Julio Foolio Murderers Get Life In Prison — Entire Sentencing Hearing w/ Judge Sisco

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: You guys switched places. Some of you did, so it caught me off guard a little bit. So, okay, but it looks like all the defendants are present. Defense counsel is present. The state is present. All right, are both sides ready to proceed forward to sentencing? [00:00:13] Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honor. [00:00:14] Speaker 1: Okay. Defense, you guys ready? [00:00:17] Brian Gonzalez: Yes, Judge, Your Honor. [00:00:17] Speaker 1: All right. I know a number of you filed post-trial motions, so let's go ahead and hear those first. All right, Mr. Gonzalez, you can kick it off. [00:00:25] Brian Gonzalez: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Brian Gonzalez, on behalf of Rashad Murphy. Your Honor, I did file a motion for new trial on behalf of Mr. Murphy, and without belaboring many, many arguments that were already made during the course of the trial and in pre-trial motions, Judge, I just, for the record, would like to just state those grounds under which we would file our motion without making any more extensive argument that has already been made and that the record will clearly reflect. Essentially, Judge, we would suggest that, first and foremost, that the verdict rendered against Rashad Murphy. Strike that, Judge, no, Mr. Murphy would suggest that the court erred and denied several of Mr. Murphy's pretrial motions with arguments that extended not only to the pretrial motion dates, but also during the course and scope of the trial in interim circumstances, and that we're all on the record. So, first of all, first of all, that would be the motion to suppress Mr. Murphy's cell phone. Secondly, the motion to suppress Mr. Murphy's statements. Next, Judge, the motion for severance of the defendant, and in the alternative for separate juries. Next, Judge, his first motion in limine regarding Ghost 187. His second motion in limine and Darbert challenge with regard to law enforcement opinion testimony and testimony of alleged gang war history and hearsay-based gang intelligence, as well as uncharged and unsolved acts of violence. Next, Judge, Mr. Murphy's motion in limine regarding gang affiliation, gang identification, and gang charts. Mr. Murphy's fourth motion in limine regarding opinion identification testimony as it relates to digital media. The portions of Mr. Murphy's fifth motion in limine regarding irrelevant evidence, Mr. Murphy's sixth motion in limine regarding portions of the Robert Howard motion in limine, and also Judge, Mr. Murphy's seventh motion in limine regarding state's trial exhibits 88B, 88C, and 101. We also would suggest that the court earned in denying Mr. Murphy's fifth motion for judgment acquittal, both after the state's case and after all of the evidence, and then Judge, just a cumulative count with regard to the totality of those motions that previously were stated on the record. And finally, Judge, that the weight of the evidence did not appear to support the jury's verdict. Those would be the issues that Mr. Rashad Murphy has included in his motion for new trial. Okay, thank you. [00:03:56] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. [00:03:56] Speaker 1: Good. State, I'll give you a chance to rebut all of the motions once the defendants have made them. Okay, all right, Mr. – you want to go next, Mr. Wise, on behalf of Mr. Gathright? Yes, Your Honor. No, I'm not going to go. [00:04:12] Speaker 4: We did not file a motion for new trial. I would just ask you to adopt the arguments that Mr. Gonzalez made. I know all these issues were litigated. [00:04:20] Speaker 1: Yes, they were. And all of the motions that you filed pre-trial are obviously the court's ruling. Your arguments, your motions, any objections you have were all preserved for the record. [00:04:31] Speaker 4: Thank you, Your Honor. And the only additional filing we've made was a memorandum regarding the motion for judgment of acquittalist at Count 6, which is the tampered charge that was only charged as to Mr. Gathright. I believe Your Honor took that under advisement pending the jury's decision. I believe that motion is still open. So we filed a memorandum briefly laying out the state of the law. The state, I believe, agreed during the motion argument during trial that the basis for the tampering charge is the leaving of the car at the grandmothers and wiping down the doors. We cited several cases that essentially all hold that there basically are two elements for a tampering. There's the removal of the evidence, the physical aspect, but then there's also the specific intent element which requires evidence that the alleged removal of evidence was done with the intent and to impair its its rarity or availability in a criminal proceeding. And there has been no evidence presented of that element at the trial. Essentially, the evidence we see is that the car is left with the grandmother. The grandmother is not told to hide the car or anything like that. Obviously, the grandmother drives the car. She's pulled over in it. The interior of two of the doors are wiped down, and that's it. Nothing else is wiped down within the car. It's not consistent with someone trying to impair any availability. Obviously, there would have been 90% of the car still available to be tested for whatever physical evidence might have been in there. I think the evidence is clearly consistent with that wiping down being done because it's being left with his grandmother, and it's being done out of courtesy to her. And just briefly to cite one line from the Stanza case, and really all the cases we saw are consistent with this, but one line from that is that the defendant's equivocal conduct toward evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the intent necessary for a Section 918.13 violation, merely discarding evidence from one's person without more does not amount to a violation. And that's all that was proven here, that allegedly the evidence is discarded, so to speak, being left with a grandmother, but there's no evidence that it's done with any intent to impair its availability. And it's really, when you think about it, the fact that Mr. Gafferty, even after wiping down the doors, gets back in the car and then drives it to the street and parks it, clearly inconsistent with trying to, you know, get