CT v. Cooper Ouellette — The Deadly Ride Home — Full Closings

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Good morning, we did still make it. Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Before I begin my closing argument, I want to start by saying thank you. I know it's been trying at times in the courtroom, out of the courtroom. Early exits, delayed starts, but it's been clear to everyone throughout that you've had your full attention, you haven't wavered, and something like that. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say thank you. Now, before I begin my closing argument, I want to give you four rules about what I'm going to argue here. First, if there's anything that I say about the evidence or what the testimony shows differs from what you remember, disregard what I say. It is your memory that controls. You are the ultimate arbiter of such a tax in this case. Second, if there's anything that I say about the law or the instruction that I expect Judge Pelosi to give to you in a few moments, it differs from what Judge Pelosi tells you. Again, disregard what I say. Judge Pelosi is the ultimate arbiter of the law. Third, probably not surprising, but I'm going to be making arguments about what the state submits the evidence shows. But to save time, I'm not going to add that little prefatory statement. So when you hear me arguing facts or inferences to be drawn from those facts, just add that little statement. The state submits to you, or the state submits the evidence shows. Because again, you are the arguments of the facts. And finally, I don't intend to give you my personal opinion on anything during this closing argument. If there is a statement that you believe is me expressing a personal opinion, please disregard that. That is not my intention. So I'm going to begin by discussing the burden of proof in the case. You've all heard it before. You were asked to write a jury selection. And soon you're going to get the legal definition from Judge Pelosi. What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? What I want you to focus on is what does the state need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? I expect you will hear that the state does not need to prove each and every fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply the elements which comprise each offense. Each crime has specific elements that have to be met. And the state must prove those beyond a reasonable doubt. You as reasonable men and women come together and decide what facts have been proven in this case. You apply it to the law that the judge gives. And you come up with whether the state has met its burden of proving those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. So the state has charged the defendant, Cooper Ouellette, two crimes. Manslaughter on the first degree. And delivery of alcoholic liquor to a minor. I'd like to start with the crime that I don't expect that it would be much argument about. Delivery of alcoholic liquor to a minor. You'll hear from Judge Pelosi that there are three elements. The defendant has to deliver. What he delivers has to be an alcoholic liquor. And it has to be delivered to a person who is a minor. So let's review the evidence. It is completely uncontradicted that Cooper Ouellette delivered alcoholic liquor to that party at the Schultz Corporation. You've heard all the testimony about the Yeti Cooler. You've seen the receipts of that purchase when their phones were co-locating at that Edgewood Wine and Spirits. And Judge Pelosi will tell you that deliver has its everyday meaning. When you call up and order a pizza, the delivery driver simply brings you the pizza. He doesn't make it. He delivers it to you. Cooper Ouellette driving that Yeti Cooler full of alcoholic beverages to that party is delivering that alcoholic liquor. So that gets us to that second element, alcoholic liquor. Lawyers love to define terms and that is a legally defined term. What Judge Pelosi, I expect, will tell you is that alcoholic liquor includes beer and wine, includes spirits like Dr. McGillicuddy's. And it is anything that has more than one half of one percent alcohol by bottle. You've seen the contents of that cooler, ladies and gentlemen. All of those beverages are alcoholic liquor. You've heard testimony about that. There's no Dr. McGillicuddy's there. You saw the receipt of 20 being bought. You've heard testimony about everybody drinking those beverages. That alcohol being delivered to that party, that alcoholic beverage, satisfies that second element of the defendant delivering alcohol to the party. [00:04:14] Speaker ?: The other element, probably the simplest, right? [00:04:16] Speaker 1: A minor in terms of this charge is anyone who has not attained 21 years of age. There's testimony from the people at the party, only one person was over 21. Everybody else testified at the time of that party they were under 21. Most specifically, there's clear evidence of Sophie, being 17 years old at the time, and ended up with a .151 blood alcohol content. Cooper Roulette delivered that alcoholic beverage to those minors, including Sophie. I submit to you that the state has proven that crime beyond any reasonable doubt. So let's get to where I expect there will be a great deal of disagreement, manslaughter in the first degree. The judge will tell you that there are four elements to that crime that the state must prove beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant's conduct created a grave risk of death, he acted recklessly, he evinced an extreme indifference to human life, and he caused Sophie's death. So let's start with that first element, conduct creating a grave risk of death. What evidence in this case is there that the defendant's conduct created a grave risk of death? That car ride, ladies and gentlemen. Let's break it down. They're at the Schultz Corporation. You heard about all of what the witnesses described as an argument between Cooper and Sophie. You heard about him kicking Sophie. You heard about him shoving her into his truck. You heard about loud arguments. You heard about Cooper knocking the phone out of Sophie's hand when she's trying to get another ride. And you heard him yell to get in the truck and let's go. He tears out of that park out of that parking lot and begins the drive. So what happens next? You heard a lot of testimony about Locust Road, right? Take a look at the exhibit here. You can see he's driving up Route 72. [00:06:12] Speaker ?: That connects with Route 4. [00:06:14] Speaker 1: Why does he turn off Locust Road, which goes to Harmony Hill where he lives at the time? And we also know what happens on Locust Road is that Sophie takes out her cell phone and starts recording on her camera. Why? [00:06:32] Speaker ?: I submit to you that a reasonable and logical inference is that the defendant has decided he's not going to take her home. [00:06:39] Speaker 1: He's kicking her out of his truck. And that's why she picks up the phone, she hits recording, throws it into her purse. Why would she be recording if this was her choice? There's not a single word said on that video until Sophie says out. She knows something is going wrong here. That's why she's starting to record. That video also shows us the defendant's conduct at the time of that first separation. The defendant speeds off in the words of Devin Crowe like a bat out of hell. You can see through those points as he's driving down Locust Road. That fast acceleration ladies and gentlemen, you know from your common sense and life experience that he is accelerating away, his truck strikes Sophie causing her to cry out. [00:07:28] Speaker ?: What happens next? She's alone. