FL v Sarah Boone: State Rebuttal — Suitcase Murder Trial

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, George Torres is dead because the defendant believed he deserved to be zipped shut in a suitcase so that she could make him feel how she felt when he cheated on her when he choked her and to hold them there as a captive audience according to her testimony now he has to listen to me well right out of the gate there are credibility issues cheating to me means human pornography well we saw cheating really means women and the heated conversation on June 14th about these women in Facebook that is what leads to the arrest on June 15th he's outpouring candy crush all the bizarre things that you see in her phone he uses the legal system as a weapon at times there's no denying that they are engaging in violent behavior and it is over nonsense it is smashing TVs they call the police and then they're standing there looking bewildered about what to do and who to say and laughing and joking ladies and gentlemen the courtroom is a place for justice not a suitcase the reason we have a jury system originally started with the idea that the king the crown in England shouldn't be able to go and incarcerate citizens on his whim so it developed into a system where citizens would have to say yes you can take our fellow citizen but the opposite is also true a citizen cannot take another citizen's life because he or she feels like it that likewise requires a jury to decide that it was objectively reasonable for a person of ordinary prudence and caution like mr. cacciatore argued earlier battered spouse syndrome is not a license to kill past grievances even being stabbed in the leg so on and so forth do not give her the license to kill there are still laws in place about when and how this can be done in a justifiable manner I want to talk about the most important jury's instruction in this case that has not been discussed very well or thoroughly however the use of deadly force is not justified if you find that Sarah Boone used force to initially provoke the threatened use of force against herself we'll stop at that comment the facts of the case that came from her own mouth if she is to be believed and we will explore thoroughly why you should disregard every bit of her testimony from court to the detectives to the 911 operator to the doctors her testimony if it is to be believed the most favorable light that she has presented of herself is that at the end of a Sunday fun day where we're drinking we're outside by the dartboard we're doing puzzles we're doing arts and crafts and there finally comes a point in time where we're going to play hide-and-seek and he says tag you're it even though she's it she goes upstairs hides in the shower eventually gets tired of being there it's cold so on and so forth and she comes back downstairs and as she comes back downstairs she can see mr. torres fiddling to place himself inside the suitcase to try and hide for this game and the lid is not not clothed and flapping and out of jest out of gladity undisputed according to her testimony she comes over there and zips it shut whether it's a hundred percent or enough for two fingers to get out that is something that you decide as the jury but there came a point in time where the fun and games was over and mr. torres told her that "babe i can't breathe sarah babe let me out this is all on video we don't have to imagine this this is all on video once one zero six two at that point in time she is using force against him that is not justified she is the initial provocateur she is the aggressor under the law and what level of force is it i can't breathe not let go of my hand not get your hands off me i can't breathe this is no different than two people maybe they're buddies at the bar similar to an example given by mr. o who are wrestling and one has another one in a headlock and there comes a point in time where the person on the receiving end of the headlock says i you know that's enough i'm tapping i'm tapping george torres was tapping and she ignored it and she was kind enough to tell you why out of anger which translates to hatred ill will spite just like that in jury instruction for a secondary murder she told you exactly why she got angry him saying i can't breathe babe was what triggered her not a fear of imminent harm those are his her own words that is the law these are the two paragraphs that solve this equation without getting up on a big whiteboard in college that's 30 feet long 15 feet high and a ladder and somebody's scribbling latin words and greek letters for months and months to solve this huge complicated equation the equation is solved in two paragraphs she is the initial aggressor he is saying i can't breathe it is no different than a naked chokehold that she does not let go of and she told you it's because i want him to listen to me this is my bully pulpit pulpit this is how he made me feel in the past she doesn't describe it as teaching him a lesson but that's exactly what she says i want him to feel like i felt in the past i want to tell him things ladies and gentlemen we can play semantical games but that is teaching him a lesson therefore we have to look at the other two paragraphs because right now plain as day the use of deadly force is not justified if you find that sarah boone used force to initially provoke the threat and use the force against herself and what force are we talking about well the threat of force that she tells you she was facing was him fighting for survival him sticking his fingers out of the suitcase him sticking his hand out that is the threat of force coupled with i'm going to end you well ladies and gentlemen she is the initial provocateur she is the one using deadly force against him if