rid of any evidence that he used the car. So based on that and based on the authorities we cite in the memorandum, we would renew the motion for judgment report. [00:07:03] Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. All right, Mr. Sinardi, on behalf of Davion Murphy. [00:07:20] Speaker 5: Good afternoon, Your Honor. On behalf of Davion Murphy, we have, in fact, filed a motion for new trial. And as previously indicated at the conclusion of all the evidence, we will adopt and readopt all co-defendants' motions that have been heard by the court and ruled on by the court. Our motion for new trial is based on six different grounds. Ground number one is denial of the severance of the defendants. The court heard motions to sever defendants and obviously denied that as the case was tried jointly with the other co-defendants and obviously realized that there was the defendants were presented as a collective group, which would have included, obviously, Mr. Davion Murphy, and there was considerable danger of guilt by association simply because Mr. Davion Murphy was tried jointly with the other co-defendants. Ground number two in that the court allowed extensive gang profile and gang affiliation evidence. The focus of the trial, a substantial portion of the trial, was predicated on the state's introduction of Mr. Murphy's alleged gang affiliation, and that became the focus of the trial. By simply by alleging that Mr. Murphy was, in fact, a part or participant in the gang, made him guilty by association. The third motion, excuse me, third ground that the court previously ruled on, we will reallege it, and that is Detective Griffin indicating that Mr. Davion Murphy had previously been in prison, and the jury clearly heard that. The court has ruled we'd reallege it as a ground for mistrial and to grant Mr. Davion Murphy a new trial. We would also allege that the evidence as presented as to Davion Murphy was contrary, uh, insufficient, or the verdict was contrary to the weight of all the evidence. The claimant of effect of the denial of the severance and of co-defendant's spontaneous admission deprived Mr. Davion Murphy of a fair trial. Uh, ground number five, improper expert opinion testimony invaded the province of the jury, and that was as to, uh, experts testified concerning gang relationships, et cetera, which was a large part of the trial. And again, basically, the cumulative error requires a new trial and that would be the extensive gang evidence, highly prejudicial social media evidence that was introduced, the joint trial spillover, and that is that because Mr. Davion Murphy was present during the trial with the co-defendants, there was spillover evidence, improper association evidence, expert testimony, and repeated references to gang warfare and retaliatory, retaliatory, uh, violence. All of that was in a joint trial. We submit that that would be sufficient as cleaners of evidence to grant Mr. Davion Murphy a new trial. [00:10:53] Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sonardi. All right, Mr. Petridis, on behalf of Mr. Chance. [00:11:07] Speaker 6: Uh, we filed a motion for new trial in, not to belabor what's in there, the argument is simply that this, the verdict rests on a chain of impermissibly stacked inferences and there was not direct evidence presented that Mr. Chance knew his co-defendant intended to murder Mr. Jones, that he intended Mr. Jones to be killed, or that his acts were specifically designed to occur, um, assist or encourage the murder, and therefore, there wasn't enough evidence under Florida law to sustain the first degree of murder conviction or conspiracy to commit murder conviction. Thank you. [00:11:39] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:11:39] Speaker 1: All right. Um, Mr. Hardy, um, what's your response first to Mr. Gath writes, um, the motion for a judgment of acquittal is to count six the tampering charge. [00:11:50] Speaker 2: Judge, we did review, um, that case law that he cited as authority in his motion as well, and judge, those cases are clearly distinguishable by, um, to the facts presently in front of the court. Um, to the facts presently in front of the court, one of them was a corpus case. We literally have the defendant on video where he is seen actually wiping down the fingerprints. All of the rest of the cases went towards knowledge intent that that physical act was actually done and proof of that. And judge, there is circumstantial evidence in this case that is overwhelming. This is a case where, um, the manner in which the homicide occurred, um, was at a hotel, a public spot where, um, three armed gunman, gunman used high powered assault rifles and a Glock with a switch that was automated to be able to fire, um, rapidly and unloaded in a public parking lot. And this was the victim in this case, there's ample evidence that they knew who they were targeting. They knew the high profile nature of the victim. And so judge the law requires for tampering that they knew or should have known that a investigation by law enforcement was going to occur. There is no argument that they can make based on the circumstantial nature, the manner in which they committed this crime to suggest to this court that he did not know that a law enforcement investigation was about to be instituted and the, um, actions that were done with both of the vehicles that were used in this case clearly were removed from the state of Florida and where they live in Jacksonville and where they would be investigated. Um, they were removed from that city, they were hidden that car was hidden at his grandmother's house the day of the homicide when the homicide occurred, he brought it and he switched vehicles and switched contents that was contained within the suspect murder vehicle and put it into another vehicle. Judge based on the facts and the circumstances in this case we believe that there is enough facts and evidence to support that he knew that a high profile investigation homicide investigation would occur. Judge based on evidence from evidence from his phone that showed his activity immediately after this crime, um, so he certainly knew that they were successful in killing, um, a high profile rap artist. So based on that and the fact, um, there is no corpus issue in this particular case, he literally is seen wiping it down on a video. So based on all of that evidence, we would ask that you deny