Drunk Boyfriend’s Deadly Ride Was No Accident: Prosecutor

[00:00:01] Speaker 1: Good morning. We did still make it. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before I begin my closing argument, I'm going to start by saying thank you. I know it's been trying times in the courtroom, out of the courtroom. Early exits, delayed starts, but it's been clear to everyone throughout that we've had your full attention. You haven't wavered and stuff 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 subject facts 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, 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 the facts or instances 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 arbiter 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 that 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 O'Leary, two crimes. Manslaughter in 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. That he's completely uncontradicted that Cooper O'Leary 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 O'Leary, 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. [00:04:12] Speaker ?: So the third element, probably the simplest, right? [00:04:15] 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 0.151 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 needs to prove under reasonable doubt. The defendant's conduct created a grave risk of death. [00:05:10] Speaker ?: He acted recklessly. He evinced an extreme indifference to human life, and he caused Sophie's death. [00:05:18] Speaker 1: 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 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 a lot of 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 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. [00:06:11] 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? [00:06:31] 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. [00:06:38] Speaker 1: He's kicking her out of his truck. And that's why she picks up the phone. 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. 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 Crowell, 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 life experience that he is accelerating away. His truck strikes Sophie, causing her to cry out. What happens next? She's alone. She's in an area of woods. And she's scared. So she texts her friend, I'm scared. Shortly thereafter, her roulette comes back, picks her back up. Their phones start co-locating again. And they start traveling at speeds consistent with being back in that truck. So does he take her home now? [00:08:24] Speaker ?: No. [00:08:26] Speaker 1: You 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 Polly Dan, and now we get to what has been referred to as Polly Dan. 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 at bed at that dip. So then what happens? 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. I'm going to go to the car. So again, the geolocation data from both phones corroborated by those surveillance footage shows that he does not take that left turn onto Field View. He goes straight onto Polydan. Submits to you. They are still arguing. Cooper is not done. As the phones come around this curve here, you're going to see them come up to Sophie's residence. And that's the defendant's first opportunity to take her home. What does he do? Does he make that simple right turn into the driveway of Sophie's residence and drop her off? The phones show that he does not, ladies and gentlemen. He's not done arguing. [00:11:28] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:11:58] Speaker 1: If we pause here, you can see those geopoints are at 11.37 p.m. 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. 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, 11 minutes past her curfew, and he's not taking her home. Ladies and gentlemen, when that photo's 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. He turns around, goes back up. And again, surveillance footage is corroborating all of these times and all of these fears on the 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 Peace. 11.41 p.m., you heard testimony from Morgan, you heard testimony from Devin about receiving it at that time. You've seen the Snapchat records that I think 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. Again, we have those Snapchat records. That photo being snapped to Morgan Peace. So recall the testimony about Mark Sanders about that red line being the area of that scene map. Pause here. This is where we have the phones coming up to that event where she strikes the ground, right? We have the 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 for Part 2. The defendant is arguing. He's angry. He's upset. He's 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 over by that car. That is conduct which creates a great risk for Sophie. I submit to you to say I've proven that element beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 lease? Drunk driving. Let's take a look at States Exhibit 79 on page 3. You can see these texts from Cooper Ouellette to C.J. 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 aftermaths 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. Excuse me. 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. [00:18:26] Speaker ?: And, of course, add to it everything that we've already talked about. [00:18:30] Speaker 1: 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. Now, 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. 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 stoved the brakes. But cars found no evidence of skid marks. Consult your common sense, your life experience. Ladies and gentlemen, when we spoke during jury selection, I asked you, if you would have any problem bringing your common sense and your life experience into this courtroom to credibility assessments without witnesses. 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. 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. So with that, 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 event. 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. Don some 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 in life experience. Fifteen miles an hour, 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 are the injuries which caused her death. The judge is going to give you an instruction on proximate cause. And proximate cause is a legal concept that 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 it 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 laps around the field of human power. 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 it. Let's break down some of the defendant's statements that have been disproved in this trial. [00:25:35] Speaker ?: We spoke about the dip on Polygang. [00:25:37] Speaker 1: You know that he's told everybody that this happened at the dip on Polygang. Multiple witnesses came in and talked about that conversation on May 21st, where he said the dip. He's doing 50 miles an hour for the dip, ladies and gentlemen. The geolocation evidence proves that that was untrue. He said that Sophie, he was stopped when Sophie fell out. The geolocation evidence says that was not the case. He was moving. He said he stole the brakes. There's no indication on that road that there was any kind of dystopian for 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. 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 as a limp body. But let's talk a little bit about that conversation with his mother. If you take a look at States Incident 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 Crissone is? Why is Detective Harrington being asked about pattern recognition when Dr. Vinson is? Why is Sergeant Pierson 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. Thank you.