About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Karina Cooper Trial Finale — Closing Arguments to Verdict from The Trial Channel, published October 25, 2026. The transcript contains 25,783 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"All right, so now we're back to where I told you I thought we were at some point yesterday. What we're going to do at this point, ladies and gentlemen, is we're going to go straight to me reading you the jury instructions, or at least most of the jury instructions. Aaron, if you'd want to pass out,"
[00:00:00] Speaker 1: All right, so now we're back to where I told you I thought we were at some point yesterday. What we're going to do at this point, ladies and gentlemen, is we're going to go straight to me reading you the jury instructions, or at least most of the jury instructions. Aaron, if you'd want to pass out, we're going to provide you each with your own individual copy of the jury instructions so you can follow through as I'm reading them. So while she's passing those out, counsel, I just wanted to ask real quick, we made a record on jury instructions before we finished all the evidence. I don't believe anything has changed, but I just want to confirm that neither party needs any additional record related to jury instructions. Mr. Kodiaga, any additional record from the state? No, your honor. Any additional record from the defendant, Ms. Fuat? No, your honor. All right. So, ladies and gentlemen, the other thing you'll notice is that once I start reading these jury instructions, Colleen here is going to stop typing. That's not because they're not important. It's because we already have a record of what's being said. It's here in print. So I'm going to read these. She doesn't need to type essentially what I'm reading. So that explains that. Just wanted to let you know so you didn't think there was any significance to that. So with that, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to start with the jury instructions. Members of the jury. Cut my glasses. The trial information in this case accuses the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree in violation of Iowa Code section 707.1 and 707.2 parent 1 included within the charge of murder in the first degree are the lesser and included offenses of murder in the second degree and involuntary manslaughter. To these charges, the defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. Upon the issues thus made, you're instructed as follows. Instruction number one. The trial information is the document that formally charges Karina Cooper with a crime and is merely the method by which she is brought into court for trial. It is not evidence. Instruction number two. Karina Cooper is presumed innocent and not guilty. This presumption of innocence requires you to put aside all suspicion which might arise from the arrest, charge, or the present situation of Ms. Cooper. The presumption of innocence remains with Ms. Cooper throughout the trial unless the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instruction number three. Karina Cooper has entered a plea of not guilty. The plea of not guilty is a complete denial of the charge and places the burden on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And just an update on the noise. I was informed they need approximately 10, 15 minutes and then they're done. I'm going to keep going with this while we're doing that. All right. The plea of not guilty is a complete denial of the charge and places the burden on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever I instruct you, the state must prove something. It must be by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state does not prove Karina Cooper guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, your verdict must be not guilty. Instruction number four. The burden is on the state to prove Karina Cooper guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one that fairly and naturally arises from the evidence or lack of evidence produced by the state. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and not the mere possibility of innocence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt. If after a full and fair consideration of all the evidence, you are firmly convinced of defendant's guilt, then you have no reasonable doubt and you should find defendant guilty. But if after a full and fair consideration of all the evidence or lack of evidence produced by the state, you are not firmly convinced of defendant's guilt, then you have a reasonable doubt and you should find defendant not guilty. Instruction number five. If there is a reasonable doubt as to the degree of the crime, Karina Cooper shall only be convicted of the degree for which there is no reasonable doubt. Instruction number six. You shall base your verdict only upon the evidence and these instructions. Evidence is testimony in person or by deposition. Two, exhibits received by the court. You may examine the exhibits closely, but be careful not to alter or destroy them. Three, stipulations, which are agreements between the attorneys. Facts may be proved by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both. Sometimes during a trial, references are made to pretrial statements and reports, witnesses, depositions, or other miscellaneous items. Only those things formally offered and received by the court are available to you during your deliberations, documents, or items read from or referred to which were not offered and received into evidence are not available to you. The following are not evidence. Statements, arguments, questions, and comments by the lawyers. Objections and rulings on objections. Any testimony I told you to disregard. Anything that I tell you as part of these instructions is not evidence. And lastly, anything you saw or heard about this case outside the courtroom. Instruction number seven. In considering the evidence, make deductions and reach conclusions according to reason and common sense. Facts may be proved by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or both. Direct evidence is evidence from a witness who claims actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is evidence about a chain of facts which show a defendant is guilty or not guilty. The law makes no distinction between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Give all the evidence the weight and value you think it is entitled to receive. Instruction number eight. Decide the facts from the evidence. Consider the evidence using your observations, common sense, and experience. It is your duty to determine the credibility of witnesses, to resolve any conflicts in the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. In determining the facts, you may have to decide what testimony you believe. You may believe all, part, or none of any witness's testimony. There are many factors which you may consider in deciding what testimony to believe. For example, one, whether the testimony is reasonable and consistent with other evidence you believe. Two, whether a witness has made inconsistent statements. Three, the witness's appearance, conduct, age, intelligence, memory, and knowledge of the facts. Four, the witness's interest in the trial, their motive, candor, bias, and prejudice. Instruction number nine. You have heard testimony from persons described as experts. Persons who have become experts in a field because of their education and experience may give their opinion on matters in that field and the reasons for their opinion. Consider expert testimony just like any other testimony. You may accept it or reject it. You may give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness's education and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in the case. Instruction number ten. Evidence has been offered to show that Karina Cooper made statements at an earlier time and place. If you find any of the statements were made by the defendant, then you may consider them as part of the evidence. Statements and questions by law enforcement during interviews of Karina Cooper are not evidence and may only be considered by you as contacts for Ms. Cooper's answers. You may also use the statements to help you decide if you believe Karina Cooper. You may disregard all or any part of her testimony if you find the statements were made and were inconsistent with her testimony given at trial, but you are not required to do so. Do not disregard Karina Cooper's testimony if other evidence supports it or if you believe it for any other reason. Instruction number eleven. To commit a crime, a person must intend to do an act which is against the law. While it is not necessary that the person knows the act is against the law, it is necessary that the person was aware he was doing the act and he did it voluntarily, not by mistake or accident. You may, but are not required to conclude, a person attends the natural results of his acts. Instruction number twelve. The statements prove all of the following elements of the crime of murdering the first degree. One, on or about June 18th, 2021, Karina Cooper shot Ryan Cooper or aided and abetted Euston Danker in shooting Ryan Cooper. Two, Ryan Cooper died as a result of being shot. Three, Karina Cooper individually or Euston Danker aided and abetted by Karina Cooper acted with malice of forethought. Four, Karina Cooper individually or Euston Danker aided and abetted by Karina Cooper. acted willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, and with the specific intent to kill Ryan Cooper. If the state has proved all these elements, Karina Cooper is guilty of murdering the first degree. But if you find the state has failed to prove one or more of the elements, then you shall find Karina Cooper not guilty of murdering the first degree and proceeded to determine whether Karina Cooper is guilty of murdering the second degree as defined in instruction number thirteen. Instruction number thirteen. The statements prove all of the following elements of the crime of murdering the second degree. One, on or about June 18, 2021, Karina Cooper shot Ryan Cooper or aided and abetted Euston Danker in shooting Ryan Cooper. Two, Ryan Cooper died as a result of being shot. Three, Karina Cooper individually or Euston Danker, aided and abetted by Karina Cooper, acted with malice of forethought. If the state has proved all these numbered elements, Karina Cooper is guilty of murdering the second degree. But if you find the state has failed to prove one or more of the elements, then you shall find Karina Cooper not guilty of murdering the second degree and proceeded to determine whether Karina Cooper is guilty of involuntary manslaughter as defined in instruction number fifteen. Instruction number fourteen. Murdering the second degree does not require a specific intent to kill another person. Instruction number fifteen. The state must prove all of the following elements of involuntary manslaughter. On or about June 18, 2021, Karina Cooper shot Ryan Cooper or aided and abetted Euston Danker in recklessly shooting Ryan Cooper. Two, Ryan Cooper individually or by knowingly aiding and abetting Euston Danker did the act in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury. Three, by doing the act, Karina Cooper individually or by knowingly aiding and abetting Euston Danker caused the death of Ryan Cooper. If the state has proved all of the elements, Karina Cooper is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. If the state has failed to prove any one of the elements, Karina Cooper is not guilty of involuntary manslaughter and you shall find her not guilty. Instruction number sixteen. As used in instruction number twelve, willful means intentional or by fixed design or purpose and not accidental. Deliberate means after having deliberated, which is to weigh in one's mind to consider, to contemplate, or to reflect. Premeditate is to think or ponder upon a matter before acting. Deliberation and premeditation need not exist for any particular length of time before the act. Instruction number seventeen. Malice is used in instructions numbers twelve and thirteen is a state of mind which leads one to intentionally do a wrongful act to the injury of another out of actual hatred or with an evil or unlawful purpose. It may be established by evidence of actual hatred or by proof of a deliberate or fixed intent to do injury. It may be found from the acts and conduct of the defendant and the means used in doing the wrongful injurious act. Malice requires only such deliberation that would make a person appreciate and understand the nature of the act and its consequences as distinguished from an act done in the heat of passion. Malice aforethought is a fixed purpose or designed to do some physical harm to another which exists before the act is committed. It does not have to exist for any particular length of time. Instruction number eighteen. Malice aforethought may be inferred from the use of a dangerous weapon. Instruction number nineteen. Serious injury is used in instruction fifteen as a condition which cripples, incapacitates, weakens, or destroys a person's normal mental functions and or bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement or extended loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ. Seriously, which means serious injury includes but is not limited to skull fractures and rib fractures. Substantial risk of death, as used in instruction fifteen, means more than just any risk of death but does not mean death is likely. If there is a real hazard or danger of death, substantial risk of death is established. Instruction number twenty, a person is reckless or acts recklessly, as used in instruction fifteen, when he or she willfully disregards the safety of persons or property, it is more than a lack of reasonable care which may cause unintentional injury. Recklessness is conduct which is consciously done with willful disregard of the consequences. For recklessness to exist, the act must be highly dangerous. In addition, the danger must be so obvious that the actor knows or should reasonably foresee that harm will more likely than not result from the act. Though recklessness is willful, it is not intentional in the sense that harm is intended to result. Instruction number twenty-one, a dangerous weapon is any device or instrument designed primarily for use in inflicting death or injury, and when used in a designed manner is capable of inflicting death. It is also any sort of instrument or device actually used in such a way as to indicate the user intended to inflict death or serious injury, and when so used is capable of inflicting death. You are instructed that a firearm, such as a .22 rifle, is, by law, a dangerous weapon. Instruction number twenty-two, if a person has the opportunity to deliberate and uses a dangerous weapon against another resulting in death, you may, but are not required, to infer that the weapon was used with malice, premeditation, and specific intent to kill. Instruction number twenty-three, specific intent means not only being aware of doing an act and doing it voluntarily, but, in addition, doing it with a specific purpose in mind. Because determining the defendant's specific intent requires you to decide what he or she was thinking when an act was done, it is seldom capable of direct proof; therefore, you should consider the facts and circumstances surrounding the act to determine the defendant's specific intent. You may, but are not required to conclude a person who attends the natural results of his or her acts. All persons involved in the commission of a crime, whether they directly commit the crime, or knowingly aid and abet its commission, shall be treated in the same way. Aid and abet means to knowingly approve and agree to the commission of a crime, either by active participation in it or by knowingly advising or encouraging the act in some way before or when it is committed. Conduct following the crime may be considered only as it may tend to prove the defendant's earlier participation. Mere nearness to or presence at the scene of a crime without more evidence is not aiding and abetting. Likewise, mere knowledge of the crime is not enough to prove aiding and abetting. The guilt of a person who knowingly aids and abets the commission of a crime must be determined only on the facts which show the part she has in it and does not depend upon the degree of another person's guilt. If you find the state has proved the defendant directly committed the crime, or knowingly aided and abetted other persons in commission of the crime, then the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. Murder in the first degree, as contained in Instruction No. 12, requires a specific intent. Therefore, before you can find that Carina Cooper aided and abetted the commission of the crime of murder in the first degree, the state must prove that either Carina Cooper had such specific intent or aided and abetted with the knowledge the others who directly committed the crime had such specific intent. If Carina Cooper did not have the specific intent, or knowledge the others had such specific intent, she is not guilty. Instruction No. 25, for the defendant to have knowledge of something means she has conscious awareness of it. Instruction No. 26, you must determine whether Carina Cooper is guilty or not guilty from the evidence and the law in these instructions. You must consider all of the instructions together. No one instruction includes all of the applicable law. You must consider the evidence. Do not be influenced by any personal, excuse me, as you consider the evidence. Do not be influenced by any personal sympathy, bias, prejudices, or emotions. It is common to have hidden or implicit thoughts that help us form our opinions. You are making very important decisions in this case. You must evaluate the evidence carefully. You must avoid decisions based on things such as generalizations, gut feelings, prejudices, fears, sympathies, stereotypes, or inward or outward biases. The law demands that you return a just verdict based solely on the evidence, your reason, and common sense, and these instructions. As jurors, your sole duty is to find the truth and do justice. I'm going to stop there, and I will finish with the rest of the jury instructions once we finish with closing arguments. I guess, counsel, do we need a few minutes, or are we ready to go? Either way is fine. If we could just take five minutes. Okay. I'll take ten. So we'll take approximately a ten-minute break, or as long as you folks all need to use the restroom or whatever you need to do. And then we will resume with closing arguments. So, again, I'd remind you of the admonition I gave you previously, and we'll see you shortly. Thank you. All right. Go ahead and have a seat, everybody. All right. We've just had a short mid-morning break. We have our jurors, counsel, and parties present. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, as I indicated, counsel for each side are going to have the opportunity to make closing arguments. As part of their closing arguments, I anticipate counsel will be summarizing testimony and evidence that you have heard during the course of this trial. As they do that, they will be recalling the evidence, as you will be later. They will not intentionally be trying to mislead you. And if your recollection of the evidence is not the same as theirs, you must follow and rely on your own recollection. The summaries, excuse me, the arguments of counsel are not evidence, and they should not be construed by you as evidence or instructions on the law. They're simply intended to help you understand the positions of each side, and you should give counsel your close attention. With that, Mr. Ringel, are you prepared to present closing argument on behalf of the state?