the defendant's motion. [00:14:33] Speaker 1: Okay, and do you have any further argument on any of the defendant's motions for new trial? [00:14:37] Speaker 2: Your Honor, we would rely on all our previous written arguments as well as, um, oral arguments that were made in pretrial motions and during the course of the trial. Um, any weight, um, arguments or insufficient evidence we believe is without merit. Um, the facts and evidence in this case were overwhelming. There was a mountain of case, not only circumstantial evidence, there was direct evidence of each and every one of the defendant's participation in this case as well as the actual crime itself was caught on video. So we would rely on all of our prior, um, arguments written in world. Okay. Okay. [00:15:16] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:15:17] Speaker 1: All right. Uh, so I will deny, uh, Sean Gathright's motion for judgment of acquittal as to count six and deny all of the defendant's motions for new trial. All right. Um, state, are you going to call any witnesses or does anyone want to speak before sentencing? [00:15:33] Speaker 2: Judge, we did talk to our victim assistant advocate, um, and, um, the victim's mother did not wish to address the court again. She did read a victim impact, I believe, for Alicia Andrews trial as well as there was a statement that was read to the jury. Um, she is aware that the sentences of this case for the homicide is going to be a life sentence. We also did contact, um, the other, um, victims of this case and they did not wish to be present or heard. Okay. They are aware also what the sentence is going to be. [00:16:06] Speaker 1: All right. And so let's just go through, um, each of the defendants. Let's start with Mr. Chance. So on the first degree murder, it's mandatory life, correct? Yes, Your Honor. And are there any minimum mandatories that apply? [00:16:19] Speaker 2: Not with regards to Isaiah Chance. [00:16:22] Speaker 1: Okay. And then on the conspiracy, um, to commit first degree murder, is that also mandatory life? [00:16:30] Speaker 2: Um, Judge, that is a life offense and I do not believe that is a mandatory offense. And we have provided a score sheet on all of the defendants for the, um, offenses that were not the first degree murder charge. Okay. [00:16:45] Speaker 1: So it's up to life on the conspiracy, correct? Yes. And what is the state requesting? [00:16:49] Speaker 2: Judge, we are asking for a life sentence, maximum sentences on all of the non-life offenses. [00:16:56] Speaker 1: To run concurrent or consecutive? [00:16:58] Speaker 2: Judge, we would ask for them to run concurrent. Okay. [00:17:02] Speaker 1: Moving on to Sean Gathright, um, as to the first degree premeditated murder, mandatory life, and are there any mid-mans that apply to him? [00:17:14] Speaker 2: Judge, there are, um, minimum mandatories that apply to him. There is a 25 year minimum mandatory for, um, discharging, I'm sorry, 20 year. It's just, um, discharging a firearm. We did not allege resulting in death. Okay. [00:17:30] Speaker 1: So that would be on count one. And then on the conspiracy, um, you were also asking for life, correct? [00:17:37] Speaker 2: Your Honor, for him, it's a first degree felony, um, because he did not have a gang enhancement. So for that, it would be for 30 years with regards to Sean Gathright for the conspiracy to commit first degree murder. [00:17:54] Speaker 1: Okay. And then with regards to each of the attempted murders in the second degree, are there any mid-mans that apply to those? [00:18:01] Speaker 2: Judge, for the attempted second degrees, there are, um, minimum mandatory for the firearm, again, um, enhancements, and again, those are 20 year minimum mandatories. [00:18:13] Speaker 1: And the statutory max is what, and what are you asking for? [00:18:17] Speaker 2: For the attempted second degree, um, murders for Sean Gathright, those are first degree felonies. So we would be asking for 20 years for a safe prison on each one of those acts. [00:18:30] Speaker 1: And then on the tampering, what are you asking for? [00:18:33] Speaker 2: For five years for a safe prison. [00:18:35] Speaker 1: Do you run concurrent or all run concurrent? [00:18:38] Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honor. [00:18:40] Speaker 1: All right, as to Davion Murphy, the first degree murders, mandatory life, are there any mid-mans that apply to him? [00:18:48] Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honor. He also has a 20 year, um, minimum mandatory for a firearm enhancement. [00:18:54] Speaker 1: All right. And then you're asking for life on the conspiracy? [00:18:58] Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honor. [00:18:59] Speaker 1: And then on the attempted murders in the second degree, are there also 20 year mid-mans on those? [00:19:04] Speaker 2: There are for him, yes. [00:19:05] Speaker 1: And then you're asking for, um, 30? 30? [00:19:09] Speaker 2: We're asking for a life sentence. He actually is raised to a life, um, sentence because of his gang enhancement. Okay. [00:19:17] Speaker 1: Okay. [00:19:18] Speaker 7: The second, she's saying that the, the, the second degree on the docket you have because of, um, um, the second degree is? [00:19:28] Speaker 1: No. Um, she's, what she's saying is the jury found a gang enhancement, so it gets bumped up. [00:19:34] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:19:35] Speaker 1: Um, it says, it says second degree felony, that what the clerk was asking me, it says second degree felony on the docket, but you're saying because of the gang membership that bumps them up to life? Yes, Your Honor. [00:19:49] Speaker 2: Okay. And the firearm enhancement. I see. [00:19:52] Speaker 1: All right, and you're asking for those who run concurrent? Yes, Your Honor. And then as to Rashad Murphy on count one, it's mandatory life, and is that also a 20 year mid-man? Yes, Your Honor. And then on the conspiracy, you're asking for life, correct? [00:20:10] Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honor. [00:20:11] Speaker 1: And then, um, are there 20 year mid-mans on the attempted murders on all of those counts? [00:20:17] Speaker 2: Yes, your and Mr. Rashad Murphy, there were jury findings for the firearm. [00:20:21] Speaker 1: And due to the gang enhancements, is he also looking at life on those? [00:20:25] Speaker 2: He is. [00:20:26] Speaker 