i have somebody in a rear naked chokehold they are entitled to use deadly force against me to break that chokehold at least until we're separated he had every right to say what he said he had every right to exist and stick his hand out and try and survive to breathe another day however the use of force is not justified if you find that sarah boone used the force to initially provoke the threatening use of force against herself unless she does one of two things and she did neither not even close the threat of force asserted towards the defendant was so great that she reasonably believed that she was an imminent danger of death or great bodily harm all right let's give her absolutely every benefit of the doubt which you should this is a criminal prosecution the state of florida has alleged she committed murder you need to do everything you can to look for reasonable doubt but a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary doubt a forced out speculative doubt so accepting accepting that all their past history accepting the doctor's testimony and the limitations on what they reviewed compared to what we reviewed we did a much more thorough review of the relationship than any of the doctors did in this case so let's give her that first clause because of their past relationship with george now fighting for his right to exist and saying that he will end her if he gets out we'll give her that but just like mr cacciatore mentioned earlier lawyers words mean things to us and they mean things to everybody but really to us they mean things to us because of his right to the right to the right to us or and there's an and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger other than using deadly force on george torres she did not use every reasonable means to escape the danger that now after provoking provoking him that he was presented to her according to her she didn't pick up her cell phone and start walking call 9-1-1 she didn't do anything other than if you believe that is why she called brian boone made a phone call to brian boone boone and unfortunately because of past history he just ignored her drunken phone call she did not exhaust every reasonable means to escape this danger that she created she started it she created this other than using the deadly force on george torres now this is a weird situation this is not a rear naked chokehold this is a suitcase or as mr cacciatore said a box or actually more aptly described it as a coffin and when you secure somebody into a box or a coffin you can still exert that deadly force on them from a distance i'll give you a quick example from a couple of movies that i love you know in 1977 in may a movie came out it's called star wars they eventually called it episode four in the first scene there is this large imposing figure that wears black armor he is a government agent and he is looking for some stolen classified documents he picks a man up who he believes is responsible for this treachery and breaks his neck and chokes him to death when he doesn't tell him where the the plans are we all understand that that is direct force we all understand but what we need to understand is the force she's exerting from the couch and then when she goes up to bed she is still exerting that force on him she set these implementations into motion and did not stop so later in this movie that came out in 1977 another co-employee of this dark composing figure vader insults his religion he does not go to hr he takes matters into his own hands and chokes this person from a distance ironically while we're talking about force it's the force and then in the subsequent movie he's like doing it from his office he's killing his incompetent employees on different ships force deadly force can be exerted from a distance in this situation so whether she's on the couch or whether she turns in for bed she is still using that deadly force on him she has not exhausted every reasonable means to escape this danger do something you started this you put him in the position where he cannot breathe she's required by law to do something about it not something everything there was no efforts in this case none or in good faith sarah boone withdrew from physical contact with jorge torres and clearly indicated to george torres that she wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force but george it just reads his word george torres continued or resumed the threatened use of force that did not happen she never withdrew from physical contact she is still like vader choking him from the couch choking him from bed she never withdrew that force physical contact includes any restraint on george torres's vagrant she never indicated that she wanted to withdraw sarah babe i can't breathe all right if i let you out are you gonna come out peacefully since i started this i'm the one that made you not be able to breathe that didn't happen so ladies and gentlemen this entire analysis about deadly force starts and ends there she was the provocateur these are her obligations when she starts it she put him in fear of death he is literally telling her i cannot breathe a couple other things about the law second-degree murder does not require a proof of intent to kill argument was made repeatedly that she didn't intend to kill him that has never been the state's suggestion because why would we suggest we prove something that we don't have to it's not her subjective belief well sarah boone doesn't believe that this suitcase can kill him even though he's repeatedly said i can't breathe that's a person of ordinary judgment who would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another a person of ordinary judgment who hears i can't breathe babe sarah and his voice gets weaker nine minutes later you're