CLOSING ARGUMENT: Murder trial against Georgia teacher Kianna Davis wraps up — Day 3

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: This case is about a mother who refers to her child, not by his name, but calls him the child. That child's name is Carter Ambrose, and his mother killed him. He repeatedly called him the child. He didn't have a name, he didn't have an identity, which he testified. He was just the child, like an unnecessary piece of chowder or an object that gets thrown in the kitchen junk drawer. I told you from the start, you don't have to choose who did what. They are each party to the crime of each other. They are parties to each other's crimes, and there is no doubt that two-year-old Carter was murdered. He was murdered by the two people he was supposed to care for. Now, I get two opportunities to talk to you, so I get this opportunity, and then the defense is going to get to talk to you, and then I get to come back. At this point, I'm going to walk you through the indictment, because there's a lot going on, so I want to take it charge by charge. So count one is malice murder, right? Now, the defense pointed out something, I think, when talking about malice murders, murder that involved premeditation. Premeditation is not an element of malice murder. Malice can be formed in an instant, a depraved heart. It's an intentional killing of another without justification. What you had in this case was testimony from the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, as well as the former chief medical examiner. Evidence of those injuries of the child, all right? He had not one groups, there were multiple, multiple injuries to his abdomen, he had hemorrhage in his brain. He had an injury to his groin area, his scrotum, both external and internal, all right? These repeated strikes are malice. That is what malice is. They are repeated. They are intentional. And on a two-year-old child, they are 100% depraved heart. This was not an accident. Count two is felony murder. It's based on cruelty to children in the first degree. So, this felony murder doesn't require malice. All it requires is the intentional committing, or committal, of cruelty to children in the first degree, which then caused the death of CART. All right? Cruelty to children in the first degree is the intentional confliction of pain on a child under the age of 18, right? It caused the death of CART members. Again, the injuries, the repeated blows on that child. Count three is the forgiveness of children in the first degree count. Intentionally causes cruel physical pain for a child under the age of 18. Count four is felony murder. This is based on aggravated assault. An object which, when used defensively, is likely to result in serious bodily injury or death caused the death of Carter Ambrose. All right? Now, in that indictment, and I didn't hide this from you from the beginning, the exact nature of the object being unknown to the grand jurors. And I told you, I didn't hide the ball from you, you're going to have some questions. You may have some questions. What object was used? All it has to be is an object, and you look at the nature of the object, how it was used, and whether it's a baseball bat or a fist. All right? Likely to result in serious bodily injury or death. Count five is the aggravated assault, which underlines the felony murder that I just outlined for you. Count six is murder in the second degree. Murder in the second degree is based on a negligence theory. Again, malice is not required. The only count that malice is required is the malice murder. Murder, too, does not. It operates differently. It's a negligence standard. All right? Here, the negligence caused cruel and excessive physical pain to Carter. And he has a lacerated liver and has been sick all weekend, and nobody gets him medical attention. That is the negligence. He should have gone to the doctor before Tuesday. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. [00:05:20] Speaker ?: He should have gone to the doctor. [00:05:20] Speaker 1: He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. He should have gone to the doctor. Remember the timeline? His time of death was November 17, 2020. He was in the mid-morning. Time of injury. Time of injury was 24 hours before he dies. That was Monday morning. All the way up to 72 hours after that, which was Saturday morning. Remember the timeline? Sunday was when Carter was not fine. There's a couple of other things I want to point out legally for you. One is the statute of limitations. So there's dates in the indictment and they don't actually mean a whole lot. All the state has to do is prove to you that this crime was committed on a date in the statute of limitations. So it's easy on murder because there isn't. As it relates to the felonies, so you've got the aggravated assault, cruelty to children, the second degree. All right. And a couple of the other ones. It's a four-year statute of limitations. All right. So this happened November 17. The indictment was towards the end of 2023. So it was November 17, 2020. Indictment was in 2023. On my count were three years, not four years. Remember, prosecution doesn't commence at the start of trial. It commences at the time of the indictment. So this indictment, regardless of the timeframe complaining, was return time. Other issue that I want to point out, and I don't know, it really hasn't come up at this point or not, but the judge is going to read a bunch of the law to you and in that is venue. You have to try a case where the crime is committed usually. So in this case, the injury was inflicted in the apartment in Houston County. You were wondering why we kept asking, is that in Houston County? Because that is an element of the crime that the state has to prove. All right. This apartment complex is in Houston County. That is where Carter was from Saturday evening all the way until he was rushed to the hospital. During that whole timeframe, it's all in Houston County. So I don't want you to get caught up by that. Thursday was the last day could be saw his son alive. This two-year-old boy on a bike, drops him off at daycare, happy and uninjured. Those were her words. Boy, how true are they. Friday, he's at daycare. He's happy. He doesn't sit injured. He eats his food. He wasn't throwing up. And the defendant picks him up. Saturday takes him to granddad's house. He's happy, playing. He's uninjured. He's not throwing up. And then the defendant has Carter by herself for the rest of the day. Saturday. As well as most of the day, Sunday. During the day, he's fine. She's the only person who has him. The