1: And that's what you're asking for? [00:20:27] Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honor. [00:20:28] Speaker 1: Okay. Um, does anyone disagree that those are the maximum penalties and minimum mandatories that apply for each of the defendants? Okay. [00:20:39] Speaker ?: Okay. Okay. All right. [00:20:42] Speaker 1: Very good. Um, anything else you'd like to say prior to sentencing? No, Your Honor. [00:20:50] Speaker 2: Okay. [00:20:51] Speaker 1: All right. Um, Mr. Gonzalez, anything else that you or your client would like to say prior to sentencing or any other individuals that would like to speak? [00:21:01] Brian Gonzalez: Nothing further your honor. [00:21:02] Speaker 1: Okay. Uh, Mr. Wise, anything further from your client or from anyone else? [00:21:08] Speaker 4: Uh, Your Honor, Mr. Gaffray, uh, would like to address the court. Sure. With his mother and grandmother who were in the gallery. [00:21:25] Speaker 1: They would like to address the court as well? [00:21:27] Speaker 4: Yes, Your Honor. Sure. Right. They both testify to the criminal base. That would be Lisa Gaffray. Okay. [00:21:33] Speaker 1: Um, whoever wants to speak first, come on up. Um, just never stand in front of the podium. Fine. [00:21:51] Speaker ?: Good morning. Good morning. [00:21:53] Speaker 1: Good morning. Good morning. [00:21:55] Speaker ?: Afternoon actually. [00:21:56] Speaker 7: Oh, yeah. Thank you for allowing me to address the court. Um, I'd like to say that, uh, this, this, everything has really, um, opened and brought a lot of attention to a lot of things that are going on in, in the community and in the neighborhood, um, of Jacksonville. Um, and also elsewhere. Shhh, shh, shh, shh, shh, shh. Mr. Snarty, you're talking too loud. I can't hear Ms. Lyle. Elsewhere in the country. Um, there have been, we have received a lot of support and a lot of, of comments about people who've learned a lot about the judicial process throughout this, which I think is very, very important. And also, um, has sparked a lot of conversation in regards to parents communicating with their children and, um, letting people realize that just, it doesn't matter, uh, what your situation is. You never know, uh, what can happen in life and, and where you can find yourself. And I think, uh, with this trial being televised and, and with a lot of, uh, uh, what do you call it? Controversy and, and, and, and attention. Um, it's really, it's really sparked a lot of conversation throughout the community and brought a lot of awareness. And, um, it, it, I, I hope that this will change, uh, a lot of things in people's lives and, uh, change their minds and, and opinions. And, um, as a retired member of the military, I've always been one who has, um, strictly believed in, in the rule of law and right and wrong. And, uh, I've, I've learned a lot. All I can say is I've, I've learned a lot and, uh, about the, how the process goes. And, uh, thank you for allowing me. [00:23:49] Speaker 1: Sure, Ms. Lyle. And I just want to tell you, um, and I, you know, you've been a very devoted mother to your son. I can tell you've been here throughout the trial and he's very fortunate to have you, um, as his mother. Um, and I know your heart is broken. I know it is because it's your child. And I, I do have sympathy for that and for you. I really do. I'm, I'm very sorry for you and for your family that this is where you find yourself. Um, but your, your attitude and what you're taking away from it, um, I hope as well for the community's sake that there is some change. Cause this, this can't go on. This, this tragedy just cannot go on. So, um, I thank you for your comments. Okay. Thank you. Um, and Ms. Catherine, do you want to say something? Come on up. [00:24:41] Speaker ?: I do want to thank you for allowing me to address the court. Um, this tragic event occurred when Sean was barely 18 years old and this is a time when the prefrontal cortex of the brain is not fully developed. This development doesn't complete itself until they're at least 25. [00:24:51] Speaker 8: And this is the area of the brain that controls impulses and risky behaviors. Um, and risky behavior is part of the, um, immature brain. Um, they have a heightened, um, um, they have a heightened drive. For risky behavior. Um, logic is, um, impulse. Um, emotions, um, they have a heightened drive for risky behavior. Um, logic is, um, impulse, emotions. And impulses are their first priority and logic is the second one. Um, and I know that Sean made a mistake, but I really believe that the punishment is too serious. Um, and I know that Sean made a mistake, but I really believe that the punishment is too severe. Um, and I know that Sean made a mistake, but I really believe that the punishment is too severe. Sean. Sean. [00:25:48] Speaker 1: I know it's hard. This is geth, right? It's hard. I know. Sean is a bright young man. [00:25:57] Speaker 8: Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. [00:26:01] Speaker ?: Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. [00:26:57] Speaker 9: Sean. Sean. [00:27:00] Speaker 1: Sean. [00:27:01] Speaker 9: Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. [00:27:05] Speaker ?: Sean. [00:27:05] Speaker 9: Sean. Sean. [00:27:07] Speaker ?: Sean. Sean. [00:27:09] Speaker 9: Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. Sean. [00:27:30] Speaker ?: Sean. [00:27:31] Speaker 9: Sean. Jeremiah 1 5 says, Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart. Jeremiah 29 11 says, I know the plans I have for you, plans for good and not for disaster. And Romans 8 28 says, We know all things work together for good to those who love God and are called to his purpose. And there are many more just like them. God has full sovereignty over our lives. He chooses our times of peace and prosperity, our times of joy and laughter. But he also chooses our traumas and our tribulations, not to punish and tear us apart, but to strengthen our character and our faith. Everyone wonders how and why I ended up in a situation like this, despite growing up with a loving family, nice home, multiple opportunities, and promising potential. Some act as if it is impossible or unheard of for someone like me to find themselves in a situation like this. But in reality, it is much more common than we think. It has been happening long before today. There is a parable Jesus shared with the world called the