[00:18:29] Speaker 2: Yes, Judge, thank you.
[00:18:30] Speaker 1: You may.
[00:18:35] Speaker ?: Thank you.
[00:18:44] Speaker 2: Ladies and gentlemen, this is exactly what it looks like.
[00:18:57] Speaker 3: We have a woman, Rennie Cooper, who hated.
[00:19:26] Speaker 2: We have a woman, Rennie Cooper, who hated him as a child, referred to him as a sperm donor, said, fucking hate him. Her friends, who she described as family, who were emotional on the sand. What did they say? We've heard her threaten, Rennie Cooper, many times. I hate you. I wish you were dead.
[00:20:14] Speaker 4: I should shoot you in the face.
[00:20:28] Speaker 3: Ryan Cooper was shot twice in the face.
[00:20:37] Speaker 2: messages between Rennie Cooper and her affair partner, Houston Baker, planning and plotting the crime. Not a fantasy, not a game, not a misunderstanding, not a product of data loss. They're exactly what they look like. A woman who hates her husband, who wants a new life, who wants a different life, with Houston danger.
[00:21:10] Speaker 4: Plotting to kill her husband, whom she hates, who wants a new life, who wants a new life, who wants a new life, and that's exactly what happened. Oh, by the way, she had no money.
[00:21:31] Speaker 2: Ryan made the financial decisions. She was unhappy with the fact that there were a lot of things she couldn't do. We saw the bank accounts. Some of them started in the negative. Hundreds combined thousands of dollars in overdraft fees. Not only does she get to leave with her affair partner, Houston Baker, she kills her husband, she also gets more than $600,000, if you've heard, roughly $550,000 in insurance money. Another roughly, what did Michelle Wilson tell you, $100,000 from selling Ryan's stuff.
[00:22:17] Speaker 4: Motive?
[00:22:22] Speaker 2: That's exactly what it looks like. The messages mean exactly what you think they mean. She's guilty. And obviously guilty. A first free word. The text messages or snaps in this case, they may be the smoking gun. They may be the most obvious evidence in this case. It's not the only evidence in this case. Not by far. There's layer upon layer upon layer of evidence that indicates she's guilty of murdering her husband. We're going to go through that evidence. We're going to talk about it. We're going to go through the jury instructions. And we'll guide you during your deliberations to make sure that you understand how the law applies to the facts. They look complicated. They've been read to you. There's a lot of words in there. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:16] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:16] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:17] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:19] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:20] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:20] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:22] Speaker 4: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:23] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:25] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:27] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:28] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:31] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:32] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:38] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:40] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:44] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:46] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:48] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:23:50] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:24:04] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:24:05] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:24:13] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:24:16] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:24:34] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:24:36] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:24:42] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:24:44] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:24:46] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:24:49] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:07] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:08] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:09] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:11] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:12] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:15] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:32] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:35] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:37] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:39] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:44] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:45] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:49] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:52] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:25:59] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:26:00] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:26:01] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:26:05] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:26:24] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:26:25] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:26:27] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:26:28] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:26:34] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:26:35] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:26:58] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:27:01] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:27:03] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:27:04] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:27:18] Speaker 4: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:27:20] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:27:32] Speaker ?: There's a lot of legal jargon.
[00:27:33] Speaker 2: There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. There's a lot of legal jargon. I'm not paying attention though. I can't really read what's going on. "Houston, remember those casings. Fucking remember those. No ifs, ands, or buts." She seems to be tracking the conversation pretty well. She's responding to everything that he said. She doesn't say, "What are you talking about?" "What casings?" "I don't know what a decent he is." "No, she doesn't say." She says, "Absolutely. 100%. 14 seconds later." "Is what she's telling you incredible at all?"
[00:28:33] Speaker 3: "With Dan Simpson."
[00:28:35] Speaker 2: "Don't even know what the info is going on." "It seems to be tracking." "Okay, phone's going down. I love you." "I love you too." "So much." "Forever." "Okay babe. Seriously. Putting the phone down. Have to get this shit done. I love you." She doesn't say, "What are you talking about?" "What does this mean?" "Because the plan to murder Ryan is already in place." "All of the necessary conditions for this murder to happen are in place." "Plan, Pythonia, and Houston for months." "This is the measure that's going to go down." "This is the measure that's going to happen." "She confirms." "Because she controls the scene." "That everything that needs to be in place for this murder to happen is in place." "You saw the surges." "You know they did a ton of internet research." "They thought they were going to commit the perfect crime." "Putting the phone down." "Why are you putting the phones down?" "Because they know a little bit about digital forensics."
[00:30:07] Speaker 4: "They know a little bit about location data."
[00:30:09] Speaker 2: "This is supposed to be some sort of convoluted alibi." "Huston's at least smart enough to know." "I probably shouldn't take my phone with me when I don't commit the murder." "Because they're a little bit savvy."
[00:30:24] Speaker 4: "But the funny thing is, when you commit a murder, there's a lot of things you don't know."
[00:30:38] Speaker 2: "Investigators know them." "Detectives know them." "Forensic scientists know them." "They didn't know." "One of the things I didn't know." "Your snap messages that you think you've deleted." "Can be recovered."
[00:31:04] Speaker 4: "All the conditions you're in place." "Scene is controlled."
[00:31:09] Speaker 2: "Ryan is always forced to leave." "Kids are subdued." "Ransom is subdued." "We'll get you in the door."
[00:31:16] Speaker 3: "You and I will shoot Ryan." "We cannot realize." "Go."
[00:31:22] Speaker ?: "He said, 'Have to get this shit done.'" "They said, 'What are you talking about?'"
[00:31:25] Speaker 3: "Consistent with their plan, she said, 'Go.'" "That is Ryan's death line." "That is Ryan's death line." "Signed by that."
[00:31:32] Speaker ?: "Signed by her. "Then, yeah, just a little bit." "Let's get this shit done."
[00:31:37] Speaker 4: "What are you talking about?" "What are you talking about?"
[00:31:40] Speaker ?: "Consistent with their plan."
[00:31:41] Speaker 4: "She said, 'Go.'"
[00:31:42] Speaker 2: "That is Ryan's death line." "She said, 'Go.'" "She said, 'Go.'" "That is Ryan's death line." "Signed by Karina." "That is Ryan's death line." "That is Ryan's death line." "Signed by Karina."
[00:31:58] Speaker 3: "Then, yeah, just a little bit." "Yeah, just a little bit."
[00:32:01] Speaker 2: "Again, probably with attempts at phone and data manipulation." "To throw off investigators." "The same way that Karina, for years, sought to throw off the investigators." "She can't tell anybody what happened to Ryan." "Won't tell anybody what happened to Ryan." "And whenever she'll pronounce the thought about it," "Provable lies." "Over and over." "She's guilty of murdering the first degree." "How did we get there?" "What are the elements of murdering the first degree?" "On or about June 18th, 2021, Karina Cooper shot Ryan Cooper." "Or aided and vetted Houston banker in shooting Ryan Cooper." "The state has to, and has proven that beyond reasonable doubt." "Ryan Cooper died as a result of being shot." "Karina Cooper individually, or Houston banker, aided and abetted by Karina Cooper, acted with malice and forethought." "We'll talk about that, and it's been established." "Karina Cooper individually, or Houston banker, aided and abetted by Karina Cooper, acted willfully, deliberately, premeditatively, and with specific intent to kill Ryan Cooper." "You're being presented with what's called alternative theories." "Karina Cooper shot Ryan Cooper."
[00:33:27] Speaker ?: "One theory."
[00:33:27] Speaker 2: "Or aided and abetted by Houston banker in shooting Ryan Cooper." "You're being presented with what's called alternative theories." "Karina Cooper shot Ryan Cooper." "One theory." "Or aided and abetted by Houston banker in shooting Ryan Cooper." "That's another theory." "Alternative theories." "What does that mean?" "It's not complicated." "If you find that she aided and abetted Houston banker in shooting her husband, she's guilty of first degree murder." "If you find that she shot Ryan Cooper herself, she's guilty of first degree murder." "Either one." "Either one." "Either one." "Either one." "This is about a unanimous verdict." "What this says is, where two or more facts will produce the same result, the law does not require each juror to agree as to which theory or fact leads to his or her verdict." "It's the verdict itself which must be unanimous, not the theory upon which it's faced." "It may be confusing." "What does that mean?" "Simple and straightforward." "It means, some of you may think she aided and abetted Houston banker." "The remainder of you may think that she herself shot Ryan Cooper." "That's guilty." "Because all of you think she committed first degree murder." "It doesn't matter how." "Some of you may think it's aided and abetted." "Some of you may think she pulled a trigger." "That's okay." "You don't all have to agree she committed to her." "You don't all have to agree that she aided and abetted." "Either one." "And she's guilty for a free murder." "What does "aid and abet" mean?" "So we have, she pulled a trigger herself." "Or she aided and abetted."
[00:35:40] Speaker ?: "What is that?"
[00:35:41] Speaker 2: "Knowingly approve and agree to the commission of a crime." "By active participation." "There was active participation." "Or by knowingly advising or encouraging the act in some way before or when it's committed." "Go." "Certainly not all she did." "Again, it will go through her control of the scene and the conditions that had to be in place." "For Houston Banker to come over and participate with Karina Cooper in murdering Ryan Cooper." "But you certainly will be abating the vet."
[00:36:18] Speaker ?: "There's a mountain of evidence that establishes that." "Now, there's some additional instructions under aid and abetted." "It may seem confusing." "Ordering the first degree requires a specific intent."
[00:36:21] Speaker 2: "In order to find that she aided and abetted Houston Banker."
[00:36:22] Speaker ?: "You must find either that she, Karina Cooper, had that specific intent."
[00:36:22] Speaker 2: "Or Houston Banker did and she knew the intent." "Or Houston Banker did and she knew the intent." "Ordering the first degree requires a specific intent." "Ordering the first degree requires a specific intent."
[00:36:28] Speaker 3: "In order to find that she aided and abetted Houston Banker."
[00:36:29] Speaker ?: "You must find either that she, Karina Cooper, had that specific intent." "Or Houston Banker did and she knew the intent."
[00:36:29] Speaker 2: "We'll talk a little more about specific intent." "It's pretty clear they both have a special instruction under aid and abetted." "It may seem confusing." "Ordering the first degree requires a specific intent." "In order to find that she aided and abetted Houston Banker." "You must find either that she, Karina Cooper, had that specific intent." "Or Houston Banker did and she knew the intent." "We'll talk a little more about specific intent." "It's pretty clear they both want Brian Cooper dead." "It's pretty clear she knows it." "She told her she knows it." "In her version of events, she's been hearing from Houston all the time about shell casings and how he wants to kill Brian." "So does she." "It's pretty clear from those snap messages that they have a specific intent." "Two shots to the face." "Not specific intent." "There's more." "There's no question that she had a specific intent." "There's no question that she knew that Houston had a specific intent." "So it's not an issue with regard to aid and abetted." "It's already established."
[00:37:45] Speaker ?: "It also says this."
[00:37:47] Speaker 2: "Mere nearness to or presence at the scene of a crime without more evidence is not anything abetted." "There's plenty more evidence." "Those snap messages alone are plenty more evidence." "She didn't just happen to be there." "This just means that she had to act and be there." "In the commission of the crime you saw." "Not even necessarily that night." "She did." "She did just make that night." "Just means there has to be more evidence than the fact that she just happened to be there." "We know she didn't just happen to be there." "Similarly, mere knowledge of the crime is not enough to prove aid and abetted." "In other words, that's because she knows about it." "One way or another." "That's not enough for aid and abetted." "We have far more than that." "Again, active participation." "Already established beyond a reasonable value." "So, we'll go through the elements one at a time." "Talk about some of the evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for each of those elements." "Here are the elements again." "Let's start with number two." "This one's you." "Ryan Cooper died as a result of being shot." "Medical Examiner, Dr. Kelly Cruz." "What did she tell you?" "Cause of death, the bench helps to the face." "Wound A, fatal." "Wound B, fatal." "Ryan Cooper died as a result of being shot." "Proven beyond a reasonable doubt." "Her testimony, the autopsy." "That's selfish." "Moving on to number three." "Karina Cooper individually," "Aided and abetted by Karina Cooper, acted with malice of forethought." "What is malice?" "Malice is a state of mind which leads one to intentionally do a wrongful act." "To the injury of another, out of actual hatred." "Or with an evil or unlawful purpose."
[00:40:06] Speaker 4: "This is distinguished from an act done in the heat of passion."
[00:40:10] Speaker ?: "Howly it be established." "By evidence of actual hatred."
[00:40:14] Speaker 2: "Or proof of a deliberate or fixed intent to do injury." "May be found from the acts and conduct of the defendant." "And the means used in doing the wrongful or injurious act." "In this case, firework." "So were these acts born of actual hatred?" "Yeah." "Malice also requires such deliberation that would make a person appreciate and understand the nature of the act and its consequences." "Again, as distinguished from an act done in the heat of passion." "Malice also requires such deliberation that would make a person appreciate and understand the nature of the act and its consequences." "And as distinguished from an act done in the heat of passion." "Malice of forethought does not have to exist for any particular length of time." "Malice, and malice of forethought, may be inferred from the use of a dangerous weapon." "Everything that he just read, everything that he said, you can infer by the fact that a dangerous weapon was used." "And you receive an instruction, a .22 rifle by law is a dangerous weapon." "No." "That's the weapon that killed Brian Cooper." "So malice and malice of forethought are already established by the fact that they shot him in the face with a .22 rifle." "You don't have to think about anything else with regard to malice and malice of forethought." "That's already established." "When you shoot someone in the face with a .22 rifle, malice of forethought can be inferred." "There's more evidence of malice in this case." "We talked about this just briefly." "Theresa McBride." "Karina told you, she's family."