boyfriend comes over. They have dinner. And that's when Carter is complaining of stomach pain at bedtime. And in her first interview, when Sergeant Collins, she says that's when he was throwing up. It's not until the second interview that she changes her story. She moves it out to when she didn't have access to him. But that Monday, Carter is sick in bed at early morning hours. She goes to work. Her boyfriend stays home with him all day Monday. Carter's throwing up again. Throws up overnight. He's complaining of stomach pain. And Tuesday morning is when he's rushed to primary pediatrics. She drives out of her apartment complex within the yards of the doctor's office. And continues on her day. Leaving Keon to deal with her dying child. Again, you don't have to decide who did it. You don't have to pick one or the other. It's not all but nothing. In fact, these two people had access to this child when he was symptomatic. We need to. Everybody else who came into contact with this child leading up to Saturday evening said that was happy. He wasn't throwing up. Carter never said, never told the defendant that Keon did it. He would run to me and point and tell me who hit him. He didn't do that. He didn't do that. And she don't know what's going on. They know nothing about anything. She is not particularly important. She changes her story. After the fact, she's making up reasons for how it happened. She's bringing up that he fell. Made up the couch of the bed. Fell in the bed, rolled back and hit his head. She's asking about CPR when Darren Meadows, Lieutenant Meadows, was talking to her. There's a lot to do about asthma. Underlying conditions. He was sickly. You heard those medical examiners. There was no underlying disease. His lungs looked fine. What he had was a two-inch tear of his liver brought off by blunt force in the back. To claim that she doesn't know. I call 30 million times a day. I FaceTime. I always check in when someone else has my child. And she's right there. She's right there. The time frame for the injury when it was inflicted. It's the closest to the time of death is Monday morning. To go back. She's the one who was right there with him the whole time. And according to her, she watches him like a hawk. I mean, she calls him a crybaby. He's dramatic. What a way to talk about your son. Here's an autopsy photo. You'll never see Carter again. And then, once the injury's been inflicted, she calls Kadeem. Because he's EMS. And he doesn't come get the child. Boy, does he regret that. I can't imagine having to carry that guilt. I cannot imagine. So she leaves him with Kion. Because she's a single mother. What else am I supposed to do? Let's him deal with the problem. She left him holding back. But then doesn't blame him. Which is a bit odd. Rather, according to Kadeem, the man that she wanted to take the child because he was sick. Wanted Carter to go with him. When he discusses with her the autopsy report. And the injuries of the child. And if he finds out Kion did something, he doesn't know what he'll do. She gets mad at him. She gets mad at a father for grieving the death of his son. For having the audacity to suggest that Kion did this. And I think I brought it up in my opening originally. And that is reasonable doubt. You're going to hear beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge is going to instruct you on that. I spoke about it with y'all a little bit on Monday in my opening statement. And I like to think of it as pieces to the puzzle. Yes, this is a circumstantial case. And I told you from the beginning we didn't have an eyewitness. There's no see it inside Miami, one hour, you know, DNA, solve the crime, let's go home. It's all circumstantial. But there are plenty of pieces to this puzzle. The first one is that the defendant and her boyfriend are the only ones with custody even at the outset of the symptoms. She changes her story. Her second interview, she tries to point her story away from herself. She doesn't go as far as to blame Kion, but she starts to build her own timeline. She's never blamed Kion. She's even defended him. She calls him 30 million times a day. And let's not ignore the fact that this is a substantial injury. This is a two-year-old boy with a lacerated liver, a two-inch laceration. But that's not the only injury he has. He has multiple injuries, including to his groin area, his scrotum. And he's a crybaby. He cries over everything. That's what the defendant says. You're not going to sit here and expect me to believe that this child was not in serious pain. The two-inch laceration of the liver. And that it was just a minor tummy ache. There's no chance of that. You're not going to tell me this child wasn't in a fetal position. Holding that stomach, rocking back and forth with a lacerated liver. And that's why he couldn't see his child. That's why he couldn't FaceTime or talk to that boy. Because remember, she's mad. She blocks him. He said it happens sometimes. But she's never refused him access to the child. Until the weekend his liver is lacerated. I have serious questions as to whether or not providing the child, providing, letting Carter go with his father or leaving him home with Keon was not a setup to point this somewhere else. She tells others it's because Carter fell. And she doesn't tell the police that. But she tells Dave Gerberos that. She tells Gazette that. Building this story. How could this have happened? And then she bragged about the investigator. Which is kind of an odd thing to do. And then when she testified, she couldn't even save Carter's man. Now this isn't the only time I'm going to speak to him. I'm going to speak to you again. I'll have more to say. But this is not an accident. This is cold blood, hate, murder, malice, depravity. No child should die like this. [00:18:39] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:18:42] Speaker 2: Mr. Cruz, that was you. Thank you. Mr. Dwayne, you're calling. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good afternoon. Once again, I'm Jeff Groove here representing Ms. Davis in this matter. I'm not going to whisper to you. I may do a little shouting. But I want everyone to hear what I have to say about this. Okay? First of all, Ms. Davis thanks you for your service. She understands how traumatic a case this really is. And it is. It's a sad case as you're 11-1 here. I'm going to talk to you for a bit. And Mrs. Dwayne can come back up. And I don't have a chance to say anything else too. This is it for me. After Mr. Dwayne finishes the next time, the judge will instruct you as to what the law is. And it's very important that you listen to what the law is. They're called jury instructions. And the judge is going to talk to you, you know, about what the law is. And I may go over some of that with you. But what I want you to first understand, or to also understand, is you will have a copy of the indictment with you. Where you yourself will get to read the indictment. Of course, the judge has read it. And, you know, we've heard all about it. And it's important, it's important that you pay close attention to the language of all the counts in the indictment. First of all, understand, and I'm glad Mr. Dwayne mentioned that the statute of limitations on some offenses is four years. As we know, this offense of the child died, Carter died, on November the 17th of 2020. That's when COVID was going on. Yeah. This case was indicted by the Houston County Grand Jury on October the 18th of 2023, almost three years later. And, of course, the state will say, we returned this indictment. It was returned within four years. Okay? But think of that. Three years later. Here we are in July of 2026. The case is finally going to trial. And you have to think why. Okay? Of course, the state could get up and argue that they did everything they're supposed to do. And, you know, the fact that the Sheriff's Department did their thing. And then it was submitted to us. And, you know, it was the grand jury that didn't return the indictment until October of 2023. But, in any event, timelines are always important in everything. In life. Okay? In everything we do. And, like I said, you need to be mindful of the fact that here we are some six years later after the child has died. That this case is going to trial. Okay? Now. You'll have this indictment. And I want you to read over it. Read over it carefully. Because. And the state has to prove all of these charges against Mrs. Davis beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's part of what the judge will explain to you is what reasonable doubt means. What does it mean? And the judge will tell you what that means. She's not going to tell you that it means doubt to a specific number or to a mathematical certainty. She will tell you, as reasonable doubt means exactly the type of evidence that you need to consider when making your decision as to whether or not the state has proved each and every essential element of each crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt. All I ask you to do is, of course you've heard the evidence, is follow what the judge tells you. Just follow what she says. And she will tell you what the law is. You know, the first charge, as Mr. Duane has said, deals with malice murder. Malice of forethought. And I think Mr. Duane was, I guess he was saying when he was telling you that my client beat this child to death. Beat this child to death. And the judge will explain to you what Malice of forethought means. She'll explain that to you. But that's what the state is alleged in, in cap one, that Miss Davis beat her own child to death. And of course the state has said that they don't have any eyewitnesses or any factual evidence or direct evidence of that nature. That it's all circumstantial. And the judge will tell you the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence and what can be used. We understand that. We understand that. But the burden is on the government to prove the charges as to malice murder. Malice murder is, in our way of doing business in the state, that's the most serious offense that the state can charge somebody with. For, for, for, for, for beating someone to death. I mean, you see malice murder in cases where someone's been shot or been pistol whipped or, I mean, you know, we're, you know. And the state has, has, has said that they have no, no, no theory on what sort of weapon there was. Not that they have to, but they don't have that. So, I guess, I mean, you've seen Miss Davis in, in, in trial this week. And you've seen her, uh, uh, testifying this. And they're saying that either she did it maliciously with malice aforethought or, uh, and they've also got Keon Benton charged with the same thing. He's not here. He's not here. He's not here. He's not here. Of course, they're being tried separate, but if, if he was there when this happened, then why is he not here to testify against misnames? Because it didn't happen. [00:26:31] Speaker ?: Malice murder. [00:26:31] Speaker 2: The most serious of any murder that there could be in our state. That there could be in our state. You know, the, the other charges, two and three, felony murder with the separate predicate of has to be improved to the children in the first degree. And in count four, felony murder. The predicate of has to be in count five aggravated assault. And of course, the indictment here says in felony murder that, uh, that the child was beaten with an object. The exact nature, which is unknown to the grand jury, cause cruel physical pain, that being a lacerated liver to the, to the, to the, well, circumstantial evidence is what they established. And circumstantial can be okay. Not in this case. Aggravated assault being circumstantial evidence that the child was struck by an object unknown to the grand jury. Okay. See, you sort of need to break down the, you either have a Malice murder, you have a felony murder with these underlying drug offenses, or you have what's in five and six, which, which is an unusual charge, uh, in our, uh, state, but it's a valid charge of murder in the second degree. And, you know, you know, you'll need to read the indictment on this one that murder in the second degree occurs irrespective of Malice, meaning there doesn't have to be Malice. So, you have to show, you have to show, or the state has to show, that, that they have established that the child suffered cruel physical pain by the failure of the mother to seek immediate medical attention. There has to be criminal negligence there. In other words, I mean, the state said something about want and disregard or, or just, um, not just failure to act, but intended to act that way. And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that they have not done that. They have not done that. I mean, I'm telling you, Ms. Davis is guilty of nothing. Now, once again, the burden of proof is always on the government to prove these charges, all of these charges, uh, beyond the reasonable doubt. You know, I'm not going to, and I don't know what Mr. Dwayne's going to do, because he goes after me. That's the way, that's the way that this works. But you heard the evidence in this case. And as things go, you know, a case of three days and a murder case is not that