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. [00:07:42] Speaker 1: She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. [00:07:54] Speaker ?: She's in an area of the room. [00:07:55] Speaker 1: She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. [00:08:01] Speaker ?: She's in an area of the room. [00:08:02] Speaker 1: She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. [00:08:06] Speaker ?: She's in an area of the room. She's in an area of the room. [00:08:17] Speaker 1: And they start traveling at speeds consistent with being back in that truck. So does he take her home now? [00:08:25] Speaker ?: No. [00:08:27] Speaker 1: You've heard testimony about snap maps at Country Pizza. And you've seen in this animation that he stops at Country Pizza for about a minute. Why? It's 11:32. She's already two minutes past her curfew. Why are we stopping? I submit to you that Cooper Ouellette is not done arguing. So they continue their ride. And they go back, turn on to Polydan. And now we get to what has been referred to as the dip. A lot of testimony about the dip. And what the defendant is saying happens there. Take a look at those points, ladies and gentlemen. He makes statements about stopping. He makes statements about slowing down. He's doing 56 miles an hour through the dip. There's no stop event at that dip. So then what happens? He starts driving towards field view, right? Easiest way to get home. Take that left turn. Is that what he does? No. Why? You saw in animation one that he took that turn when he was going to pick her up for the night. Why doesn't he take it here? He's on camera revving his engine. That's in the animation and that's in the surveillance footage from Sixfield View. He's causing fear to Sophie. He's not done arguing. His car tears through the intersection. And everyone's talking. He's causing fear to be on fire. [00:10:06] Speaker ?: He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. [00:10:40] Speaker 1: He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. [00:11:19] Speaker ?: He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. [00:11:21] Speaker 1: He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. [00:11:35] Speaker ?: He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. He's causing fear to be on fire. [00:12:05] Speaker 1: She's seven minutes past curfew, and he's still not stopping. Why? Because he needs to get up to that wooded area to continue that argument. And we know what happens at that wooded argument because of the cell phone records, because of the Snapchat records. We know that there's more violence there. [00:12:28] Speaker ?: We know that there's more violence there. [00:12:33] Speaker 1: If we look at what occurs up there, State's Exhibit 9, we see that Sophie has a bloody nose. She's crying. The side of her face is swollen as if she's been struck. But take a look at the bottom left of that photograph. She still has her necklace. That's when they're stopped in that wooded area on Polydan, and that argument is continuing. Now, we know from the animation that their phones continue back on Polydan after stopping for a while in that area. And does he take her home then? No. He stops, turns his truck around, and goes back up Polydan towards Johnny Cape Mountain Road. Why? She's now seven minutes, eleven minutes past her curfew, and he's not taking her home. Ladies and gentlemen, when that photo is taken by Sophie and snapped, what do you think her emotional state is? When he dropped her off in the woods, she said she was scared. Do you think that fear intensified at this point? So when we get to that second turn on Polydan, it's ten minutes past the curfew, but he still doesn't drop her off. So he turns around and goes back up. And again, surveillance footage is corroborating all of these times and all of these beautiful locations. Then he finally comes downfield dealing, and we're at the third pass of the house at this point. And we know at that time from the Snapchat record that this is when Sophie sends that snap to Morgan Keyes. At 11:41 p.m., you heard a testimony from Morgan, you heard a testimony from Devin about receiving it at that time. You've seen the Snapchat records depicting that that snap was sent at that time. And we know that the separation event happens at 11:41 p.m. She is snapping that photo because he has now driven her not to her home. Three chances. If you can just fast forward to the separation event. In the video, you can see the headlights of the truck going through. We can just continue this. Again, we have those Snapchat records, that photo being snapped to Morgan Keyes. So we're calling testimony about Mark Sanders about that red line in the area of this, that's the map. We can pause here. This is where we have the phones coming up to that event where she strikes the ground, right? We have a testimony from Mark Sanders, and it's clearly depicted on these geopoints in this animation. I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that this is Locust Road, Part 2. The defendant is arguing. The defendant is arguing. He's angry. He's upset. He struck Sophie. He's not going to drop her off. He's passed her house on three separate occasions. He's just driven by her driveway here. But this time, he's not even going to stop. He slows down to about 15 miles per hour and unlocks the door. Sophie then separates and you know from Dr. Vincent that she got run off by that car. That is conduct which creates a great risk in Sophie. I submit to you to say I've proven that element beyond reasonable doubt. The second element is that the defendant acted recklessly. Judge Pelosi will instruct you that reckless conduct means that you are aware of and consciously disregard an unjustifiable risk. And you know that from your common sense or common usage of that word. What is reckless when you're operating a motor vehicle, ladies and gentlemen? Drunk driving. Let's take a look at States Exhibit 79 on page 3. You can see these texts from Cooper Ouellette to CJ McIntyre. Are we drinking tonight? That was his plan. That's why he went to Edgewood. That's why he brought that liquor. That's why he delivered it to that party. And you heard the aftermath of that drinking. You heard that voicemail. And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that he was drunk. I'll answer my own question. What's more dangerous than drunk driving? Speeding while drunk driving. Recall animation 2 from States Exhibit 87. Mark Sanders testified about getting geolocation points of all the road signs along that route and adding them into that animation. You can see what the speed limits are. And then take a look at Cooper Ouellette's speed. There are points where he's doing 70 miles per hour. There are points where he's more than 20 over the speed limit. [00:18:15] Speaker ?: Excuse me. [00:18:15] Speaker 1: More than double the speed limit. I submit to you that that is reckless. He is consciously aware of the risk and he is doing it anyway. And of course, add to it everything that we've already talked about. The fights. The dangerous conduct towards Sophie. Unlocking the door. All of these things are reckless. The third element is that the defendant's conduct evinced an extreme indifference to human life. Here's the point where conduct after the fact becomes relevant. Because the law allows you to consider not only what he did, but what came next to determine if his conduct evinced an extreme indifference to human life. So what does he do? He's at the side of the road for eight minutes. He doesn't call 911. He doesn't get her in the truck and take her to the hospital. He takes her home. And what does he tell Lynn and Scott? Something happened to Sophie. I don't know what happened to Sophie. He knows exactly what happened to Sophie, ladies and gentlemen. He ran her over with his truck and he didn't say a word. He's more concerned with himself than for Sophie's life. [00:19:27] Speaker ?: He's more concerned with him. [00:19:34] Speaker 1: Recall what he originally told Jackson, what he told the kids on The Next Day, what he told Lynn. His story kept changing, didn't it? When he first talks to Lynn, Sophie was driving. I mean, I was driving. He talks to Jackson about pulling over to the left side of the dip, then pulling over to the right side. His story keeps changing. He talks about almost stopping when she separated. He talks about doing 30 tops when she separated. He stove the brakes. The cars found no evidence have skid marks. Consult your common sense, your life experience, ladies and gentlemen. during jury selection, I ask you if you would have any problem bringing your common sense and your life experience into this courtroom to credibility assessments without witness. I implore you to use it now. You know from your common sense and life experience that it's easy to tell a story when it's true. You simply remember the event and talk about it. But when you have to concoct a story, your brain inherently remembers the actual event. You must then put that memory away and tell your story. That's why the details keep changing, ladies and gentlemen. And that's why some of the actual facts keep seeping into these stories. So let's talk about Dr. Vincent's testimony when we talk about extreme indifference in human life. Dr. Vincent got up and talked to you about that pattern of abrasion, how that was significant, how that was correlated with those injuries to the ribs and that crushing force, about the tire and the road pushing together, causing those ribs to break. He was given information by cars that they did not believe it was a rollover effect. And he evaluated it and said, that doesn't explain my injuries. But he's a scientist. He's a doctor. He doesn't simply reject opinions that he doesn't like. He considers them. He evaluates them. He