David Prevatte Attorney Stopped 5 Times During Closing Argument in Murder Trial — Profiling Evil

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Well, hey folks, closing arguments began today in the David Prevatt murder trial. This is from that 2017 death of his five-year-old niece, Peyton Fields. I want to explore the prosecution and the defense closing statements. And I'm wondering out loud why the prosecution puts on gloves to show the evidence, but the defense, the attorney doesn't seem to show the courtesy of wearing gloves. I'm wondering if a silent statement is being made. But in this trial, I see two pathways to a first-degree murder conviction, and the state laid them out. We're going to talk about how they defended Savannah, the sister story, and the evidence that they say points to this defendant and nobody else. So don't miss the closing statements by both the prosecution and the defense, and the compelling points that the defense makes. even though the prosecution and the judge had to correct the defense multiple times. Well, hey everybody, let's talk about the closing arguments in the trial of David Prevatt. This is Profiling Evil. Thanks for logging in. Hit the like and subscribe button. Now today, the prosecution and the defense delivered their closing arguments in the case of a little five-year-old girl named Peyton Fields who was murdered and sexually assaulted. I want to start by covering what the state told the jury as I see it. Then, I'm going to play some key segments from the prosecutor's own words so you can hear exactly how he was delivering this, which I thought was pretty long, slow, and frankly, not too compelling. After, we're going to hear from the defense, who was equally long and less compelling. We'll see how they hit the jury and what your thoughts are. Now, the state went first. The prosecutor did a really good job, I think, although it was incredibly slow, almost painfully slow for me at times, as they tried to describe why they believe David Prevatt, the defendant, is responsible for the murder of Peyton Fields. Now, the prosecution reminded the jury that they, the jury, have to consider the credibility of the evidence that was presented. Then, the prosecution took on the burden head-on as he walked the jury through the laws, the charges, one by one. On that statutory sexual offense charge, he kept it really simple. He just said, look, folks, there's three elements. A sexual act occurred with the victim, the victim was under 13, and the defendant was over 18. That's all you need. And he hammered on the definition of penetration according to North Carolina courts. And I thought the prosecutor was doing a pretty good job of inoculating the jury against what would ultimately be the defense's argument that the evidence was insufficient because it wasn't more graphic or more complete. Didn't need to be. In fact, if you remember, yesterday, the judge threw out the rape charge, so they had a much lower standard. But on that first-degree murder, he gave the jury two separate pathways. He told them, you can take either one. The first pathway, premeditation and deliberation. He spoke of malice, and he reminded the jury that malice is a condition in the mind that prompts a person, in this case, to take a ligature, wrap it around this little five-year-old's neck, and squeeze it repeatedly until she died. Premeditation doesn't require a plan that was hatched any long time in advance. In fact, it could happen over a really short period of time. And in this case, he says that the moment the ligature went around the child Peyton's neck and continued with every squeeze, that was deliberation. He defined it as a cool, fixed purpose, not a sudden passion. And he pointed to the expert testimony that came out that the ligature was squeezed, get this, released, and then squeezed again. And that was evidenced by the petechiae, the little bruising in the eyes, the little blood vessels that collapse and break, the gums, the scalp. And if you're finding the imagery too devastating, I'm sorry. This is just what it is. Now, the second path was felony murder. And the prosecutor kept it mechanical by reminding the jury that the state believes that the defendant committed the sexual offense, that the killing or the process of killing her happened during that sexual act, and the act of the physical trauma killed the child. It was backed by evidence that came out that suggested Peyton suffered acute injuries. They were recent injuries. They were numerous injuries. And the state believes David Prevatt committed that crime. Now, I thought the prosecution did a good job of walking the juror through the night of the murder, where they start out by saying, look, there's five people in the house. Two children, three adults. The defendant's mother testified that she let David Prevatt into the house around 10 or 11 p.m. after he'd been out partying, doing drugs, drinking. The victim was sleeping on the couch in the front room. During the night, the sister noticed the defendant standing