[00:42:16] Speaker 4: "She didn't describe her as a friend, she described her as family." "Malice."
[00:42:22] Speaker ?: "Actual hatred."
[00:42:24] Speaker 2: "Said she hated Brian multiple times." "Said she wished he was dead." "That's malice." "Heard Karina say she would shoot him in the face." "Malice, a forethought." "This is well before the murder." "Brian Morrissey." "Said him. Family." "You saw him on the scene." "You judge people's credibility." "He was very emotional." "He lost his friend, Brian." "He also loved Karina." "He also knew exactly what she said." "She was shooting in the face." "Everything's fantasy." "Everything's a funny joke." "It's a funny joke." "It's a misunderstanding." "It's just a joke."
[00:43:26] Speaker ?: "I thought I was shooting in the face."
[00:43:28] Speaker 4: "It's just a joke."
[00:43:30] Speaker 2: "They didn't think it's a joke." "They said it was time to go." "And they left." "That's her family." "They left."
[00:43:40] Speaker 4: "They left because it wasn't a joke." "If it was a joke, they would have left."
[00:43:46] Speaker 2: "It snaps are a joke." "It snaps are a joke." "Saying I hate him." "Shoot him in the face." "That's a joke." "Conversations with law enforcement." "Joe." "Tell him whatever you want." "The testimony." "Joe." "Additional evidence of malice." "Karina's own words." "Fucking hate him." "What do you think that means?" "It means she hates him." "This is to Houston." "This is in February." "She's mortified, right?" "She's so scared of him." "She doesn't want to have anything to do with him." "Doesn't want anything to happen to her family." "So these are the messages you send back and forth." "Gee, I hate my husband." "I wish you were my husband." "You should be a father of my kids." "Not my sperm donor." "Not this child." "It's terrible." "What else did she say?" "Like I said." "Sperm donor." "She hates him." "She resents him." "She wants him dead." "She wants Houston danger." "Her father and parent." "Her children." "She says that." "Here's hoping for a road semi today." "Big accident. No survivors." "Who drives a semi?" "Her husband." "Brian." "I broke it off with Houston." "We had sex once." "But I shut it down." "Didn't want anything to happen to my family." "And then I text him." "You should father my kids." "I hope Ryan dies in semi-accident." "I hope Ryan dies in semi-accident." "Malice of four." "You can infer it when you use the weapon." "There's plenty of other things." "Number four." "Karina Cooper individually or Houston danger aided and abetted by Karina Cooper acted willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, and with a specific intent to kill Ryan Cooper." "Again, that seems like a lot." "Again, that seems like a lot." "Again, it's actually pretty straightforward." "Willfully." "Fixed design or purpose." "Pretty clear what their design or purpose was." "Certainly pretty clear what your design or purpose is when you shoot someone in the face twice." "Deliberate." "Having deliberated, which is to weigh in one's mind to consider, to contemplate, or to reflect." "She's talking about hoping he's dead months before they kill him." "That deliberation doesn't have to exist for any period of time." "It could be while you're sighting your husband who's sitting in a recliner with a rifle." "It could be when you're loading the ammunition." "It could be when you're pulling the trigger."
[00:47:08] Speaker 4: "It could be in between the first and second shot." "Here we have months." "I need to be close." "Premeditate."
[00:47:20] Speaker 2: "Think or ponder upon a matter before acting." "Same." "What is specific intent?" "Not only being aware of doing an act and doing it voluntarily, but in addition, doing it with a specific purpose in mind."
[00:47:34] Speaker 4: "What's the act?" "Shooting Ryan Cooper in the face." "Specific purpose: to kill him." "This is not complicated."
[00:47:48] Speaker 2: "You may, but are not required to conclude a person intends the natural results of his act." "What's the natural result of shooting somebody twice in the head?" "But you're going to kill them." "Again, if a person has the opportunity to deliberate, as you've just established, they both did." "And use the dangerous weapon, that's a .22, against another resulting in death." "You may, but are not required to, infer that the weapon was used with all of these." "Malice, premeditation, and specific intent." "The use of the .22 rifle alone establishes all of these things." "There's plenty of evidence, and you've heard it repeatedly over the last week." "For all of these: premeditation, specific intent, malice." "As long as you find there was time to deliberate and deliberation occurred," "I don't need to weigh any of that evidence for this element." "I just want the fact that the .22 rifle was used." "As I said before, .22 rifle is, by law, a dangerous weapon." "Specific intent to kill."
[00:49:06] Speaker 4: "It's already satisfied the use of the weapon, but let's talk about how we're at least specific intent to kill."
[00:49:14] Speaker 2: "She, in Houston, shower." "We know she was up, she was around that house." "Trying to send it here any time." "We'll go through the timeline." "But the timeline is established by . "What did she do?" "She's awake. She told you." "She told you both, right?" "If you think about her testimony on the sample." "What did she say yesterday?" "She woke up because she heard a crash."
[00:49:56] Speaker ?: "Stick into that story."
[00:49:58] Speaker 2: "But she also admitted to sending all the stamps." "Okay." "Okay." "So, apparently she was both awake and asleep and awake and by a lot of pressure." "She was awake." "She participated in the murder." "That's what really happened." "And then she stayed in the scene." "Taking care of some other things that needed to be taken care of." "We'll talk about later." "All the while, Ryan's bleeding out." "He's dying." "His blood is drying." "His blood is plotting." "Two separate things." "She finally gets around to calling 911 when she was good and ready." "Has the scene set the way that she would like it to be set up." "Paul's in."
[00:51:06] Speaker 3: "Thank you, Sarah." "Fake you, Sarah." "Ridiculous, dramatic, overacting."
[00:51:18] Speaker 2: "She calls Aaron." "Volunteer firefighter." "And she says..." "I think somebody's in my house." "Not a word."
[00:51:38] Speaker ?: "Not calling 911."
[00:51:38] Speaker 2: "Not calling 911." "Not calling 911." "Not calling 911." "Not get help." "Not you come over here.
[00:51:48] Speaker ?: He needs some aid."
[00:51:48] Speaker 2: "I think someone's in my house." "Okay." "I think someone's in your house." "You're running around in the house." "You're not in the house."
[00:52:00] Speaker ?: "You're unarmed."
[00:52:02] Speaker 2: "You're only think someone's in the house." "She's buying time." "Making it look like..." "She's doing what a reasonable person would do." "If they found an open shop." "I called for help."
[00:52:14] Speaker ?: "Did you know?"
[00:52:16] Speaker 2: "Did you really?" "Or did you think I called for help?" "Someone's in my house." "What's going on?"
[00:52:24] Speaker ?: "Screaming."
[00:52:26] Speaker 4: "Can we get any details?" "Screaming."
[00:52:30] Speaker ?: "Can we get any details?"
[00:52:30] Speaker 4: "Screaming." "Okay."
[00:52:34] Speaker 2: "Never mentioned anything about rising the colony area." "Something to think about." "Her news story."
[00:52:42] Speaker ?: "Houston Baker did it."
[00:52:44] Speaker 4: "And I'm so scared I didn't tell anybody." "What does this have to do with Houston Baker?" "How does this help?" "Houston Baker." "How does this help?" "Houston Baker."
[00:53:00] Speaker 2: "If Houston Baker murdered her husband." "Or shot her husband." "And she didn't want to tell that Houston Baker did it." "Because she's afraid she'll get in trouble." "How does that prevent her from calling 911?" "Immediately." "And telling them what happened." "You can say, I don't know who did it." "But you can also say, we need some help right away." "How does providing misleading information about the timeline." "Come forward with her story that Houston Baker did." "Are these all cover stories that helped her?" "Because she participated in the work." "If you're concerned." "If you're concerned." "If Houston Baker did it, you had nothing to do with it." "And you don't want to be upset with it." "You would just help as much as you can and say, I don't know anything about who did it." "She did it."
[00:54:06] Speaker ?: "She did it."
[00:54:06] Speaker 2: "She told a series of lies that helped her." "Because she's participating in the market." "Never asked Erin to call 911 on her name, please." "Never told Erin that Ryan needed it." "She never attempted to render any of herself." "Like any normal, reasonable person." "She did nothing." "But she did nothing." "Until eventually, she sat on her." "We'll talk about that more later." "She sat on her." "She rubbed her face all over her blood." "To conceal evidence." "To conceal her role in the work." "Tea shots to the face." "Specific intent to kill." "Opportunity to deliberate." "These are the messages from before the murder." "Opportunity to deliberate." "We have plenty of other messages where she wants him dead." "But here we are at 3:30." "She makes her faint cry for help at 4:30." "Here's an hour of authority." "Okay, come over here to your husband." "Don't forget to pick up the shell casings." "Absolutely wonderful, son." "Opportunity to deliberate." "Yep." "Phone manipulation, phones going down." "I love you so much." "Forever." "Okay, gotta get this shit done."
[00:55:44] Speaker ?: "Go."
[00:55:46] Speaker 2: "This has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." "There's more evidence that supports it." "You've heard it." "It's probably in your notes." "This is by far more than enough to establish beyond a reasonable doubt." "Use and day created and invented by Karina." "Karina herself acted willfully, deliberately, premeditatingly, and was specific." "And again, remember, you find deliberation." "The use of .22 rifle is enough for you to find reasonable doubt." "It's not established beyond a reasonable doubt." "Prolement number four." "Three of the four elements are already met." "The final element." "Honor about June 18th, 2021." "That's not a question." "All the first responders, everybody talks about." "This occurred on June 18th, 2021." "Karina agrees." "Karina Cooper shot Brian Cooper, or aided and abetted used to date when she wanted to do it." "Did she?" "She did." "Ryan's murder absolutely could not have happened without Karina's aid."
[00:57:08] Speaker 4: "By her own account."
[00:57:12] Speaker 2: "Which, by the way, is ridiculous." "Let's talk about the things that she had to do to make this murder happen." "Here's the plan." "Marina decides we're in Houston."
[00:57:23] Speaker 4: "Ultimately, they're going to shoot Brian in his house while he's asleep."
[00:57:40] Speaker 2: "The kids have to be there." "Why?" "Well, that's your plan." "It would look really suspicious if the night that your husband is murdered just happens to be the night that the kids are at residence." "So she had to make a decision."
[00:58:03] Speaker ?: "And she did."
[00:58:05] Speaker 2: "But this murder would happen while her kids were present."
[00:58:09] Speaker 4: "He would just look too suspicious if they were."
[00:58:19] Speaker 2: "She tells you." "I would never orchestrate a murder with my kids there." "Watched Officer Fang's eye camera." "She's just out and through concealing evidence by rubbing her face on all of Orion's dead body." "Her children are in the room."
[00:58:39] Speaker 4: "Her children are in the room."
[00:58:49] Speaker 2: "She's pretending to be upset." "Different people respond differently to the trauma." "We know that." "Look at everyone else at this scene." "Including the children."
[00:59:07] Speaker 3: "Pretty calm."
[00:59:11] Speaker 2: "Their dad's lying dead. Blood everywhere." "Their mom is screaming hysterically."
[00:59:27] Speaker 4: "Look at the kids."
[00:59:29] Speaker 2: "Were they able to talk and communicate?" "Yeah." "Erin came in to find his brother dead. Blood everywhere." "Is he able to communicate?"
[00:59:41] Speaker 3: "Yeah."
[00:59:47] Speaker 2: "Rena cares about her kids." "I told you that." "She would never orchestrate a murder with the kids there." "Well, she had to." "She's so caught up in trying to convince law enforcement that she's devastated by the death of her husband that she knows nothing about." "But her children are standing right there in the room." "And she walks right past them out of the room." "Doesn't look at him." "Doesn't comfort him." "Doesn't care." "Because she's got a job to do at this point." "She just murdered her husband."
[01:00:25] Speaker ?: "And she needs to."
[01:00:25] Speaker 2: "She has to convince everyone." "She's devastated." "She can't agree." "She can't talk." "It's funny." "She did orchestrate a murder with her kids there." "She had to."
[01:00:41] Speaker 4: "It's too suspicious, otherwise." "So, what did she have to do?" "Well, it was part of the job in this case." "How's she going to get this murder done?" "Problem number one."
[01:00:53] Speaker 2: "Cade sleeps next to Ryan who we want to shoot in the face." "Got to get him on there." "You heard Kate's testimony." "He had been sleeping next to Ryan for a year." "For a year." "For a year." "She told her." "You've got to sleep in your own room." "She tries to pass it off." "Oh, it was part of our deal." "We had a deal. We're going to redecorate the rooms." "We're going to redecorate the rooms." "Then they've got to go sleep in their room."
[01:01:31] Speaker 4: "Wanted to get the kids in their rooms before school started." "It's June." "But it'll be June."
[01:01:43] Speaker 2: "That's her funky cover story." "This is evidence of deliberation and premeditation." "They've been planning this murder for a long time." "Long enough, I heard her come up with this funny excuse of painting the rooms." "You can see that she's working on the house." "You can see she's been painting." "That's evidence." "That's evidence of premeditation." "She's hoping that her husband will be dead."
[01:02:15] Speaker 4: "Months before this."
[01:02:17] Speaker 2: "Problem number one." "Kids are going to be home. Let's get Kate up to his room." "He can't be there." "When Ryan is shot." "Mission accomplished." "Mission accomplished." "She had to assure Corlyn and Cable were asleep and accounted for." "Two other kids who can't see what's going on." "They didn't have to sleep in their rooms that night." "They were with her." "Where she could keep an eye." "What else had to be in place for this murder to happen?"
[01:02:53] Speaker 4: "She had to assure Ryan was asleep."
[01:02:55] Speaker 2: "That's a big one." "That's why we're texting at 3:30 in the morning. Let's do this." "That's why it didn't happen at 6 p.m. or 6 a.m. or midnight."