wanted more information. He asked for more information. He's trying to figure it out. But recall on Redirect, the commentary about the consensus conference. What were the doctors in the medical examiner's office talking about? Manner of death. There was no disagreement from any medical examiner in that office about cause of death or about mechanism of injury. Everyone agreed this was a rollover event. This is not a battle of experts, ladies and gentlemen. This is the entire Connecticut medical examiner's office versus a hired gun. Let's examine the statements of that hired gun. Dr. Williamson. Dr. Vincent talked about taking over 40 photographs during his autopsy. He had prepared his autopsy report. He reviewed all that information. What did Dr. Williamson reveal? He read the report. He looked at, I think he said, a dozen photographs. Is that a conscientious, objective review? Or is he simply trying to have that statement that he's already come up with? Recall that he had spent five hours reviewing this before he sent out that four-sentence opinion report the day before he testified. And when he comes in to testify, after he's already issued his opinion, now he wants to look at the photos, the evidence, and the shirt. Ladies and gentlemen, take a look at that shirt. States Exhibit 13. Donson gloves. Pull it out. Turn it inside out. He said he spent five minutes looking at it. Spent five minutes looking at it. You will see that abrasion from Sophie's back is mirrored on the inside of that shirt where her right shoulder blade would be. You will see a color of staining and a clear notch. A color of staining and a clear notch. Just like there are those notches. If he can't see that pattern, and you can, ladies and gentlemen, ask yourselves why he can't see it. Because he doesn't want to. He simply wants to come in here and render the opinion he's been paid for. Also consult your common sense and life experience. 15 miles an hour and three and a half feet resulting in those injuries. Does that offend your common sense? The only way these injuries happen to Sophie is when he runs her over. I submit to you that the state has proven that he evinced an extreme indifference to human life. Because he ran Sophie over, didn't tell anyone about it. He waited eight minutes. He didn't seek medical attention. He didn't take her to the hospital. He simply went home and went to sleep. That evinces an extreme indifference to Sophie's life, ladies and gentlemen. The final element is that he caused Sophie's death. Obviously, everything that we've talked about would lead into that. He's the one driving. He runs her over. Those would be injuries which caused her death. The judge is going to give you an instruction on proximate cause. And proximate cause is a legal concept. It basically means it does not need to be the last event in the chain of sequence that caused her death. So, in other words, Sophie leaving that vehicle is not something that stops her from being Cooper's fault under the law. Because of his conduct, because of his installation of that fear in Sophie, where the only thing she felt was safe at that point was to exit that vehicle, it's still his fault. Her conduct of exiting that vehicle is the natural consequence of his campaign of terror that night, ladies and gentlemen. There's a reason why the defendant didn't tell anyone about taking laughs around the field of human polygamy. There's a reason that he didn't tell anyone about the assaults, and there's a reason that he didn't tell anyone about ripping the necklace from her neck. Because he knows what he did was wrong, and he's trying to hide from her. Let's break down some of the defendant's statements that have been disproven in this trial. [00:25:36] Speaker ?: We spoke about the dip on polygamy. [00:25:38] Speaker 1: You know that he's told everybody that this happened at the dip on polygamy. Multiple witnesses came in and talked about that conversation on May 21st, where he said the dip. He's doing 50 miles an hour to the dip like a job. The geolocation evidence proves that that was untrue. He said that Sophie, he was stopped when Sophie fell out. The geolocation evidence says that that was not the case. He was moving. He said he stowed the brakes. There's no indication on that road that there was any kind of dystopian with the brakes. He told Miranda Lawler that he turned into the driveway before Sophie told him to go somewhere else. The evidence from those surveillance footage, the evidence from those cell phone geolocation data shows he never turned into that driveway until 10 minutes after the fact. His statement to Miranda Lawler was untrue. He told his mother, Carrie Ullett, that Sophie walked into the house. We know from the surveillance footage that was untrue. He told his mother, Carrie Ullett, that she was talking when she was in the house. We know from Lynn, Scott, and Jackson that that was untrue. You can see it on the surveillance footage, what Scott described. That's a limp body. But let's talk a little bit about that conversation with his mother. If you take a look at state's exhibit 77, specifically call 30, you'll see he was on the phone as he's driving home, speaking with his mother for six and a half minutes, and we know that they're talking about the event because Carrie Ullett admitted it. When he gets home at 1224, they continue talking about it. She wants to get all the details, and she's getting every information, all the information that she can from Cooper. Cooper Ullett told Miranda Lawler that after it happened, he didn't think it was deadly. Ladies and gentlemen, what was Carrie Ullett's first question to the police 20 seconds into their contact? Is she dead? Two more times in the next 40 seconds. Is she dead? Is she dead? What Cooper Ullett told Carrie Ullett the night and the early morning hours of what happened to Sophie made her think Sophie was dead. She thought it was deadly. That's why she's coming out and asking the cops, is she dead? He knew what he had done. Now, I expect that the defense is going to raise some claims and try to allege that the state has not proven the case. But let's examine some of the questions asked to these witnesses, and why are they asking these witnesses? They're asking the questions to the wrong witnesses. Why is Lynn being asked about the police investigation when Detective Chris Hone is? Why is Detective Harrington being asked about pattern recognition when Dr. Vinson is? Why is Sergeant Pearson being asked about the FBI lab when she didn't have anything to do with it? Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that this police investigation was lengthy because they were chasing down every lead. They wanted to be fair to both sides. Every lead they were given, they investigated, and they ran it down to the extent that they could. They secured every interview that they could. They secured search warrants based upon probable cause for all the records that they could. Based upon that investigation, they submitted this case, and it is now before you. Yes, the path went down originally based upon bad information. But where did that information come from? The defendant, he's the one that misleads the police and distracts them in the beginning. I would ask you not to let him distract it at the end of this investigation. Hold him accountable for his actions, ladies and gentlemen. [00:29:37] Speaker ?: Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I have the opportunity to address you at this point in time. [00:29:59] Speaker 2: First of all, I want to thank you for taking time out of your busy lives to be here. The second thing I want to tell you is sympathy. I'm a father, I'm a grandfather, and I'm a human dad. Of course, I have sympathy for Sophie and her family. One thing is indisputable. No one knew how serious Sophie's injuries were. No one. Not her mother, not Cooper, not her brother, not the brother's girlfriend. No one knew that. It's an indisputable fact. One thing I'm not going to do, which the state likes to do, is put words where they don't belong. Innuendo what we believe has no place in this courtroom. Detective Slavy had two roles in this case. His first role was as an investigator. His second role was an affiant on a 30-page arrest warrant. Those were his roles. Detective Slavy turned a tragic accident into a crime. That's what he tried to do. Slavy knew his first priority, even though he testified that he was only involved. He's been a cop for 19 years. But he was involved at Torrenton with motor vehicle accidents, serious motor vehicle accidents, and as a state policeman. So he's one month into his role as lead detective in this case. I believe the judge will tell you that inadequate police investigation started from