry for the rest of my life because of what you did or ever forgotten. You took someone irreplaceable from this world and nothing will ever make that right. Colton deserved to live. He deserved more than what you gave him. And I will never stop grieving the life you took. I hope the court sees the full weight of this loss and understands the damage you caused goes far beyond this courtroom. It lives in me and it will stay with me for the rest of my life. That is what you've done. Thank you. [00:27:17] Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. The state next. Yes. The state calls Mr. Wright and Mrs. Wright. They are the father and stepmother of Colton. [00:27:36] Speaker 9: Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I have been asked to read this on behalf of both his dad and myself. [00:27:46] Speaker 1: Okay. Before you start, ma'am, why don't you tell us your full name and spell your last name. Thank you. Marcy Marie Wright, W-I-G-H-T. Brian Wright. Okay. And your relationship to Colton are father and stepmother. That is correct. Father. Father and stepmother. Yes. Okay. Your Honor, may they proceed. [00:28:17] Speaker 9: Thanksgiving of 2021 was the last time we spoke to our son, Colton. 14 days later, Brennan's deliberate and unjustifiable actions ended his life. From that moment forward, we were forced into a reality where we will never again hear Colton's voice, read another I love you too text, or see the smile that defined him. He was only 24 years old. For 4 years and 52 days, while our son lay in a grave, Brennan Wakey was free to move about Sarasota County without consequence. As we struggled to survive the grief of losing a vibrant son, brother, and friend, Brennan continued to enjoy his life without an eruption. His social media posts and his own comments revolve a pattern of disregard for the law, for social norms, and for the basic humanity of others. Throughout this trial, the defense repeatedly emphasized Brennan's concealed carry license. But responsible training is clear. You shoot to stop, not shoot to kill. The purpose is to halt an imminent unlawful threat, not to ensure fatal outcome. The photograph taken at Brennan's December 2021 arrest shows a man without a single defensive mark on him. He was unharmed, yet he made a conscious, irreversible choice that ended Colton's life. During the trial, Brennan showed no remorse, not once. His demeanor reflected indifference to the life he took and the devastation he caused. A person capable of such an act and capable of walking away from it without a trace of accountability should not receive leniency. The maximum sentence is not only justified, it is necessary to reflect the seriousness of his action and the danger he poses. The only small measure of peace we have is knowing that Colton did not suffer. We respectfully urge you to consider Brennan's mental instability, his consistent disregard for human life, and the profound, permanent harm he has caused determining your final sentence on today. Thank you. Thank you. [00:30:36] Speaker 1: Thank you. I also see that Colton Wright's brother would like to speak to the court. Mr. Wright. [00:30:52] Speaker 5: What is the brother's name? [00:30:56] Speaker 1: Cameron. [00:30:57] Speaker 5: Is Cameron right here? Clayton. Is Clayton right here? [00:31:03] Speaker 1: Clayton. No. It doesn't appear so, Your Honor. Okay. I know there are some other people there, but they're under the state attorney office's victim advocate's name, so I don't know who they are. If they can identify themselves, if they are witnesses for the prosecution. [00:31:28] Speaker 5: Is there anybody else on Zoom that wishes is standing? Anybody else, Ms. Fraylor? [00:31:32] Speaker 1: Thank you, Your Honor. No. Okay. [00:31:34] Speaker 5: All right. Defense. Ms. McCurry, Mr. Chapman, any witnesses you wish to call? [00:31:39] Speaker 10: Yes. Your Honor, we would like to call via phone. Kathy Boren, who is Mr. Wakey's mother. [00:31:48] Speaker 5: I think she's on the phone and can hear us now. Ms. Boren, can you hear us? [00:31:52] Speaker 11: Yes, I can. Okay. Are you ready? [00:31:58] Speaker 10: Can you state your name? [00:32:01] Speaker 11: My name is Judge Krug. My name is Kathy Boren, and I am Brendan Wakey's mom. [00:32:06] Speaker 10: And it's my understanding you have a letter that you'd like to read for the court to consider? [00:32:11] Speaker 11: I do, please. [00:32:13] Speaker 10: Go ahead. [00:32:14] Speaker 11: Judge Krug, my name is Kathy Boren, and I am Brendan Wakey's mom. I have known him all of his life. This situation is a painful tragedy for all involved. Multiple lives have been irreparably changed by two very young men who knew each other for just short of four and a half months, a blip in time, it would seem, but enough to turn paths and to render unintentional damage. I know running to be a determined person, even at a very young age. He would set a goal and strive for it. He excelled. He wanted to work on Wall Street until he did, and he found he wanted a job that had more heart. He became a financial advisor and found meaning in helping and guiding clients to realize their retirement goals. He was compassionate while working at a restaurant during college. He would take food back to his dorm to give to a homeless person that was sitting out front, and he would ask them if they wanted something to drink and go inside and get it and bring it back to them. He enjoys helping his neighbors with home repairs. He recently had a cellmate who was being released to him. He gave some money so he would be able to get a bite to eat and a pair of shoes and possibly a coat as it was chilly in Sarasota back then. He was thoughtful of others and their plight. During COVID, being in New York City during the shutdown, his roommate found himself out of work. Brennan was fortunate enough to work remotely, so he was able to pay the bulk of the rent to keep them afloat. He didn't mind children any additional expense and did not ask for repayment. Brennan has worked while on the ankle monitor the last four years. He's learned and done construction, has had handyman jobs of many sorts, and enjoys painting. He also works on updating his home and keeping his lawn and garden in check. He has adhered to the parameters, to the compliances set by the monitor, and the court has attended all court dates. I have not known Brennan to provoke any altercation or strike nor hit a person. He has no previous record. He was civic-minded. He gave blood regularly, was trained in CPR and first aid, volunteered at the voting poll, votes in elections, and volunteered for running events with a run club that he had in New York City. He was involved in a community garden in his neighborhood in Harlem. He was studious and curious, always trying to better himself and his family and friends. He has hobbies he loves and interesting pursuits. He was learning to dive and to fly. He was preparing and training for his first New York Marathon. He had and has goals. This happening came as a complete another shock, as he is such a high achiever. I have stood by Brennan throughout his life and watched with joy his bird for life and the unfolding of a young person fully engaged in realizing himself. I have also stood by Brennan the past four years, a time of deep reflection and prayer, and attended his hearing and trial with equal amounts of hope and sorrow. I will continue to stand by Brennan and will support him as best I am able, now and in the future. He is much beloved by his family and friends, by colleagues. I beseech you for human compassion and understanding, as my belief is he has much to offer as a citizen, as a contributor to society. A heartfelt thank you, Judge Krug, for taking the time to hear my testimony and entreaty respectfully. Kathy Bourne. [00:35:44] Speaker 10: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next person. John Sage. [00:36:04] Speaker ?: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be given? Do. Go later on this one. [00:36:14] Speaker 10: Please tell the judge your name. [00:36:24] Speaker 12: My name is John Sage. [00:36:26] Speaker 10: And your relationship with Brennan Wakey. [00:36:28] Speaker 12: I have been Brennan's partner for four years. [00:36:33] Speaker 10: And it's my understanding you have a letter that you would like to read to the court. I do. [00:36:41] Speaker 12: Your Honor. My name is John Sage, but everyone calls me Johnny. I have been in a relationship with Brennan Wakey for four years. From the very first day we started dating, I experienced his kindness firsthand. And over these four years, his presence in my life has helped me mature and grow into the person I am today. I have lived with separation anxiety since I was young. There were days when it was extremely difficult. During those times, Brennan would check in on me whenever he was away for an extended period. That consistency, small as it may sound, meant more to me than I can even put into words. When I contracted COVID, I was too weak to get out of bed. I needed a COVID test for work. And Brennan had an early job the next morning. Despite everything on his plate, including a pending legal matter, he went to Walgreens himself, picked up medicine and a COVID test for me, and made sure I had what I needed before I could even ask. That trip cost him his freedom that day, as he was arrested on a warrant while in Walgreens. That day, I saw him put my needs above his own without a second thought. What strikes me most about Brennan, and what I have witnessed over these past four years, is that he has never allowed his own hardships to become a reason to turn away from others. Even during this most difficult period of time of his life, when most people would focus on themselves, I watched Brennan do the opposite. He would show up for the people around him. He would choose to do the right thing. That is not something a person performs for an audience. I saw it in the quiet moments, his small decisions, when no one was watching and there was nothing to gain. Brennan is, without a question, a person of high moral character. When our neighbor across the street asked about purchasing an exterior door we had just recently replaced, Brennan gave it to them and personally went over and installed it at no charge. I was there and I saw it. When Hurricane Ian struck in 2022, I watched Brennan spend days helping our neighbors with cleanup and repairing their pillow cage screens. Also due to Ian, when a massive oak tree fell across the street