[01:03:05] Speaker 4: "Who knows his sleep schedule?" "Karina does." "That's a crucial part of this murder." "She knows."
[01:03:13] Speaker 2: "What did she tell you in the interviews on the stand?" "He's like his dad. He's up roaming in the night." "That's why she says, 'No. Everything is in place." "Frying to sleep for the night." "She knows his sleep schedule." "It's not a normal one." "Falls asleep around 8:00." "Sleeps for a little while." "Gets up." "Watches Steve." "Eventually falls back to sleep." "He's up roaming in the night." "Kate's in his room." "Kids are referring to the bedroom." "She's confirmed Ryan's asleep." "Go." "He's asleep for the night." "He's asleep for the night."
[01:04:09] Speaker 4: "There's also a gun in the house."
[01:04:11] Speaker 2: "This is her boyfriend." "She refers to him essentially as a husband." "Says Houston Danker is her husband." "She's his wife." "She's worried about it." "There's guns in the house." "She doesn't know anything about guns." "But everywhere she goes, there's guns." "She had to get weapons permit because every car I get in, there's a gun." "She told police she doesn't know anything about guns." "But she knows there's a gun in the house." "If there's a confrontation, if Ryan's awake, Houston could get shot." "She can't have that." "She has to make sure there won't be a confrontation." "She has to make sure that Ryan's asleep." "Security."
[01:05:01] Speaker 4: "Security." "I think Houston Danker could do this by himself." "I think he chanced it just right."
[01:05:11] Speaker 2: "That he happened to come over." "He happened to pick the right door." "The door just happened to be unlocked." "Happened to be able to get in through the house." "At a time when Kate wasn't up." "Just happened to not be sleeping." "I don't think." "Next to his dad." "You know, I've only been two days." "Is that heavy or anything?" "The other kids just happened to not be awake." "Brian just happened to be asleep for the night." "Security." "These are security conscious people." "You saw the crime scene photographs." "Locked." "On all the doors." "Corina told me." "Multiple times." "The door behind Ryan, locked." "99.9% sure." "Locked."
[01:05:59] Speaker ?: "The kitchen door just happened to be open."
[01:06:03] Speaker 2: "The kitchen door just happened to be open." "She had to make sure he could get in." "And then he could get in through a situation that was controlled." "Ransom." "130 pound Rottweiler."
[01:06:25] Speaker 4: "What was her?"
[01:06:27] Speaker 2: "What she stated to Ryan Hurley." "Very protective." "Barks at everything." "Would be raising hell." "If he heard anything."
[01:06:41] Speaker 4: "She has to subdue Ransom." "You saw Fangman's body camera." "When that dog is around Corina, he's subdued." "He's called." "She told you." "She told Officer."
[01:06:59] Speaker ?: "She told Agent Vernon."
[01:07:01] Speaker 2: "The dog would raise help." "Hurley." "The dog would raise help." "Hurley." "So now we have Houston Danker somehow getting in." "Coming into the house." "Coming into the house." "Well, she told me about Ransom." "She left the door open because Ransom wanders the house." "This very protective, 130 pound Rottweiler wanders the house." "They'll go upstairs to see Cade." "They'll go hang out by Ryan." "The target of this assassination plot." "Wandering the house." "Wandering the house." "She has to make sure that Ransom is subdued." "And she does that." "Ransom is in the bedroom with her." "Not going to be a problem for Houston." "As I said, she has to ensure that Ransom is asleep for the night." "She did." "She showed you her own testimony at 3:30 in the morning." "She was fully aware at 3:30 in the morning." "That Cade was upstairs." "And that Ransom was asleep." "When did those sad times start?" "Well, 3:30." "Go." "She told me." "Tells them to go and sets the plan in motion." "What else did she do?" "She helped them escape." "Because he can't be seen by the children." "So she has to immediately subdue them."
[01:08:40] Speaker 4: "You know who can be at the scene?"
[01:08:42] Speaker 2: "She can." "Those kids are going to wake up." "They're going to hear something." "That's a concern." "If they see mom, that's okay." "You can't see Houston." "Cade already knows who Houston is." "She broke out. She doesn't ever want to be with them." "You know, it's sort of an online thing." "But Cade said," "Dad comes over, hangs out, drinks with my mom." "And dad's out around." "Okay."
[01:09:12] Speaker 4: "So, she has to help you escape."
[01:09:15] Speaker 2: "How'd she do that?" "As soon as the shooting happens," "I'll talk about this more." "Houston's right out that door behind Ryan." "He didn't come in it." "He definitely went out." "Marina runs to make sure that no kids are coming into the room." "Whether at the base of the stairs," "which goes to the bathroom," "or in that same room that has the doorway to the bedroom," "or for what we came for." "It's pretty obvious how she bought time." "We'll talk about that more." "But if they didn't hear anything," "if they didn't get up," "she has even more time to work at the scene." "Before she fake calls for help." "But the bottom line is," "when she's planning this crying at Houston," "they know," "he has to get out of there immediately," "and she has to make sure the kids don't see him." "Easy." "She's done all those things." "Made sure," "Houston could get in there." "Made sure Ransom wasn't a problem." "Made sure the kids weren't a problem." "Made sure he was in his own room." "Made sure he was in his own room." "Made sure Houston could see." "Let's think about this." "How do we know they're working together?" "Houston Danker did not come armed for a confrontation." "You heard the testimony." "He owns an AR-15. That's an assault rifle." "Large caliber." "If Houston Danker did this alone," "let's think this through." "He's going to come over to this house," "that we just talked about," "has multiple security threats." "We have dogs." "We have kids." "We have locks." "We don't know if Ryan's awake or asleep."
[01:11:25] Speaker 4: "He's going over there to murder somebody." "By himself."
[01:11:30] Speaker 2: "And from his arsenal of weapons," "which includes a double-barrel shotgun," "and an AR-15," "he chooses a squirrel rifle." "The small caliber .22." "Does that make any sense at all?"
[01:11:47] Speaker ?: "Yeah, it does." "Yeah, it does."
[01:11:48] Speaker 2: "If you know there won't be a confrontation." "Because Farina's told you there won't be a confrontation." "Because she knew at 3:30 that Ryan was asleep." "She knew all the conditions were in place." "She knew he wasn't going to have any problems." "She knew Ryan was going to be confined." "She knew Ryan wouldn't have these guns." "She knew all we're going to need is that .22." "The .22, because you heard the testimony of some of her friends." "A .22 is a weapon that she likes to shoot." "It shoots so much more easily." "It doesn't have as much kickback as her running." "Because she knows nothing about it." "He knew there wouldn't be a confrontation." "Because he's working in concert with Karina." "You don't choose a .22 to go to someone's house and murder them." "Unless you know there wouldn't be a confrontation." "When it was clear there wasn't going to be a confrontation, she said, 'Duh.'" "And he came over with his .22." "So, let's talk about the floor plan." "We know Karina wishes she had a larger bathroom." "She told us that yesterday, so you had bathrooms a little out of the portion." "We've established and you've heard that this garage door just goes to the garage." "Can't get in the house that way, right?"
[01:13:19] Speaker 4: "This is the door behind Ryan."
[01:13:24] Speaker 2: "You're rolling up on the house through Houston's Anchor." "You've got your .22 because you're ready for this confrontation that's going to occur." "What are your options?" "Kitchen door, where everyone goes in." "Door behind Ryan Cooper." "Let's start with the door behind Ryan Cooper." "Got your .22." "He's asleep in the chair." "You saw the pictures." "You heard the testimony." "You heard from Karina as well." "That door, one, always locked." "So what happens if you first try the door?" "You got your gun, you tried the door, it doesn't open." "Well, you probably just alerted the person that you're going to murder." "He's probably not going to go in the door for the night music." "Let's say it happens to be open." "You refer testimony that it was locked." "You got your rifle, you come in, the door is going to hit the back of the chair." "We already heard that." "So you'd have to come in, possibly hit the back of the chair, possibly alert the person that you're going to murder." "Another reason not to use that entrance." "Then, you would have to gingerly step around them with your rifle." "Come around and shoot them in the face." "Hopefully not waking them up as you shuffle by." "Again, ignoring all the other objective realities that we know about dogs, kids, and everything else." "Okay, that makes no sense." "It doesn't make any sense at all." "If you wanted to kill Orion by himself, you could have just shouted through the windows as AR-15." "Done." "But he didn't want to kill Orion by himself." "If you wanted to kill Orion, that's what they did." "So, that leaves one option." "The mudroom." "That's the door you had to come in." "So, he's going to enter the door, kind of Ryan, through the mudroom and through the kitchen." "So, what does that mean?" "She calls it the sewing room, it's labeled here as a hallway." "He's going to have to, with his .22 rifle, walk past the stairs that leave the kid's bedroom." "Seems risky." "The bedroom door that's open, that has Karina."
[01:15:41] Speaker 4: "A hundred and thirty-pound Rottweiler." "Ransom." "Two younger children."
[01:15:51] Speaker 2: "So, he would have had to walk past this hallway, past these doors." "We know, Karina says, I heard a crash, I got up, I thought it was in the bathroom so I went to the kitchen." "She also says she was awake sending snakes." "So, in one of her versions of events, "Houston must have come in the house with his .22, happened to pick the right door, came to the kitchen, walked right past Ransom, walked right past Karina, who was both awake and asleep. Walked right past the kids, didn't wake up Kade, Brian just happened to be asleep, got himself in the air, and shot him in the face." "That makes no sense." "It's ridiculous." "It's insulting."
[01:16:47] Speaker ?: "That's not it."
[01:16:49] Speaker 2: "She controlled the scene, she controlled all those threats, that's why they chose the .22, she likes to shoot the .22, none of that happened." "He came in that door, alright, with Karina's help. "He walked down that hallway, because Karina didn't think of her sleep, and came to sleep in the rants." "Rants of events are due." "Talk about this a little bit." "Other ways that we know Karina was involved, if she says that this was Houston, it wasn't her, and her new story, which years later, this is what she's come up with, I was scared." "So I'm saying, why are you telling the police stories that only help yourself?" "Why are you telling the police stories that have to do with your guilt?" "She's not guilty of anything." "Why is she trying to throw him off the trail as it relates to her?" "There's one answer." "Because she murdered her cousin." "She told Ebony Foster, she's never shot a gun before." "It doesn't have to do with Houston Daniel." "It has to do with her." "She doesn't want them to think that she knows how to shoot a gun."
[01:18:20] Speaker 4: "She doesn't want them to think that maybe she did. Because she did." "Never shot a gun before."
[01:18:29] Speaker 2: "She told Ebony Foster." "She's never even heard a gunshot." "Maybe on TV." "She has the weapons come in." "She has preferences for the types of weapons that she likes to shoot." "The concealed carry class was held on big property." "You heard that she fired a weapon?"
[01:18:53] Speaker ?: "Why is she telling me this?"
[01:18:56] Speaker 2: "Because she's trying to throw them off from the trail that leads to Reckon Bagley." "This has nothing to do with her story that I didn't tell her anything." "Because I was scared of this too big." "He would just say, 'I don't know what happened.' "She's worried about getting caught." "You'll notice, if you watch Fangman and Foster's body cams again."
[01:19:22] Speaker 4: "She can't provide any information."
[01:19:26] Speaker 2: "Any time they ask for information, she just starts wailing and screaming." "Ask Foster and Fangman both. Plenty of experience." "Had scenes involved in trauma?" "Severe injury?" "Ever seen anything like that?" "I've not." "Why do you say that?"
[01:19:49] Speaker 4: "I've never seen someone who couldn't provide any information to Lana." "And the problem is, whenever she talked, the information that she provided were things that would help her."
[01:20:07] Speaker 2: "Somehow she was able to say those things." "How much did she say about Ryan and what happened to Ryan?" "Almost nothing." "There was a stream of words and phrases related to guns." "My stupid gun that I've never even shot and I don't know anything about that I couldn't get out of the safe and I don't even know how to use it and I'm scared of it." "That's a lot of appreciation." "Thank you." "Can you tell us any about Ryan?"
[01:20:31] Speaker ?: "No."
[01:20:34] Speaker 2: "Karina." "Karina." "Karina." "Karina." "We're trying to figure out what happened." "Screaming." "Screaming." "Karina, we're just trying to figure out what happened." "I want my kids." "Did it sound like a gunshot?" "That one I can answer." "Never even heard of gunshot before." "Maybe on TV." "The only stuff she wants to talk about is the stuff she thinks is going to help her because she's guilty." "She's afraid of her own 380. She's never started." "She couldn't get the gun safe open." "Why did she say this?" "Because she knows." "One, law enforcement's probably going to find it." "Two, people know she has a 380."
[01:21:23] Speaker 4: "You're going to wonder, why didn't she help?"
[01:21:26] Speaker 2: "There's an intruder." "She didn't get her 380 because she participated in the murder."
[01:21:35] Speaker 4: "Could she tell Foster?" "I tried to get it open, but I couldn't get it open."
[01:21:41] Speaker 2: "What did Foster tell you?" "I just, I went and I opened it." "Did she have a code or a condemnation? Have you ever seen that thing before?" "No." "She thinks she's helping us all." "The stories she's telling make no sense." "They're designed only to help her." "It has nothing to do with these things."
[01:21:59] Speaker 4: "Because she participated in the murder."
[01:22:02] Speaker 2: "You don't need to say any of that stuff." "If her version of the guns is true." "If her version of the guns is true." "If her version of the guns is true." "You just did it when she was scared." "Why all this?" "Because that's not what happened." "She participated in the murder." "Doesn't know anything about guns." "Then she tells you." "I know, this looks suspicious, but I was taking a hunting safety course." "It's not anything about guns." "But." "Hunter safety course." "87 screenshots," so she cheated on the test, right? "That's what she said." "What's in that?" "Doesn't know what shell casing is." "I had to call Erin." "I don't know what shell casing is."
[01:22:45] Speaker 4: "I don't know what shell casing is." "This is what's on her phone." "If you're trying to say Houston Danger did this, you didn't know anything about it."