minute one, when Slavy and two other officers came to that hospital. Whether it was 3 or 3.30, they knew they were coming here for an accident. Number one, they knew that there was a fatality. Number two, the first priority, not to put a state trooper to watch Cooper's truck. The first priority was to send one trooper to his house to confront him, asking him if he would take a test, either urine, blood, or breath. The second task that he was to perform that he didn't, was to send a trooper to a judge of the Superior Court. These accidents, he didn't want to admit it, predominantly happened in the evening. So judges routinely get woken up, they sign what they signed, a search warrant to get his blood. They never did that. That was the most important thing that Slavy could do. He failed. That was an adequate police procedure. He failed in that. His second obligation, as I said, was to attempt to do everything necessary. Not rely on children days or weeks afterwards to say, how much Cooper will let from him, what was his condition, what was his condition at 11:30, not what was his condition at 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock. However, he chose not to do that. He sent an officer to guide and guard his truck. For what reason? I don't know. Now, as I said, he was not only the lead investigator, and I had him tell you, what does an investigator have to do? He has to gather all the evidence. Now, I asked him, you can judge his demeanor. In fact, he said this is the first time a defendant or defense had to call me as a witness. This is in 20 years. Why didn't the state call him as a witness? I'm sure you could tell from his credibility or in credibility on the witness stand. Because when Sophie first left that vehicle, for 11 months, he thought that vehicle stopped on Route 72 by Reservoir 4 and she got out of the vehicle. That's what he thought. That's what he thought. Why did he call Nesbitt? Why did he call Mark Sanders? You heard him testify. In 700 prior investigations, Mark Sanders never used Life 360. Remember my question to him. Did you ever hear of anyone using Life 360, any police officer, to determine speed? But that's not why he was called, ladies and gentlemen. He was called, not to make an animation. He was called to tell Slavey where locations were. And Life 360 can give you, it's a consumer app, it can give you a general location. We all agree to that. But it can't determine speed. And what you're trying to do in this case is have him do something he's never done. In all the years he's a police officer and no one has ever done. Speed. In speed, ladies and gentlemen, if a truck has pipes, loud pipes, that doesn't determine speed. In talking about that speed, think of what Detective Branson said. What did he say? He did a recreation of this accident. What did his recreation show? It showed through, I believe he called it Cyril's Law. He examined the scene and what did he say? Cyril's Law said my client was going 13 to 15 miles an hour when Sophie herself left the vehicle. What does Sanders say in his animation? I believe he says 20 miles an hour, 18 to 20. That's about 35 or 40% off. So, all the speed they're talking about in this animation, ladies and gentlemen, is the product of Life 360. And Life 360 specifically says, and it's disclaimer, if you go to its app, it says what? It says, don't use this to determine speed. It just shows general location. That's why. That's why. And they're using this for something, and you hear the state referring to it many times as speeding. Loud pipes do not equate with speed. Slavey, instead of doing proper police procedure, as I said, does what? He uses the testimony of children. Now, you've got to remember this, ladies and gentlemen. There was no problem with these kids after this incident. You heard testimony that a number of these kids went to comfort my client. They went to comfort him. Why? He had a three and a half year relationship with this girl since they were 13 and 14. You didn't hear anyone say that Cooper Ouellette was ever abusive. And you heard Lynn talk. Lynn never said anything except they've had hundreds of interactions between them. And there's no evidence whatsoever to say that Cooper Ouellette ever did anything like push her out of the car, like push her against the car, like kick her. They tell you what happened that night, and what they don't tell you or what you have to judge is the credibility of some of these people that came into this courtroom. And credibility and demeanor, you heard some of the language these same people are using. They're not my witnesses. They're their witnesses. You can tell somebody's demeanor about their respect, not only for me, not for them, not for you, but for a judge at Superior Court. They have no respect. None. All of a sudden their stories changed. What do I mean by that? Devin. Devin Crowell. Who was he? He's 21 years old, hosting, remember his testimony, hosting parties for 17 year old kids and 18 year old kids. And when I asked him about it, he goes, "Well, I buy alcohol, but all these parties, I'm the only one who drinks alcohol." You never heard from this investigation, this lengthy investigation, you never heard the fact that his credit cards were run and how many parties he did at where he had all these kids over. And he goes to the prom and he goes to the prom. He's 21 years old. And when he comes from the prom, what does he do? He brings liquor and alcohol, alcoholic beverages. A 21 year old man, not a 17 year old kid, a 21 year old man. And he gives a statement over the telephone to Slavy that Slavy doesn't like. Now, he asks you to imagine things. Can you imagine when Slavy took him after he made a telephone statement that doesn't say anything about what he came in here and testified to? Can you imagine Slavy bringing him to Troop Bell and saying, "Listen, you're 21 years old. Do you know what risk of injury to minors? Do you know what that charge is? Do you know what you could face? How many counts of that could you face?" So guess what? You better tell me what I want to hear. And remember, Slavy, for 11 months, had the wrong location. And he met at least three times with the medical examiner. And at one time, they had a three hour meeting. And at that three hour meeting, 11 months later, the medical examiner still had not ruled this a homicide. Still, after 11 months, after three or four meeting with Slavy. And remember one thing. Life 360 does not give you the speed of a vehicle. In that animation, it attempts to. And look at or listen to the testimony because you have a right to have read that. Listen what the accident reconstruction says about what he found the speed of the vehicle to be at the time Slavy left. And remember this. The road was wet. And I asked him, "What do you know about deceleration? Did it start at 15? And when Sophie tried to leave the vehicle, did it go down to 13?" There's not going to be, ladies and gentlemen, don't leave your common sense on the steps of this courtroom when you come in here. That's why we don't have professional jurors. We don't. And you got to remember when you hear the laws that man gives you the law, you must follow it. And follow it when he talks about, if he gives you that charge, inadequate investigation by the police. Never mind what the state's attorney says. Oh, they did a broad investigation. They looked over every route. They looked under everywhere. Just take his words because those words are just his words. They're not what occurred here. And if that did happen, believe me, they would have called him as a witness. Remember, lead investigator, he investigated everything, and the affiant on the warrant. The reason why we're here is he swore the facts that were true in his eyes. And I'm going to tell you one thing. We have an expression in the law, you can indict a ham sandwich. And you can always arrest a ham sandwich. You know why? Because when Slavy makes those statements to a judge, there's no defense lawyer in there questioning him. There's no cross-examination of Slavy. You saw his demeanor. You saw he didn't even know how many pages were in the report that he didn't give me for months. I never got those notes. And I had to then go through all his notes, read it, and digest it in a short period of time. It's their burden of proof. It doesn't shift to the defense. We don't have to call any witnesses. Look who we had to call. We had to call a medical examiner. We had to call someone who is an expert, worked for six years with the Michigan State Police, testify why. Why can't you use Life360? Because there's too many variables. Remember what the testimony showed. If you have GPS in a vehicle, that GPS would go directly to a satellite. And I asked the detective. I