in our neighborhood, he did not wait to be asked. He grabbed his chainsaw and went out to help clear it alongside our neighbors. I stood there and watched him work for hours without complaint. Brennan doesn't turn his back on people regardless of their social status. I've seen this firsthand. Just recently, he asked me to deposit money using his debit card into the accounts of three people who were getting out of jail so they'd have money for food and transportation because they have no support on the outside. Over our four years together, I saw signs of Brennan that most people never get to see. There were nights that I still think about, nights that reminded me just how human he really is. What I witnessed in those moments was not a dangerous man. It was a man who was hurting, who genuinely could not forgive himself. That kind of pain does not come from someone who does not care. It comes from someone who cares deeply and feels the full weight of a difficult situation. One night, I came home from work and found Brennan on the ground, knees close to his chest, with a knife to his throat. He was sobbing, stating, "I wish this never happened. I just want this to be over." He broke down like this on two other occasions that I've witnessed, each ending up with a knife to his throat. All I could do at those times was hold him close and pray we'd get through it. In all four years, Brennan has never once raised a hand towards me or anyone else in my presence. I have never felt threatened by him. In fact, I have always felt safer with him around, both at home and outside. On days when I was visibly struggling, he would stop whatever he was doing, come to me, and either hold me or find a way to make me laugh. I felt his care every single time. I still believe in the justice system, Your Honour. I was raised to believe that it exists to get things right, to look at the full picture of a person, not just the worst moment. But I would not be honest if I did not say that watching this process unfold has been difficult. Not out of anger, but out of sadness that the Brennan I know, the one who helps neighbors after a hurricane, who gave away a door and then installed it for free, who wants to help people no matter their social status, who checked on me when he had every reason to focus on himself, feels like he has not been fully understood through all of this. I know with certainty that Brennan still has a great deal to offer the people in his life. In our home, he handled all the mechanical repairs, all of our finances, and took care of any construction and maintenance in our home. Brennan is someone people can rely on. He is someone who shows up. I am not asking for anything unreasonable, Your Honour. I am simply asking that the full measure of who this man is be considered. Because I have seen every single day for four years. And it matters. I can't help but think about the fact that we wouldn't even be here today if Colton never picked up that glass bottle in the first place. Thank you. [00:43:40] Speaker 10: Thank you, Johnny. The defense would call Dr. Barbara Russell. And, Your Honour, if I may note, you read my sentencing memorandum. I did. I will be arguing for a downward departure. And Dr. Russell's testimony, I'd ask that you consider that for the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminal nature of the conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired. Okay. [00:44:23] Speaker 3: Do you swear to refer to the testimony that you're about to give? It will be the truth of what she's been nothing but the truth. So, I don't know. [00:44:39] Speaker 13: Good afternoon, Your Honour. [00:44:42] Speaker 10: Please state your name for the court. Barbara J. Russell. And you have testified before this court a number of times, correct? Yes, ma'am. Did you evaluate Mr. Wakey prior to trial? I did. And can you tell the court when you did that? [00:45:00] Speaker 13: I did that in, well, I met with him twice. First was in, I believe it was September, August or September of 2024. And I saw him again, I mean 2025, I'm sorry. And again, the end of December. [00:45:16] Speaker 10: How much time did you spend talking with him and administering tests? [00:45:21] Speaker 13: Talking and administering tests, probably a total of about eight hours. [00:45:27] Speaker 10: And putting the test aside, how long did you spend talking with them? [00:45:31] Speaker 13: About five hours. Okay. [00:45:33] Speaker 10: And you did administer psychological tests? [00:45:38] Speaker 13: I did. [00:45:39] Speaker 10: Okay. What test did you administer? [00:45:41] Speaker 13: A personality assessment inventory and a detailed assessment of post-traumatic stress. [00:45:51] Speaker 10: And is the personality assessment inventory also known as a PAI? Yes. Okay. What does the PAI assess or evaluate? [00:46:01] Speaker 13: It evaluates some salient features of personality as well as symptoms of clinical psychopathology and personality disorders. [00:46:11] Speaker 1: Your Honor, if I may ask the witness to have the microphone closer to herself so the whole courtroom can hear, please. [00:46:19] Speaker 13: Is that better? Sure. [00:46:21] Speaker 1: I can't hear, so I like it closer. Thank you. [00:46:29] Speaker 10: Do you want me to read that question again? [00:46:31] Speaker 1: Pardon me? [00:46:32] Speaker 10: Did you hear the answer to that? I heard the answer, yes. Thank you. [00:46:36] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:46:41] Speaker 10: And so the PAI also tests psychosocial maladjustment, correct? [00:46:46] Speaker 13: Yes, it looks for symptoms of psychosocial adjustment or maladjustment. [00:46:51] Speaker 10: And I'd like for you to talk about the results of Mr. Wakey's testing for PAI, a personality assessment inventory. [00:47:01] Speaker 13: He produced a valid profile, so there were no indicators of over-reporting symptoms or under-reporting symptoms. He had a very high T-score clinical elevation on the traumatic scale, which was indicative of traumatic stress. And he also had elevations on anxiety and depression. And he also endorsed some items that were indicative of suicidal ideations. [00:47:29] Speaker 10: Did this also test for depression? [00:47:32] Speaker 13: Yes. [00:47:34] Speaker 10: And did it also test for cognitive, affective, and physiological symptoms? [00:47:40] Speaker 13: Yes. He exhibited physiological symptoms of anxiety, cognitive symptoms, as well as emotional symptoms, and emotional symptoms of depression. [00:47:51] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:47:51] Speaker 10: And when you just testified to a valid profile, not including someone, overstating something or understating something, is that also called negative impression management? Yes. Okay. Can you describe that? [00:48:06] Speaker 13: Negative impression management is when somebody attempts using the instrument to appear to have stronger symptoms or problems than they actually. Okay. [00:48:19] Speaker 10: And did you find any indication in the testing or self-reporting that he was trying to change the outcome of the case or malingering? [00:48:29] Speaker 13: No. There were no indicators of that based on the validity profiles. And everything that he produced in the test was very consistent with what he had been talking about. [00:48:39] Speaker 10: Did the PAI testing also test for aggression or lack of aggression? [00:48:46] Speaker 13: It does. There are aggression scales, aggression sub-scales that look at verbal aggression, physical aggression, and aggressive and violent thoughts towards others. [00:48:56] Speaker 10: And how did Mr. Wakey score on that area? [00:49:00] Speaker 13: Those scales were low. There were no indicators of aggression at all. [00:49:04] Speaker 10: Did the PAI also test for specifically for lack of empathy or regret for wrongdoing? [00:49:15] Speaker 13: Yes. There are sub-scales that evaluate somebody's lack of empathy, lack of remorse or regret, and also a tendency to be exploitative in relationships with other people. [00:49:27] Speaker 10: And how did he score? How did he test? [00:49:30] Speaker 13: There were no elevations on those scales. [00:49:34] Speaker 10: Was there anything else that was notable to you as the evaluator about his PAI profile? [00:49:42] Speaker 13: Yes. He endorsed items and had some elevations on scales that identified that he is methodical, organized, values high achievement, and also that he has – it was a slight elevation, but elevation nonetheless – has the tendency to be intolerant of boredom, to crave excitement, and to not always consider the potential consequences of behaviors when he's having fun. [00:50:21] Speaker 10: So with those traits that you found methodical, self-discipline, accomplished, and low tolerance for boredom, needing excitement, is that something that was notable to you based upon the circumstances in which you talked about? [00:50:38] Speaker 13: Yes, based on what he talked about in terms of his overall life experiences, his accomplishments, and also his relationship with Colton Wright. [00:50:46] Speaker 10: And from a psychosocial perspective, can you opine on why Brennan was interested and got involved with Colton Wright? [00:50:59] Speaker 13: Colton Wright and the way their relationship – it met his interest and craving for excitement. Colton was a lot of fun. He described him as being really fun to be around, entertaining, humorous. When he wasn't feeling paranoid or experiencing the intense paranoia from abuse of methamphetamines, he was laid back and happy and would sing along in the car and was just a lot of fun. And they had experiences that met Brennan's interest and need for excitement for something different in his life. At the same time, he also didn't consider the potential consequences of remaining in that relationship. When he was experiencing things like Colton stealing his identity, his credit card numbers, his various encounters with the law, the arrests, it didn't occur to him that these could become his problem in some capacity. In fact, he had shared during the evaluation that he felt very detached from Colton's problematic behavior. He felt that, well, those were things that could cause him problems, Colton problems. But they weren't – Mr. Wakey didn't see them as his problems, per se. And that is consistent with his elevation on the PAI that said the consequences for certain fund situations just may not occur to him. [00:52:32] Speaker 10: In your experience dealing with couples, both gay