[01:22:56] Speaker 2: "Why are you placing a phony phone call to Erin?" "Who you've never talked to about what happened the night of his brother's death?" "Why are you placing a phony phone call to Erin to pretend you don't know what a shell casing is?" "That's about her and her gift." "That's what she did." "She knows what shell casing is." "She's taking tests on her phone." "She knows what round nose lead is." "Good penetration, good expansion." "She knows what a full metal jacket is." "She knows here about projectile range." "And how it can help you determine whether or not you can make a clean kill." "That's the only thing about them is all." "And when she testifies." "Okay, that looks bad. I got a new story." "News story is what a sequence on her own course." "Okay, yeah." "All right, when you commit a murder, there are many things that you do not know." "Many things you do not know." "Karina and Houston thought they were smarter than them." "Karina and Houston thought they did their research." "They thought that they planned the perfect crime." "There is no such thing." "They made many, many mistakes." "We'll get to many of them." "But, let's start with her own version of events." "Let's start with this." "In the chaos of murdering her husband, and pretending she had no idea what was going on." "She told 9-1-1 their husband." "It's on the 9-1-1 call." "Interviewed with DCI to great mom." "Orion Herman." "They told her repeatedly." "We're just trying to figure out what happened to Ryan." "Could be medical. They don't know." "We're not sure what's going on."
[01:24:56] Speaker 4: "She just said."
[01:24:59] Speaker 2: "I can say anything." "I can say a word." "I don't know." "I don't know." "She forgot that she told 9-1-1 that her husband was shot." "She tells them the same thing in the second interview." "And she talks about how she was trying to figure out where the blood was coming from, or what happened." "So it's not just that Rick Ron and Ryan Herman said we're trying to figure out what's going on, and she said nothing." "She also affirmatively said," "I was just trying to figure out where the blood was coming from, no idea." "She forgot that she told 9-1-1 that her husband had been shot."
[01:25:42] Speaker ?: "Okay."
[01:25:44] Speaker 2: "She told Deputy Foster on the body cam, the dog was barking." "Well, fast forward a few hours later, we're just talking to Ryan Herman." "Ransom never barked." "She can't figure it out, there's no idea to bark." "During the second interview, they talked more about Ransom." "And she said, 'Yeah, he just sort of made a noise, just sort of like, let the air out of his lungs." "Ransom, let the air out of his lungs." "Yeah, just like, just as soft." "The dog was barking," she screamed while she was on the ground in faked and serious. Unable to tell officers anything about what happened in Ryan. "This doesn't have anything to do with use of danger." "Let's do with Karina Cooper." "Her timeline." "It's not really worth going through, frankly. It's ridiculous." "She gave you two timelines at the same time yesterday." "It's clearly funny." "We had the Snapchat conversations at 3:30, never reported that at least, right?" "Claimed she was asleep." "She's doing stuff on her phone."
[01:26:50] Speaker 4: "She takes 170 steps that she never told anybody about."
[01:26:54] Speaker 2: "Approaching multiple football fields." "Then she called Aaron Cooper, eventually, when she got around to it." "And then we see when the deputies arrived." "Her version of events." "Initially, it seems like we have two versions of events at this point." "One of them was, well, yeah, no, I was asleep, but I got up and I heard a sound." "Went to the kitchen." "Well, first she looked in at Ryan's container." "So then she heard a sound and she thought it was in her bathroom, so she goes to the kitchen and looks out the window." "Okay." "Then she goes in, and she hits at Ryan, steps in, and she finds what he's dead." "So, seconds." "Maybe 30 seconds?" "Agent Villavette asked, 'Hey, when you heard that sound, how long did you stay in bed?"
[01:27:47] Speaker 4: "She said, '5 to 10 seconds.'"
[01:27:50] Speaker 2: "So we have the sound."
[01:27:52] Speaker ?: "Right?"
[01:27:53] Speaker 2: "She gets up, and does the things we just discussed, roughly 30 seconds." "She tells you, Ryan's blood is like chunks in the body."
[01:28:04] Speaker ?: "Okay?"
[01:28:06] Speaker 2: "We heard from Ken Martin." "Does that happen in 30 seconds?" "No, no way." "There's things you don't know when you continue to murder." "She doesn't know how blood works." "She doesn't understand blood elements." "Her steps." "Didn't occur to her, and when she's carrying her phone around, she's going to be reporting those steps." "Those steps start at 4:23." "Seven minutes before the call fade." "Things you don't know." "Her house is tiny." "45 feet by 45 feet roughly. Very small, very small space." "You've got furniture in there as well." "She testified that she went back and forth between the kitchen and the living room a couple of times to get Ken in the room and clock herself in there." "That doesn't account for steps starting at 4:23 of almost 400 feet." "She didn't know investigators were going to find any of this stuff." "So she thinks when she sits down and talks to Agent Furman, and her story might hold up." "She just keeps going and going. Many, many steps, starting at 4:23." "Because she stayed in the scene." "Talked about the blood clots and the dried blood." "Biggest mistake probably? Data pharyngeus." "The snaps were recovered. The other information from her phone." "Even without all that stuff, her story about Houston Danks are coming over over 22 and making his way through the house when it's no such." "She aided and abetted Houston in doing this." "Of course, she did it herself." "The evidence establishes that beyond a reasonable doubt." "You will see that you have some lesser included offenses in the package. The judge talked about them." "Second-degree murder on others." "This is not a second-degree murder." "If you find her guilty of first-degree murder, which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you do not need to consider the lesser included offenses." "You are dumb." "That is only if you believe she did not commit first-degree murder." "The evidence establishes that beyond a reasonable doubt that she did." "Motive." "We just went through the elements. All of them have been established." "You might have noticed motive is not on there." "The state does not have to establish motive." "It does not need to be proof of beyond reasonable doubt if you can consider it." "We already talked about the fact that she had a financial motive." "Here is her account for the month that her husband was killed. $186." "Here is her business account. Minus $297." "Here is the insurance check she got. $514,000." "There is another one that she sold for $24,000." "Sold roughly another $100,000 worth of stuff." "That's a motive."
[01:31:09] Speaker 4: "Here's a motive." "She's in love with Houston Banger." "She wants to have his kids start a new life with him." "You might hear from the fence, 'Hey, it doesn't make any sense that she would kill Ryan because Ryan was the primary driver."
[01:31:27] Speaker 2: "Yeah, that was supposed to be Houston Banger once Ryan was dead." "With a nice head start of $600,000." "For reading this new story." "We already talked about this." "I think she was only half paying attention and didn't really read them." "We already talked about that. That's not certain." "These messages make perfect sense in order." "There's no mystery as to what they said. There's no mystery as to what they mean. They mean exactly what you think they mean." "It makes use in threat." "Keep in mind, there's no evidence to support this claim." "Data forensics. Book the phone." "Defense has this information too." "This one pulled them up for you. It was going through it. Tiffany and Lori." "No threats." "The fence doesn't have a burden, but they can present you with those threats." "Karina knows how to take screenshots on her phone." "Any screenshots of any threats from Houston?" "No." "What's the only evidence that these threats ever happened?" "Karina's were." "And she sat there on the stand and told you that she lied and lied and lied for years." "And she also told you things that weren't true." "Two timelines at the same time." "You are the judges of credibility." "No evidence of these threats, but her work." "Her reaction to the threats." "Is it made any sense at all?" "Well, he was making threatening statements about Ryan." "So she calls herself his wife." "Insults her husband." "Talks about her husband dying." "Wants him dead." "This is another one she testified to." "She had hair appointments on the morning of June 18th." "The morning that Ryan was killed." "She couldn't have killed him."
[01:33:48] Speaker 4: "She had regular hair appointments."
[01:33:50] Speaker 2: "It's ridiculous." "Go to sleep." "First of all, the messages are in sequential order." "You can read them." "Would it make any sense after what was just said?" "Absolutely, 100% deal." "We're going to murder my husband." "We know why," she said, "Go." "Seeing who stayed, seeing who said no confrontation was going to happen." "She now says, 'Oh no, there were some follow-up messages." "Much like the threats, there's no evidence of them." "And I said, 'Go to sleep.'" "Makes no sense in the flow of the conversation." "It doesn't matter what you think about the data for instance." "Tiffani Ward told you, 'It's not possible.'" "The defense brought in an expert who says, 'Well, I didn't test anything and I don't know how the mechanism works, but there's a column of numbers." "And I'm not surprised at all." "Mr. Kodiaga said, 'Could that just be related to the time between the messages are sent?" "Versus each message getting the individual number?" "Maybe I don't really know." "Tiffani Ward told you, 'It's not possible.'" "It has nothing to do with that column of numbers." "That column of numbers does not indicate a missing message." "That's not what that means." "There's been no testimony to tell us what that means." "The experts that they brought in said, 'I don't know, I haven't tested anything and I don't know when that mechanism works.'" "Tiffani Ward is aware of that column of numbers because Ms. Watt asked her about it." "It's not like this is a mystery to her." "She said some proprietary information, I don't know exactly how it works nonetheless." "It's not possible based on the information that she has, for there to be additional messages." "Regardless, common sense and reason." "Weep the snaps." "Look at what happened." "It makes no sense." "She's not going to go to sleep." "She said, 'Don't." "What are the chances that, somehow, all the information that's exculpatory, the threats and the additional messages that show up?"
[01:36:04] Speaker 4: "It's what Karina wants her to leave."
[01:36:05] Speaker 2: "It's like she wants her to leave all people's stories she's told." "It makes no sense."
[01:36:07] Speaker ?: "She's guilty of murder in the first degree."
[01:36:08] Speaker 2: "The state's proven it beyond a reasonable doubt." "It's like she wants her to leave all people's stories she's told." "It makes no sense." "She's guilty of murder in the first degree." "The state's proven it beyond a reasonable doubt." "At the close targets, we're asking that she find her guilty." "Thank you."
[01:36:27] Speaker 1: "All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take approximately a 15-minute break now." "We've been going about an hour and a half or so." "Give everybody a chance to use the restrooms." "So, take a 15-minute break and then we'll come back and resume closing arguments." "Again, I would remind you of the admission that I've given you previously." "All right, everyone, go ahead and have a seat." "All right, we have our jurors back, counsel and parties present." "And we had just finished with the opening argument from the state." "Ms. Watt, are you prepared to proceed with opening argument on behalf of the defendant?"
[01:37:15] Speaker 5: "Yes, Your Honor."
[01:37:16] Speaker 1: "I think I said opening, closing argument." "Go ahead."
[01:37:19] Speaker ?: "Yes."
[01:37:19] Speaker 1: "Go ahead."
[01:37:21] Speaker 5: "May I please support counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury." "I hope it surprises no one, since I've been doing it consistently, but I will talk less." "And I would hope that nobody will judge the strength or weakness of the case just because I say fewer words." "I want to go through some of the testimony that we heard and some of the things to take away from it in our view." "Detective Fangman, I agree with the state that his video is important because it shows us some things." "It shows us the layout of this home." "And no, we're not obsessed about this demonstrative exhibit." "It's just wrong." "Because the state spent a lot of time talking about how Houston would have had to sneak through this hallway that's right next to the bedroom door." "So somebody would have had to hear him." "That's why it matters that that is misleading." "Because it's a whole room." "And there was more room for him to go through that unnoticed." "We also see Ransom on video." "And anything I say, you should always defer to your own recollection, of course, and your own notes and what you heard in the evidence." "No attempts to mislead from either side." "We see Ransom on that video when Detective Fangman walks in." "He's just laying there on the floor in the middle of the living room." "And when he sees the officer, he gets up." "There's been a lot of talk or speculation that Ransom had to have been barking at somebody." "He had to have attacked somebody." "But it doesn't appear to be the case if he's literally laying on the floor as Karina is screaming bloody murder." "And even with what's going on with the children and with Ryan, he remains laying on the living room floor." "A little nitpicky, but we did hear from, I think it was Gladfelter, that the wallet that was on the end table was never moved." "As if he would know that." "If you watch the video, there's no wallet on the end table." "The video also shows the movements of the EMS personnel." "And that's kind of important because we link it to Ken Martin's testimony." "And we see on the video that EMS steps behind the chair to get to Ryan and goes around so they don't step in the blood." "That's why we don't have their footprints." "It's not because that entire pool is dry, it's because they don't step in it." "The video is also important because it shows the state of Karina and it is your job to decide the credibility and whether this is hysteria or whether this is true panic." "We heard from Cade Cooper that Ransom was a normal dog, which is consistent with what we see on Fangman's video. "We heard that his room had been newly remodeled." "We didn't hear anything that made him, made it appear like he was suspicious of being told to sleep in his room." "He said he woke up to his mom screaming." "This is interesting because everyone is saying how loud this had to have been." "These gunshots had to be so loud and there were two of them." "But nobody testifies to having heard a gunshot." "Cade confirms that his mom is running back and forth between the bedroom and the living room." "We don't know exactly what time Cade got up." "Of course, in this minutes of span of when Karina is making all these steps." "We have our only basis of a timeline is the fact that we know there must have been enough time for him to go and slip and leave footprints behind." "But he confirms that his mom was running all over the place, freaking out." "It didn't -- Cade didn't make it sound like Ryan and Karina fought a whole lot." "We've heard testimony from some of the friends that Karina would be pretty mean sometimes." "We didn't hear that -- we didn't hear from Cade that they spent all their time arguing, though." "Also didn't hear any conflicting testimony from Cade about the sleeping habits of his dad." "Or whether he actually does or doesn't get up in the middle of the night." "Andrew Gladfelter, we see the pictures that they take. "We see the shell casing that is left by the front door." "Can't -- cannot tell by looking at Detective Feynman's video or any body cam, cannot tell whether that shell casing is visible on that floor at that time." "It is certainly possible that somebody kicked it to get it to that final -- final place." "Or it's possible that's just where it landed." "Certainly." "But we also know from the pictures that there is a vent nearby." "And we know from the pictures that these things are small." "And Andrew Gladfelter did testify that they didn't look within the ductwork to find those things." "If you've ever dropped something down a vent, sometimes it goes further than just the very top." "The photos do confirm that this house was in a state of remodeling." "He tells us that at least this front door was locked." "And a point on the locked doors -- this is the country, right? "This isn't Cedar Rapids. This is the country. This is rural country. A lot of people don't lock their doors at night." "Aaron Cooper couldn't tell us whether Ryan and Karina normally lock their doors." "The state wants to contend that this is such a secure place because of the existence of keypads." "But nobody has confirmed. Yes, they always lock their doors." "They did appear to have keypads in places where all the toys were housed." "Tiffany Lord. She testified that there are millions of artifacts on these phones."