over the victim, whose eyes, she reported, were rolled back in her head. Hours later, the child was discovered by the defendant's mother in this life-threatening condition. The defense spoke of the sister's testimony and what happened and that she was coached in their opinion. They said that it all was clear that that child probably grabbed a dog leash and strangled her sister. I just can't imagine even doing that, even making that claim. The prosecution significantly answered that the child witness saw David standing over Peyton. He was wearing shorts, not fully dressed like he was when his mother and her husband were out. The state closed with a consciousness of guilt strategy that pointed out powerfully that the investigators noted the defendant's fingernails were dirty and unclipped at the hospital on the night of the death or on the night of the assault. When they saw the defendant the following day, the investigators said his nails had been clipped and it appeared like he'd gotten a manicure. When they said considering the defense claims that this defendant was distraught over Peyton's condition, they found it really hard to believe that he was so distraught that he went out and had sex with his girlfriend the night after she went to the hospital and that he got a manicure and cleaned and clipped his nails. And the prosecution says that points to consciousness of guilt and then they ended where they started speaking about the totality of the evidence, not just any single piece of evidence. And they claim that David Prevot fatally injured Peyton Fields. And that happened, that fatal injury of, and the assault were happening at the same time. The assault could have been before or after the actual injuries that caused her death. Let's get the prosecution's comments. And by the way, folks, this segment, I tried to reduce it down because it drug on for hours. So I tried to make it much shorter. If it's still too long for you, you might just skip to where I talk about what the defense had to say, and then you can go back and catch pieces of it. Or I'd recommend just gritting your teeth and getting through it, knowing that it's about 25% of the length that it was in real time. [00:08:31] Speaker 2: Now, we're going to talk and remind you what your function is. Your function, as we discussed, and as the judge will instruct you, is to listen to the evidence. And we thank you for sitting here for the last two, two and a half weeks. Thank you on behalf of the state, and we thank you for on behalf of Peyton Fields. As you listen to the evidence, and as you go back into the deliberation room, you're to determine the facts. You're to judge the credibility of witnesses. And I'll remind you, you can choose to believe all, none, or some of what a witness tells you. We spoke about direct and circumstantial evidence. And I will remind you, direct evidence is testimony from a witness that has direct knowledge of a particular fact. But circumstantial evidence, and we spend a lot of time on this, is a proof of a chain of facts leading to the guilt or innocent of that defendant. And we spoke about this, when you're analyzing facts, when you're judging the credibility of witnesses. You must not do it in a vacuum. You must analyze facts and credibility of a witness against all other believable facts in the case. You must analyze against all the other believable evidence in the case. And we went through some of the examples of that. If you remember the RAIN analogy. And we talked about, if you see someone walk in and you have one fact, and it could be a possibility of something. Then we added more facts to it. And that possibility, the first time, or the first possibility, kind of went away. Because as you looked at all the facts, you were able to come up with a different conclusion. Possibilities versus reasonable. You're to applaud the law as the judge instructs you. You're to render a verdict. And you're not to be influenced by any potential sentence. That's your function. That's your function. Analyze the facts against all the other believable evidence. Apply the law that we're about to go over. Render a verdict accordingly. I'm going to remind you of the burden of proof. The burden of proof. The state is only required to present evidence that fully satisfies and entirely convinced you of the defendant's guilt. That's the burden of proof. It's not required to prove. The state is not required to prove beyond all doubt. And I told you this. That you're going to have some doubt. But is it beyond a reasonable doubt? We're not required to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's no such thing as a shadow of a doubt. Is the doubt based on reason and common sense? Is the doubt based upon reason and common sense? A reasonable doubt is not vain. And it's not fanciful doubt. Hold us to our burden. But don't hold us to more than our burden. So for statutory sexual offense, there's only three elements. The defendant engaged in sexual act with the alleged victim. Our courts have said a sexual act means any