on notice this is statutory notice done from ill will hatred spite or evil intent her words speak for herself this was not out of fear this was out of hatred and anger born out of all those horrible things that has been done to her and done to him understanding we're not going to belabor the past is of such neighbor that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life i don't care that you're saying you can't breathe fuck you that's my name don't wear it out fuck you it's second degree murder we do not have to prove the intent to kill we have to she intended the act she intended the act of zipping him shut she continued to intend that act when he said i can't breathe that act resulted in his death that's a manslaughter but then when you add in the hatred ill will spite in the depraved mind that's what makes it secondary murder and that two minute video is the textbook definition of depraved mind as we define it here in florida voluntary intoxication is not a defense you cannot feel sorry for her because they had two 1.5 liter bottles of wine and then some from the leftovers from the day before and quite frankly she's blackout drunk she's blackout drunk she doesn't remember making the videos she turns her phone over right to the deputy the next day because she doesn't know what's on it she doesn't remember doing it another thing that we just haven't talked about much is her story she can't be up in the shower hiding and taking a picture at 11 03 pm nine minutes before the video that portion of her story just doesn't add up and what it shows is it's more like 20 minutes instead of 11 or 12 minutes that we know he's trapped in what turns out to be his coffin let's talk about her testimony at trial and we'll talk about all the problems a lot of her issues predated her relationship with mr torres so it's not attributable to the trauma from mr torres with all the luggage she brought into the relationship and listen to the way she talks it's not splitting the bills it's helping without argument it's not cleaning up and doing sunday chores it's it's cleaning up so we can relax it's a reward she talks about him like he's a child i need to lead him to the next activity from one to the other and then you saw all the videos and i'm not going to belabor it what that we showed in rebuttal but the relationship and the power dynamics speak for itself he was treated like the third dog and it might very well have been a dog that bit and was violent but he was treated like a dog why are you leaning against my door get out of here go downstairs you're worthless you're garbage they showed the part of the video where he slaps the phone but that's after five or six minutes of being berated and dehumanized uh in a way that nobody should be treated he just wanted to get in bed and and lay down next to his fiancee instead get away from the side of my door you useless dog i thought it might be a good point in time to listen to the music you know when does when does mr torres get to decide what to do i mean she she paints this picture that he goes off and does all these things on his own um goes and buys wine when he's not supposed to does all these things when he's not supposed to but when does he get to do what he wants suitcase downstairs for a week so they can donate it what was in their lives that was preventing them from getting that suitcase to the goodwill or whatever neither one of them worked what's going on lucas is over there on mondays and tuesdays the story about the suitcase having already been down there is quite suspect and we will get into that more but again it's not we went on a trip together we had a great time it's i quote unquote i recently took him on a trip then it comes down to the moment of truth which we've already gone over and it's just quite frankly inconsistent because she doesn't ex there's no explanation for the picture her explanation at trial when i brought it up to her was i just don't remember i don't remember this period in time from the picture at 1103 to to when i was supposed to be coming down the stairs there's a major glitch in her matrix she shakes the suitcase please stop doing this to me and then his hand gets out now she's the point in time when she gets angry and doesn't do what the law requires after basically choking him with his coffin beats him into submission with the bat and turns it back over for the first time ever at trial she says i'm going to end you is what he said she never told that to even her doctors we've heard the arguments why she didn't tell the truth to the police and all all that and there's a lot of truth into the argument that was made there's a lot of truth when the argument is made that she didn't understand self-defense what that means what it comes across as she makes this story change as she learns about it when we apply the jury instructions to her statement all six of them apply against her won't belabor this since it was discussed earlier but did the witness have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified even at trial she admitted that she was in intoxicated for the first time she went back and forth with the police about whether or not she was intoxicated and her standard of drunkenness and whatnot but she was so intoxicated that she still felt the effects of it at one in the afternoon the following day the medical examiner told you that alcohol dissipates in the average person everybody's different tolerance all sorts of things come into play but on average 0.015 grams per deciliter will dissipate every hour so you can do the math 0.015 times 14 puts her at two and a half times the legal limit for those reasons alone you should not believe anything she told you you should not believe anything she told the police you