and straight, do you see combinations like this? Someone who's steady and functioning versus someone that's fun, sort of out there? [00:52:47] Speaker 13: Oh, I do. I see it often in my clinical practice. And very often the situations are very similar in that one of the parties will be very responsible, very methodical, very accomplished. They're at a point in their life where maybe they're not ready to permanently commit to somebody or get married. They meet somebody who's fun, maybe edgier than they are. You know, they may drink more. They may use party drugs. They may not make the best decisions in their personal life. But the more responsible party doesn't really care about that. They care about the person. They enjoy being with them. They try to help them sometimes. They may enjoy doing things for them or giving them opportunities to better themselves. But they don't always recognize that this individual's way of living could become their problem. Sometimes I've seen men get women pregnant who are very irresponsible. Or they end up with, you know, the person will steal their credit card. Or they'll have just an assortment of potential problems can come down the road. Because people don't always consider the possible consequences of being involved with somebody who has a different lifestyle. [00:53:56] Speaker 10: Now, you said that you perform tests. Was there another test that you administer to Mr. Wakey? [00:54:03] Speaker 13: Yes. The detailed assessment of post-traumatic stress. It's known as the DAPS. Okay. And what is that test for? That test evaluates for the symptoms of and the severity of the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. [00:54:21] Speaker 10: And the symptoms are consistent with the criteria, the well-known criteria from DSM-5? [00:54:29] Speaker 13: Yes. All of the symptoms and the extent of them are consistent with DSM-5 PTSD. [00:54:35] Speaker 10: Did Mr. Wakey have a valid profile, meaning no malingering, on this test as well? [00:54:40] Speaker 13: Yes, he did. He had varied -- his scores were in the normal range for negative bias or positive bias, meaning that he wasn't trying to minimize or deny symptoms that he was having. And he wasn't trying to exacerbate symptoms or he wasn't endorsing items that were overly symptomatic or unusual. [00:55:06] Speaker 10: Can this particular test measure specifically if someone is malingering? [00:55:13] Speaker 13: It's a very good test to assess if someone's malingering PTSD symptoms because there are many items that are very unusual. They don't appear with PTSD and they're just unusual symptoms. So when I administer this test, if somebody is endorsing these very unusual symptoms, it's often indicative that they're just simply trying to appear to be very symptomatic. Okay. And was there any indication that he did that? Oh, no. None at all. He didn't endorse any of those items. [00:55:53] Speaker 10: So the results of that test, what did you determine? [00:55:56] Speaker 13: Mr. Wakey met diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder based on the findings of the test. [00:56:04] Speaker 10: Okay. And we hear about it all the time, but can you specifically say what post-traumatic stress disorder is? [00:56:14] Speaker 13: Post-traumatic stress disorder, to break it down to its most simple terms, is when after experiencing an event that is a real threat or danger to one's safety or one's life, the person will have what's known as an acute stress response. Their physiology begins to alter so that they can respond to that stress, either by altering their environment or altering their behavior. And then afterwards, the organism returns to its normal baseline state. But with PTSD, the survival organs of the brain, the emotional organs of the brain, don't fully process that the traumatic event is over. And therefore, the individual will often remain in a state of hypervigilance, fear. They may become easily aroused. They may have nightmares. They will have a variety of psychological and physiological experiences as if that acute stressor is still happening now. [00:57:20] Speaker 10: And when you tested Mr. Wakey, was that acute stressor still not resolved in his brain? Correct. What specific experience did Mr. Wakey describe to you, which led to a traumatic situation, which ended in post-traumatic stress disorder? [00:57:42] Speaker 13: The acute stressor that was identified was Colton Wright's violent behavior that occurred prior to the shooting. [00:57:54] Speaker 10: Does the totality of your findings, both on testing as well as speaking with Mr. Wakey, does that indicate that Mr. Wakey does indeed have post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of what happened before he shot Colton Wright? Yes. Does everyone who experiences a traumatic event suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder? [00:58:25] Speaker 13: No, not everybody suffers from PTSD after a trauma. [00:58:30] Speaker 10: I'd like for you to describe for the court, what is the physiological process that is occurring in a traumatic event? In this case, what was happening prior to Mr. Wakey shooting Colton Wright? [00:58:45] Speaker 13: His brain took in the data that was happening around him, which was Colton Wright's behavior. And it perceived that behavior as an immediate threat to his safety or his life. When the brain interprets data as a threat to one's safety and one's life, a process begins that happens in seconds in order for the person to protect themselves. First, there's an assessment of the severity of the situation. Is this life-threatening? Is this potentially just dangerous? Is this risky? It does a threat assessment. The second thing it does is the brain considers what tools and resources are available to me to stay alive. The brain's number one objective is to keep the person alive. So it's going to consider, is there help available? What can I do in terms of speed? Can I run? Do I have an escape? Do I have tools? Do I have weapons? What can I do? And the third thing it does is it activates an action plan, which as I said earlier, involves either changing one's own behavior to respond to the threat, or changing your environment, getting away from the situation. And if one can't change their environment, then they change their behavior and take some kind of self-protective action. [01:00:08] Speaker 10: MS. When you were describing for the court the different things that the brain is processing when they're in this situation, and you are referring to the acute stress, correct? MS. Yes. MS. They're not really thinking everything out logically, are they? [01:00:26] Speaker 13: MS. No, that's impossible because, first of all, it happens in a matter of a couple of seconds. And second of all, when the acute stress response is going on, it's the survival organs of the brain, the primitive brain, monkey brain, as I sometimes call it, that's driving the bus in that situation. The frontal cortex, which is the rational, systematic, problem-solving part of the mind, is taking a backseat to this process. Survival brain is focusing on one thing, and that's staying alive. So there's not going to be any deep kind of analysis about, well, would this be better than this? Or is this possibly something that could be interpreted as unlawful if I take this action? The person's mind is trying to keep them alive. [01:01:15] Speaker 10: MS. So they don't have the comfort of thinking everything out at that time. They're responding to something and they, would you say, primally response? [01:01:29] Speaker 13: MS. Yes, absolutely. The thinking it out usually comes the next day. You know, people tend to be the Monday morning quarterback the next day. They look back, they evaluate, what could I have done differently? But that's, of course, after the fact. [01:01:43] Speaker 10: MS. Okay. Is it kind of like when you see a car's getting ready to hit you and you slam on your brake? MS. I don't object to leading. I mean, this has been leading all along, but, [01:01:54] Speaker 5: you know. MR. Overruled. I'll allow leading questions [01:01:57] Speaker 10: in a sense in here, and you may need to leave. MS. Is this kind of like for everyday life, you're driving and then, you know, someone pulls out right in front of you and you just brake and then turn your car maybe into another lane just to survive? MS. Yes, very similar. [01:02:13] Speaker 13: MS. And someone isn't going to contemplate in that moment, should I turn my car to the left, might I hit somebody? They're trying to avoid impact in that moment. And then maybe 20 minutes later, they say, oh, I shouldn't have done that because now I'm responsible for hitting this car. But in the moment, MS. They're trying not to get hit. MS. Exactly. [01:02:31] Speaker 10: MS. Can an acute stress response, like you've described today, impair someone's capacity to conform their conduct with or appreciate the legal ramifications. MS. Absolutely. Because, [01:02:46] Speaker 13: again, one isn't thinking about possible legal ramifications during that few second window when their brain is responding to protect themselves. MS. Okay. [01:02:59] Speaker 10: MS. So when they're trying to protect themselves, you know, they're not figuring out everything that they would if they were thinking about it the next day. [01:03:10] Speaker 13: MS. Right. Or even if they knew something was coming the day before. If somebody knew that a potential danger to their life was going to come in 24 hours, well, sure, they can consider all the possible consequences. And in fact, they could potentially even avoid the situation. But in the moment when the danger is very real-time present, you know, they only have a couple of seconds to figure out what am I going to do to keep myself safe. MS. Okay. And you said that you talked for five hours [01:03:39] Speaker 10: and you administered tests. Did you determine that Mr. Wakey was truthful with you? MS. Yes. Thank you. [01:03:51] Speaker 5: MS. I'll see the objection as to her having some special talent and whether there's someone truthful or not. She can talk about validity of testing, if that's what you're asking for, but not [01:04:03] Speaker 10: her ability to tell someone's truthful or not. MS. Did you, in your professional capacity, after talking to many people in your practice, believe that Mr. Wakey was being truthful with you? [01:04:17] Speaker 5: MS. Objection. I'm curious if she thinks she knows when people are [01:04:22] Speaker 13: truthful or not. You can answer the question. MS. Based