[01:43:43] Speaker ?: "Millions."
[01:43:44] Speaker 5: "That's a lot. There are a lot of data points on phones." "You saw a handful. You saw some gaps in search history. She picked out one. There were others." "We saw some Google searches that Houston made. There were -- the best she could find for Karina is a hunter education course." "She can't explain the gaps in the Snapchat messages because --" "I mean, in Defendants Exhibit A alone, we know it's just not possible that these are all the snaps between these two people." "And when she was testifying, I put up on the screen the series of the Biome App Intents that she did later testify about yesterday." "There's a lot of messages happening. A lot." "And she can't tell us why we get messages -- let's say June 13th -- why those are able to be retrieved, but then there's missing ones in the middle." "She can't answer that." "She can't say it's because these were deleted, specifically. She can't say whether it was Snapchat that did it on its own, and that's because Snapchat -- that type of software is proprietary." "And that's what Chris Line was kind of explaining. It's because Apple doesn't want you to be able to get into the person's phone." "Facebook wants to pretend their stuff is encrypted." "These applications don't want to help police get into phones." "And so that's what he was saying when police -- it's essentially a hack. The software is them kind of getting them through the back door and being able to expose some information." "But they can't answer -- they can't figure everything out." "So that's why we don't know why we have messages June 13th and then nothing until June 17th, and then seemingly a gap in the conversation leading into June 18th." "We did ask her, 'Can you explain why some of these numbers look sequential for the Snapchat?" "She didn't know. She didn't say that they're not. She didn't say that we're wrong about reading the way we're reading a database." "She also came back and testified yesterday that there's a bio-map intent at 4:20 in the morning. But there's no message there. And you cannot answer how that -- that's data loss. That is simply data loss. That's what it is." "This might be hard to see, but this is an exhibit J, I believe. No. It's -- in any event. Look at the middle. Those numbers are going in order. That's what Chris Lyon meant when he said I know how to read a database. I have training in a database. Because you can also use your common sense to interpret information. Those numbers are in order. Otherwise, I guess it's just a coincidence that all those numbers are in order." And obviously, above the blue line, we have a gap in the numbers because there's a gap in time. And there are other messages in between that time that don't get retrieved. The state asked Chris Lyon -- and Chris Lyon, I think, volunteered -- that basically, the phone -- the data gets retrieved off the phone. And then what happens is, we use this software to be able to review the data on the phone. Because otherwise, you have a bunch of raw data. And Chris Lyon said he does not -- he did not compare this information on the software to the raw data. That's what he means when he says he didn't test it. I could be wrong. I never heard Tiffany Lord say she tested the phone raw data against the information she was providing to either. "Coming up here and saying it's impossible, and sounding confident doing it, doesn't mean you're right." We heard from Carmen -- I think it's Earhart -- and Kirstie Shedda. They never saw Karina be physically violent to Ryan. I think it was Carmen who testified about Karina leaving some groups. Kind of a tangential point. But we did hear from Holly Witt that she was still in this group that Carmen is describing. You can also surmise that you could -- You could confirm that that is true. Because on defendant's exhibit with the Snapchat picture, you see somebody talking about being in Dallas. Who do we know is in Dallas? The state also talks about how everybody is covering their location and everything, and taking all these efforts to conceal a crime. We have lots of data points for Karina's geolocation from Snapchat. We only have a couple for Houston. I submit to you that that's because her location is on. People come and testify now, after the fact, with this information, and they're looking at Karina and her behavior through a different lens. They were her friends. And it's easy to look back sometimes and be like, "Gosh, this must have meant that. Gosh, this must have meant that." That's just you trying to answer questions in your own head. I say the same of Teresa McBride and Brian Morrison, because Teresa McBride even testified to it, that she has gone back over time and tried to figure out what she missed. And that's why we have, you know, them coming years later and telling the police one time in either 2018 or 2020, she said she would shoot 'em in the face. She had testified at her deposition, she was asked about that the behavior she saw between Ryan and Karina was nothing outside the norm of what couples do. She testified before you that Karina is probably just harsher than Teresa may be, but it wasn't something that appeared to give her much concern at the time. It's clear that both Teresa and Brian did love both these people. We heard some talk from Brian about statements about documents. Unclear what that was necessarily about from the testimony, but it certainly was nothing like, "If something happens to me, look to Karina." It could have been just a reasonable discussion between two friends. I mean, it's reasonable to think somebody would tell their friends where their stuff is in case of an accident or something. Brad Rund and Jeff Goodenkopf gave us some information. Brad said she overdrafted, and she did overdraft a lot. Jeff Goodenkopf, he showed us the policies. Brad Rund and Jeff Goodenkopf had gotten in, I believe, 2013, and didn't hear any evidence that at any point, Ryan Cooper attempted to change the beneficiary. Ken Martin. He was on the stand for quite a while. He had a lot to say, and we learned a lot about blood spatter. And he agrees that Fangman's video is important because that's the closest we're going to get to the pristine scene.
[01:52:26] Speaker ?: Okay?
[01:52:27] Speaker 5: What's also important in that is you can see, and I think there was a screenshot provided of it, you can see that Karina is on top of Ryan. The state has continuously argued that she's rubbing her face all over him. That's not apparent to be the case on any of these videos. That is suggestion by the state. Ken Martin described it more as she was on him embracing him. What is noteworthy is that she has no blood on her legs or her feet. The way that Ken Martin testified would suggest that if she was nearby when Ryan gets shot, she's going to have spatter on her. If she's hanging around looking for shell casings, she's going to have spatter on her. That blood spatter went everywhere. And he said that the blood spatter in the pool could have formed very quickly. The state wants to say it was some time. It's unclear what timeline they want to have here because making it sound like the murder must have happened at 4:23 because that's when she's up and around, but then what takes Houston 50 minutes to get there? In any event, what we know from Ken Martin is that blood can pool the way that we see here either very quickly or very slowly. Depending on all the environmental factors and air and humidity. Based on his testimony, it appears to be possible that Houston would have time to come in, shoot Ryan twice in the face, put a blood spatter on his shoe, leave his shoe print as exiting the front door. Everybody agrees that's Houston's footprint. It's his shoe print. I apologize. It's his shoe print in that house. That's Houston's. The footprint, the bare footprints, we can't match because of insufficient quality of the photographs. So we don't know whether those are Kate's footprints. Ken Martin also testified, we understand that Ryan would have been in one position for what I'll call the first pool to form. And then he had to have been shifted. But he also testified that can be involuntarily done by him, by Ryan's own self. This is a picture of Karina that was taken by law enforcement. And you can see you have them in your evidence. There's no blood on her. Aside from where she had contact with Ryan by being on his lap. We know that Houston must have probably had blood on him because he's got it on his shoes. And enough that there were also droplets on the steps. So there was enough blood on him that not only is he leaving a shoe print, he's leaving drops. Just running through the remaining witnesses that we have and what we learned. We learned that Houston attempted to give the police the wrong gun in 2023. We know that the police find shoes matching the bloody shoe prints at the scene at Houston Danker's house. And we know Houston had the murder weapon. So as in the opening, Houston Danker did this. And we know it. Special Agent Holly Witt. She does a lot of work with the cell phone tower data. We know that Houston is driving by Karina's house while Karina's not even there. We know that he's lingering around her house for a span of minutes. We have nothing to suggest that they saw each other. There's perhaps been some confusion about whether both of them have Snapchat activity happening while he's near her house. We submit to you that the slide showed that Karina had Snapchat activity or at least geolocations updating at that time. But Houston did not. Houston's only data points were at his house. And I believe there were only a couple of them for this geolocation updating. So what is he doing lingering around this house?
[01:57:15] Speaker ?: He could be planning his attack.
[01:57:18] Speaker 5: He could be checking whether a door is unlocked. Also, begs the question, was he stalking her house other days? Was this a regular occurrence? Holly Witt would be able to figure that out. We heard from Karina. You are going to have to decide her credibility. She got up here and she sat and she told you what happened. She sat through the state rubbing her nose in what she had said. She did it. She told you what she knows. And she would submit to you, she attempted to do her very best to, if she said something wrong, make a correction and correct herself. Her testimony does make sense. She does give information to the police. Not all of the information, but she does give them information. She tried to get to the gun safe because somebody was possibly there. An officer was able to open up with his thumbprint. I don't know how that happened either, I guess, how his thumbprint is able to do it. But it's unclear how the state is making, taking the position that she's saying things that only help her, but also saying that she's only saying things that don't make sense. Her testimony was also that she sees this clotting after the 911 call. But she's older. She couldn't have been manipulated by Houston because she's older. That's a very bare bones way to look at something, but it's certainly not impossible that a younger man could engage in this emotional affair with Karina and be participating in the way that we are submitting to you. Nobody's claiming Houston is a genius, but we are saying he's manipulative. People Houston's age commit crimes all the time, in very serious ones, without the aid of an older person. Well, she got upset on cross. It's a tough spot to be. It's a tough spot to be, being dragged through every single thing that you said. Having bits and pieces of your phone information displayed for everyone to see, and you just being dragged through it over and over. But she lied for so long. She told us why. She felt like Houston was possibly setting her up. She felt like people were accusing her. She was scared nobody would believe her. It was wrong and not helpful to lie for so long. But she explained it to you. But the Snapchats. Again, it's incomplete information. It's obviously incomplete information. And that means data loss. Phone dumps. Phone dumps are not gospel. There's a jump in the message ID sequence. It's meant to use your common sense about what that could indicate. Tiffany is so sure. Tiffany Lord is so sure about how this biome works at 421. But again, there's no message. And she doesn't have an explanation for that. It seems like Tiffany Lord is able to explain things when they're helpful for the state, but doesn't understand them when they could be helpful to the defense. We don't have any Snapchats saying, "Please kill my husband." We don't have any Snapchats saying, "Please be quiet when you kill him." We don't have any Snapchats that the state seems to think she's busy making sure everybody is subdued. That she says, "Okay, he's asleep. Everybody's asleep. Time to come over." And then by the apparent timeline the state is establishing today, show up 50 minutes later, and we're still going to know that everybody's asleep. The state says that this had to have taken place at home with the children present because it would be weird if the kids were just not home that night. Sure, but why does it have to take place at home? If you want to kill your husband, there's a lot of places you could do it. That wouldn't involve putting your children through this. Also, if you plan to shoot your husband with your children home, you have to expect they could wake up. If you have kids, you know they wake up sometimes. I don't know what "subdued" means when the state says that, but there's certainly been no suggestion that anybody was drugged here. No testimony of that. And instruction number 10, that is about how you can use statements of Karina. You can use her statements that she made earlier, you can use the statements that she made here, and you can use them to decide if you believe her. You can, you can disregard all of her testimony if you want to, but you don't have to. And the instruction says, "Do not disregard Karina Cooper's testimony if other evidence supports it, or if you believe it for any other reason." She got up here and she said that she was scared of Houston. And the state has tried to mishmash the timeline there. She wasn't scared of Houston until he actually killed her husband. She's still engaging in this ridiculous online emotional affair fantasy world until he actually does it and kills her husband. Then she's scared. And is that a, is that a ridiculous notion? Perhaps to some of you. But it was real to her. And she was scared. Whether it's because she thought that he was going to harm her, or whether it's because she thought she'd go down with this ship. Do not disregard her testimony if you believe it for any reason. Houston Danker. There's a, there's a wealth of evidence against Houston Danker being responsible. Houston Danker, we're going to say he's only so old that he's probably reckless in his planning. He doesn't care if there's going to be a confrontation. He had made all these types of statements before. Why does he choose this night to do it? Nobody knows. He didn't testify. We know he's slinking around the house. We know he's familiar with the house. Cade told us Houston had come over and sat on the patio and drank. It's like he needs a guide through the house. Presumably, Karina would have told Houston at some point that Ryan sleeps in the recliner chair. Since there are messages of them fighting about Karina spending time with her own husband. Karina told you, Karina told you that they had been arguing earlier in the night. I can't explain why this guy is driving by and slinking around. It's because he's nuts. He was, up until the time he actually killed her husband, just a blowhard. Known for being a blowhard. Telling tall tales might have been the words used. So, when he is frequently saying to Karina, "Hey, by the way." I forget what her example was. There might be a bomb in the vehicle or something like that. Or, "By the way, when I shoot him, make sure you pick up the shell casings on previous occasions in the past." And then nothing happens. She doesn't think anything is going to happen this time either. And when it does, then it's real. We talked about, in jury selection, presuming somebody innocent. And that we're required to do so. And we're required to look at things different in a courtroom than we might look at them everyday. Or in our everyday lives. She is presumed innocent unless and until the state proves her guilty with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And it doesn't matter that she's sitting at this table with me. It doesn't matter that she was arrested. What matters is the evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt, you have an instruction explaining that to you as well. Like we talked about in jury selection, it is not a gut feeling. It is not a snap judgment. It is not even I'm pretty sure. Benjamin Franklin said, "It is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer." And that's what we mean when we say beyond a reasonable doubt. We want jurors to be firmly convinced of somebody's guilt before they make that decision. If there's any part of you that is feeling doubt, reasonable doubt, don't convict her. Even if you're pretty sure. Because that's not firmly convinced. Aiding and abetting. State's case is just words. There's no proof that she lifted a finger to help Houston. The state makes assertions about the things that she probably or could have done to help Houston, but there is no affirmative evidence of that. We do not convict people of the most gravest of crimes based on thoughts or words. It doesn't matter if she sometimes had made statements about wanting a rogue semi-accident. Which, I would point out, Tiffany Lord conveniently leaves out of her PowerPoint, the very next statement being, "I have dark and twisted minds sometimes. Divorce me." Cherry-picking evidence is misleading. And it's okay if you think you wanted to see all of it. You weren't given all of it. Houston Danker on this evening went rogue. And he actually did it. The aiding and abetting instruction tells you that her mere knowledge of the crime is not enough. The fact that she knew, or had every reason to believe he actually went through with it this time, and didn't tell the police that, that doesn't make her guilty. The bottom line here is that no one ran off into the mountains. Karina did not blow through the insurance money. We can sit there and quibble over how much she spent on this and how much she spent on that. It had been a couple of years. She's not making any income from her job. She's got three children that she's paying for. Presumably rent places. You're going to go through some money. Nobody testified that she went and got a designer bag, or took a lavish trip, or started attending the spa every couple of weeks. Nobody said that. Nobody testified to any indication of a continued relationship between Karina and Houston. So if this was their grand plan, to kill Ryan, get him out of the way, and ride off into the sunset, why does it end? It ends because it became real, and he actually killed her husband. Karina doesn't have blood on her legs and feet. She would have had to have. No one has testified or even hinted at the fact that she was a bad mother. I submit to you, that is important, because no mother would do this with their children home. No good mother. There were a hundred other ways that this could have gone down if it was planned and meant to happen by Karina Cooper. She never would have done that with her children home. She never would have put them in a situation where her son is slipping in his dad's blood. Never. And nobody has said that she would have. She did not have any specific intent to kill her husband. She did engage in reckless behavior and talking to Houston and not cutting it off and having all these conversations. It was reckless. But she didn't have any intent to kill him or for him to actually wind up dead. She wasn't even actually going to leave him. She's getting attention from some knucklehead on Snapchat and she likes it. And she's living in a fantasy and a dream world until he does it.