long. It's, I mean, but still what's important is what you gathered or what you gleaned from the witness. Okay? You heard, um, well, let me, let me mention this. Timelines are important, as I mentioned before. Ms. Davis and Mr. Ambrose together conceived this child, and this child was born, um, as we, as we talked about on January the 14th of 2018. So, nine months prior to, uh, the child being born, uh, Ms. Davis became pregnant with Mr. Ambrose's child. Okay? And during that time, they, they, they moved in together in an apartment over at San Piper Apartments in Warner Islands. Okay? Mr. Ambrose was, was working at the, at the fire department, as a firefighter, an EMS, I mean, doing that. Um, and, and you heard Ms. Davis testify that she was, um, I mean, she was taking classes, um, and she had worked some at pediatrics and then worked at a, uh, at a place in, in making a dermatology place. And then the child was born January, like I say, January the 14th of 2018, while they were still living in San Piper Apartments. That they continued to live there and, and, and, and you heard the testimony from, from Ms. Davis that, um, I mean, I, I don't think I'm being derogatory by saying that the child was, was somewhat sickly. Okay? I mean, there's something that we've said about sickly and, and the state wants to be critical of Ms. Davis because she called her child of crybaby. I mean, you know, I mean, so what? So anyways, the child was born January of 2018. Um, the relationship between Ms. Davis and Mr. Ambrose continued on until, um, March or so of 2020 when it just ended. And by then they were living over there at Lakeview, uh, Road Apartments, whatever the name of those apartments are. But, uh, it's important to know that these apartments are right next door to this pediatric place. And you heard, Ms. Davis testified, that that's one of the reasons why she moved over there. So she would be near where her doctors were for the child. And, and you'll have, and, and the state put into evidence and you, you'll, you'll get these. The state's exhibit one, more than 40 pages of documents from when, when Carter, whenever Carter started going over there to the pediatric place. And y'all can look at it yourself. And y'all can look at it yourself. The state put it in there for you to look at it. I mean, Ms. Davis didn't, in being disingenuous or dishonest with you by saying that she was over there at the doctor's office quite a bit. She was concerned about her child. Okay? I mean, all these instances of, of her taking the child to the doctor. And, and the state wants to come here and say that she's, uh, wanton and willfully, uh, disregarded the life of her child. That doesn't make any sense, folks, doesn't make any sense at all. Now, one thing that is important to understand, too, is that Ms. Davis is, is raising this child as, as a single mother. So you've heard some testimony that, for the most part, her and the father, Mr. Ambrose, got along okay. And they agreed on, on the amount of child support to be paid. And then he was paying it. And then at some point in time, the decision was made, October or so, right? You know, the month or so before the child died, that, uh, that maybe, maybe he needed to be under a child support order. I mean, that's just, you know, a lot of times, the state will want to bring up things, uh, sort of like a red herring or a smoke screen or something to try to, uh, take your eye off the prize. You know, uh, and you can take it for whatever it's worth, any sort of problems that Ms. Davis and, and, and Mr. Ambrose were having each, with each other. You know, in the, in the, in the day or so before the child died, you can do whatever you want to with that. Okay? I mean, if, um, you know, there's, there's some, some reference to a, to a text that was sent by Ms. Davis and, and the F word was used. Okay. We've never heard that before. Okay. I mean, I guess that makes Ms. Davis the worst person in the world to use the F word in a communication with, with, uh, the father of the child. Making a mountain out of the mold. But I think the evidence was that, I mean, I'm not going to go back through all the, the, the days before the child passed. Y'all heard all that. Okay. And we didn't go when, when Ms. Davis testified today because the state put up the videos, the video interviews that she had with Sergeant Collins on the day after the child passed. And then, you know, about two or three weeks later. [00:37:10] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:37:11] Speaker 2: Y'all got to hear all that. I mean, that's as raw emotion as you can get. Okay. Okay. And, and I, I guess the state's going to say that she was just putting on or making it up that she didn't care about her child and therefore the, the indifference or the criminal negligence, therefore at least murder in the second. And folks, that's for you to decide. Not for me to decide. Not for what Mr. Dwayne said. See, what I, what I say is not evidence. What, what he says is not evidence. You have to decide the facts and the truth. We'll never know what the truth is. No one will ever know what the truth is. You know, um, other things that you need to be mindful of too. And I, I appreciate your attention. You know, the, the, the, the set of facts in this case is just different. That, I mean, you heard that Ms. Davis, in her job, she worked for the Central Georgia Technical College. And she, and she was, um, assigned or sent to different high schools, um, in the area to help them with their computer science classes. Okay. And you heard her testimony that she received a, a, a bachelor's degree from Mercer and also a master's degree from Mercer. Okay. And that the way that the facts happened in this case, that, that she had gone to work up in Jones County or in Milledgeville, um, uh, on that particular ill-fated Tuesday. And that she had been trying to get in touch with, with Mr. Benton. I finally got in touch with him and they FaceTimed each other. I mean, you, you've heard all that. There's no sense in me going back over. And so Mr. Benton put the child in the car and drove two or three minutes to the pediatric place for an emergency like this. And then basically the whole time Ms. Davis was, was on, on the phone with Mr. Benton. And she even heard some of the conversation when she got into the pediatric place. I don't know if it was Ms. Sledge or Ms. Baker or Ms. Gandy, whoever it was, that, that Ms. Davis recognized that there was a problem and she had to get back. Okay. And, and, and I'm grateful that, that, that, that all of the, all of the folks from, uh, or those folks from the, the