on his presentation and various things that he talked about, I certainly had no reason to believe that he was being dishonest and he appeared to be truthful about the different things that I asked him and that we talked about. [01:04:38] Speaker 10: MS. Okay. And that followed the testing that showed that he was being accurate and not deceitful in the testing. MS. Correct. MS. Okay. I have no further questions. State of any questions. MS. Yes. [01:04:51] Speaker 1: MS. Brennan Wakey was just several months before the murder trial. Is that correct? MS. I believe so, yes. Pardon? MS. Yes. MS. Okay. So for all of that time, those four years, you had never known Brennan Wakey, met him, talk to him. You knew nothing about him until just months before he was called into trial as a defendant in a homicide case, right? MS. Correct. I did not know him before my evaluation of him. MS. Okay. And you said that when you did talk to him, you saw indications of traumatic stress. MS. Correct. MS. Okay. Do you think that facing a murder trial in a few months might make a person feel stressed? MS. Stressed, sure. MS. Okay. Depression? MS. Possibly. MS. Describe that he seemed depressed? MS. Yes. MS. Would it make a person feel anxious? MS. It certainly could. All of those things. MS. Okay. But yet you believe that those were produced by his experience with Colton Wright, MS. Not by what he did to Colton Wright. Is that correct? MS. Well, it isn't what I believe. It's [01:06:11] Speaker 13: that was the stressor that was identified prior to him endorsing the presence and the severity of his [01:06:19] Speaker 1: symptoms. MS. The stressor that was identified by him, correct? MS. Correct. [01:06:24] Speaker 13: MS. Self-reported by him. MS. Well, of course, I cannot read his mind and tell him which stressor in his life is the most pressing or disturbing situation right now. MS. Right. You can't read his mind. [01:06:39] Speaker 1: MS. That's right. MS. And you have no way of knowing why he was depressed, anxious, or stressed out a few months before murder trial, correct? MS. No, incorrect. Are we talking about the test results specifically? MS. No, I'm talking about you and you coming up with a decision. You have no way of knowing. You personally have no way of knowing whether he was depressed, anxious, all of those things that you talked about because of the fact that he was facing a murder trial or the fact that this happened between him [01:07:18] Speaker 13: and Colton Wright. MS. These are not mutually exclusive. I believe he was feeling stress, anxiety, depression, and many things for a variety of reasons. MS. Okay. MS. Certainly, the traumatic stress was a significant factor. Was the circumstances of a trial and the possible outcome something that could be eliciting those feelings as well? Of course, they would be for anybody. MS. Okay. So, you did know specific tests for malingering, did you? MS. A specific separate malingering test? MS. Correct. MS. No, that was not necessary. MS. Why not? MS. Because there were no indicators that there was any malingering. MS. When somebody's testing profiles are valid and show no evidence of negative impression management, there really is no point in doing a separate malingering test of some kind. MS. Wouldn't you [01:08:12] Speaker 1: think that that sort of test would help your testimony, help your evaluation, help your opinion? MS. Why wouldn't you take that extra step and do a malingering test? MS. Because my testimony and my evaluation did not [01:08:29] Speaker 13: need that additional help. MS. I see. MS. If the what -- MS. Okay, that's fine. MS. I'm not done answering the question. [01:08:35] Speaker 5: MS. So, PAI -- MS. Can she finish? MS. You'll have an opportunity to come back and read on it. [01:08:40] Speaker 1: MS. Please continue. MS. A PAI does not have a specific test for malingering. That was your interpretation [01:08:48] Speaker 13: that he was telling the truth, correct? MS. It has a specific scale on the validity profile for negative [01:08:55] Speaker 1: impression management. MS. But there are actual malingering tests that almost all psychiatrists and psychologists give, and you chose not to do that in this case. Isn't that true? MS. Correct. MS. Okay. And the DAPTSD, although you claim that it has some validity scores or validity scales, that is not a test for malingering [01:09:22] Speaker 13: either, is it? MS. It is not a separate test for malingering. The point of the validity scales, of the negative bias scale, is to assess if the person is endorsing symptoms that would not be consistent with post-traumatic stress, but would be over-reporting, which is also known as malingering. [01:09:44] Speaker 1: MS. Yes, I know what malingering is, doctor. And so, Brennan Wakey is a rather intelligent young man? MS. Yes, he seems very bright. MS. Yeah. MS. Did you take it -- do you know what his IQ is? MS. I did not do an IQ test. MS. You didn't do an IQ test? MS. No. MS. But he graduated from NYU, right? MS. Yes. MS. He was a financial advisor? MS. Yes. MS. By all accounts, he was reasonably intelligent? MS. Yes, I've never questioned his intelligence. MS. Okay. And you don't think that a malingering test was important under the circumstances of this particular case, knowing the gravity of this charge? MS. I would very respectfully offer [01:10:25] Speaker 13: that intelligence has nothing to do with a malingering test. MS. No, I'm not talking about intelligence. MS. No, I'm talking about malingering. MS. No, I did not believe it was necessary. MS. There's no evidence to suggest that he was malingering. MS. Malingering tests are used when there's evidence to suggest that somebody may be malingering. He was not pretending that he had no memory of things. He was not pretending to be intellectually deficient in some manner. He was not endorsing any systems of psychosis. There was nothing that would [01:10:58] Speaker 1: suggest that he was feigning anything. MS. There was nothing to suggest that he was feigning being stressed? MS. No, not at all. MS. Not at all in your mind. [01:11:13] Speaker 13: MS. And you can't read minds? You told us that, right? MS. Based on his presentation, based on his test performance, based on what he was talking about, and based on what any reasonable person would be feeling in such a situation? I can't think of a single human being I've ever met who would have been in a situation that Mr. Wakey was-- MS. Thank you, Ms. Okay, I'm not asking [01:11:38] Speaker 1: that question. MS. MS. -- and then be facing trial. MS. Dr. Russell, don't expand. MS. Just answer my questions. So, on the night that Brandon Wakey went up to that hotel room, he used methamphetamine, did he not? MS. No, he did not, from what he told me. [01:11:56] Speaker 13: MS. He did not? MS. Mr. Wakey told me he did not. No. [01:12:02] Speaker 1: MS. Do you remember giving a decision in this case? MS. I do. MS. Do you also remember providing MS. Are you providing me with your notes? MS. I do. MS. Do you have those with you? MS. My notes, I do. MS. All right. MS. Did Mr. Wakey ever use methamphetamine with Colton, right? MS. Yes, he told me he did on several occasions. MS. Okay. All right. MS. So, do you have the deposition with you as well? I don't. MS. Okay. I'm going to give you a copy. MS. Your Honor, I inquired for the defense today on a -- MS. Thank you. MS. -- copy as well. Before you look at that, MS. I want to ask you if you remember on December 29th of 2025 that you came to the state attorney's office? MS. I did. MS. And you were put under oath? MS. Yes. MS. And there was a court reporter there? MS. Yes. MS. I was present? MS. Yes. MS. As well as Ms. McCurry? MS. Yes. MS. And I asked you a number of questions about this incident. And we specifically talked about what took place that night based upon Brennan Wakey's recitation of the events to you. MS. Yes. MS. And when I said, did he tell you that he was smoking meth, you answered yes. MS. Today, you were saying the opposite. MS. Where is that again, please? MS. I haven't told you where it is yet, doctor. MS. I'm asking you if you said, did he tell you that he was -- I said, did he tell you that he was smoking meth and you said yes. MS. And I continued to say, okay, so he admitted to smoking meth and you said yes. MS. I would turn to -- if you would turn to page 28, MS. Lines 8 through 12, can you read that silently to yourself? MS. Yes, I did. MS. And can you explain to me why today you are denying that Colton -- that Brennan Wakey told you he smoked meth? [01:14:46] Speaker 13: MS. When you first asked the question, I thought you -- I think I thought you were asking if Brennan said that Colton was smoking meth. MS. He did tell me he was smoking meth. He told me Colton was smoking meth. MS. When I met with Mr. Wakey on December 31st, I reviewed that again and asked him to please clarify. MS. So he was not -- he clarified again that he was not smoking meth. MS. My notes also indicate that he had stopped smoking meth before the night of the incident. [01:15:18] Speaker 1: MS. So you're telling me that the defendant lied to you. He told you that he was smoking meth MS. Before December 29th, when you gave this deposition, and now, today, you're telling this court that you went back, asked him the question, and he gave you a different answer. MS. That's not what I said. MS. What did you say? [01:15:46] Speaker 13: MS. I said that when you asked me -- and I'm going to make sure I'm reading the question right. Did he tell you he was smoking meth? I thought you meant, did he, Brennan, tell me that he, Colton, [01:16:04] Speaker 1: was smoking meth? MS. No. Let's look at the next question and see if that makes sense. MS. So I asked, did he tell you that he was smoking meth? MS. You responded, yes. I said, okay, so is he admitting to smoking meth? MS. Now, a person admitting to smoking meth, and you know the language as well as I do, the English language, why would Brennan Wakey admit that Colton Wright was smoking meth? MS. But let's go on. MS. You said, yes, again. MS. I don't know if this is funny to you, Doctor, but it's not funny. [01:16:47] Speaker 5: MS. Your Honor, we would ask that the state -- MR. This is getting a bit out of control. I'm going to -- I don't know if you're deposing the witness? MS. No, I'm not deposing her. I am -- MR. What are you doing? Are you trying to impeach the witness? [01:17:02] Speaker 1: MS. I am impeaching the witness. Not trying. I am impeaching the witness. [01:17:06] Speaker 5: MR. Okay. I