penetration, however slight, by an object into the genital or anal opening of a person's body. State v. Lucas, our Supreme Court in 302, NC 342 says this. For a sexual act by penetration, any object encompasses human body parts, including fingers. Second, we have to prove that the victim, Peyton Fields, was a child under the age of 13 years. Lastly, the defendant was at least 18 years of age. There's only three elements. There's only three. When we talk about penetration, our Supreme Court in State v. Johnson and our Court of Appeals in State v. Bellamy have said that in the context of rape cases, evidence that the defendant entered the labia is sufficient to prove the element of penetration. And the court of appeals in State v. Bellamy went further and said we'd find no reason to establish a different standard for sexual offense. Penetration of Malice, the condition of mind that prompts a person to take a ligature, wrap it around a five-year-old's neck, and squeeze until she dies. That's Malice. Premeditation. Premeditation means you've formed some intent over some period of time, however short before the act. We talked about this in jury selection. Some would say, well, I need, it's a plan. You don't have to go into a particular situation with a plan before you form premeditation. It can be over some period of time, however short. I would contend that when you wrap a ligature around a five-year-old's neck, you've begun your premeditation. I would contend as you squeeze for minutes, you're continuing to form your premeditation. I would contend you lay a little girl back on the sofa, whether you knew she was dead or not. She continued to suffer. But as you're doing it, as you're squeezing, as the ligature is being placed around her neck, as you're cutting off blood flow, you're forming an intent to kill over some period of time, however short. Deliberation. You have to act within a cool state of mind. Intent to kill was formed with a fixed purpose. Again, we go back to it, it's not some suddenly aroused violent passion, there was a conscious decision to place a ligature around a five-year-old's neck and squeeze. And you've heard from multiple experts that said, we believe it wasn't just squeeze, it was squeeze, release, and squeeze due to the amount of petechia or petechiae in her face, her eyes, her gums, her scalp. Everywhere above the ligature mark. Fixed purpose. Is there any question that she was sexually assaulted? Not a bit. You heard from a critical care doctor who said, his nurse said, doc, there's something wrong. He looks down, says something wrong. He calls the same nurses, two of them, actually one of them, and another one came. They both saw her injuries. They walked you through the pictures. We have hemorrhaging within the labia, past the labia. We have injuries. We have hemorrhage on the three o'clock. We have hemorrhage on the five to seven o'clock. We have the hemorrhage on the 11 o'clock. We have a laceration to the clitoral hood. We have anal lacerations. Is there any question that Peyton Fields was sexually assaulted? The answer is no. Again, the question you're going to have to answer, was it the defendant? And we'll get to that. Therefore, if you find sexual assault, you find that she was killed by strangulation, guilty of felony murder. Now, you may be asking yourself, what was the killing done before the sexual assault or after the sexual assault? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. We don't have to prove the timing of it. Why didn't you say something earlier, Savannah? I don't know. I was seven. Fast forward five years. Savannah comes in here, and she testified in front of you. Not only does she testify in front of you, she's less than 50 feet from the defendant. Nobody who they say coached her was in this courtroom. You get to judge the credibility of a witness. Many of you said, here's how I judge the credibility of a witness. Do I make eye contact? Do I fidget? Do I tell the same story consistently? What she's told you is this. I was asleep. I wake up for unknown reason, and I see that defendant standing over my sister. I see him go back to his bedroom. I go to Nana and Papa's, and I try to wake him up. Get on back in there. Don't wake your sister up. Turn on TV. It's Savannah's incredible to you. If she was coached, do you think maybe she would have said, I saw David do it? She would have said, or not said, I don't remember on some things. You got to hear her testimony. You got to hear her on cross-examination. She's 16 years old now. She was 11 when she first said it. Did she sing, coach? Was it consistent? The answer is yes. You know why these are important. Not only are they important because they were found next to David's bed, readily available. But they're important because Dr. Kelly testified that they matched strike that are consistent with the size of the ligature mark around Peyton's neck. If you remember what she says, the area between this line and this line is about a quarter of an inch. A quarter of an inch. A quarter of an