[02:12:18] Speaker ?: And that's it. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:12:25] Speaker 5: She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:12:30] Speaker ?: She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:12:31] Speaker 2: She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:12:33] Speaker ?: She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:12:35] Speaker 2: She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:12:36] Speaker 3: She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:12:37] Speaker ?: She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:13:12] Speaker 5: She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:13:15] Speaker ?: She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:13:16] Speaker 5: She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:13:38] Speaker ?: She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:13:39] Speaker 5: She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:13:42] Speaker ?: She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:13:43] Speaker 5: She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:13:45] Speaker ?: She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world.
[02:13:48] Speaker 5: She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She's living in a fantasy world. She didn't do it. She wouldn't do that. She would not do that to her children. She may be an idiot in her relationship with Houston. But she didn't participate in the murder of her husband. Please think it through. Find her not guilty.
[02:14:29] Speaker ?: Thank you.
[02:14:34] Speaker 1: Mr. Engel, rebuttal.
[02:14:37] Speaker 2: Thank you, Judge.
[02:14:39] Speaker 1: And I'm going to move the podium a little again.
[02:15:04] Speaker 2: Yes, let's think it through. There's no evidence that their grand plan came to fruition. Nobody rode off into the sunset. And that's supposed to be evidence that Karina didn't participate in the murder. It's actually quite the opposite.
[02:15:33] Speaker ?: Why?
[02:15:34] Speaker 2: Why didn't they ride off into the sunset together? Because people figured this out pretty quickly. They thought they were smarter than everyone. They thought people wouldn't figure it out. They even worked out stories ahead of time if they were questioned. Because they did it together.
[02:16:06] Speaker 4: Let's think it through.
[02:16:08] Speaker ?: Day after the murder.
[02:16:11] Speaker 2: The day after the murder. Only hours later. Graded for her. He's interviewed. Probably a bit of a surprise to her. Ryan Herman leans forward and says, "What can you tell me about your relationship with Houston?" Didn't anticipate that. Thought they did a better job. Figured out pretty quickly. Maybe he has something to do with it. She surprised and shot. "Danker?" And then, later that day, Houston Danker, 3, 4 o'clock in the afternoon, was brought in for an interview with Agent Trent Billett. What's interesting about those interviews, either of them could have said anything about their relationship with one another. How do we know they're working together? They said the exact same things. Watch the videos. They said the exact same things. Why? Because they planned this. They both said they were friends. Tell me about your relationship with Houston. Danker? He's my friend. Houston Danker. I'm like her gay best friend. They agreed. We'll go with friends. How do you know him? I'll just cut my hair. Karina says, I cut his hair.
[02:18:11] Speaker ?: Houston says,
[02:18:11] Speaker 2: she cut my hair. What else did they say? Well, we're friends on Snapchat. But just like nothing inappropriate ever. They both say that. Admitting to things that based on their research, they know probably will be figured out. Now they think they've done a good job of deleting everything. They certainly think they've done a good job of deleting the most incriminating snaps. 2,400 messages recovered on Karina's phone. Snapchats. 61 of them deleted. Those 61 include the night of the murder. They also came up with a story. Because they know that people in the community have suspected that they're having an affair. So they both told the police the exact same story. They could have said anything. They said the exact same thing. Because they're working together. What did Karina say? I babysat his kids. So his truck was in my driveway. So people assumed we were fooling around this stupid town and their rumors. What did Houston say? She babysat my kids. And so my truck was in her driveway. People assumed I was having sex with her. Nothing like that ever happened. They told the exact same story. They told the exact same story because they're working together. They could have said anything. So they didn't run off to the mountains together. Because the police were on to them very quickly. And a lot of what they did was pretty stupid. And pretty easily discovered. But they were at least smart enough to stop communicating via Snapchat or in other ways that they could be detected after the murder. Is it a surprise that they decided to cool in? Having committed a murder together that they finally figured out? Oh, wow. These investigators know a lot of stuff. And they know it really quickly. Maybe we're not as smart as we think we are. Maybe we should stop. It's not surprising. It's actually evidence. What they said and what they did that they were working together. And the fact that they stopped communicating is further evidence of their guilt. Defense talked to you about the concept of cherry picked evidence. And they said, you didn't see everything. Defense has access to all the evidence. They can show you whatever they want. And they're trying to claim that the state is somehow hiding something. Nothing to stop them from showing it to you. They didn't show you anything because there isn't anything. We heard a lot of information about Houston Danker and his threats. And the fantasy world that Karina was living in. The fun fantasy as any mother of three would have. Happily married. Where, you know, you just talk online with your affair partner about murdering your husband.
[02:22:13] Speaker ?: It's a fantasy world. It's just fun.
[02:22:18] Speaker 2: It makes no sense. It's ridiculous.
[02:22:22] Speaker ?: It's not a fantasy.
[02:22:23] Speaker 2: It's real. She knows it's real. She told you, Karina, when she came up and testified, she's in a tough spot. Yeah. She's in a tough spot. Because she murdered her husband and she got caught. So yeah, it's tough to sit up there and try to talk around all the evidence. And that's why so much of what she said was completely inconsistent and insulting. It makes no sense. Defense talked to you about the fact that, you know, Karina was so scared. She's worried about threats. She's worried about being set up. They told you, don't disregard Karina's testimony if it's supported by other evidence. Where's the evidence? There isn't any. They have access to everything. They have access to everything. Karina's had a phone, presumably, throughout this entire period of time that she's being threatened. She told you, he's threatening me. He's threatening my friends. She's afraid. I'm afraid. But no one will believe me if I talked to the police about what happened. Okay. That's true. Screenshot? Save any of those messages? Save any evidence? There's nothing to stop her from doing it. Nothing to stop defense from presenting it to you. There's none of that because it's not real. Because it didn't happen. That's the fantasy. That she was somehow subject to these threats and manipulation. Read the Snapchats. Any threats? Any manipulation? No. It's "I hate Ryan." "I hope he dies." Who's saying that? Houston? Is Houston the one that's saying? That he hates Ryan? Wants him to die? It was Karina. Look at the messages. It's Karina. Karina's friends. Karina made death threats. Karina Cooper said, "I'll shoot you in the face." Look at the messages. Is it Houston? It's Karina.
[02:24:56] Speaker ?: I talked again about Ransom.
[02:25:02] Speaker 2: I told you, and the evidence supports the fact that when that dog is around Karina, he's completely subdued. The defense just told you. The defense just told you. Look at the video. He's laying down. He's completely subdued. No reason to believe that that dog is scary at all. Unfortunately, Karina, talking to Ryan Herman, said he's very protective. And she explained how and why. And she explained how and why. Those are Karina's words. Defense is trying to convince you that Karina was not looking for shell casings. Because there was a vent nearby. Much like all the other coincidences that apparently occurred on the night of the murder that just sort of look bad for Karina. Apparently, one of those shell casings just happened to maybe possibly land exactly parallel with the slats in the vent that was covered at the time of the murder and somehow fell through there. We've heard no testimony that they actually fit through there. This is something that defense is telling you. There's no evidence to support it. Defense talked to you about the fact that they didn't find a lot of stuff in Karina's search history. So therefore, she didn't do anything. It just means she did a better job of deleting her stuff than Houston did. Defense pointed out the fact that, hey, there were some other gaps in her search history. Yeah, two weeks here and there. But the gap that Tiffany Lord referenced, again, just one of those coincidences. She told you, Karina told you, hey, something about, when asked about private browsers, I don't know how they work.
[02:27:01] Speaker ?: I don't really get it.
[02:27:02] Speaker 2: She doesn't really understand. There's a five-month gap in her search history. Five months. The five months that she was planning this murder. Right up to the murder. There's no other five-month gap in evidence. It's another one of those coincidences. Of course, there's an easier explanation, which is the fact that she was planning a murder, the murder of her husband, with Houston Tanker. That's what was really happening. Defense also talked to you about the fact that Karina's location information was on. So, yeah, she's not trying to hide anything. They did the research. Again, they knew a little bit. What difference does it make to her when her part of the murder is to be at the scene, if her location data is on? In fact, wouldn't that provide a convenient alibi? I'm home. I'm just home. I wasn't doing anything. Of course. Who cares? Karina knows that doesn't matter. Why does it matter if her location data is on? It doesn't. It's just going to show she's at her house, which she was, participating in the murder. Defense is telling you these things as though they're important. They don't change anything, and they don't mean anything. We're going to talk about the blood. We've had a lot of conversation about fantasy, dreams. We're going to talk about reality. We're going to talk about the forensic evidence. We've heard enough about the snaps. You guys know what they say. Let's talk about the forensic evidence. Let's talk about what Ken Martin said. Defense talked to you about Karina and the fact she didn't have any blood on her. Well, who controlled the scene?
[02:29:07] Speaker ?: Karina did.
[02:29:08] Speaker 2: Karina did. How long was Karina up and around and awake? Quite a while. When did the murder happen? The state never said, and there's no evidence to say necessarily, as defense said, it had to happen 50 minutes later. That would be consistent with one of the timelines that Karina gave. We saw Houston Danker's test drives, how long he could get back and forth between his house and the Cooper residence, so that they could figure out how much time they needed to delay things. So he could get home and open his fake snap message that she sent. Because they think that will trigger location data helpful to them. Send me something so I can open it when I get home. Deal? Deal. That's what they're doing. He's checking out how long it takes to get home. They're trying to manipulate location data. Karina controls the scene. They said, Karina had no blood on her. They said, look at the pictures. Let's talk about it.
[02:30:39] Speaker 1: You want the screen? Yeah.
[02:30:46] Speaker ?: All right.
[02:30:47] Speaker 2: There's no evidence Karina's looking for shell casings. Let's start there. Let's talk about the physical evidence. There's enough evidence in the snaps for you to convict Karina Cooper of murder in the first degree. You can ignore all of it. Let's just take a look at the scene. Was she involved? We already talked about the ridiculous notion that Houston Danker came over with a .22 rifle sneaking through the house. And just as a side note. Defense thinks it's important to point out, hey, that hallway there is a little bit wider. Watch the body cam. Doesn't matter if it's a room or a hallway. You can see on the body cam. There's two doors. There's Cades. There's a dog. You guys get it. Karina's looking for shell casings. Remember those casings. It's her job. Remember those. No ifs, ands, or buts. Phone manipulation. Phone's going down. I love you. I love you too so much. What do we see here? Fangman's body cam video. What is on the arm of Ryan's recliner? It's Karina Cooper's cell phone. We heard that. The flashlight is on. Why is the flashlight on? Because she's looking for shell casings. That's why. She found one. She didn't find the other. There's things you learn. When you kill somebody. She didn't know before. One of the things that you learn. That scientists know. That detectives know. That investigators know. It's not like TV. You don't shoot somebody. And they just lay gently back in their chair. It is chaotic. It is messy. And as smart as they thought they were. That didn't occur to them. They shoot Ryan. The plan is for Houston to get out of there as fast as possible out that door. Which is exactly what happened. Karina's job is to find shell casings. Problem.
[02:33:08] Speaker ?: It's chaotic as hell.
[02:33:08] Speaker 2: She uses her cell phone flashlight to search around. She finds one.
[02:33:10] Speaker ?: She doesn't find the other.
[02:33:10] Speaker 2: It's on the other side of the blood pool.
[02:33:11] Speaker ?: It's by the base of the door. She didn't see it. Because there's a lot going on. That's why her flashlight's on. That's why her flashlight's on. That's what she's doing.
[02:33:14] Speaker 2: She's looking for shell casings. That's her job.
[02:33:16] Speaker ?: Remember those shell casings.
[02:33:16] Speaker 2: Remember those. Karina was present when Ryan was shot. How do we know that? Karina testified that she shook Ryan's foot. She doesn't find the other.
[02:33:22] Speaker ?: She doesn't find the other.