would sustain the objection as to improper impeachment. Ask her a question today. Let's find out, and then if you have an inconsistent statement, we can go through the inconsistent statement in the deposition. Let's not just read three, four pages from a depo. [01:17:21] Speaker 1: MS. I'm not reading three or four pages. I'm reading four lines. [01:17:23] Speaker 5: MR. Let's start at the beginning. MS. Yes. MR. Question in court. Let's ask -- what's the question you want to ask? [01:17:28] Speaker 1: MS. Did you -- did you tell us during the deposition that Brennan Wakey smoked meth that night? MS. No, that was not my intention. That was not what I meant. MS. What did you say? I don't care what your intention was. MS. Look at the line and -- just look at the line. [01:17:45] Speaker 13: MS. Nowhere here does it say that I said Brennan Wakey smoked meth that night. MS. It says, did he tell you he was smoking meth? MS. I just told you a moment ago what I thought that meant. MS. Okay. MS. I thought that meant that Brennan said to me that Colton was smoking meth. MS. Let's look at the next one. MS. Yes, I'm getting there. MS. The next one. MS. Okay, so he admitted to smoking meth. MS. Yes. He did admit to smoking meth in general, not that night. MS. He told me -- it's in my notes, pages 9 and 10 -- he described his meth use to me. MS. Mr. Wakey described it. [01:18:22] Speaker 5: MS. Doctor -- MS. Doctor, stop talking. [01:18:24] Speaker 10: MS. Your Honor. [01:18:25] Speaker 5: MS. Hold on. We have three people talking. [01:18:27] Speaker 10: MS. I'm objecting. [01:18:28] Speaker 5: MS. She's allowed to answer the question fully without the state. MS. Okay, let's wait until she finishes her response before you do the next one. [01:18:34] Speaker 1: MS. All right, let's look at the line 13. Okay, what else did he do besides meth? Anything else? Weed? Was he drinking? [01:18:45] Speaker 5: MS. It's difficult for me, folks. I can't tell if this is because we're using he constantly, and as a judge, I don't know if he or him is when we have two men. So I just don't know. I can't rule. MS. I'm not asking you to rule. [01:19:02] Speaker 1: I'm asking to impeach this witness. [01:19:04] Speaker 5: MS. Okay, let's continue. Please continue. [01:19:08] Speaker 1: MS. So my next question is, okay, what else did he do besides use meth? Anything else? Any weed? Was he drinking? What did you say, doctor? [01:19:18] Speaker 13: MS. I said, I mean, they had margarita mix. So yeah, they had margaritas, or they were drinking out of them, out of the margarita and tequila bottle. I think they put the tequila in it, and they were swigging out of the bottle. [01:19:30] Speaker 1: MS. Okay. So today, you are saying that you misstated or you thought something different during the deposition? MS. Yes. And part of the reason may be -- MS. No, I am not asking you part of the reason. That can be cleared up when the defense attorney gets here, doctor. MS. I am asking you if you are now revising your statement. Now, show me where -- [01:19:57] Speaker 10: Mr. Your Honor, we have to check to the state. [01:19:59] Speaker 5: MR. You'll have an opportunity. She's already explained what she thought when the state was using he in the question. She's answered the question. Let's move on. [01:20:08] Speaker 1: MS. And where in your notes does it say that Mr. Brennan Wakey used meth a few times? MS. Page nine. [01:20:23] Speaker 13: MS. Mm-hmm. MS. Yes? MS. Middle of the page. On a handful of occasions, he used meth with him, meaning Brennan used meth with Colton. [01:20:37] Speaker 1: MS. Okay. And how does that obviate what you said in the deposition? [01:20:41] Speaker 13: MS. I said in the deposition when you asked, he admitted to using meth. Yes. He told me that on a handful of occasions, they used meth together. MS. You were not specific. MS. I apologize for the misunderstanding. MS. This also could have been cleared up before today if you had any follow-up questions. [01:21:08] Speaker 1: MS. So you said that the brain took into account Colton's behavior as an immediate threat to his life. MS. Correct. MS. And that's why he shot him in the face. MS. Yes. MS. Yes. MS. You also said that the defendant, Brennan Wakey, knew that Colton Wright was in a confrontational mood, MS. earlier that evening. MS. When did I say that? MS. In your deposition, Doctor. [01:21:46] Speaker 13: MS. Okay. MS. Shall I look for it? MS. No, that's fine. That makes sense. MS. I didn't know if you were referring to my testimony today or the deposition. [01:21:53] Speaker 1: MS. Okay. MS. Yet, it's undeniable that even though Wakey knew that Colton was in a confrontational mood, he went to the hotel. Did he not? MS. Of course. Yes. MS. Pardon me? MS. Of course he did. Yes. MS. Okay. MS. And so you also know that he went to the hotel while he was armed with a gun, correct? MS. He carries a gun. Yes. MS. Did he go with a gun? MS. Yes. MS. Okay. MS. When Colton was in a confrontational mood? MS. What's the objection? [01:22:43] Speaker 10: MS. She's testifying, putting a theory out there. [01:22:47] Speaker 5: MS. She didn't do that. This is an expert. I'll remind everybody, a jury has already found that this was not self-defense. The court has found this was not self-defense. Let's please move on. MS. Of course. I'm waiting for an answer. [01:22:59] Speaker 1: MS. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? MS. Yes. Going to a hotel room, armed with a gun, knowing that Colton Wright was, according to Brennan Wakey, confrontational, did that put him under stress? MS. Him meaning Brennan Wakey. [01:23:17] Speaker 13: MS. Did Colton's confrontational mood put him under stress? [01:23:24] Speaker 1: MS. The entire circumstances, doctor, confrontational mood, going to a hotel where there was a confrontational person, taking a weapon with him that was loaded. Did all of that put Brennan Wakey under an acute stressor? [01:23:42] Speaker 13: MS. The stress wasn't acute at that point in time. It was stressful. MS. It was stressful. MS. Arguing is always stressful when people are arguing with a partner or with a friend. MS. Okay. And did he drink tequila to alleviate that stress? MS. He said he had something to drink. He did not say specifically it was to alleviate stress. MS. Right. [01:24:05] Speaker 1: MS. How about one way to alleviate stress? MS. Just walk out. MS. Do you think that's possible? MS. Walk out of the hotel room. MS. Why not alleviate the stress that way, doctor? MS. Do you have an answer for me? MS. At what point? MS. That point. MS. Why not alleviate stress? [01:24:30] Speaker 5: MS. I think I'm going to sustain the objection. MS. Thank you. MS. I don't think the defense opened it up for those types of questions. MS. Any other questions, State? MS. No. MS. No. MS. Any read-around? [01:24:42] Speaker 10: MS. No, Your Honor. [01:24:42] Speaker 5: MS. Okay. You may step down. [01:24:44] Speaker 13: MS. Thank you, Your Honor. [01:24:45] Speaker 10: MS. Your Honor, we would call Brennan Wakey, who would like to make a statement to the court. [01:24:49] Speaker 5: MS. Is he going to testify subject to cross-examination or allocute at the end? MS. He's going to allocute. MS. Okay. MS. So let's make that either before you give me your recommendation or at the end, Ms. McCurry. MS. That's up to you. MS. Any other witness other than Mr. Wakey? [01:25:03] Speaker 10: MS. No, Your Honor. [01:25:04] Speaker 5: MS. Okay. MS. You did provide some letters for the court to consider. MS. I did read the letters. MS. I think it was from the significant other who testified already, his mother. I think I had a grandmother. I think I read about four or five letters, I believe, and there were about 90 that I had from the state. MS. There was some text messaging or a photo that you wanted me to consider. Is that right? MS. You had approached earlier, Mr. Curry. MS. Yes. MS. Okay. [01:25:31] Speaker 10: MS. I had -- [01:25:32] Speaker 5: MS. Any objection from the state to me taking a look? Was this evidence admitted during the trial? [01:25:39] Speaker 1: MS. Admitted during the standard ground hearing. [01:25:41] Speaker 5: MS. Okay. I'll take a look at that again. It's been some time since that hearing, so I might not have complete recall if I sit here. I'll take a look. I do recall this during the standard ground hearing. It was evidence not presented during the state. I think it was some trip up north, right, or to the Midwest and threats made on the way back down to Florida. Am I right? Is that what I'm reading here, the context? MS. No. [01:26:22] Speaker 10: What you're reading is it's a text from Colton's mother about Colton being in jail, asking that Brennan not bond him out. And the reason why is they bonded him out, that Colton would kill himself or others. MS. Yes. [01:26:40] Speaker 5: I do recall that. I do recall that. Yes. They wanted him to stay in jail and were concerned about his safety and health. All right. We'll file that with the clerk. And I do remember that testimony during the standing ground hearing. All right. I think we're at the end now. Let's have both sides approach the podium. I'll begin with the state. You can tell me what you're seeking and why. Can you pass up a scoresheet too? MS. Yes. [01:27:03] Speaker 1: Your Honor, I have argument. It's going to take a lot longer than a few seconds. MR. Okay. [01:27:14] Speaker 5: You may proceed when you're right. [01:27:14] Speaker 1: MS. And I would also like to pass up these photographs that I've already shown to the defense of Mr. Wright. They are not to be -- they are not to be entered into the record -- into evidence for the court to review. And I'd like to return them to Amy Thompson, Mr. Wright's mother. [01:27:34] Speaker 5: Any objection to me reviewing these photos? MS. No, Your Honor. Okay. I've reviewed them. [01:28:06] Speaker 1: Thank you. MS. Your Honor, as you pointed out, the jury unequivocally rejected the defendant's self-defense claim and found him guilty of manslaughter with a firearm. The jury found that the defendant did not fear imminent death or great bodily harm when he fatally shot Colton Wright. The jury declined to find that this killing was justifiable or excusable. Instead, the jury unanimously found that the defendant committed a deliberate intentional act which caused the death of Colton Wright. In other words, manslaughter with a firearm. [01:28:57] Speaker 10: MS. Your Honor, excuse me, that's not the law for manslaughter. It doesn't require intentional. It's a seat of