inch. Use your reasoning and common sense about how big a quarter of an inch is. Don't fall for the red herring. It was a belt. How many belts do you know that are a quarter of an inch? Dr. Kelly also opined that there was a split on the side of her neck right here where it looks like whatever the ligature split into two sections. Well, you've got this split. Or you could have a split like that. We don't have to prove to you the exact manner that these earbuds were wrapped around her neck. We do not. We have to prove to you a deadly weapon was used to kill Peyton Fields. A ligature. The only person that can opine how these were wrapped around Peyton's neck is Peyton and the defendant. Well, Dr. Kelly, they match in size, but so are these other ligatures. So are the TR-10 cable. The radio shack cable. The other phone charger. The 550 cord bracelet that was found out. You can see it. This is not an enhanced video or picture. That is a picture from the autopsy table. You can see something interrupted the ligature that had a hook pattern. It's very distinctive. The only ligature that was found readily available with that distinctive pattern was found right next to David's bed. With Peyton's DNA on it. I saw David standing over Peyton. Going back to his bedroom. When Lisa finds Peyton on the couch and she screams, Dale! David! Well, Dale comes out in his pajamas. David comes out fully clothed. Isn't that weird? Isn't that weird? Savannah says a seaman, blue shorts, can tend his boxers. But he comes out fully clothed. Why? Why? Because he knew something was wrong. Why? Because he caused it. We played two hospital videos, three hospital videos. But look at the second. When they were in, there's two videos of them in the, in the, uh, lobby. Please do me. Everybody else believed Peyton was having seizures. And you've heard from Lisa when she'd been sick. I gave her Domitap. I gave her Cholenthalinol or Ibuprofen. Nobody there believed she was sick. That these were seizures from being sick. And look at their demeanor while in the lobby. Look at Lisa and Dale's. Look at Savannah's. Nothing out of the ordinary. But then look at David's demeanor. Who was panicked or appeared to be panicked in the lobby? You know why he was so distressed? Because he knew what he did. He knew what he did. And he knew the extent of her injuries. He knew that she wasn't sick. He knew that he'd wrap something around her neck. Look at what else. On the night, the night of the 13th, the night of the 13th, the night of the 13th, as he's looking distressed inside that lobby, the night of the 13th, he goes and has sex with Haley. While she's on her period. While she's on her period. Okay. Nothing wrong with having sex while you're on your period. But do you remember what Detective LaBelle said? When he appears during the day of the 13th, David's fingernails were nasty. David's fingernails were nasty. Then he comes back the next day on the 14th, the morning of or the afternoon after he has sex with Haley Fawcett. What did Detective LaBelle say? Detective LaBelle said this. It looked like his fingers had been manicured. Now, should they have gotten his finger scrapings the day before? Absolutely. But they got him the next day. They come back single sourced agent. Of course they did. He cut them. And they were clean. So he cleaned his fingernails. He cleaned his fingernails. Did he stay at one in four block water drum? Nope. He immediately moves out. Goes and lives somewhere else. Consciousness of guilt. His actions. Each one of these actions is a consciousness of guilt. Each action after Peyton is found is a consciousness of guilt. The totality of the evidence says this. Nobody else did it. Lisa and Dale were in there together. They haven't wavered from that. They were in there together. You've got the physical evidence that links David. You've got the eyewitness testimony that links David. You've got David's own actions linking David. There's no other evidence to suggest anybody else did this. No other evidence. When the judge instructs you to go back and render your verdict on the verdict sheet as to first degree murder, the answer should be yes. Now you're going to have to decide then under the theory of premeditation and deliberation or under felony murder or both. And you've got to make that decision. And I would suggest to you it's both premeditation and deliberation and felony murder. Then he's going to give you a second sheet. And the second sheet's going to say, we the jury, as our unanimous verdict that the defendant David provided as to the charge of statutory sexual offense of a child by an adult, guilty or not guilty. Guilty. There is no other evidence that anybody else did this. He had the opportunity. He had the location. There's male DNA. There's a ligature that is consistent. And not just consistent. It matches. Or it's consistent with a pattern. The special pattern of that hook. You've seen the injuries. Find him guilty of sexual offense. Find him guilty of murder. And only after you do that will there be justice for