said, "Detective Bronson, what does that mean?" He said, "How many points does the satellite give you that tells you that the data is reliable?" I'll never forget it. He said one million. You know how many points of data that's not even correct data that was given by Mr. Sanders when he did that animation? So, they use Life360 when they want in their animation. They use it when they want. It's important for you to understand that. They use it to plot location. A general location. Locust Road. They find out 12 months because they go to Nespan. And Nespan says, "This didn't happen on Route 72. It happened on Locust Road." The state wants you to think. There's no evidence. No evidence whatsoever. That man gets up here and says to you, "They were arguing." How does he know they were arguing? How does he possibly know that? Was he in the car? The only person who we can say was legally intoxicated on that evening, unfortunately, was the decedent. Because we know she was twice the level of intoxication by the taxology that's taken by the medical examiner. And look at the ring footage. Look at the ring footage in the house of the decedent. It shows my client going down the driveway. What does he do when he goes down the driveway? He attempts to get Sophie out of the car. He can't. It'll show him running up into the house to get her mother. What does her mother say? Her mother says a number of things. And I hated that. And I apologize before I cross-examined her. So I have really deep sympathy for her. I really do believe me. I had to ask her a number of things. Relevant things are this. Did you believe Sophie was seriously injured? No. Did you try to get an ambulance? We did. But we thought maybe she just had to get her stomach pumped. And then the state wants to bring up text messages. They didn't ask Lynn at 8:38 in the evening, that evening we're talking about, "Did you text your daughter?" And she said, "Yeah, I texted my daughter." And I asked her, "What did you text your daughter?" Remember what she said? Try to control your drinking this evening. Why would she say that? Why would she say that? She didn't say, "Tell Cooper to control his drinking." She knew Cooper was going to be driving the car. She knew Cooper for three and a half years. There's never been any kind of incident like this. The mother, Lynn, testified there's been hundreds of encounters with these people. They loved each other. Whether it be -- this is a tragedy. A tragedy. If I were to talk about what kind of tragedy -- think of Romeo and Juliet. Juliet. Because Juliet is dead. And when he finds out she is dead, look at their exhibit. They don't come in and say -- they may talk to the mother -- they don't come and say to Cooper, "Oh, sorry, your girlfriend is dead." They begin to start questioning. And they got body cans on, so you'll see that. And then at some point in time, they say, "Sit down." And what does Cooper do? He's in disbelief. He's in disbelief because when she went to the hospital, when he texted her mom, "Is she okay?" The mother first said, "Yeah, okay. She's okay." And then there's another conversation. And the mother says -- and correct -- it's your memory that controls. And what does the mother say? Well, she's having x-rays and people are putting lines in her. What does that indicate to you? I don't know if you've ever been involved in a fall or an accident. If you think it's so unusual that an emergency room would take x-rays or take blood, it's not unusual. That happens every day. She didn't say, "Cooper, she's in intensive care. We don't think she's going to make it." That was never said. In fact, she basically said at the end of the conversation, "Go home and get some rest." That's my understanding. I may be wrong, but that was what my notes showed me. Now, let's talk about Locust Road. On Locust Road, you'll look -- because Life 360 is good for one thing -- location. Life 360 shows -- I believe it's 451, Locust Road. He says they were arguing. I have no idea. I could never say that to you because I'd be imagining something that didn't exist. There's nothing in the evidence that shows that. But there's evidence that she's drunk. She says, "Let me out. I have to get out." What does he do? Does he go fast? No. You're going to hear -- you're going to see on that map location, and it shows zero, zero, zero for speed, I believe. And you hear the ring. That's her opening the door. You hear her saying, "Ow." Well, ladies and gentlemen, from the top of that seat, we already heard, through the detectives, to the ground in that area that's wooded and rugged, she goes down. Whether she's twisted her ankle, I don't know, because I'd be making it up. But she says, "Ow." And then, Cooper then takes off. There's no indication he hit her with the car. There's no indication. And what did Sanders tell us? Well, she was at that location, and I asked Slavy, "Was she in the woods?" I must have asked him ten questions before he admitted, "Yes, on that animation, she's in the woods." And she's in the woods for two minutes. And remember, she doesn't have a bloody nose until this girl, who's under the influence, just walking in the woods where there's trees and sticks and branches, and she comes -- what does she say? She says, "I'm scared." Ladies and gentlemen, she texts her girlfriend and says this. As Cooper is coming back to pick her up, she says, "I'm saved." You know what texts are. They don't say everything. The next text said, "scared." Did she say, "I was scared?" Maybe that's what she meant. She saw him coming back. She says, "Now I'm saved." She was out in a dark, desolate area. It shows his car moving away. Then it shows his car coming back and stopping. And what occurs then? She voluntarily -- she gets into his vehicle. She's scared of him. She wants you to think she's afraid. She's scared. And it's important to listen to Detective Bronson. I didn't have to call an accident reconstructionist to refute what his findings were. He told you what his findings were. What he used is Cyril's law. It's what every reconstructionist uses. And guess who makes the animation? Sanders. And guess who puts the speed of the vehicles in? Sanders. He does exactly what he told us that he's never done before in 700 investigations by Nesbitt. He's never done it before. So he's going to do it now. He's going to make an animation where he doesn't know the speed. He fills it in. He fills it in. Is that objective? Or is it subjective? He wants you to rely on that. He wants you to say that my client exercised an extreme indifference. Now, she exits the vehicle. Sanders tells you that she goes 12 feet down the road. He finds biological material. He finds some clothing. He finds that. But he also -- my client -- is 50-some feet past where she is. So they talk about eight minutes. What do you think he's doing? Sitting there for eight minutes? They know the -- they know the slope of that hill. They know that. Slayton knows it better than anybody. Sanders doesn't know it because he's never been there. How does he do this animation and never, ever go to the site? He never does. What does that mean to you? He's just -- he's just doing an animation on a map where he's never been there. He's never been there. That makes a lot of sense. And he had how many years, even before this trial? Even after he testified in a preliminary hearing? He doesn't ever go back there. He can't justify that animation. What he can do, legally do, is show you a general location of the phones. And remember this, ladies and gentlemen. He does not -- he does not -- attempt to tell you speed, because he can. What he does is put it on a map of speed. And remember, that's based on nothing except Life 360, exactly what the disclaimer in Life 360 says you can't do. He does. And if the -- his investigation is incorrect -- that animation is incorrect. Now, they want you to believe that animation. Here's -- they want you to think that that eight minutes, when he's 54 feet by -- away from her body, that it takes him eight minutes to go where he is, to pick her up. And remember the other testimony. She was heavy. They had trouble picking her up. So she's on the road. He picks her up. And what does he do? He puts her in his truck. All this baloney about -- she's seven minutes late from curfew. Ten minutes late for curfew. Do you think that means anything? After this girl, he knows, goes out of the car. Do you think they're talking about that? Or he's thinking that? And I want to say one more thing about that. He's driving a truck that's 21 feet long. For him -- he's facing down that road, field view -- for him to go down there and turn -- make two or three turns of that truck and drive back to her house is going to take a hell of a lot longer than going