should not believe anything she told the doctors she was at two and a half times the legal limit she has a gap in her memory that's unexplained when i brought up the photograph at 1103 you can't have it both ways i don't remember 1103 to 1112 but i was upstairs in the shower hiding does the witness seem to have an accurate memory well this ties into what we're talking about but again there's a glitch in the matrix 1103 to 11 12. her memory is not accurate by her own admission i don't remember she tells the police when they show her the video i don't remember that happening was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorney's questions i submit when we got off script and by we i mean both with both attorneys she wasn't as honest and straightforward as when it was a very directed and smooth um examination i came out of the gate with something that um was off script tell me about pamela erickson tell me about christine tell me about crystal because she's the one that said cheating to her meant pornography well ladies and gentlemen you know she knew exactly who those people were and that she believed that he was cheating on them with her and apparently she is too with some guy named ben that when i describe this as a violent nonsensical relationship that's exactly what it is it's not to downplay the violence she got stabbed she had minor surgery it got infected she those injuries are real but they just don't apply in this case they just don't apply when you use that self-defense instruction when she's the aggressor if it's to be believed [00:24:50] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:26:50] Speaker 1: Thank you. Let me say it loud and clear. Batac Spouse Syndrome does not have any effect on this case. It has no relationship to this case because she is the aggressor. She zipped him shut in the suitcase after he said, I couldn't breathe, she wouldn't let him out. Therefore, all of the instructions above that paragraph of however do not apply. They do not apply. Now, turning back to what I was saying, did the witness have some interest in how the case would be decided? Well, of course. Let's pretend her testimony doesn't exist and you just have to look at the circumstances. The testimony from the defendant is George Forrest's head is here. You can stand if you need. You've been sitting a long time, too. His head is here. His butt is kind of down here. His feet are here. And his hands and his knees are up here. He's in the fetal position, if you remember right. The hematoma on his head is on the left side. The bruises, the deep bruises on his back are on his left side. That's, you hear that? That's solid. You don't have to accept that she put those marks on him when he was in there. The evidence doesn't support it. You can conclude she used this bat when he was outside of the suitcase. You don't have to believe her when she said they were playing hide and seek. You don't have to believe her because she doesn't know the rules. She came downstairs, saw what she had done, and had all the opportunity in the world to clean up whatever mess may have been at the bottom of the stairs. But, ladies and gentlemen, physics doesn't lie. She can't expect you to believe her testimony about the loud boom being the day before compared to her two neighbors who weren't drinking, who have no interest in the outcome of the case, who suffer from none of the infirmities of her testimony. She suffers from all six infirmities. When her neighbors say there was a loud boom that night, there was a loud boom that night. Did it shake the wall they shared in common? It shook the wall that they shared in common. Did she have any injuries consistent with being dragged up and down the stairs the night before? No. You saw the pictures the CSI took. You don't have to accept her story about hide and seek. Something made that loud boom. It takes energy to make a loud boom. Energy that could very well be in the form of somebody going down some of the stairs, all the stairs, in the suitcase, out of the suitcase. But that's what the evidence supports, is there was a loud boom that shook the walls and interrupted a FaceTime conversation that was so loud that the girlfriend on the other end heard it. Something loud happened. And then there was silence, according to the witnesses. And they can argue that Juan Torres' testimony was great for them. It's great for the state. She was screaming at him already at 7.30 p.m. She was already on her bully pulpit. And we know she doesn't need to put him into the coffin. To get on her bully pulpit. There's video after video of her on her bully pulpit. Telling him how it's going to be. How you're going to live your life. Go take a walk. Do this. Do that. You don't have to accept anything she said. It's inconsistent that he received the hematoma to his head. His bloody mouth. How is his mouth getting bloodied inside the suitcase? That's protected from her and her bat. But that suitcase, a 100-pound drunk woman is not beating through the wood of that suitcase or whatever it is that's making that noise when it's thumped. Ladies and gentlemen, those injuries happened outside of the suitcase. Ladies and gentlemen, somebody or something went down those stairs. She has no injuries consistent with going down the stairs. He does. He has blood force trauma all over him. You don't have to buy her story. And you shouldn't. The inconsistencies. I'm not going to belabor it. Your dinner is waiting him back. Let's just briefly talk about the experts and we'll move on to the end. Dr. Brandon was absolutely fantastic. He explained everything that you all needed to know about battered spouse syndrome. And this isn't about whether one of them or both of them had battered spouse because at the end of the