His Own Lawyer Calls the Poisoning Horrific as Blaise Taylor's Jury Weighs Life or No Parole — Pt 61

[00:00:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:00:30] Speaker 1: Thank you. Any closing argument on behalf of the state? [00:01:13] Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. Members of the jury, we're down to just about the last decision you have to make. And that is, what is the appropriate punishment in this case? I'm going to start out by saying that, yes, the judge will tell you that a life sentence, the state of Tennessee today, is 51 years before role eligibility. That's a long time. It's a really long time. But, contrary to what Mr. Brand said about life without parole being the harshest penalty, the harshest penalty wasn't asked for, the death penalty. So, there are three punishments for first degree murder in the state of Tennessee. One wasn't on the table. Life without parole is the next step down. And life imprisonment is the minimum sentence for first degree murder. The state submits that, while there might not be a quantitative difference, who knows how long someone is going to live, but there is a qualitative difference. That is, what does the crimes that you have found Mr. Taylor guilty of, what do they deserve? And you can consider, submit by your verdict, or you mentioned this, you found the aggravating circumstances by your verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. That then allows you, and Judge Dodger will read the instructions, not nearly as long as the first one, that upon that finding, you can consider victim impact testimony. What this man's actions have done to the people who loved Jade Benning, and would have loved Ivy, and did, while she was in the womb. She never got a chance. She never got a chance to know how much she was loved. Mr. Taylor, the judge will tell you, consider mitigating. Before this, he had no criminal record. That doesn't mean he is not deserving of life without parole under the facts of this case. And again, going back to everything that you heard during the trial, Apple Benning. Apparently, Mr. Taylor was fine with helping out other people's children. He was a good student. No doubt about that. Very smart man. Comes from a very well-educated family. That qualitative difference is that life without parole, the state submits to you, is the appropriate punishment. And you'll really have to decide that on each count. But it is your decision, your collective judgment. There's no, oh, we have to prove this, we have to prove that. Once the existence of a negligent circumstance is before you, and here we have to, then it is your call. And one of the things victim impacts, and you've got, certainly, his parents didn't raise him to be like this. But the decisions that he has made were his and his alone. His family choose to do so. Visit him. So long as they be alive, talk, communicate, whatever. Because there's a saying, where there's life, there's hope. He's going to be alive. He's going to have hope. He's going to have that sense of living and associating and being, granted, not an environment that any of us would want, but it's of his own choosing, his own making. Jane, Ivey's family, never have that opportunity. He took that from them about three and a half years ago, February 25th, 2023. He took something that no one is able to give back. And for that, on behalf of the state of Tennessee, submits that whatever hope of freedom that he should have, he does not deserve. And that he should not receive the minimum punishment for these offenses. Thank you very much. [00:08:16] Speaker 1: Any argument on behalf of Mr. Tate? [00:08:20] Speaker 2: Thank you. [00:08:24] Speaker 3: Life imprisonment is inappropriate punishment for Mr. Taylor. And punishment is what it is. It is not a minimum get-off-easy kind of sentence. It is life in prison. 51 calendar years at best. That's if you make parole at 80, if he's 30 right now. Yes, in opening, I said it's the harshest you have is life without the possibility of parole and there is death penalty. But this isn't a death penalty case. We knew that at the beginning. It's the harshest option you are considering today. And life imprisonment is incredibly harsh. Living in a concrete box for the next 51 years, that is punishment. He's not getting off. He's not getting off easy. You're not letting him go. He's not walking out of this courtroom. Likely for the rest of his life. I, looking at the jury verdict, it occurs to me that maybe there is some consideration from the jury that you all think Mr. Taylor intended to kill Baby Ivy and maybe didn't have the intent to kill Jade. But he knew he was killing her or some version of that. Obviously, I'm not in the, in the jury room. I don't know if that matters in, in your deliberation for this part of it. But if we're talking about what are the worst of the worst of the worst crimes that you get the worst of the worst of the worst punishments, this was a long, incredibly detailed, complicated trial. And you guys heard a lot. You can consider all that when you're making your determinations. The reason that we put on some proof about who is Blaze, what was his family like, what's his upbringing like, what's his community involvement like, is there's kind of a, I don't know if it's a saying, it's something that's something that's talked about in, in work when you defend someone sitting at that table, that we are more than our, the worst thing we've ever done. We're people, Blaze is a person, he's got a family, he had a great childhood, he did well in school, he was an all-star athlete. Yeah, he did something horrific. Nothing that can happen