pediatric, primary pediatrics came and testified and told you what, what they heard or what they did. Appreciate that. [00:40:34] Speaker ?: Appreciate that. [00:40:34] Speaker 2: And apparently they did what they could to try to save the child's life. Okay. But at some point in time, the, the doctors there, Dr. Ford or whoever, uh, recognize that they wouldn't be able to, uh, they need to get someone else that, uh, uh, call 911 and get someone. And, and, and you know, you heard the rest of them. Okay. And like I say, you also heard from Lisa James, who was over at the Peach County emergency room, and she testified that the child was unresponsive. And she said what she observed, and you can remember for yourself what, what she, she observed. And, and also the others that, that, that, that, that testified from, from the pediatric place. What they, what they, uh, what they observed. But once again, you'll have all the documents from, from the place for, for way on back. For when the child first started needing medical treatment. Okay. Now, you know, what's important to know is that, um, you know, after, after Carter had passed, and, and, and, and Ms. Davis and Mr. Benton went back to the apartment. And, and, you know, uh, Officer, uh, Wartell from the, uh, Water Office Employees Department was there. And you heard their conversation. You know, once again, um, their, their conversation with, with Ms. Davis and also, uh, Mr. Benton was important for you to see. Once again, raw emotion. At, at, at, at, at his highest. Okay. And we're grateful to Officer Wartell for being there. To offer the comfort that he did. That's important to know. Trust me, that's important to know. And, you know, they were waiting, uh, Ms. Davis was waiting on, uh, uh, Sergeant Collins to come back so he could search the place. And that, if you remember, uh, um, he, he hand wrote or prepared a consent form where, where Ms. Davis consented to let, uh, uh, let the, uh, um, you know, Sergeant Collins with the Sheriff's Department, uh, go in and, and search and, and look at everything in the, um, apartment. So, um, what, what, what, without any restrictions or, just, you know, go in there and do it. Okay. You heard the testimony from Officer Herrera or Investigator Herrera. And, and, and you'll have, um, you'll have, um, you'll have with you, Stacy's Exhibits 15 through 61, I believe. All these photographs that we looked at the other day. And you'll have them back there to look at. Okay. Okay. [00:44:02] Speaker ?: All right. [00:44:03] Speaker 2: All right. And you saw where, where there were certain places where it looked like, excuse me, that the, the, the child had either thrown up or vomited or, or spilled some of his orange juice or, or whatever it was. You'll have all those pictures. And you heard Investigator Herrera testify that he took samples from the carpet, cut out samples from the carpet or, or from the bed or from the, have any of them been, been shown to you afterwards? Folks after Investigator Herrera, uh, took, took all of that information or all those, um, samples or whatever it was. He took them back to the war office police department and put them in a vault and nothing was ever done with them. And what does that matter? Well, I mean, if you're investigating the case from law enforcement and you, you're getting a pile of stuff to look at to see as to whether or not there's blood there or if they're actually, I mean, to determine what you find, then do something with it. Did they ever submit anything to the GBI? No, they didn't. No, they didn't. You heard Sergeant Collins testify that he left in February. He didn't do anything with any of that. And Lieutenant Meadows testified he didn't do anything with it. Well, who else would do something with it? Now, Mr. Dwayne said that there's been some things that have been a little odd, but that was odd. You go to all that trouble, two, three, four hours, an hour long, investigator Herrera was there and collected all this stuff and then didn't do anything with it. It proves nothing. Nothing. Nothing. [00:46:06] Speaker ?: Proves nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. [00:46:14] Speaker 2: Nothing. Nothing. [00:46:16] Speaker ?: Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. [00:46:19] Speaker 2: Nothing. Proves nothing. [00:46:21] Speaker ?: Nothing. [00:46:22] Speaker 2: Nothing. And like I said, folks, you can look at these pictures and of course they're just duplications. You saw one from one angle, one from another, and one that had something that was like a measuring stick or something. You've got to figure out if it means anything. We're just a waste of time. Once again, this child passed away on November the 17th of 2020 and within a day or two, Dr. Brown, who granted his part time and lives in Ohio and comes down here periodically to do autopsies, did the autopsy and gave a report and he testified as to his report. Okay? And that Dr. Eisenstadt, who was his superior person there in that department, I guess he was called upon because there was such a delay in the report being completed that he got involved and you heard all about the Zoom meeting that Dr. Eisenstadt and Dr. The other doctors and the DA's office and the sheriff's department all had and came up to the conclusion that this is a homicide. And that report was issued 10, 11 months later. Okay? All the while, the testimony from Mrs. Davis was she was calling the sheriff's department trying to find out what was going on with the death of her child. [00:48:18] Speaker ?: Now that's what she got in crickets. And you know, at some point in time, the doctor finished the autopsy report after there had been peer reviewed by Dr. Eisenstadt and within a couple days they finished the report and then six weeks or so later they sent it to the sheriff's department. [00:48:19] Speaker 2: That's what she got in crickets. [00:48:21] Speaker ?: That's what she got in crickets. That's what she got in crickets. That's what she got in crickets. That's what she got in crickets. [00:48:24] Speaker 2: And you know, at some point in time, the doctor finished the autopsy report after there had been peer reviewed by Dr. Eisenstadt and within a couple days they finished the report and then six weeks or so later they sent it to the sheriff's office. And by that time, Lieutenant Meadows had the file and was working on it. Okay? So, I mean, really nothing else was being done on it. And Lieutenant Meadows called Ms. Davis, she's up in Gwinnett County teaching school up there, Peachtree Ridge High School, and said, "Can you come down here? We've got some other