passion. [01:29:04] Speaker 5: MS. All right. You each have an opportunity to be heard, okay? Please continue. [01:29:09] Speaker 1: MS. The defendant committed a deliberate intentional act. I am not arguing that he intended to kill. I am quoting from the jury instructions. I'm aware that you are. MS. It's an intentional act. I just want to make it clear, Your Honor, for those that don't understand the law. [01:29:29] Speaker 5: Please continue. Please continue. MS. Yes. [01:29:31] Speaker 1: A deliberate intentional act that caused the death of Colton Wright. MS. If the defendant was sitting on a bed and Colton Wright was leaning over him with a bottle, MS. While the defendant shot Colton, the bed would be covered with blood, with tissues, with Colton Wright's teeth, which were scattered around the room, not on the bed. MS. It simply doesn't happen the way the defendant tells us. MS. And yet, the defense is clinging to that argument and asks for a downward departure based on the fact that they claim that Colton Wright was the initiator and a willing participant. Let's not lose sight that Wakey voluntarily and of his own free will went to that hotel room that night. Nobody forced him to go. Nobody put a gun to his head and made him go to that hotel room. Yes, Colton called him, asked him to come over. He's a grown man. MS. Allegedly intelligent, educated, and yet he chose to go over there, knowing that there was a tense, unpleasant situation that had already played out at his home, the defendant's home, when Colton chose to absent himself from that home and check into the hotel with Nick Trail. Here we have a 29-year-old man, 30-year-old man apparently, just had a birthday. He was 25 years old at the time of this offense. He was college educated, graduated from NYU, lived in Manhattan, one of the most difficult cities to survive in and navigate around, one of the most sophisticated cities in the world. He had a profession as a financial analyst, a job that required both moral and financial integrity, a job that he was paid to do to make intelligent decisions, logical decisions, give people advice about their money. He was very sophisticated, very educated, very worldly in comparison to Colton Wright. So what do we know? On the night of the killing, Colton rejected him. And it wasn't for the first time, because we had video evidence that showed him literally begging Colton Wright to forgive him for being such a liar. I think his words were, "It's easier to lie than tell the truth." And again, that same night, Colton rebuffed him in Sarasota and went to a hotel with Nick Trail. It was clearly a very unpleasant situation, yet Colton called Wakey and asked him to come over. And Wakey, with his New York, worldly, sophisticated college education, financial advisor, somebody that's a high achiever. His family talks about how bright he is. He chose to go over there. That was his decision. Freely and voluntarily, he went over to that hotel. And he ramped that up by taking a gun with him. And he ramped it up further by smoking meth. And let's look at Dr. Russell's deposition. And I know that I did not say, "Did Brennan Wakey smoke meth?" But this is what the conversation was. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out what we were talking about. Did he tell you that he was smoking meth? Okay, there's a he. And she says yes. Okay, so he admitted to smoking meth? Yes. She wasn't talking to Colton Wright during that evaluation. And who would have admitted to smoking meth? Except for him. Because Colton Wright was dead. There was no... She explained to you... I know what [01:34:30] Speaker 5: she explained. And I find her explanation... On page 8 and 9, he admitted to using meth. We... I don't know why you're making this into more than what it is. I'm confused by your argument, frankly. I'm sorry that [01:34:42] Speaker 1: you're confused. I am not confused by my argument. And if you wish to reject it, certainly that is... I wish to reject your argument. Thank you. Okay. But nevertheless, I think it's important for the record. Okay. The record is clear. Thank you. So he ramped it up by smoking meth and drinking tequila out of a bottle. Now he claims that the victim provoked the incident. There would be no incident. There would be no incident if the defendant hadn't voluntarily driven over to that hotel. There would be no incident. And he's claiming that Colton Wright started this incident. Just because there was a pre-existing relationship between those two men does not mean that Colton Wright was a willing participant. It's difficult to see how Colton Wright is a willing participant to getting shot in his own face. And then let's talk about the downward departure as to the defendant lacking capacity to appreciate the criminal nature of his conduct. The court should evaluate this mitigator by examining the defendant's actions both during and after the offense. Where a defendant like Brennan Wakey engages in purposeful, calculated conduct that indicates his awareness of the crime that he committed, it certainly should cast doubt on this mitigator, don't you think? For example, attempting to conceal evidence, fleeing, not calling 911, disposing of the weapon, all that demonstrates that Brennan Wakey knew exactly what he did. And don't tell me that his acute stressor alleviated the minute he fired that gun. That that acute stressor disappeared and that all of a sudden he became his logical self again when he collected Colton Wright's laptop, his phone, threatened Nick Trail get out of the room, ran down the back stairs with a gun in his waistband and drove off without calling the police. He certainly had the ability to appreciate the criminal nature of his conduct. And that alleged PTSD that we heard about today, that didn't surface until after the defendant killed Colton Wright. That's what Dr. Russell said. There was an acute stressor and now he has PTSD. There were no tests for malingering and the alleged self-reported condition that we hear today should be compared side by side with what Brennan Wakey did when he left that hotel room that night and what he did the following day until the police finally picked him up. Before we talk about the jury finding of guilty of tampering with evidence, and let's not forget that goes side by side with the manslaughter with the firearm, let's consider the defendant's purposeful actions that night after he shot and killed Colton Wright. He took the victim's phone, he took the laptop, he fled the crime scene in his car, he didn't tell the police, he took the weapon that he used to kill Colton Wright, and to this day that weapon has not been found. The jury's finding of guilty on count two, tampering with the evidence, emphatically negates the mitigating factor of the fact that he lacked the capacity to appreciate the criminal nature of his conduct. Knowing that a criminal trial proceeding or investigation was about to be instituted, the defendant destroyed, concealed, removed items with the purpose to impair their availability in the proceeding or investigation. That's what the jury found. That's the jury instruction. They said, yes, he is guilty. He deleted photos on Colton Wright's phone and he washed the clothes worn during the killing. This court has a superior vantage point because you also provided over the stand your ground hearing and heard the defendant's testimony, which actually varied wildly from what was presented during the trial. You have a distinct advantage, Your Honor, in assessing the defendant's credibility. Although the defendant recounted many times at that hearing how he and the victim incessantly fought with each other, how the victim threw objects at him, about that knife incident in that hotel room in Tennessee, about the fact that the defendant was sitting in a car when Colton Wright tried to drive them into a light pole. He never once related during the stand your ground hearing and you never once heard during the trial that there was an acute stress response to any of those incidents. And yet, now, today, he has no capacity to conduct his behavior to the dictates of the law. That is not a valid ground for departure, Your Honor. The defense also allows the court to consider that Mr. Wakey has lived his entire life, has to live his entire life, knowing that he caused the death of Colton Wright, somebody that he cared for. Well, the state's asking you to consider what he said to his stepsister at grandma's funeral in Port Charlotte. I popped him in the face. I can't wait to write a book so that I'll be more famous than Kim Kardashian. That shows a callousness and a gloating indifference to another person's life. A person that he cared for? Hardly. Colton Wright died when he was 24 years old at the hands of the defendant. He was younger, less educated, less sophisticated. Certainly, he was less financially solvent than Brennan Wakey. Yet, the theme that runs through this entire case like a thread is that somehow Brennan Wakey was a victim of Colton Wright, that he was traumatized by Colton Wright, that he was acutely stressed by Colton Wright. The facts say otherwise. The state is asking for 30 years in the Department of Corrections for count one and five years in the Department of Corrections to run concurrent to account two. Thank you. [01:42:27] Speaker 10: Ms. Corrections based upon downward departures. Your Honor, you did not have the opportunity to hear what Judge Curley did on prior motions as far as Mr. Brennan's life, and I'd like to share some of that because that is important in sentencing. Brennan was 25 years old at the time of the shooting. No prior criminal history or involvement in crime. In fact, his life, which I'm going to outline, was totally devoted to education, advancing his education through college and through special licensing and his career. His life was filled with just that. Prior to December 9th, his education included boarding school for his high school years, attending and graduating from NYU on a full scholarship. He was a serious student, had serious ambitions. He graduated with a dual degree in economics and Japanese studies, and while still a senior in college at NYU, he was offered an internship with the Merri-Prize right in the city. After graduation, the internship he did so well turned into a career with Mr. Brennan being a financial advisor. This was all when he was in his early 20s. He studied and tested for and earned very difficult licenses to get the Series 7 and Series 66 licenses, and he also passed the rigorous CFA exams, and