here is ever going to change that. Nothing. And he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison, no matter what. So you all can go home and rest assured that no matter what you do here today, he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison. It doesn't require life without the possibility of parole to send that message, to send that punishment. It's not either we let him off easy or we have to punish him the worst of the worst of the worst of the worst. He's being punished. He's getting the message. But he is not someone who has spent his entire life as a criminal. He is someone who's had a good life, who's done good things. I don't have anything to say about it. Did something terrible. There's, you know, let's call it what it is. When you hear the jury instructions, there's going to be a lot of talk about aggravating and mitigating factors. And I said this in my opening, and I'll say it again. If you find aggravating factors, you don't have to find that he gets life without the possibility of parole. It's just something you can consider. Life imprisonment is punishment. It's life in a box. It's life in a prison. It's, it is a message. It is a lot. It is enough. And we would ask you to return for your sentencing, that that be the appropriate sentence in this case. [00:12:57] Speaker 1: Or any rebuttal from this thing? [00:12:59] Speaker 2: Just very, very briefly, it's time to have this jury determine, does it deserve the minimum allowable? Does this crime, well, these crimes, Mr. Grant argues this is not the worst of the worst. What could be worse than killing your own child and your own child's mother? And that is my life without parole is an option in this case, and is an option the state of Tennessee would respectfully request you consider and return. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. [00:13:51] Speaker 1: Members of the jury, you have now found the defendant, Blaise Taylor, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the first degree as charged in counts two, three, and four of the indictment under 2024 A490. It is now your duty to determine within the limits prescribed by law the penalty which shall be imposed as punishment for this offense. Tennessee law provides that a person convicted of a murder in the first degree shall be punished by imprisonment for life without possibility of parole or by imprisonment for life. A defendant who receives a sentence of imprisonment for life shall not be eligible for release until the defendant has served at least 51 full calendar years of such sentence. A defendant who receives a sentence of imprisonment for life without parole shall never be eligible for release. In arriving at this determination, you are authorized to weigh and consider any of the statutory aggravated circumstances proved beyond a reasonable doubt and any mitigating circumstances which may have been raised by the evidence throughout the entire course of this trial, including the guilt-finding phase or sentencing phase or both. The jury is the sole judge of the facts and of the law as it applies to the facts in this case. In arriving at your verdict, you are considered the law in connection with the facts, but the court is the proper source from which you are to get the law. In other words, you are the judges of the law as well as the facts under the direction of the court. The burden of proof is upon the state to prove any statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is that doubt created by an investigation of all the proof in the case and an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest easily as to the certainty of your verdict. Absolute certainty is not demanded by the law, but moral certainty is required, and this certainty is required as to every element of proof necessary to constitute the verdict. The law makes you, the jury, the sole and exclusive judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence. The prosecution has introduced what is known as victim impact evidence. This evidence has been introduced to show the financial, emotional, psychological, and physical effects of the victim's death on the members of the victim's immediate family. You may consider this evidence in determining an appropriate punishment. However, your consideration must be limited to a rational inquiry into the culpability of the defendant, not an emotional response to the evidence. Victim impact evidence is not the same as an aggravated circumstance. Proof of an adverse impact on the victim's family is not proof of an aggravated circumstance. The introduction of this victim's impact evidence in no way relieves the state of its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one aggravated circumstance which has been alleged. You may consider this victim impact evidence in determining the appropriateness of the sentence only if you first find the existence of one or more aggravated circumstances as has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence independent from the victim's impact evidence. Cap 2. Statutory aggravating circumstances. Tennessee law provides that no sentence of imprisonment for life without possibility of parole shall be imposed by a jury, but upon a unanimous finding that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of one or more of the statutory aggravated circumstances which shall be limited to the following. One, the murder was committed against a person less than 12 years of age and the defendant was 18 years of age or older. And two, the murder was knowingly committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the defendant while the defendant had a substantial role