day, she's the initial aggressor and she had the duty to do the things that the law requires. But it does call into question the credibility of the past power dynamics of their relationship. Those videos speak for themselves. The officer in the last video asks him, dude, you're a guy. Why don't you do something about this woman, your wifey, who you don't want to rat on for beating you? It's like, man, I'm not a beefcake. I'm not going to rat her out. There's countless examples if you apply Dr. Brandon's testimony to Juan Torres that really shows you the power dynamics of the relationship. He was her violent pet. Dr. Harper. I don't find much quarrel with what she says about battered spouse syndrome and nobody should. I mean, she's the expert. But she's not Ms. Boone's treating physician. She's not her treating psychologist. The way it was described in argument and I believe from Dr. Brandon's testimony was she's supposed to be a forensic detective. Get to the bottom of this. She's going to come in here at trial and tell you her opinion you should rely upon. With nine visits, she never asked the defendant what it is the victim said that put you in imminent fear of death or great bodily harm. That's the crux of the matter, doc. You're never going to ask her what it is he said or did for this grand jury instruction about threat of force or use of force. It's remarkable. And, you know, she didn't review everything that was presented to you. At the end of the day, it's your opinion that matters about this relationship. And again, we agree with Dr. Werner. It doesn't matter. She had the duty to retreat. She had the duty to take the chokehold off. And if it was too dangerous for her to directly take the chokehold off, she had the duty to do something else, everything in her power to stop him from dying because she started it. She set it in motion. She used the force grip on him from a distance, the couch and from bed. It was her obligation to stop. She didn't. But Dr. Werner, she was called by the state of Florida after having evaluated and listened to the defendant give a similar story and concluded that spouse doesn't apply. So she was never asked to delve any deeper into it. Given the information that she did have, the limited information, she agrees. Yes, Ms. Boone has battered spouse syndrome, but it doesn't apply to the case because she was the aggressor and she did not fulfill her obligations. And really, just your gut common sense. Go back to jury selection. In jury selection, there was examples about bullies day after day doing something to somebody. And somebody raised their hand and said, don't they have to do something that day? Don't they have to do something that day? And he didn't. After he was put in fear of death and told her he can't breathe, the imminent threat of great bodily harm and death she is describing to you is him fighting for his life to escape. She did not fulfill her obligations. There's details that matter. Again, not to belabor it. I mean, the evidence in the body-worn camera in the 911 calls, it's not offered to prove the truth of the matter of who stated what. Who knows what happened between these two? You see them with the police. Can't believe anything they're saying. It's not offered to prove that she's a bad person. It's not offered to prove that Mr. Torres is a bad person. It's simply offered to call in question the reliability and credibility of what she said about the past. That's all that it's there for. But there are some nuggets and some Easter eggs. There was an argument made during closings that Mr. Torres knows not to do anything when being videotaped. Bizarrely, shortly day after, they showed a very edited clip of him attacking her and slapping the phone out of her hand. He knows he was being videotaped and there was another video like it, too. So to make the argument that he doesn't do anything, he's a good boy when he's being videotaped, it's belied by their own argument. They showed one of the videos. Learned helplessness. She seemed to control everything. I mean, his birth certificate, it gets torn up when he doesn't comply with her wishes. You'll see the rest of the text messages if you choose to delve into him. But I would suggest you don't have to given the jury instruction about aggressor. Ladies and gentlemen, this has been a long two weeks and you are making a very, very important decision for Ms. Boone and a very, very important decision for Mr. Torres and the state of Florida and his family. He's dead. She killed him. She's admitting she killed him to have this affirmative defense if I was justified. It was not justified under our law. She does not get to decide that she has a license to kill because of her past grievances. The law requires her to stop using the force that she started applying to him. And she didn't. She didn't withdraw. She didn't tell him he was withdrawing. She didn't use every means available to try and stop this from happening. She didn't. And you know what was in her heart. She tells you it's hatred, ill will, spite, and venom. This is not a self-defense case under the law. Go back and follow the law. You cannot feel sorry for her. You cannot feel sorry for him. You cannot feel angry at her. You cannot feel angry at him. It's maddening to see their relationship. It is maddening. Nobody would want this life for yourselves or your children. It is violent nonsense. But it does not affect what she did and what her duties were under the law that night. She wanted to punish him. She did. And then she left him there. And she had an obligation. If you even believe her story about the imminent threat for him fighting for his life, she had an obligation to do something about it and not just go upstairs and let him suffocate. Thank you.