payment. Thank you. [00:28:51] Speaker 1: And that's the prosecution case. But before I dig into the defense case, I want to pause long enough to remind you folks about my book, Wolves in Sheep's Clothing. The book was written especially for you, the true crime enthusiast who's interested in understanding criminal behavior. You can buy this book worldwide through Amazon.com, through IngramSparker, your favorite bookstore. And as a special offer to those of you who live in the United States, if you buy the book through my website at ProfilingEvil.com, I'll sign it and I'll ship it to you for free. So thanks for considering that. But let's get back into the defense's closing argument. You see, the defense did exactly what was expected. They complained about the state, the investigation, the investigators, everything. Now, you'll remember the defendant chose not to testify. But his attorney right out of the chutes reminded the jury the line between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is thin. But this was actually one of the better moments for the defense, in my opinion, because they said, hey, jury, remember, probable cause is the kind of thing that'll get you arrested. But proof beyond a reasonable doubt? That's where a jury comes in. And that's where convictions happen. But six times by my count, the defense tried to get information in front of the jury that wasn't appropriate and it wasn't evidence. And the prosecution objected every time and every time the court sustained them but once. It was clear the defense was really frustrated. You'll see that in a moment. But they continued to try to get the information about body fluids in front of the jury. It was inappropriate and it was never introduced as evidence. And they shouldn't have kept trying, but they did. And they must think that's really important. And when you watch it, you'll see the frustration building in the defense attorney's face as he keeps on trying. And it really bugged me because it felt so inappropriate. But from there, he went back to attacking the investigation, the evidence, the earbuds, the DNA, everything about this case. But what really got me is when he attacked the victim's sister's testimony, indicating that it wasn't true, it wasn't accurate, and that it was coached. He hammered the lack of motive for murder, and he argued that the victim's body fluids were transferred to the defendant during the life-saving efforts, not during an assault. Maybe it was a good moment, I don't know. But then he closed with felony murder dependency. And he reminded the jury, if you can't find him guilty of the sexual offense, you can't reach felony murder. Because the felony part is the foundation. And I did like his recipe analogy, where he told the jury, quote, If you leave out one ingredient, you don't have a cake. If you leave out one element, you don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, close quote. And then he delivered his final line, which was, Your job, speaking to the jury, is to let your verdict speak the truth. And that truth, in our opinion, the defense's opinion, is that David's not guilty, because he just doesn't have enough evidence against him to prove that he did it. [00:32:25] Speaker 3: Each of you said during jury selection that you recognized a defendant's right and privilege to be presumed innocent. Each of you said that you could apply that principle, that right, that privilege, to David's provide. And that privilege, that cloak of innocence, stays with him throughout this trial until and unless the state can take it away from him. And based upon this evidence, they have not done that. What happened on the morning of November 13th, 2017? You have a glimpse. You have innuendo. You have speculation in the state as to what happened. But do you really have the facts? You have to determine the facts from this evidence. It's not something you get to guess about. It's not something you get to speculate about. It's something that you have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that happened. But all they could tell you at voting was there was a small amount of semen. Objection. [00:33:55] Speaker 2: Approach. Previous instruction, when you entered, there was no semen found on Peyton Fields. [00:34:05] Speaker 3: Bodie testified that they found a small amount of DNA. So small that it couldn't be quantified or amplified to determine if it was male or not. So when a person is charged with a crime, it starts from the proposition of, is there a probable cause to arrest someone? Is there evidence that shows a crime was probably committed? And that it was probably committed by someone? That's the basis upon which they got the lawrence. But when it comes to court, it goes from probable cause, probability, to what is called beyond a reasonable doubt. That means evidence that fully satisfies you, entirely convinces you of David's guilt. And what did they hang their hat on for proof beyond a reasonable doubt? No more than they did when they charged him. Because it wasn't conclusive