he's a CFA charter holder, and it's only 12% of the people that take it pass it. Mr. Wakey, prior to this date, excelled in his career. After this date, in this tragic event, he lost his job and his career with the Merri-Prize. Mr. Wakey, the State has presented no evidence based upon Mr. Wakey's history prior to December 9, 2021, which would in any way suggest or support that he is violent, criminal, or murderous, or a danger to this community. There's nothing about his history since then which supports any argument that he poses any threat to the community or to others. In fact, Johnny Sage, his partner four years, gave you specific examples of how involved in giving he was to the community and still will be when he gets out of prison. Importantly, Your Honor, there is no evidence that you've heard through this long hearings and trials and through argument today to support that this incident, which resulted in Colton Wright's death and the circumstances that Brennan was in, was not a singular, isolated in time, but tragic event, anything that would be repeated at all. Mr. Wakey's defense during trial was self-defense and during stand your ground self-defense. And he still continues to believe he had no other choice in those circumstances. That was his belief. The jury did not come back with self-defense, but his belief, again, perhaps it was imperfect. But, Your Honor, look at everything he did and worked for. Is he going to lightly fire a gun at someone? Is he going to lightly throw his life away? And we contend that everything that Brennan was and is supports that he would not do this, but for believing that he had to. We, the court heard testimony during trial, particularly from Nick Trail as well as Dr. Vega. There was evidence, substantial and confident evidence that would support self-defense. And again, the jury came back with a manslaughter, a lesser, but there was plenty to go to the jury that it was self-defense and was justified. And the facts that you heard during trial, Your Honor, we believe support there is a basis for downward departure. Downward departure under 921-0026. And we'll start with F. The victim was an initiator, willing participant, aggressor, or provoker of the incident. Your Honor, the state stood here today and testified or, well, argued that there was testimony that Colton rebuffed Brennan at some point, that they had a confrontation prior to that time, and that he was swigging tequila. There was no evidence of that during trial. What there was, and I've carefully gone through Mr. Trail's testimony. Again, Colton Wright repeatedly called Brennan Wakey to join Nick Trail. So there's no evidence that he went over there with any bad will or knowing that there was confrontation. Nick Trail indicated that prior to Brennan arriving and after he arrived, that Colton Wright smoked methamphetamine from pretty much the whole time. And Dr. Vega testified that Colton Wright had a very high level of methamphetamines in his system as well as metabolized amphetamine. And he described that as being a result of having been smoking meth for a while and metabolized into another substance. You know, there's no question with everything that we've heard about Colton Wright's childhood and his childhood friends and the letters that we read that he was positive and light. That's why Brennan chose to get with him. And he saw that in him. And when he wasn't that way, he hoped his help would get him back to that. But the problem is, Your Honor, his methamphetamine use turned him into a monster. And he was a monster that night. Dr. Vega testified. And that's something that we weren't there that Brennan had to deal with. A messed up guy who was as angry and aggressive, these are Nick's words, as he's ever seen him. Nick Trail testified during trial that he saw Colton Wright holding the glass margarita bottle over his head while moving aggressively towards Brennan. That was participant, aggressor, or provoker. Colton circled around the area with the bottle and circled in a small area in front of Brennan. And you were able to see pictures of that area in front of the bed near the bathroom door before the partition. And circled in the small area in front of Brennan, who was sitting on the bed. You heard, I mean, one of the state's questions to Dr. Russell is, you know, why didn't he leave? There's no question he couldn't leave. Nick Trail confirmed that the only opening out was past the partition to the door. And that Colton Wright was swinging the bottle and in that area. And to get out, he would have to go past him in the swinging area. That's the state's witness. Nick Trail testified that Colton moved from side to side and forward and backwards towards Brennan, who was sitting on the bed while swinging the bottle. That's an aggressor. That's a willing participant. That's a provoker. And the state said, you know, there's no evidence to suggest that Colton was near him or over him because there wasn't blood all over the place. And we heard from Dr. Vega saying that the wounds in the face indicate inches or up to one and a half feet. And we heard Nick say that Brennan, and there's a typo here on, I'm sorry, page 5D, it said he swung the bed, I mean the bottle, that he was less than two feet from Brennan when he swung the bottle over his head. Brennan held, this is testimony from Nick, held and pointed his firearm at Colton only after Colton came towards him swinging the bottle. Importantly, Colton did not retreat or stop advancing towards Brennan after he saw Brennan holding the gun. And Colton's father and stepmother's letter indicate that's what you do. You, you know, hold it to get someone to stop, not kill him. He did. He held the gun right here and Colton didn't stop. And I'm convinced that's because of the level of meth in his body. We heard from Dr. Vega that it can make you paranoid, aggressive, not know right from wrong, certainly not have any good judgment, and violent. What is so important, and I know that nothing will change the family's feeling about Brennan, but importantly, Colton said to Brennan, shoot me, just shoot me. And Mr. Trail testified that Brennan did not want to shoot him and did not shoot Colton after he said those taunting words. He only shot him when he kept coming towards them and was standing less than two feet away. Nick Trail indicated, and this is, Nick Trail was Colton's friend, so it's not like he was saying something, you know, to make it better for Brennan. He said the facts as he remembered them. That Colton was what he thought was trying to scare Brennan or make him flinch and look like Colton was going to hit him. Your Honor, all of this goes toward is competent, strong, meaningful evidence to support that under subsection F, which is a statutorily mandated downward departure, that Colton was an initiator. He was swinging the bottle. He was a willing participant. He was not stopping. He was actually going forward, coming back side to side, aggressor and provoker of the incident. Going towards the state argued that this was an intentional act by Brennan. You know, I think the jury found that and Nick Trail indicated that before shooting him in that instant and after shooting him in that instant, he had the gun down and his eyes were as wide as they could possibly be. He thought he was in shock. That is not someone who was really happy and gleeful about killing someone. We do understand the grief that Colton Wright's family feel. We're people that have lost people and sometimes in horrible ways. We do. They talked about Brennan being free and living his life for four years. Again, he was on a monitor. You heard how even on a monitor he gave and gave and gave and did and did and did for people and didn't bring them down. Mr. Wakey also has to live his entire life knowing that he caused the death of someone that he cared very much for. Would never have done that if he felt like he had to. Believed he had no choice, but he also has to live with, Your Honor, the knowledge that his entire life that he worked for, including the loss of his career, the loss of his good reputation through the press and all of the efforts made with the press to malign him and his reputation and ours as well, but it's Brennan. His actual freedom, Your Honor, is forever altered, changed, or ruined. And we would ask that the court consider those losses that Mr. Wakey had suffered and will always continue to suffer all of his life. We also believe, under mitigating circumstances, that Brennan's capacity to appreciate the criminal nature of the conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired by the acute stress that he was feeling as he was just trying to save his life. He wanted to get out of there. He couldn't. And Dr. Russell testified to all of that, including that it's just a primary, save yourself, I've got to get out of this, that fortunately most people don't have to deal with. A life-threatening, what are you going to do? And you could talk to a million women that have been raped, and every situation is different. A million people that have been trying to be killed, what did they do? Did they submit? Did they act out? Were they frantic? Were they calm? Were they not? Nobody knows until they're in there. But again, there was substantial evidence that he was indeed having an acute stress disorder, and this is pursuant to subsection C of this downward departure, or he wouldn't have shot the gun. He held the gun before. That didn't stop Colton. He begged, wouldn't stop Colton. He couldn't get out of the room, wouldn't stop Colton. Colton came on and on and on and also knowing how Colton was on methamphetamine, and he was very much on it that night, that he was not going to use any judgment himself. Those are the things that were in his head. We weren't standing there, but you've heard about him, and he just acted. And that included, you know, leaving what he did. Do you do everything right? No. I mean, it's not the law to stay, I don't think, to stay and report a crime. A lot of people do. Some people don't. And that action and wanting to get out of the situation, he wasn't really thinking of the best option then. He was undergoing that stress disorder. Your Honor, we'd also argue one that is not statutorily mandated, but we would ask that you consider that the statute is really a non-exclusive list of mitigating factors. And the court can consider it if it is consistent with legislative sentencing policy. And we would argue, Your Honor, that Florida has a very strong standard of law, standard