information to give you." And, of course, they go over all that and you saw the video. And, of course, Ms. Davis, questioning what happened to her son, asked for a copy of that. And did Lieutenant Meadows do it? No. Was he hiding? Give it to him. I mean, what's wrong with taking the report, put it in a Xerox machine, and giving it to Ms. Davis? And then you heard the statement that Lieutenant Meadows said that I'm not going to give it to you, and I don't know if we're going to give it to your law. And, of course, the state can speak to that, but you can remember what you heard. You know, what are they hiding? Why is it taking so long? So, anyways, there that is. When Lieutenant Meadows had his conversation with Ms. Davis, it's December of 2021. I guess Lieutenant Meadows sends everything to the district attorney's office, and that case is there for two years before it gets indicted by the grand jury. And the state may say, no harm, no foul. I mean, the whole time you've got a grieving mother here, and I think we can all agree that people grieve in a different way. I'm not going to make fun of anybody for grieving the way that they grieve. But here it is basically three years after the child dies, the case gets indicted by the grand jury, and Ms. Davis gets arrested then. Three years. [00:51:10] Speaker ?: Three years. October or so of 2023. [00:51:12] Speaker 2: Here we are, almost another three years later. [00:51:13] Speaker ?: Before we get here. Okay? [00:51:15] Speaker 2: And the state would have you believe. Don't worry about it. Nothing to it. Folks, there is something to it. That's for you to decide if that's something that you'll tolerate as citizens of this country. And the state would have you believe. Don't worry about it. Nothing to it. Folks, there is something to it. [00:51:26] Speaker ?: Folks, there is something to it. [00:51:27] Speaker 2: That's for you to decide if that's something that you'll tolerate as citizens of this country. And the state would have you believe. Don't worry about it. Nothing to it. Folks, there is something to it. That's for you to decide if that's something that you'll tolerate as citizens of this country. Once again, the burden of proof is always on the government to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Okay? And I don't mean to bore you with what I'm saying. Okay? You know, the way that I was raised, if there flies on something, then there's a problem. Okay? And there's flies all over this. You know, and of course, the state, and I appreciate Mr. Ambrose being here, and I can appreciate, you know, I think the state was concerned. That's why they brought Ms. Tharp in, who babysat the child, saying that there's nothing that happened to the child, and they wanted to. You know, you know, Dr. Eisenstadt and other doctors say that the death occurred within 24 to 72 hours of the attack, the beating of the child. So how do we, I mean, there's no way, as a lawyer, that I can match medical wits, if you would, or medical knowledge, with the doctor, the pathologist who did the autopsy, and then the one who was his supervisor that approved it. How can I match wits for that? I'm just asking simple questions and making simple statements. But the state and trying to prove their case has to always try to put a wedge, you know, that's why they brought Ms. Tharp in and bring all this up about, I mean, what is, I mean, Ms. Davis is grateful that Ms. Tharp made a pellet with the child's picture on it or a t-shirt. She's grateful for that. She's grateful for that. But why make it into something that it's not? Folks, we will never, ever know what happened. We'll never know. Let me just say this, of course, Mr. Kennedy came in, that's Ms. Davis' grandfather, nice old guy, nice old guy. And Ms. Davis lives with him. I mean, he's taken her in. But, you know, I mean, it's been five and a half, six years that his grandson has died. He doesn't remember everything. I mean, folks, he's a nice guy. I mean, but I'm glad he was here. You know, once again, you know, after all that you heard from the police officers in this, and you can take whatever you want to to determine the guilt or innocence of Ms. Davis. I mean, you know, we understand what Heath Collins had to say. He had a case, and he worked it pretty strong, I guess, for a couple, two or three months, and then he left. And I submit to you, the case just sort of sat there. You know, there was some talk about, you know, from Dr. Eisenstadt or the other doctor that Dr. Brown did the autopsy about whether or not it was homicide. But, you know, the word homicide kept coming up, but also the word undetermined kept coming up. If they had decided that it was a homicide a month or so after the child died, and they got the reports back on toxicology and these other reports that you heard mentioned from the GBI, why didn't they do something then? You know, Sergeant Collins leaves, Lieutenant Meadows picks it up, and really nothing is done with it until the Sheriff's Department says they're waiting for a final autopsy report. I think we've all been around a little bit when someone's trying to pass the buck from one to the other. Okay? So anyways, the decision is made, as I mentioned before, and I'm going to be finished in just a short bit today. Lieutenant Meadows gets Ms. Davis in her office in December of 2021, and at that time he determined that she's a suspect. You know, she, um, but, but he takes a statement from her, doesn't give her Miranda rights or anything, because she's not in custody. That's the, that's the, that's the golden ticket that she's not in custody, but that, um, she's a suspect in his mind, but he just goes in and tries to clean up some questions that he may have from the previous, uh, interviews that she had with, with Sergeant Collins. And then for another almost two years, nothing else has done. The whole while Ms. Davis is up in, up in Gwinnett County teaching school at Peachtree High School, and then she mentioned the other school that she helped open up a brand new school up in Gwinnett County with computer science. Okay. And then at the point in time where they arrest, arrest her, I mean, she's out of work. I mean, she can't, I mean, once she's, she's charged with this, I mean, she's out of work. And so she's waiting. And she appreciates your patience in being here. She appreciates the attention that you've given to her in this case. And like I say, if there's anything that I've done that upset, hold that against me. Don't hold it against her. I'm just trying to help her the best I know how. You know, I'm getting ready to sit down and the, um, the