around and getting to her house. And maybe it was 15, 20 seconds longer. You didn't hear anything. Because you got to remember one thing. We don't have to do anything. We don't have to prove anything. He makes it sound like we've got to prove his case. His case is based on Slavy. Slavy and the information that Slavy gets. And you would have never heard Slavy or his incredibility or his testimony unless I called him. And I can tell you right now, after 50 years of being a lawyer, I've never called the main investigator on a case. Or the affiant on a line. And he told you he's never been called. And I'm going to tell you, I took no pleasure when I cross-examined Lynn. Her testimony, I told you what it was. But what else did Lynn say? Lynn never talked about an abusive relationship. Lynn, to give her credit, didn't exaggerate, didn't stretch the truth. She could have, and she could have a number of times. Once her poor daughter had passed away. She corroborates what Cooper had said when he got there. That she had to vomit. She had to throw up. It's corroborated one hour after her daughter was pronounced dead. And what else did she say? She said Cooper didn't smell. Like alcohol. She was in close proximity to him, I asked. He did not smell like alcohol. They want to do what they should have done correctly and follow the law. They didn't do it. Slavy, after all his bumbling, then comes 6:10 in the morning with two other troopers with body cams. As I said before, they come. You have the film. You can see how they come and ask him questions before they tell him she passed away. And he's trying to tell you in the six and a half minutes that he talked to his mother. He's trying to tell you if that's where he made up some kind of story. You have the body cam. You look at his reaction when he found out she was dead. This was the love of his life. Whether he's 18, 19, 30, or 40. This is a person he spent every day with. Every day with. Every day with. You look at how he reacted. You ask yourself, are those crocodile tears or is that real remorse? Not for anything he did, but now knowing that his love was dead. It's the state's obligation and duty to present all the evidence. It's the duty to present all the evidence. For him to even tell you that I'm going to ask this, tell you this. Listen, I've never been an officer in this court for 52 years. I've never lied. I've never lied to a judge, a jury, or a client. I've never done that. He talks about extreme indifference to human life. You know what that is? That is, if this incident happened on Fieldwood and he got in his truck and just left her in the road like a dog. And ladies and gentlemen, it happens. That's reality. That's what reckless indifference is when you don't care about the person. You're trying to tell me that when he goes back to the house and Lynn doesn't have her phone, he backs out of the driveway. You've been told it's a long driveway. He backs out of it. And what does he do? He finds her phone. And what does he do? He brings her phone back to her mother and gives it to her mother. But he wants to take that eight minutes and wants you to draw an innuendo or an unfair inference. What happened on that roadway with that 21-foot truck. Well, ladies and gentlemen, by the way, that truck weighs 7,400 pounds. You heard that in the testimony. And you heard our medical examiner what he said. And our medical examiner agrees with their accident reconstructionist. Do you think that's just a coincidence? It's far from a coincidence. You take your common knowledge and sense. If a 7,400-pound truck brings over a 130-pound young girl, what is going to be the result of that on the human body? Now, they want to talk about the inside of the shirt. Listen, they had plenty of chances to send that to the FBI lab and do what they call forensic testing. They can do that. This is not 1923. This is 2023. They do that stuff. They can find it microscopically. They can use lasers. They can do it. And I asked Slavy, do you remember that? Do you remember this woman? What she told you from the lab? And he didn't, first of all, he didn't know who I was talking about. He acted like I was making something up. I had to go refresh his recollection. He looks at it for like two minutes. Oh yeah, yeah, that happened. That happened. So, it's not an easy job. It's not an easy job you have. I'm not saying it is. But what I'm saying is this. Sympathy is the biggest factor that I feel that I have to cure in this case. And like I said, I have sympathy. I have sympathy. I don't enjoy asking her if you filed a lawsuit against six other people that you're blaming for the death of your daughter. I didn't enjoy that. I didn't enjoy reciting some of the things she said. And she basically said she didn't read it. But she's been a paralegal for 30 years. She had plenty of time to read that lawsuit. I wish on many occasions that I could come into that jury room and answer some of the questions you may have for me. Unfortunately, I've never had that opportunity and I probably never will. But what I'm saying to you is this. Consider the judge's charge if he gives it to you about the investigation by the police. The investigation that this man says is thorough. It's complete. Remember, they didn't even have the right location on Route 72. And when I asked him, he like beat around the bush. And then I said, did you get a vape? Did you find a vape there that you claim was part of this case? What do you think? I made that up? He didn't want to answer that. His credibility is beautiful. In this case is far from what I would call normal witness. Even a normal witness. Never mind a witness who's the head of this investigation. And remember, this is one month after he joins major crime. That was probably major crime's biggest mistake. I don't know because I'd be doing what he did when he talks about arguing. I don't know what slave he is now. I only hope he's out of major crime. I hope he's sitting somewhere in an office taking fingerprints. You know, his credibility is zero. His complete investigation as the lead investigator means nothing. He tried to take a tragic accident and incident and turned it into a crime. That's what took 12 months to get a warrant. That's what took 12 months, ladies and gentlemen, putting all the pieces together. You know, lawyers, I try it when people say, well, what does a lawyer do? Well, a lawyer or even a prosecutor, what do we do? We're like waiters in a restaurant. The cops are the cops. The cops are the cooks. They make it. They do the investigation. They give us what evidence they recovered. And we have to present it. So I don't blame them. But I do blame slavery. And I do blame the investigation. And I would ask you, please examine, take as long as you need to decide this case. Because one person is lost. We could never bring her back. But I don't want the second half of that tragedy to occur. I don't want my client to be lost forever. Thank you. [01:07:52] Speaker 1: I have a motion for the court. [01:07:55] Speaker 3: The presence of the jury. Excuse, please. All right. We're going to excuse you for a moment. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, thank you. Again, no talking about the case. [01:08:10] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [01:08:41] Speaker 1: Thank you. There was a motion to the jury, there was faxed out of evidence, there was an amount of attacks by myself in my office. [01:08:51] Speaker 3: Regarding the missing witness, how do you determine the official address? [01:09:04] Speaker 4: Was he missing? He did. He did. He passed the line. Don't interrupt anybody. He testified. Usually Malabé, in the cases that follow, is that the actual witness did testify. [01:09:20] Speaker 1: In this case, Detective Slavy did testify, but I don't know if it would be a stretch to say he was missing. The reasoning behind Malabé is to not include a failure to call a witness on the state. The defense is now arguing that the state is being underhanded by not calling a witness, without giving any kind of heads up, so the state could put neutral reasons on the record. Of course, the court was well aware of, which was discussed multiple times. The defense counsel knew that and made the argument anyway. [01:09:50] Speaker 3: All right, so it doesn't prohibit the council from making that comment, but the way I read it, you have to give some of the plans notice of that comment. All right, I intend to give some type of jury instructions in general. [01:10:16] Speaker 1: I would just ask that it would be correct if the defense aren't not general, as the court has used and has done in the past. [01:10:23] Speaker ?: What do you want to instruct the jury? [01:10:27] Speaker 1: That they've heard arguments given