in committing or attempting commit or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing or attempted to commit any first-degree murder. Knowingly means that a person acts knowingly with respect to the conduct or circumstances surrounding the conduct when the person is aware of the nature of the conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect or a result of the person's conduct when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. The requirement of knowingly is also established if it is shown that the defendant acted intentionally. Intentionally means that a person acts intentionally with respect to the nature of the conduct or as a result of the conduct when it is the person's conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. Members of the jury, the court has read to you the aggravated circumstances which the law requires you to consider if you find proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You shall not consider any other facts or circumstances as an aggravating circumstance in deciding whether imprisonment for life without possibility of parole would be appropriate punishment in this case. Mitigating circumstances. Tennessee law provides an unriving at the punishment the jury shall consider as previously indicated any mitigating circumstances raised by the evidence which shall include but are not limited to the following. The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity and two, any other mitigating factor which is raised by the evidence produced by either the prosecution or defense at either the guilt or sentencing hearing. That is, you shall consider any aspect of the defendant's character, any aspect of the circumstances of the offense favorable to the defendant which is supported by the evidence consisting of A, community involvement, B, education and personal achievements, and C, acts of service. The defendant does not have the burden of custody, the defendant does not have the burden of proving a mitigating circumstance. There is no requirement of jury unanimity as to any particular mitigating circumstance or that you agree on the same mitigating circumstance. Count three, the felony murder involving J. Tristan Denny, statutory aggravating circumstances. Tennessee law provides that no sentence of imprisonment for life without possibility of parole shall be imposed by a jury, but upon a unanimous finding that the state has proven beyond the reasonable doubt the existence of one or more of the statutory aggravating circumstances which shall be limited to the following. One, the murder was knowingly committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the defendant, while the defendant had a substantial role in committing or attempting commit or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit any first-degree murder. The definitions of knowingly, intentionally, which apply to this offense have been previously explained to you in these instructions, and you should refer to those definitions as they apply to this offense. Members of the jury, the court has read to you the aggravating circumstances which the law requires you to consider if you find proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You shall not consider any other facts or circumstances as an aggravated circumstance in deciding whether imprisonment for life without possibility of parole would be an appropriate punishment in this case. Mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances. [00:21:39] Speaker ?: Mitigating circumstances. [00:21:39] Speaker 1: Tennessee law provides that in arriving at the punishment, the jury shall consider, as previously indicated, any mitigating circumstances raised by the evidence, which shall include, but are not limited to, the following. One, the defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity. And two, any other mitigating factor which is raised by the evidence produced by either the prosecution or defense at either the guilt or sentencing hearing, that is, you shall consider any aspects of the defendant's character or any aspect of the circumstances of the offense favorable to the defendant, which is supported by the evidence consisting of, A, community involvement, B, education and personal achievements, and C, acts of service. The defendant does not have the burden of proving and mitigating circumstance. There is no requirement of jury unanimity as to any particular mitigating circumstance or that you agree on the same mitigating circumstance. Count four, felony murder involving the victim, the unborn female child of J. Benny, statutory aggravating circumstances. Tennessee law provides that no sentence of imprisonment for life without possibility of parole shall be imposed by a jury, but, upon a unanimous finding that the state has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of one or more statutory aggravating circumstances, which shall be limited to the following. One, the murder was committed against a person less than 12 years of age, and the defendant was 18 years of age or older. Two, the murder was knowingly committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the defendant, while the defendant had a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit, or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit any first-degree murder. The definitions of knowingly and intentionally which apply to this offense have been previously explained to you in these instructions, and you should refer to those definitions as they apply to this offense. Members of the jury, the court has read to you aggravated circumstances which the law requires you to consider if you find proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You shall not consider any other circumstances as an aggravated circumstance in deciding whether the imprisonment for life without possibility of parole would be appropriate punishment in this case. Mitigating circumstances, Tennessee law provides that in arriving at the punishment, the jury shall consider, as previously indicated, any mitigating circumstances raised by the evidence, which shall include, but are not limited to, the following. One, the defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity. Two, any other mitigating factor which is raised by the evidence produced by either the prosecution or defense at either the guilt or sentencing hearing. That is, you shall consider any aspect of the defendant's character or any aspect of the circumstances of the offense favorable to the defendant which is supported by the evidence consisting of A, community involvement, B, education and personal achievements, and C, acts of service. The defendant does not have the burden of proving a mitigating circumstance. There is no requirement of jury unanimity as to any particular mitigating circumstance or that you agree on the same mitigating circumstance. The defendant has not taken the stand to testify as a witness during the sentencing hearing, but you should place no significance on this fact. The burden is on the state to prove any aggravated circumstance or circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. He is not required to take the stand in his own behalf, and his election not to do so cannot be considered for any purpose against him, nor can any inference be drawn from such fact. You will be provided a verdict form consisting of six pages. You have two sentencing options to consider on each count, and you are not required to deliberate on these sentencing options in any particular order. The options are as follows. Verdict, life imprisonment, or life imprisonment without possibility of parole. If you do not unanimously determine that the statutory aggravating circumstance has been proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt, the Senate shall be life imprisonment. You will write your verdict upon the enclosed form attached here to and made a part of this charge. The verdict shall be as follows. We, the jury, unanimously find that the punishment shall be life imprisonment. If you unanimously determine that a statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances have been proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall, in your considered discretion, sentence the defendant either to imprisonment for life without possibility of parole or imprisonment for life without possibility of parole or imprisonment for life. You shall weigh and consider the statutory circumstances or circumstances, proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt, and any mitigating circumstance or circumstances. In your verdict, you shall reduce to writing the statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances so found, and shall return your verdict upon the enclosed form attached here to and made a part of this charge. The verdict should be as follows, we, the jury, unanimously find that the state has proven the following listed statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, on the verdict form, you would list the statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances found. You shall then indicate only in closed verdict form either, we, the jury, unanimously agree that the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life. The verdict must be unanimous and signed by each jury. The verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree thereto. Your verdict must be unanimous. It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reach an agreement, if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion, if convinced it is erroneous. But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. You can have no prejudice or sympathy or allow anything but the law and the evidence to have any influence upon your verdict. You must render your verdict with absolute fairness and impartiality as you think justice and truth dictate. You will be provided with a form for all possible sentences in this case. The jury will check the appropriate verdict on the form for each count and complete the form as directed and each juror will sign the verdict form. The other forms are to be left incomplete and unsigned. Your foreperson will preside over your deliberations and when you have reached a verdict as to the sentence, you will turn to the courtroom and your foreperson will announce it. You must not imagine that the court has any opinion in regard to the facts. It is your duty to find them and have attempted to read this charge to define to you the law without indicating any opinion about the facts whatsoever. Members of the jury, the charge in this case is herewith handed to you together with the verdict forms for the punishment for each count and the exhibits. You may now retire and consider your verdict. You can step down the hallway with the clip. Anything further from the state? [00:30:44] Speaker 2: There's another need to be hearing, sentencing hearing, that if we have a date, we might also be in our calendars. [00:30:53] Speaker 1: Yeah, in terms of merger and count one, whatever happened. [00:30:57] Speaker 2: Yes, sir, I read the sentence. [00:30:58] Speaker 1: Did we look at like the week of the August 3rd, like the 5th maybe, or somewhere around there? Discuss that. Yes, that's the judge. Anything further on the jury charge, Mr. DeBrand? No, no, no, no, no, no. All right.