district attorney's going to get to come up and I don't know how much longer he's going to go, but, um, you know, you'll have, you'll have all these photographs. All, all these documents. And you have to decide for yourself as to whether or not the state of Georgia, the state of Georgia has met his burden in proving these charges against my client. All these charges beyond a reasonable doubt. If they, if they have it, then she should be found not guilty or acquitted of these charges. It's sad that this child is gone. Ms. Avis is the only child. [00:59:49] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:59:53] Speaker 2: You know, I'm going to leave you with this one thing. I've tried cases down here for a long time and I always tell people that don't leave your good, common, poor sense at those doors when you come through to serve. The judge is going to give you the law. You heard the, you heard what the state has put up. You've heard Ms. Davis and she's testified. But use your own sense. And, and make a decision about this. Follow the law. Follow the facts. And when you get back here, we would ask you to find Ms. Davis not guilty of these charges. And we thank you for your time. [01:00:44] Speaker 1: You can't get to or talk to Carter. [01:00:45] Speaker ?: Leave me the F alone and that's the last time I'm going to tell you. You can't get to or talk to Carter. Leave me the F alone and that's the last time I'm going to tell you. You can't get to or talk to Carter. Leave me the F alone and that's the last time I'm going to tell you. You can't get to or talk to Carter. Leave me the F alone and that's the last time I'm going to tell you. Never to talk to his child again. You can't get to or talk to Carter. Leave me the F alone and that's the last time I'm going to tell you. You can't get to or talk to Carter. Leave me the F alone and that's the last time I'm going to tell you. You can't get to or talk to Carter. Leave me the F alone and that's the last time I'm going to tell you. You can't get to or talk to Carter. [01:01:05] Speaker 1: You can't get to or talk to Carter. Leave me the F alone and that's the last time I'm going to tell you. Never to talk to his child again. You can't get to or talk to Carter. Leave me the F alone and that's the last time I'm going to tell you. [01:01:14] Speaker ?: Never to talk to his child again. [01:01:17] Speaker 1: We'll never know what happened. We'll never know what happened. Is that really true? Quarter inch rectangular red abrasion on the right external mare. Quarter inch square red abrasion on the lateral aspect of the right upper lip. One eighth inch irregular red abrasion on the lateral aspect of the left upper lip. The right upper lip. Oblong red contusion to his cheek. Red contusion on the right chest adjacent to the sternum. One inch round red contusion on the midline upper abdomen along the coastal margin of the ribs. Three quarter inch round red contusion on the right upper abdomen along the coastal margin of the ribs. Three quarter inch round red contusion on the right upper abdomen along the coastal margin. And another separate distinct injury along the edge ends. Blue green discoloration on the midline abdomen. Red contusion on the abdomen overlying the umbilicus. Quarter inch brown square red contus. Quarter inch round square red abrasions on the underside of the scrotum. Red abrasions on the right mid abdomen. Internal hemorrhages reflected on the scalp. Right posterior parietal. [01:02:50] Speaker ?: Right posterior parietal. [01:02:50] Speaker 1: And then another one. [01:02:51] Speaker ?: Multiple. Interior abdominal wall muscles. Adipose tissue and mesentery. [01:02:53] Speaker 1: Extensive hemorrhage. Two and one half inch gaping laceration of the liver. [01:02:55] Speaker ?: The attachment of falciform ligament. [01:02:56] Speaker 1: Blood in the abdominal cavity. [01:02:57] Speaker ?: Pancreas and hemorrhage. [01:02:58] Speaker 1: Pancreas hemorrhage. Testicle and cord hemorrhage. Patchy serosol congestion hemorrhage on the small intestine. But we'll never know. But we'll never know. The medical examiners told you exactly what you needed to know. And Mr. Groove is absolutely right. You don't leave your common sense at the door. It stays with you. And common sense is that. Kiana denies doing it herself. But she doesn't like Kiana. She defended him. And those are the only two people. The only two people who had access to this child. When the trained expert medical chief examiner tells you that this injury could have occurred. And her original statement that he had growing up on Sunday night. Not Monday. Not a convenient change in her story to Monday. When Kiana was home with them. But Sunday. When it was her or Kiana who had access to it. Common sense. It was either one or the other or both. And her testimony was really telling her evasiveness. The occasional fact that she wouldn't even say her own child's name. This poor mother who's lost her own child. And she can't say his name in front of you. [01:05:08] Speaker ?: She just didn't know. [01:05:13] Speaker 1: She's just oblivious. She had no idea. She didn't think anything was wrong. But yet. She claims that she moved to those apartments to be closer to the doctor. Because he has asthma. And allergies. Like a whole lot of other kids do. And that she's always paying attention when something's wrong. And then she calls 30 million times a day. And she calls 30 million times a day. All of that vanished that weekend. And that's exactly why she wouldn't let Kadeem see her son. His son. Their son. Now. It has become apparent to me that. The defendant's main argument. As to why she didn't do this. Is because she's had to wait too long. That's the only consistent argument. That has been made. Not about the facts. As to what happened to that child. There's just been. Argument after argument. About how long it's taken the state. To get this to trial. Without offering any real context to it. Without offering any reasons why. If there were any other issues that came up. Beyond the state's control. Doesn't bother bringing anything like that up. But justice has no expiration date. Carter's life had the expiration date. But this trial does not. You want a smokescreen? There it is. That's their smokescreen. Be mad at the state. Don't be mad at the two people who had custody of this child. When he suffered a two inch laceration in his liver. Don't pay attention to that. It just took too long. That's not even what the law says. Reasonable doubt. The judge is going to tell you. It's not a fanciful doubt. It's not to a mathematical degree of certainty. That the