to the motion, that they've heard arguments of facts not in evidence, that they've heard arguments of making personal attacks, and they've heard arguments of expressing a personal opinion on whether it's having slavery credibilities. [01:10:51] Speaker 3: I would ask the court to instruct them that those are all the proper arguments, and those arguments should be just right. [01:10:58] Speaker 2: One day, I don't agree that at all. There was nothing improper. What was improper is that man, filling in the blanks, they were arguing in the car. Like he was sitting in the back seat of that car. He made numerous statements that were not taken from the evidence. [01:11:19] Speaker ?: Numerous, Judge. [01:11:22] Speaker 3: I intend to give some type of period of argument or instruction to the jury relative to closing argument issues. Ready to the jury. [01:11:31] Speaker ?: I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. [01:11:36] Speaker 3: I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. [01:11:52] Speaker ?: I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. How much time do we have left? [01:12:10] Speaker 3: How much help is going in? Your argument was from 10, 18 to 11, 10 to 6. [01:12:17] Speaker ?: I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. [01:12:24] Speaker 3: I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. [01:12:26] Speaker ?: I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. [01:12:27] Speaker 3: I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. [01:12:29] Speaker ?: I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. [01:13:15] Speaker 5: I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. I'm going to do it at the closing of your argument. Just remember those comments when I address you now, okay? So in the umpteen years that I've been a prosecutor, I'm always amazed that when a jury is impaneled in a case, they come out and as the first witness testifies, they select their seats and they never change from the time in which they select those seats to the time in which the trial is over. We all have done the same. So let's talk about the testimony in this case. Dr. Williamson testified for the defense in this case. Do you recall that? Consider his testimony versus Dr. Vincent's. When you do that, consider his experience versus Dr. Vincent's. Consider what he reviewed when he offered his initial opinion. He reviewed the autopsy report, some of the photographs, and he perused the accident reconstruction. He called that testimony when he said that. Right before he testified, he reviewed additional items that the state put into evidence, including the sweatshirt soaker he was wearing. He testified, he looked at that for a mere five minutes, inside and out. A mere five minutes. He was paid over $7,000 for his testimony in court. Over $7,000 to review those few items. Dr. Vincent reviewed all of those, plus numerous investigative reports provided by the state police, including the movements of Sophie's cell phone and the defense. Dr. Williamson didn't do any of those things. Is that a thorough examination of the evidence in this case? Did you hear any testimony that Dr. Williamson sat around with other MEs and discussed the findings in this case? Dr. Vincent did. They all concurred. Dr. Vincent provided testimony that the injuries to Sophie's body, externally and internally indicated a crushing injury. Recall that testimony. A crushing injury consistent with a tiger. That crushing occurred when pressure was applied to the right side of her torso. That downward force, that downward force caused displaced fractures to her ribs on her left side. Those displaced fractures caused massive damage to her lung, ripping and tearing. Let's talk about the evidence of that tire running over stolen. Dr. Williamson said he saw no patterns on that sweatshirt, the outside of it or inside of it. Recall when he was showing that sweatshirt, specifically the back of the sweatshirt, and he indicated there was no pattern on it. When you're back in the jury deliberation room, put some gloves on, flip that sweatshirt inside out, and look at the back of it. Look at what would be the right back side of that sweatshirt. You all learned what patterns were in school. You all know what a pattern is. Look at that sweatshirt and see if there's a pattern on it in that area. Is there definable areas followed by blank spaces? Followed by a definable area, followed by a blank space. That's a pattern. But Dr. Williamson didn't see that pattern. Dr. Williamson took several months to come to a conclusion or a final conclusion as to manner. Dr. Williamson took five hours. Five hours. Who was more thorough? Let's talk about Jeff Martin. He testified for the defense as well. He was, again, he was paid for his testimony too. This testimony elicited by the defense is that Light 360 wasn't reliable. Was this witness's testimony and examination of the data collected thorough? Or not his testimony. Was the examination of the data thorough? He never looked at it. Not once did he look at the data from these phones in Light 360. So how could it be thorough? He never examined the data. He never tested it. Mark Sanders did both of those things. In fact, Mark Sanders' calculations of speed were independently tested with the Light 360 data. He generated data sets and provided them so everyone could review them and determine if he had calculated everything incorrectly. No witness came before you and said they reviewed the data and it was incorrect. Instead, Mr. Martin testified that though he asked for the data, he did not review it at any point. But he still believes it's inaccurate. And it's inaccurate despite his company and him personally lauding the accuracy of cell phone location information and the precision of such data. He uses Light 360 to track his kids. I'd ask you to recall the testimony of Mark Sanders about the margin of error he discovered. When he corrects for horizontal accuracy, the phone's report of how accurate the information is, recall that testimony? It's within five meters. 100% of the data was within five miles per hour. So when you review those sample points, give the benefit, give the defendant the benefit of the rate of error and subtract five miles an hour as it pertains to speed calculations. He's still recklessly speeding, even if you do that. The state police didn't seek a search warrant for a blood sample of the defendant. The defense says this would have provided evidence of whether or not Cooper was drunk. The state police didn't talk to Cooper until seven hours after Stokely separated from that truck. Seven hours. They didn't talk to him at the hospital because Cooper wasn't at the hospital. Cooper wasn't at the hospital while his girlfriend was being treated. He dropped her off at her house and he went home. Now consider the testimony of the witnesses as to whether Cooper had left his trunk. He bought a cooler of alcohol to a party along with 20 nippers. None of those nippers were in his truck when it was searched or in that cooler. He drank several beers and a half a bottle of mooch. Most importantly, consider this. Cooper told his buddy Savas or Stevo that he was drunk. Listen to what he told him. [01:19:59] Speaker 6: It's me and Ericka. Ericka, let's say hi. [01:20:04] Speaker ?: Let's go ahead, bud. Hey. [01:20:06] Speaker 6: Me and Ericka. [01:20:08] Speaker ?: Very drunk. [01:20:09] Speaker 6: Very, very, very drunk. We need you to come pick up. Who are you? Who are you doing? [01:20:18] Speaker ?: Hi. Sophie. [01:20:22] Speaker 6: Yeah, she talked. She mad at me. And she didn't want to ride home. She woke up and picked me up. Yeah. We have better friends. Uh-huh. I'm not here. We know. Goodbye. [01:20:37] Speaker ?: Not drunk. [01:20:39] Speaker 5: Very, very drunk. Listen to his speech pattern. Listen to his slurred words. He's drunk. Cooper let picked Sophie up from her house on 5/20/2023. He drove over to Sturgos' house. Recall that testimony. And when he got there and they were leaving, he texted CJ and asked them if they were drinking that night. [01:21:05] Speaker ?: Recall that? [01:21:06] Speaker 5: Remember those items in evidence as it pertains to those text messages? [01:21:11] Speaker ?: Are we drinking? We wanted to drink that. [01:21:15] Speaker 5: We wanted to drink that. He then drove to a package store and bought alcohol for the night so he could make good on that promise. In fact, he told them what they were going to be drinking at Tyler's shop. Look at the text message. After that, he met up with some friends at Chili's and Walmart. And they went to the Schultz Corporation to have that party. He brought that cooler of booze with him because he was going to make good on that promise. While