prodigal son, a son who had the nice home, loving family, servants. He had his every need catered to. Yet he still chose to take his inheritance and venture off to a far country where he indulged in prodigal living. He soon ran out of money and a famine had struck the land he was in. And while that would have been enough signs for most to turn back, his eyes still hadn't opened and he still hadn't come to his senses. Hungry and desperate, he found a job on a farm feeding pigs. And during these times, pigs and what they were fed were deemed as the filthiest, most impure, lowest of the low, and worst of the worst. But he was so hungry and so blind that the food he fed the pigs looked appetizing. That's when he finally came to his senses. He realized that even the servants back home had enough food to spare. Yet here he is, dying of hunger among pigs. After this eye-opening experience, he decided to return home. He was ashamed and planned to go to his father to ask for forgiveness and to become one of his servants because he no longer felt worthy to be called his son. But when he returned, his father embraced him with love and compassion, dressed him in the finest clothes and jewels, and celebrated his son's return with a feast, exclaiming, And this son of mine was dead and has come back to life. He was lost and is now found. It is not uncommon for good young men who come from good families to get lost in this world, but discontentment often leads these good young men astray. When scholars and historians look back on our times, I believe they will label us as the age of discontentment, and those of us who come from privileged upbringings are actually disadvantaged to the fight against us. Because of the high expectations, any opportunities and options we grow up with, we don't know what struggle looks like or how hard our parents had to work to provide these opportunities for us. We don't know what we have until it's gone, and it often happens after we go through our own eye-opening experience. Never in history has there been a time like now where there is so much available and so easy to consume, but we still demand more, and it is clearly seen in my generation. Young men and women want to grow up faster, to try to keep up with the influencers that are idolized, and this is in part due to us being so susceptible. A study done by the National Institute of Mental Health provided evidence showing that the brain doesn't reach full maturity until 26 to 27 years old for men, about eight or nine years older than my time during the offense. But society knows this, and that's why laws set age requirements on certain activities, amenities, and substances, as a way to protect adolescent adults. Yet those same laws don't extend to an adolescent adult when they are charged with crimes and allows them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent, regardless of their age. Your Honor, it is heartbreaking that an 18-year-old can't rent a car or a hotel or buy a home, but can be sentenced to death or life in prison without the possibility of parole. They can't work certain jobs or even go on a cruise without a chaperone, but can be sentenced to death or life in prison without the possibility of parole. And I'm a prime example of these circumstances. At 18 years old, with no prior convictions, I was charged, indicted, and had to face the death penalty. My point is, society views anyone under the age of 21 as not being mentally mature enough to participate or partake in these activities, amenities, and substances, because certain substances listed can negatively impact or stump the growth of a developing brain, while other activities and amenities have restrictions due to the lack of impulse and behavioral control or lack of situational wellness at times with teens. It is very simple to understand that our brains have not developed enough, that we live in a society where someone under the age of 21 can be sentenced to death or life in prison without parole. We leave no room for growth, rehabilitation, or redemption. We don't account for the fact that they were a fully developed adult and the judgment and decision-making abilities weren't developed either. I believe it is cruel for someone under the age of 21 to be sentenced to life without parole or death before they're even old enough to be fully emancipated or to fully comprehend what consequences their actions carry. I say all this because I want to see change. Change for those whose fates were sealed long before they were born. Change for the prodigal sons and daughters who ventured off too far in the world and got lost. Change for those who haven't reached full maturity or unlocked their full potential as adults. Change for the ones who never had the option to go around, over, or underneath, or straight through their obstacles. In spite of my current circumstances, I still trust in all those biblical promises. I believe that I am exactly where God planned for me to be, a plan he created long before I was born. It is also my belief that this chapter of my life will propel me to a much greater purpose than what we see here today. Because my journey has just begun. Thank you. [00:34:13] Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Gaffray. [00:34:15] Speaker ?: All right. [00:34:16] Speaker 1: Does Davion Murphy wish to say anything or anyone on his behalf? He's indicating no. Okay. [00:34:26] Speaker 10: Mr. Davion Murphy has no comments yet. [00:34:30] Speaker 1: Okay. And Mr. Petratus on behalf of Mr. Chance, does he wish to say anything? [00:34:34] Speaker 10: No, Your Honor. Oh, no. [00:34:37] Speaker 1: I've moved on to Mr. Petratus behind you. Oh, I'm sorry. [00:34:41] Speaker 6: There's a chance if I can make a statement. [00:34:46] Speaker 1: Okay. Sure. Come on up. Again, as long as it's respectful. [00:34:51] Speaker ?: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. [00:35:21] Speaker 11: Sorry, I'm kind of nervous. Sorry. [00:35:43] Speaker 1: It's all right. [00:35:44] Speaker 11: What I did right, what I did right, Sean kind of covered predominantly what I did right. Okay. And my lawyer just told me I couldn't talk about a lot of things, so. [00:36:17] Speaker 1: Well, you just need to be careful. If you start talking about the facts of the case, you could end up creating more evidence against you, so that's probably his concern. So, I just want you to be aware of that. But, even