state has to prove this. Alright. This is where your common sense comes into play. It did bring up motive. [01:08:02] Speaker ?: The state doesn't have to prove motive. It's not a legal requirement. [01:08:04] Speaker 1: It is not a legal requirement that the state prove motive. Or premeditation for that matter. And then they bring up the fact that Keon Betton isn't here. Well, I'm not the only person in this room with subpoena power. With the power to compel someone else to come in. And then they bring up the fact that Keon Betton isn't here. Well, I'm not the only person in this room with subpoena power. With the power to compel someone else to come in. So do they. Don't know the weapon. Yeah. I mean, I thought that was pretty evident from the moment y'all were sitting out there. When the judge read the indictment to you. That's no secret. What we have is hemorrhaging on the head. We have multiple blunt force impact injuries to the abdomen. It could be anything. It could be anything. But you don't even have to pick what it is. Hands are the most obvious. But you don't have to make that decision. All it has to be is an object, the nature of which. And the nature of those injuries is clear that a handful of other objects was used to inflict them. And this defense argues murder too is weird. No, not really. Not if you think about it. Not if you think about what duty a parent has to their child. Their two year old child. Not sure if there's legal duties as it relates to, you know, children who are 30. But a two year old child. Who relies on his mother for protection. A woman who claims that she moved close to the doctor's office. Who said that throwing up in his sleep was a red flag or it was abnormal. But then in the same breath said she didn't think anything of it while she was lying to y'all instead. A woman who took her child to the pediatrician all the time. Who had him hospitalized. Who washed his allergies. And was breathing treatments when he needed. The absence. Rain. Forgive a damn. It's telling. Yes, when your two year old child. Is in that much pain. You have a responsibility to seek medical care. And she did not do that. Reckless disregard. Or how the pain he was experiencing may affect him. And we know waiting hurt. We heard that testimony from the medical examiner. It hurt bad. I think it hurt a lot worse than she was saying. I don't think there's any way he was letting on that this was just a little stomach ache. And that caused pain and pain and more pain. Until he died. Whether or not you want to pick a winner and a loser. Who did this? Who didn't? Other than Carter, who's the victim here and who's not? Whether or not she actually knew or didn't know. At a minimum. She's guilty of murder in the second degree. For not performing her basic duty as a mother. Feed them. Give them some clothes. They don't even have to be nice. But sometimes shelter around them. Give them some medical care. She couldn't even meet that bird. To meet that bird. Before her. Single mother. As though Kadim was not an active father in this little boy's life. He didn't abandon her. Didn't cut ties. You wanted to be involved in this child's life. She took that from you. And she testified. [01:13:18] Speaker ?: She lied. She lied. She lied. Asked her if she tried to get a new phone. Shortly after this. She said no. [01:13:22] Speaker 1: And she testified. She lied. She lied. She tried to get a new phone shortly after this. She said no. And they went through pages of her trying to get her new phone. Records. That she herself identified. Right after this happened. Multiple pages. Why suddenly do we need a phone? To conceive? Why brag about the fact to Ms. Shirley that the original investigator is no longer on the case? And she's calling. She wants more info. More info. She's worried about herself. She knew that they're appointed to two people and she was one of them. She's terrified. Let the statement come down on her. And then she testifies that if you call the pediatrician's office you can't get an appointment on the same day. That a pediatrician would never have the time. As though a pediatrician would never anticipate the fact that younger kids often get sick. Simple illnesses. But they can't just be seen. Well, I gotta wait. I gotta wait. I can't get an appointment. Never mind the fact that she's a regular. Never mind the fact that she carried on and on and on. About how awful it must be for them when she was on a body cam with Officer White Tide. She didn't even make an effort. Now they make an issue of the samples on the floor. They didn't send anything to GBI. Well, Carter's body went to GBI along with that liver. Along with those bruises, those hemorrhages. And what is interesting is that all of a sudden here, well, we don't know if he was throwing up or not. When she herself tells law enforcement in one of her interviews, yeah, I figured out he was throwing up. And now she wants to change her story on that. Every little thing she wants to change. She wants to fight. The question here isn't whether or not you tolerate how long you came to trial. The question is whether or not you tolerate a two-year-old boy being murdered. That's the question. You've heard quite a bit of testimony. Remember, testimony is evidence. You've heard about what was overheard by the primary pediatrician's people. Don't worry about that. Just get here. Or I should have brought up when you told me to. Not sure why I'm almost telling somebody else who's not a biological father. If she's there like she said she was. Another man who she broke up with shortly after this. She didn't want to answer that question. She didn't want to answer anything. In fact, when I said nothing further, you know, she went, thank you. A grieving mother. Common sense here. Two people. Access to this child. And she says she didn't do it and that Keon didn't do it. Common sense tells you that statement makes no sense. Then we're hiding. Covering up. Covering up. Whether she hit that child, whether he hit that child, at this point, it doesn't matter. Because one of them did it. Or both of them did it. But now we have to cover up. She wants you to believe. She's such a good mother. She calls all these times a day. She always checks in. She drives from the office at lunch to get, you know, to check on Carter while he's there. And yet she's got no idea. No idea. Ladies and gentlemen, there are plenty, plenty of pieces to this puzzle for you to see. That she is 100% guilty. Of malice murder. Of felony murder. And murder on the second degree. Thank you. [01:19:05] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you.