he was at that party, he got into an argument with Sophie. Recall the witness's testimony as it pertains to that. Recall the witness's testimony as it pertains to what occurred at that party. He got in an argument with Sophie and he told her to find a ride home. She tried. Sophie tried to give him affection while he was in the car with Christos. How did Cooper react? Told her to stop it. Rearrange himself in the car. In that backseat. So he could kick her. And kick her he did. Two to three times with his Chippewa booze. She fell to the ground. Testimony also indicated that he shoved her against his truck. And she hit her head. Testimony also indicated he smacked the phone out of her hand when she was trying to call for rides. He yelled at her. Let's go. Before they left. And then he ripped out of that parking lot with her. Is that the conduct of a responsible boyfriend? Instead of driving right up Route 72 and getting her home. Which is the quickest way to get to Sophie's house. He turned on the locusts which took them well around. He didn't care if she was going to be late. He turned on the locusts so he could kick Sophie out of the car. Sophie obviously knew that something was going on. So she pulled out her phone and started her recording. If you've seen that video, I'm not going to show it to you again. We drove away from her and left her there alone. Was Sophie scared at this point? We have her words. She texted her friend. Scared. First she said I'm saved. And then she corrected herself. To scared. Consider the fact that Cooper told the police that he drove up Route 72 to get her home. Remember when he told the police that? I was on 72. Well, for a period of time. Didn't take 72 the whole way because he turned on the locusts. Never told the state police he turned on the locusts. [01:23:54] Speaker ?: Did he? [01:23:56] Speaker 5: Cooper's conduct continued after Sophie got back in the truck. They drove up way around and finally hit Route 4. Instead of turning onto Johnny Cake Mountain Road so Sophie could get home, he stopped in the parking lot. Why did he stop? He stopped because he wasn't done. They drove down Johnny Cake Mountain Road and turned onto Polydan. He went right through that area of Polydan with the dividends. Look at the speed calculation of him tearing through that area. He never stopped there, like he told the police. Instead of turning onto Fieldview, he drove right by and went the long way around to her house. He didn't care if she was going to be late. After he drove by the turn to Fieldview, he stopped again at the top of Polydan near a wooded area. Why didn't he stop? He stopped because he wasn't done arguing. Sophie took two photos while she was there. She had a bloody nose and she was crying. He took the truck and went down Polydan and passed right by her house and never stopped. [01:25:12] Speaker ?: Why? [01:25:13] Speaker 5: Instead he went right back up the Fieldview and did almost a whole other lap. But in this time, he traveled down Polydan and turned that truck around. Right there and went right back up Polydan to the top of where that wooded area is. That's the opposite way of where Sophie lived. Then he came down to Fieldview and he passed right by her house a second time. After he passed her house a second time and considering everything else that had happened, Sophie got out of that truck. He unlocked the door before it was stopped. He told the police that. Pulled to the side but that truck was still moving. She separated from the truck and hit the pavement. When she did, his truck continued down the road and he ran a road. Hooper Ouellette told the police that he stowed the brakes when Sophie fell out of that truck. And he stopped within three feet. There weren't any skid marks in that roadway there. And the scene indicates that she was dragged way farther away than three feet. Hooper Ouellette told the police that he got out of his truck and Sophie said she was fine. Does that make sense based on all of the injuries you observed on Sophie? Would someone who sustained those types of injuries say they were fine? He then told the police he picked her up and put her in his truck. Does that align with the evidence in this case? Look at the animation and see how long they were in that area of Field View Drive. Nearly eight minutes. If she was fine, then why was he there with her for eight minutes? Why? He was there with her for eight minutes because he looked at her and knew she wasn't fine. [01:27:28] Speaker ?: He was panicking. [01:27:30] Speaker 5: Consider how he told the police he could spit to her house where he was on Field View Drive. Yet he didn't turn around and go back to the house. Right? He went right back up, pollied in and did another loop. He turned around in that area before, didn't he? Finally brought her home. According to Cooper Ouellette, Sophie said she was fine when he picked her up and put her in the truck. If she was fine, then why do you have to pick her up? If you're fine, do you need someone to pick you up? [01:28:05] Speaker ?: She wasn't fine. [01:28:07] Speaker 5: She wasn't fine. Because the evidence at the scene shows that he dragged her back to the truck. She lost the boot in the process. He eventually got her home and at that point, according to him, she wasn't fine. Recall that he told the police she was completely out of it. She wouldn't respond. Recall the video of when he arrived at her house. She's not responding and she's slumped over in that car. Or that truck, excuse me. And not moving. He sees that. He gets out of that truck. And when he gets out of that truck, he walks to the passenger side of that truck. He doesn't run. He doesn't jog. He doesn't race. He walks to the passenger side of the truck. And Sophie's lying in that truck. Not fine. He doesn't help carry Sophie into the house. He doesn't tell her parents everything that happened. In fact, he backs out of the driveway when they're bringing her to the hospital. Because at that point, Sophie's not fine. When he backs out of the driveway, he's heading home. Look at the animation. His phone and her phone are moving up Field View Drive, away from where Sophie lives. If he was leaving, then why didn't he just back out of that, if he wasn't leaving, then why didn't he just back out of that driveway and park his truck on the side of the road and go back to the house? He drove up Field View. He drove up Field View. And the only reason he didn't continue home is because he realized her phone was in his truck. Look at the phone records. He called that phone. Found it in his truck. Then he did another lap around Field View and Polygon back to her house and returning the phone. When Sophie was on her way to the hospital, Cooper stayed behind and spoke with Jackson and Leela. Recall the testimony of Jackson and how Cooper's story changed. Cooper then left Sophie's house and drove home. He didn't drive to the hospital where Sophie was. He drove home. Now on his way home, on his ride home, he calls his mom and he's on the phone with her for over six minutes. Recall her testimony. Did Cooper let her tell her everything that happened? Cooper got home at 12:24. We know that because his mother said he did. She also said Sophie walked into the house. Obviously Sophie didn't walk into that house. When he got home, Lynn called. Called that testimony. Lynn was at the hospital with Sophie while she was being treated. She wanted to call Cooper to find out exactly what happened. Recall what Lynn said. Recall what he said to Lynn. He then texted Lynn to ask if Sophie was okay. Read that text. If you have any questions, please let me or call messaging. Is Sophie okay? He sent that text message. Can you go back up please? He sent that text message at 12:36 on 5:21 on 23. Lynn responds to that text message. No. She's getting x-rays and lines put in. And there are about five people working on it. Go down please. See any response from Cooper Ouellette? When he's told no. She's not fine. He never contacted Lynn again. Never picked up the phone to call. Never sent a text to check on Sylvie. Not a one. Look at his call records and look at the exhibits that are in this case. Not a single phone call or a single text after that. [01:32:06] Speaker ?: No. Now consider the next day. [01:32:07] Speaker 5: And look at, when you do that, consider the phone records for the next day that are in evidence. Cooper learns from the police that Sylvie is deceased. You see a single time when you look at those phone records and you review them where Cooper Ouellette called any member of her family to check on them or to see what was going on with Sylvie. Not a single phone call. But those call records reveal that he called other people. [01:32:50] Speaker ?: Thank you.