if you're repeating what Mr. Gaffray said, you still have the right to say it. So, I don't want you to feel that you can't talk just because Mr. Gaffray already said it. Okay. [00:36:41] Speaker 11: Okay. [00:36:42] Speaker ?: All right. How do we, sorry. [00:36:44] Speaker 11: How do we even have or know the right words to say that can rectify the intense severity of how I am situated currently, corresponding to my sentence right now? I don't think anyone with a reasonable mind frame could adjust their conscience to the reality of something just absurd, especially being this young. This is harder than what I intended. I'm going to be honest. I feel like our appearances here were more political based than solely on our 6th and 14th Amendment, which guarantees our right to a fair trial with an impartial jury for each defendant. Being that, I'm not going to say it, I wanted to say something to you directly. No, that's fine. [00:37:46] Speaker 1: And you're, you're more than welcome to disagree with any way I may have ruled in the case. Um, you just can't, um, be. [00:37:54] Speaker 11: Repeat the facts. [00:37:55] Speaker 1: Yeah. That's right. Yeah, you don't need to repeat the facts. But, you know, you just can't be rude to me. That's all I'm asking. I understand. Express disagreement. I have thick skin and they'll be in the pellet review of everything I did, but just don't be disrespectful because then I'm have to tell you to sit down and it becomes a thing. So let's just not have a thing. [00:38:14] Speaker 11: Yes ma'am. All right. Okay. So thank you. You are. All right. So Judge Cisco, unlike the rest of my code of finance here, they all are charged with being the alleged shooters and have the same verdicts. However, me on the other hand, the one who was charged with me for playing the same alleged role as I gets found not guilty for what I am charged with. Alicia case didn't contradict the alleged shooters versus versus the state case. I don't even think it's possible. It could have. However, it contradicts mine being the only principle here because both of our Jewish decisions contradicts each other. The only nuance is I went to trial with three other people who have the same verdict as I and she didn't. Alicia get found not guilty for my current charge. It wasn't any coincidence. Basically what I'm saying is Alicia in the state alleged that we played. Oh, that's getting into like the facts about the case. [00:39:16] Speaker ?: Well, that's okay. [00:39:17] Speaker 1: If I'm hearing you correctly, you are taking issue with the fact that you're, I don't know if she's your current or former girlfriend, but she went to trial. She was convicted of a manslaughter and got 15 years and now you're here facing life and that I would assume that seems unjust to you. [00:39:35] Speaker 11: That's, that's, that's, that's, that's highly unjust. Um, I seen Susie, uh, Lopez on the news this morning and she was saying that, uh, justice has been served. Absolutely. If you see it from that, uh, from that perspective, um, but everything that's a perspective is based on perception. So if you say that, that's justice, okay. But when you look at, if you put me and Alicia up on, like side by side, like that's, like that's, like that's, like that's, like that's unjust. Like it's injustice. Like it doesn't make sense. Like it's contrary to my verdict. Like her jury made their decision. Their decision, my jury made, well our jury made their decision, but it contradicts like both of our averse. The only difference is like, I went to trial with my co-defendants and she wanted to trial by herself. So I feel like personally, I got guilt more so by association than like participation. Um, that's all I really wanted to say. Um, that's all right, cause this is way more harder than, uh, I anticipated. But that's all I think. Sure. Sure. [00:40:54] Speaker 1: And you probably know when Ms. Andrews went to trial, she basically penned it all on you. Absolutely. [00:41:00] Speaker 11: Yeah. I don't know. Um, you know when, as I sit with my lawyer, like he's very, like he's, like he's probably shivering over there cause he don't know what. Right. Right. [00:41:13] Speaker 1: He's very concerned. Definitely. [00:41:15] Speaker 11: Um, you're, a lot of people don't know, but before you go to trial, um, you try to be optimistic. Um, but everything is done strategically. So how the lawyers optimize what they gonna say or what they gonna do, they do it with the client. You know, I'm not saying what she's saying was wrong or not wrong or what, or what he wanted her to say or what, or what she said, you know. But, uh, that's all I do. Um, I want to say something to like Jacksonville though too. So, to my city man, it ain't worth it boy. Like, it ain't worth it. Like, me being a rapper from my city. And, Fulio being a rapper from our city. It ain't worth it. Like, my mouth getting dry, sorry. Like, the dissing, the beefing, the shooting. Like, for what? Like, for what? Like, for what? Like, when you sitting in your cell alone, cold, lonely or hell not good. Um, everybody leave you. Like, nobody here for you. Like, the ones, the ones that your ride or die, your girlfriends, whoever you love, the only person that's for you is your mother. And, maybe like, one friend. Maybe. But, it ain't worth it though, bro. It ain't worth it. I was 21 years old facing the death penalty. I never ever, the only, my only interactions with law enforcement was traffic tickets. Wake up next morning, I'm facing the death penalty. That's how quick life can change. It ain't worth it, bro. That's all. And, sorry if I was nervous. Sorry. [00:43:16] Speaker 1: No, it's okay, Mr. Chance. Oh. Thank you for saying that. [00:43:20] Speaker 11: Yes, ma'am. [00:43:21] Speaker 10: Your Honor, Mr. Damien, Murphy has changed his body and doesn't want to make a brief statement. Sure. [00:43:30] Speaker ?: I think it's more right here. [00:43:31] Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, go ahead. What would you like to say, Mr. Murphy? [00:43:34] Speaker 12: I would like to say, to God, be good, and all the time, and the people, whatever, how to last, say so. I'm sorry, Judge. I'm sorry. [00:43:45] Speaker 1: You know, you may have to step up to the podium, because the court reporter just needs to hear what you're saying, Mr. Murphy. Uh, as I was saying, uh, you look different from up here. [00:43:56] Speaker 