of ground law, as well as justifiable use of force. While the jury, the court did not find grant our standard ground motion for the JOA, and the jury did not come back, again, I would argue, and I think the court would agree, there was ample and plenty of evidence to support self-defense, and that it was a self-defense defense, although the jury's verdict found it to be imperfect, that you consider that. This is not a case in which someone did a drive-by shooting. This was not a case in which, you know, it was a bar fight. This was a case in which someone was swinging a bottle, whether you think that's sufficient or not, at Mr. Wakey, and he acted in self-defense. That is something that our state and our country supports, that we have a right to defend ourselves. And so we would ask for that imperfect evidence that the jury did not find was sufficient to be considered, that this was a self-defense case, and quite unlike most second-degree murders. Well, that's what they started with. So we would ask that you consider that and also consider that under those circumstances and everything that you've heard, this isn't someone who's dangerous to society or is going to hurt anyone again. Hopefully he'll never be in a situation where he feels his life is at risk, but he's a community giver, not a community menace. And yes, we know that Colton died and we know the grief of the family, but would ask that you take that into account with everything that Mr. Wakey is and find, based upon the evidence, that doing a downward departure is, and I believe the language is, weighing the totality of circumstances, which is huge and heavy. I understand that. But make a determination that a downward departure is the most appropriate option for Brennan Wakey for manslaughter in the circumstances that he was in, the circumstances of his life before, no criminal behavior, the circumstances since this occurred, who he is, and is it necessary to imprison him for the amount of time that the state is asking for. And we submit it is not, and you consider that that's not appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. For the record, this is Brennan Wakey who is going to read something to the floor. [02:01:42] Speaker 14: Good afternoon. I already did this morning. Okay. Okay. Good afternoon. This case has been pending for a long time. I know that everyone here present today is seeking closure, so I want to just keep this brief. I am sorry. You know, there's been a lot of speculation, you know, by the state, in the media, you know, by, you know, various individuals, you know, while this whole process has been going on. You know, it's been over four years. I think that, you know, a lot of people don't understand, you know, how hard it is to stay silent, you know, while, you know, defending oneself, you know, in such a matter, and not be able to respond to those statements for such a long period of time. So other than really, my testimony in the Stand Your Ground hearing, I gave no media, public statements to media. I made no public statements otherwise, and I was unable to talk to Colton's family prior to today. So I would like to let them know that I am sorry, and that my deepest condolences are extended to them. And Mr. Wright, Ms. Thompson, I'm deeply, truly sorry for everything. And, you know, I wish I could take it back, but I just can't, unfortunately. And, you know, there's, even now, over four years later, there are things that replay in my mind that I can't unsee. Nobody here present today, besides myself, saw the look on Colton's face that night. Nobody saw, you know, his demeanor. Nobody saw what his eyes told me, which in my mind was that he was going to kill me. Nobody else had to see the direct aftermath after having fired the gun of him lying on the ground. Nobody else had to see that face-to-face immediately afterward in person. And that's something that nothing that happens here will ever change. That's something that nothing I can ever do will ever change. I will always see that in my mind. So I have good days. I have bad days. There, you know, there are days where, you know, again, there's been a lot of speculation. Oh, I didn't show any emotion, you know, et cetera. There are days where I can hold it together. There are days where I'm a mess. And I, that's, you know, something that I don't ever really foresee stopping, you know, that's going to continue for the rest of my natural life. And in a way, it doesn't matter what the sentence today is, because even if it was the maximum, even if it was life, it's not, it's not going to change. But I have to live with the knowledge that I took the life of somebody that I cared about. And I have to continue to see that replaying in my mind forever. Nothing can change that. So I just want to say that this was a tragedy for everybody that was involved. And to the family, I am deeply and truly sorry. And all I can do is apologize and ask for forgiveness. Thank you. [02:04:59] Speaker 5: All right. Thank you, Mr. Wakey. You know, there have been some comments made today. In particular, I think by the victim, Mr. Wright's family. So let me just kind of express some thoughts that come to mind. There was a lot of mention that Mr. Wakey was out and free was the word used while this case was pending. You know, our system of justice is built on deep concepts of due process and fairness. In fact, it's my job to make sure when I say my, meaning a job has the duty to make sure that all of those constitutional rights are protected for a victim, for a defendant, for the attorneys, for the witnesses, for jurors, for everybody, the public. And that is an initial job of a judge is to determine the safety of the community if someone gets out or it remains in jail. A judge, not I, but another judge, I believe in this case, made the decision that Mr. Wakey, that it was appropriate for him to remain out on bond out of custody. That's not something Mr. Wakey did. Keeping someone in jail is not supposed to be a punishment prior to trial. In this country, folks are presumed innocent until proven guilty by evidence to the exclusion of and beyond any reasonable doubt. And so folks oftentimes, many times, are out of custody pending trial. And that's no slight to any victim. It's no slight to a family. It shouldn't be considered that way. The analysis by a judge at that point is safety to the community. And I hope folks understand that. I'll touch on it just a moment. Mr. Wakey mentioned that he was not able to speak. I think the victim's family probably understands. When someone is accused of a crime, they get lawyers. It's not appropriate, frankly, to be talking to the media and the public and making comments while a case is pending. And the obvious reason, folks, is due process. We want a jury to hear the case uninterrupted, uninterfered with, so that a jury makes a decision based on the evidence presented during a trial and to that alone. And so for those reasons, Mr. Wakey is right. He's not - shouldn't speak to others, shouldn't talk in the media, shouldn't apologize to folks for anything that he feels he may or may not have done. It's how our system operates, and rightly so, so that we can protect the process of our judicial system. And I hope that's understandable for everyone. Mr. Wakey, I happened - I think I switched divisions. I came into this division at some point. This case, I know, has been going on for a long time. Partly that's to blame, perhaps, for the rotation of judges. But I knew - I do know that this case has taken some time, so I understand when you say you want this to have some closure. For you, and I'm sure for Mr. Wright's family, of course. I came in, I think, to the case when we had a stand your ground hearing. That is a decision the court has to decide whether or not the case should be barred or precluded from bring forward charges against you based on the concept of self-defense. I found that the state had established and was able to prove your guilt in this case and that it would be up to a jury to decide if self-defense was valid in this case, and I denied your motion for this case to be dismissed. We eventually got to trial, I think fairly recently. Your case was presented to a jury, and the jury also did not believe in the self-defense. They believed that you did, in fact, commit an intentional act that resulted in the death of Colton Wright. I am going to at this time, although the defense has established by competent evidence the reasons for departure, I'm going to find that a departure is not appropriate. I've considered all the evidence. Again, I've sat in hearings and trials. I was here for the jury trial. I presided over the jury trial. I've listened to your family and your friends, your mother who's present on the phone today. I've read the letters that have been presented from your family and friends and from Mr. Wright's family and friends, and I will sentence you as follows, taking everything into consideration. I will adjudicate you guilty of the charge of manslaughter. I will sentence you to 25 years in the Florida State Prison. You shall receive credit for all time served, including today. As to the charge of tampering with the physical evidence, that is, you're destroying the photographs, deleting them, the evidence in this case, which was able to be retrieved and presented and shown to the jury in these thumbnails, I will adjudicate you guilty and sentence you to five years in the Florida state prison. Both of these counts will run concurrent with each other and receive credit for all time served on each count. I'll order that you have no contact whatsoever with the victim's family in this case. I'll order in reserve on restitution. I'll set as a civil judgment against you the court costs, a $100 fee of the state attorney. The bailiff is going to take your DNA this morning or rather this afternoon, unless you've provided them before, as well as your fingerprints. Mr. Wakey, you have 30 days to appeal the judgment and sentence of this court. If you cannot afford an attorney for that appeal, one will be appointed to represent you. The court will be adjourned. [02:11:06] Speaker 10: All right, we're to recess. All right, we're going to get to the court right now. [02:11:23] Speaker ?: We're going to get to the court right now, so we're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. [02:11:50] Speaker 1: We're going to get to the court right now. We're going to get to the court right now. [02:11:52] Speaker 14: We're going to get to the court right now.