when they charged him. It wasn't conclusive in this trial. And the difference between probability and beyond a reasonable doubt, because it becomes a higher standard, it's like comparing this wall in front of your jury box. That's to jump over. That's probable cause. You come over here to the bench where the judge sits, and it's higher, it's raised. This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not all doubt. It's not beyond a shadow of a doubt. But it's proof that satisfies you, individually and collectively. Because first, you have to determine, in your belief, in your mind, have they proven the things that they are required to prove? Then collectively, the twelve jurors who will deliberate this, you talk about it. You may have differences of opinion. That happens. Part of the judge's instruction will be that you, as an individual juror, will consider the arguments and positions of your fellow jurors before you finally make up your mind. So you can have your opinion about what this shows. And other jurors may differ. You may change your position. At the same time, someone else may change theirs. This is not a vote by majority. This is a vote that has to be announced. Each and every one of you have to be satisfied that the state has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt before you can say that David Perbatte is guilty of any crime. It's the same standard that applies in every criminal case in North Carolina and the United States as part of the makeup of the judicial system. So when you go to the jury, you will have heard the judge's instructions about the law. What is it the state has to prove for statutory sex it has? What is it the state has to prove for first-degree premeditated murder? What is it the state has to prove first-degree murder under the felony murder rule? If you find that David Perbatte is not guilty of statutory sex offense, then you will not consider whether he's guilty under the felony murder rule. Because it is that felon that they have alleged he committed during the course of the time that Peyton died. They don't have to show a specific intent to kill him. They don't have to show that it was premeditated. They don't have to show under felony murder that it was deliberated. They don't have to show that he has, as I said, a specific intent to kill. All they have to do is prove she was sexually assaulted, and during the course of that sexual assault, she dies. Whereas, under premeditated deliberate murder, there are multiple elements. The elements are the parts of the crime. They're like the ingredients and a recipe. If you start off making a cake from scratch, you're going to do flour, butter, eggs, baking soda, maybe some milk, and you're going to mix it together to make your batter. But if you leave one of those out, you don't have the cake that you intend to make. So they have to do every single element under premeditated murder. And I would argue to you, ladies and gentlemen, they haven't done that. David Pervat is not guilty of these offenses. He has lived with this nightmare since November of 2017. A little more than a month away. A month and four days, actually. your job is to seek the truth from the evidence that's been presented. That is the highest aim of every legal contest to find the truth. How do you do that? You go back through the recollection of the testimony. You go back through the evidence that's been presented to you. Because somewhere in the facts and circumstances of every case the truth abides. And when the truth abides Lady Justice garbed in her robes swoops in to reveal that truth. Your job is to find the truth and to render a verdict. Your job isn't to punish David is not to reward the state. Your job is to let your verdict speak the truth. And that truth is that David is not guilty. Because the state just simply does not have enough evidence to prove that he did. Well now [00:42:12] Speaker 1: the case is going to the jury. The final rebuttal is coming up but the prosecution will have to tie it all together to get them to decide if David Prevett is guilty of murder and sexual assault. What I'd like to know is your opinion right now if you were sitting on this jury. If you've been watching the trial how do you vote? Do you believe that the state proved their case? I'm going to be looking for your answers down below. And I hope you'll take time to weigh in on what others have to say. And please folks check out my website at profilingevil.com where you can look at our story maps. You can sign up for our digital newsletter The Bolo and you can search around. And remember that you can find Profiling Evil on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, all of it. And you can listen to Profiling Evil on the go through our audio podcasts wherever you get your downloads. Hey folks, I'm Mike King and this is Profiling Evil. We're going to be waiting for the jury to come back with whether this is guilty, not guilty, or they become a hung jury. We'll see you soon at the next Crime Seat. [00:43:39] Speaker ?: Bye.