12: Uh, to God be the glory all the time, and he'll forever have to last social in my situation. Uh, as I said in my interrogation interview, I'll be judged for it, and I'll forever retain my innocence. Uh, and I just want to say, uh, to the Gen Z generation, change your life, and do something productive with your life. Because, and it's ridiculous. Because, and it's ridiculous. It ain't worth it. And, uh, like, like, like it was said before, this is not my first rodeo down this road, so, this is this. It's looking like Felber, but I felt to keep a positive mind state and a positive mindset, but to God be the glory. So, um, that's it. [00:45:05] Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms. Murphy. Uh-oh. All right. Mr. Rashad Murphy, anything you want to say at all? You don't have to. Just giving you the final chance. [00:45:17] Speaker 4: I love, I love everybody. Okay. [00:45:20] Speaker 1: Okay. All right. [00:45:22] Speaker 4: Very good. [00:45:23] Speaker 1: All right. So, a couple things. Um, before I pass sentence. Um, first of all, I want to commend the lawyers again. I know I did it at the close of the trial, but, um, this was a massive case. I mean, it's by far the longest case, the most intricate case, the most difficult case that I've ever handled in almost 24 years. Um, and I know for you all as well, it had to have been, um, I can't even imagine the Herculean task of all the evidence and sorting through it. Um, and you all always conducted yourselves with the utmost professionalism. Um, and I just want to, again, express my gratitude for that, how seriously everyone took the case. Um, I never, ever have to worry about any of the lawyers before me ever, um, not abiding by the rules of professional conduct. I never have to worry about you being disrespectful to me or to witnesses or to each other. I never have to worry about the attorneys misleading me on the law. Um, and it's rare that that happens, but when it does, and it has happened, um, recently, it does make me very grateful for lawyers that know what they're doing and that, that practice, uh, with the utmost professionalism. So I do want to just thank you all for that so much. I also want to comment about law enforcement's work. Um, I don't know if Detective Ramos is here. I don't see him here. Um, that was one heck of a job. I mean, that was unbelievable. I mean, I've seen a lot of good homicide detectives testify over the years from TPD or HCSO. Um, that was remarkable. And, and particularly in light of the fact that it was his first time as a lead detective. I mean, and he had an encyclopedic knowledge of this case. I mean, it was, and it, I'm talking about massive amounts of information that he could recall instantly. And, um, not every law enforcement agency and not every homicide detective solves this case. Not everyone does. But he did. I mean, he was tenacious and thorough and so impressive. And, um, if I were at TPD, I'd give him some kind of award for the job that he did because it was really, really good. He made the whole agency look good. Um, I also want to comment. And, um, directive, uh, Taylor Klein also, who had the, um, foresight to go pull that video from the McDonald's. Um, which was a key part of evidence in this case. And really the cooperation amongst law enforcement in the state of Florida. It's really remarkable. I want to commend the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, the gang unit. I think it's a 12 member unit. And just based upon what I know anecdotally about the situation in Gainesville, excuse me, Jacksonville. Um, I don't know that it has improved, but a 12 gang unit just doing their best to, um, deal with all of the gang violence in that community. That a lot is asked of them. And specifically, I want to note Detective Nader and Detective Drabak. Um, they again, you know, worked tirelessly on this case. They worked hand in glove with, uh, Detective Ramos. And again, Detective Drabak having the wherewithal to know to go into the Walmart and pull the video. Like that, that's good old fashioned detective work. That really, um, yielded results for the state of Florida. Um, I also want to commend the cooperation with the Polk County Sheriff's Office. The Gwinnett County Police Department. And I believe it was at Putnam County that found the, um, that provided the telephone for Darius Beals. Was that the? Clay. Clay County. Clay County Sheriff's Office. I mean, it really is remarkable. And again, in not every state in the United States of America do you have agencies that work that well together with the, with a common goal. So, I mean, that part of it was just very, very, very impressive. Um, you know, I, I really don't know what to say about what's going on in Jacksonville. Again, and I don't know if it's getting better or not, but I was stunned. And when I was sitting there listening to the evidence and just the trail of dead bodies, just one young man after the next just cut down in the prime of their lives. I mean, it's shocking. I mean, it's shocking. It is shocking. And I, I just can't believe that any community, if they're made aware of it, will stand by and put up with that. I mean, it's just tragic. And, you know, Mr. Jones did not deserve to die for what he did or what he drill, what he, the drill rap videos he made. But goodness gracious, going and desecrating the grave site of a murdered relative is, you don't deserve to be killed for that. But you just increased your odds that it was going to happen. And that's the truth. That is the truth. So I'm not at all, again, stating that he deserved it, but, um, it really, it's just shocking. It's shocking to me. And I do have great sympathy for the defendants. You all, for the most part, are young men. And some of you have children. Um, and now for what? For what? Now you're looking at life in prison and what was it for? And I really appreciate Mr. Gathright and Mr. Chance really speaking to your community. Like these decisions that are made can have unalterable changes that you can't come back from. There's no coming back from them. You either end up dead or incarcerated for life. And I, I feel like, you know, you gentlemen had much more to offer this world. You did and you do. And so, um, in particular, you know, Mr. Rashad Murphy and Davion Murphy. Listen, there's no question you guys had a difficult childhood. There is no question. The, the, the hand that you were dealt from Jump Street was not the best. There is no question about that. Again, it's not an excuse, but I do acknowledge it. Um, Mr. Chance and Mr. Gathright, you all, you all, unlike the Murphys, you all did have positive role models in your life. Mr. Chance, you had a, a dad that testified and appeared to be a good role model. And a stepfather that cared about you. And Mr. Gathright, you, as you acknowledged, you had, um, so many opportunities that most people don't have. I mean, you started off your, your, your, the hand that you were dealt, the cards that you were dealt were pretty good. They were pretty darn good. Better than the average person. So it's particularly hard. I am heartbroken for you. I'm heartbroken for your family members. I'm heartbroken for your children. Um, I am. So I do have great sympathy, but you have been convicted and it was a horrible crime that was committed. And there is a price to be paid and there's just no way around that. Um, I do, I'm, I do find it remarkable. And I hope that you can maintain your positive outlook. Each of you still have, has a life of value. And going forward, the quality of the life that you had, have. Every day will come down to the choices you make. And so I hope that you continue to make choices. And then you realize you do have value and you can contribute. And you started today by speaking to the members of your community, particularly the younger men, that this is not the way to go. It's not, it's not because look, we have Charles Jones is dead and four people who will now spend life in prison. And again, all for what? For what? Nothing over nothing. Turf warfare, drill rap videos. I mean, it really is nothing. So I, one thing I found that was, when I was listening to the testimony, I think when Robert Howard testified, um, he testified that Jacksonville was the new little Chicago. And I almost fell out of my chair because I can't even imagine anyone in Jacksonville wanting that comparison. So I was curious. I looked it up and who knows if this is accurate, but apparently in Chicago last year, there were 406 homicides. A quarter of that was gang related. That's a hundred, about 104 people. Dead. Poof. Gone. Gone. For what? For what? But, so, um, I just want you all to know that. And I really do hope that, at least in the community of Jacksonville, that there are serious changes. I don't know why the scourge of gang violence has cropped up. I don't, I have no idea. I really am not familiar with Jacksonville. I don't know the whys, but, um, I hope that the community does come together to end it. Because Jacksonville just can't keep losing so many young men cut down in the prime of their lives. Can't, can't do it. Continue doing it. So. Okay. Anything further before I pronounce, um, sentence? No, Your Honor. [00:55:09] Brian Gonzalez: Nothing for, nothing on behalf of Rashawn Murphy. No, Your Honor. No, Your Honor. [00:55:15] Speaker 10: No, Your Honor. No, Your Honor. No, Your Honor. No, Your Honor. [00:55:19] Speaker ?: No, Your Honor. No, Your Honor. No, Your Honor. [00:55:22] Speaker 1: No, Your Honor. All right. So, um, Mr. Chance, I'm gonna start first. I'm going to adjudicate you guilty. Count one, sentence you to, uh, mandatory life without the possibility of parole. Count two, I will adjudicate you guilty. Sentence you to life to run concurrent with count one. Mr. Gathright. On count one, I will adjudicate you guilty. Sentence you to life without the possibility of parole. You also have a 20 year minimum mandatory sentence. On count two, the conspiracy. I will sentence you to 30 years in prison to run concurrent. Count three, attempted murder in the second degree. I will sentence you to, uh, 30 years Florida State Prison with a 20 year minimum mandatory sentence. Again, to run concurrent, um, with all other counts. On count four, attempted murder in the second degree. Adjudicate you guilty. And sentence you to 30 years prison with a 20 year minimum mandatory sentence. Again, to run concurrent with all other counts. Count five, adjudicate you guilty. Sentence you to 30 years Florida State Prison with a 20 year minimum mandatory sentence. Again, to run concurrent with all other counts. And on count six, adjudicate you guilty. Sentence you to five years Florida State Prison. Again, to run concurrent. And again, um, for you and Mr. Chance, give me credit for all time served. As to Davion Murphy. Mr. Davion Murphy, um, I will adjudicate you guilty of first degree premeditated murder. Sentence you to life in prison without the possibility of parole. And you will have a 20 year minimum mandatory, um, sentence as part of the life sentence. Count two on the conspiracy. Adjudicate you guilty. Sentence you to life. To run concurrent. On the attempted murders. Counts three, four, and five. I will adjudicate you guilty of each of those. Sentence you to life in prison with a 20 year minimum mandatory sentence on each. Again, to run concurrent with all of the other counts. And again, giving you credit for all time served. And finally, Mr. Rashad Murphy. I will adjudicate you guilty of murder in the first degree. Sentence you to life in prison without the possibility of parole. And you will also receive a 20 year minimum mandatory sentence. On count two, conspiracy. Adjudicate you guilty. Sentence you to life in prison. To run concurrent with count one. On counts three, four, and five. I will adjudicate you guilty on each of those. Sentence you to life in prison. Each of those carries a 20 year minimum mandatory. Again, to run concurrent with all other counts. And giving you credit for all time served. [00:58:17] Speaker ?: All right. Anything further? No, your honor. [00:58:19] Speaker 1: I do wish you gentlemen the best. I really do. To make the most of your lives going forward. And you do have 30 days to appeal the judgment and sentence of this court. [00:58:23] Speaker ?: All right. Thank you all for concluding. [00:58:24] Speaker 1: Court's adjourned. [00:58:25] Speaker ?: I already signed him. [00:58:25] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:58:26] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:58:26] Speaker 1: Yeah. I already signed him. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. appeal the judgment and sentence of this court. All right. Thank you all. We're concluding. I already signed him. Thank you. [00:59:01] Speaker ?: Thank you.