[02:33:23] Speaker 2: It's on the other side of the blood pool. It's by the base of the door. She didn't see it.
[02:33:26] Speaker ?: So there's a lot going on.
[02:33:27] Speaker 2: That's why her flashlight's on. That's what she's doing. She's looking for shell casings. That's her job. Remember those shell casings. Remember those. Karina was present when Ryan was shot. How do we know that? Karina testified that she shook Ryan's foot. Heard her say that? She said it when she talked to Agent Herman. She said it on the stand yesterday. Ken Martin. Blood swipe pattern. Ryan's right foot. Why does she have blood on her hand before she climbs on top of him? I ran out and I saw him. She says eventually she climbs on top of him and then she got blood on her. There's already blood on his foot. A swipe pattern. How'd that happen? Because she already had blood on her hands. Further evidence that Karina was present when Ryan was shot.
[02:34:32] Speaker ?: the blood pools.
[02:34:33] Speaker 2: You remember the blood pools. We're going to talk about what Ken Martin said. There's two of them. Why? The body was in two different positions. Blood pool number one, which is the one that Cade slipped in. This is the pool that formed first. It is a drip pattern with satellite stains. What does that mean? It means after Ryan was shot in the face twice by Karina Cooper and Houston Danker, his body fell to the left. His arms were at his sides. Blood is streaming out of his face. That blood is dripping into a pool causing splashing, which Ken Martin calls satellite stains. You see those satellite stains all around that blood pool. Blood pool number one. Ryan's face dripping down into the blood pool. For a fixed period of time. Because eventually, he stops bleeding into that pool. When his body returns to an upright position, sitting in the recliner. There are no splashes or satellite stains associated with blood pool number two. Which you see at the base of the recliner. There were flow patterns that came straight down from Ryan Cooper into that pool that you can see right next to the recliner. Two separate blood pools. That serves as a timing mechanism. That tells us a lot. That tells us that Karina Cooper was present when Ryan Cooper was shot. You already know this. You know this from the other evidence that's been presented. Let's start with Cade's footprints. We'll just get that eliminated right away. These are the slip patterns from Cade slipping in the blood. Were those slip patterns created before Ryan was in the upright position? Or after? After.
[02:37:05] Speaker ?: After. How do we know?
[02:37:07] Speaker 2: After. How do we know? Because Ryan is no longer feeding that blood pool with splashes from his face. That's why the floor is visible. That's why it's not filled in. If he was still bleeding into that blood pool, you would not see the floor. It would be filled in. Or you would see satellite stains in that slip. Those little splashes with the tails. There aren't any. So when Cade slipped in the blood, Ryan was sitting upright.
[02:37:50] Speaker 5: Your Honor, I'm on object.
[02:37:52] Speaker 2: Thank you, Judge. Keep in mind what I refer to as blood pool number two at the base of the recliner. That comes from a flow pattern. There are not satellite stains or splashes associated with it because the blood flowed straight down. It was not over a surface and suspended with dripping. So you won't see those splashes based on that. What do we see here? Remember what Ken Martin told you. Remember the timing. Just told you those splashes give us a timing mechanism because we have two separate body positions. What do we see in this image? Do you think they did it together? If you look at the bottom, the green triangle, Houston Danker's footwear impression. If you look at the blue rectangle, Houston Danker's footwear impression. Right there with it, what the state submits is Carina Cooper's footprint.
[02:39:22] Speaker ?: Do you think they did it together?
[02:39:23] Speaker 2: Do you think they did it together? What do we know about when this footprint was formed? What do we know about when the footwear impression was formed? What did Ken Martin tell you? You can see the satellite stains. You can see the splashes. No voids or impressions in the blood pool. No voids or impressions in the blood pool. You can see the voids from Cades. He said that means that those footprints and footwear impressions were formed almost immediately after the shots. That that blood that formed those two footwear impressions, the footprint and the footwear impression, that blood came from the pool with the satellite stains. Blood pool number one. That means those were formed when Ryan Cooper's body was in position number one, off to the left, filling the blood pool with blood from his face. The voids that would have been created by those have been filled in by the continued dripping. And you can see satellite stains because the dripping was still occurring. It's not Cades footprint. You can see Cades footprint. It slipped in the blood. It left a void. It left a void because the dripping was over. Ryan's body was upright, forming blood pool number two. The blood that made these came from his face when he was leaning to the left. It's not Cades. It's Karina's. What else did he say? No evidence of him outside the door. He shot Ryan. Houston's leaving. Karina goes to the door with him. Sees him off and then closes the door. We know about the position of the door. Once again, when you kill someone, you learn things that you didn't know before. The blood tells the story. Ryan's shot. Ryan's leaning to the left. They head to the door together.
[02:42:16] Speaker ?: Houston's got the gun.
[02:42:17] Speaker 2: That's part of the plan. They don't know this. But when the door was closed, there was something called high-velocity blood spatter. That hit the door. And someone like Ken Martin, who's a scientist, can tell you that's from a gunshot. So we know the door was closed at the time of the gunshot. Karina didn't know you could figure that stuff out. She doesn't know how blood works. They thought they had the perfect plan. She doesn't know about drip patterns. She doesn't know about satellite stains. She doesn't know that Ken Martin and science can tell you that her footprint and Houston's footwear impression were in the swing area of that door while Ryan's body was still to the left. before his body returned to the upright position. But it can. We've heard a lot about Snapchat messages. Data loss. Fantasy worlds. This is reality. This is science. Reality says, Karina walked over to that door before Ryan's body returned to the upright position with Houston Danker.
[02:43:38] Speaker ?: Shut.
[02:43:40] Speaker 2: The door was shut during the shooting.
[02:43:42] Speaker ?: Opened it.
[02:43:43] Speaker 2: Ryan's face is still dripping, creating satellite stains. How do we know that? Remember that picture of the door? Remember the edge of that door? Splashes of blood. Because the door is hanging open. While Ryan is hanging to the left, dripping blood from his face. Then she closes the door and there's more satellite stains on the front of that door from the drip of blood from his face over and over and over again. She's there.
[02:44:12] Speaker ?: She's absolutely there. Science says she's there. The fantasy world stuff, the snaps, it doesn't matter. She's guilty based on this alone. But there's more. Did she pull the trigger or did she not? Did she pull the trigger or did she not? You don't have to find that she did.
[02:44:14] Speaker 2: You don't have to find that she did.
[02:44:15] Speaker ?: She clearly aided and abetted and abetted in the script.
[02:44:16] Speaker 2: She clearly aided and abetted in this crime.
[02:44:17] Speaker ?: The evidence is true.
[02:44:17] Speaker 2: The evidence is true. She's absolutely there. Science says she's there. The fantasy world stuff, the snaps, it doesn't matter. She's guilty based on this alone. But there's more. Did she pull the trigger or did she not? You don't have to find that she did. She clearly aided and abetted in this crime. The evidence shows she shot Ryan Cooper in the face. How do we know that? Ken Martin showed you this video. .22 caliber bullet. Right? Into a bloody sponge. What's called back spatter? See all the blood coming back towards the shooter? There's things you learn when you kill somebody. She didn't know. She didn't know before. Karina Cooper is concealing back spatter. Now, defense wanted to tell you, hey, she didn't have any blood on her. We're going to talk about that. Let's think about, as defense wanted you to, to think this through. So let's think it through. What did Dr. Kelly Cruz tell you about the path of the wounds in this case? Into Ryan's face. To his brain. Upward. Upward. Upward. The path of travel of the bullets was upward. Why does that matter? Well, Ryan was sitting in a recliner. If Karina and Houston shot him while standing over him like this, the travel of the bullets would not have been upward from his cheek into his brain. They would have been downward. What does that tell us? That instead, when Karina Cooper shot him, she was kneeling. Sighting the weapon. Like this. Ryan's here in the chair. She's like this. Most of her body is not exposed to the back spatter. She shoots him in the face. The bullets travel upward into his brain from this angle. What spatter is she going to get on?
[02:47:29] Speaker ?: Her forehead.
[02:47:30] Speaker 2: Her face. The majority of her body is covered and concealed. What did Ted Martin tell you? Shot number two. More back spatter than number one. Because after shot number one, a pool of blood forms. Shot number two is into that pool of blood on Ryan's face. An explosion of blood. Karina controls the scene. You saw the picture after she had the blood cleaned off from her. We had testimony that there was assistance in cleaning the blood off from her. That back spatter hits her face. And more importantly, it hits her hair. There's things you learn when you kill somebody. She's got a problem. She has blood on her face and in her hair. She can wipe her face. She can change her shirt before the police get there. She'll look pretty suspicious if she takes a shower to clean her hair. That doesn't make any sense. She can't do that. So what does she do? What else could possibly explain what she's doing? She jumps on Ryan. She puts her face, forehead, hair, into the blood coming from Ryan's face. Why is her face on the left side where the bullet holes are? Because she's concealing evidence. She's concealing evidence of back spatter that she received when she crouched down and shot Ryan Cooper in the face.
[02:49:37] Speaker ?: There she is.
[02:49:40] Speaker 2: After getting off Ryan Cooper. Why? Why would you sit on your dead husband who had just been shot and rub your face all over his face? Directly over the wounds. Soaking your face and hair with his blood. Because you shot him. And you're covered in back spatter. Which you did not anticipate. So you had to come up with a pretty quick plan. This was what she came up with.
[02:50:21] Speaker ?: She's guilty.
[02:50:26] Speaker 2: Beyond a reasonable doubt. Another thing to consider.
[02:50:31] Speaker ?: Yesterday.
[02:50:33] Speaker 2: On the stand. Karina didn't have any trouble pushing back against things that she felt weren't true. Correcting Mr. Kodiaga or his defense said. Trying to be accurate. Did you catch what she said yesterday during your testimony? Mr. Kodiaga. Ryan was sleeping when he was shot. The medical examiner never testified to that. Ken Martin didn't testify to that. Ken Martin said he was shot while he was in his report. In a recliner chair. That's how he put it. Nobody testified. That Ryan was sleeping when he was shot. No testimony to that at all. Ryan was sleeping when he was shot? Karina says, "Yes." How does she know that? Wouldn't the answer be, "I don't know."
[02:51:38] Speaker ?: She said yes.
[02:51:40] Speaker 2: Because she shot him. She's guilty of murdering the first degree. Beyond a reasonable doubt. The science shows that she is. She's guilty because she shot him. She also aided and abetted in the murder. She's guilty with all the necessary requisite intent.
[02:52:07] Speaker ?: The SNAPs established that.
[02:52:09] Speaker 2: Her own statements established that. The science establishes that. She's guilty. We're asking that you find her guilty. Thank you.
[02:52:20] Speaker 1: All right, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes closing arguments. What we're going to do now is I'm going to finish with the last few of the remaining jury instructions. So, if you want to follow along, you can. We're going to pick up at number 27. Instruction number 27. Nothing I have said or done during the trial was intended to give any opinion as to the facts, proof, or what your verdict should be. Instruction number 28. The duty of the jury is to determine if Karina Cooper is guilty or not guilty. In the event of a guilty verdict, you have nothing to do with punishment. Instruction number 29. During the trial, you've been allowed to take notes. You may take these with you to the jury room to use in your deliberations. Remember, these are notes and not evidence. Generally, they reflect the recollection or impressions of the evidence as viewed by the person taking them. It may be inaccurate or incomplete. Upon reaching a verdict, leave the notes in the jury room and they will be destroyed. Instruction number 30. Exhibits have been admitted into evidence and are to be considered along with all the other evidence to assist you in reaching your verdict. You are not to tamper with the exhibits or their contents and each exhibit should be returned into court along with your verdict in the same condition as it was when received by you. Instruction number 31. You may not communicate about this case before reaching your verdict. It includes via cell phone and electronic media such as text messages, email, electronic messaging applications, and any other social media platform including but not limited to Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, any other social media applications you may use. Do not do any research or make any investigation about this case on your own. Do not visit or view any place discussed in this case and do not use internet or application based maps or programs or any other application program or device to search for or view any place discussed in the testimony. Also, do not research any information about this case, the law, or the people involved including the parties, the witnesses, the lawyers, or myself. This includes using the internet to research events or people referenced in the trial. This case will be tried on evidence presented in the courtroom. If you conduct independent research, you'll be relying on matters not presented in court. The parties have a right to have this case decided on the evidence they know about and that has been introduced here in court. If you do some research or investigation or experiment that we do not know about, then your verdict may be influenced by inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information that has not been tested by the trial process including the oath to tell the truth and by cross-examination. All the parties are entitled to a fair trial rendered by an impartial jury and you must conduct yourself so as to maintain the integrity of the trial process. If you decide a case based on information not presented in court, you will deny the parties a fair trial in accordance with the rules of this state and you will have done an injustice. It is very important that you abide by these rules. Failure to follow these instructions may result in the case having to be retried and could result in you being held in contempt and punished. In order two, when you begin your deliberations, you should select a foreperson. He or she shall see that your deliberations are carried on in an orderly manner, that the issues are fully and freely discussed, and that every juror is given an opportunity to express his or her views. In order to return a verdict, each juror must agree to it. Your verdict must be unanimous. Where two or more alternative theories are presented, or where two or more facts would produce the same result, the law does not require each juror to agree as to which theory or facts leads to his or her verdict. It is the verdict itself which must be unanimous, not the theory or facts upon which it is based. It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and reach an agreement, if you can do so without compromising your individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with the other jurors. During your deliberations, do not hesitate to re-examine your view and change your opinion if convinced it is wrong. But do not change your opinion as to the weight or effect of the evidence just because it is the opinion of the other jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Remember, you are not partisans or advocates, you are judges, judges of the facts. Your sole duty is to find the truth and do justice. Occasionally, after a jury retires to the jury room, the members have questions. I have prepared the final instructions only after carefully considering the evidence presented in the case with the lawyers. I have tried to use language which is generally understandable. Usually, your questions about the instructions can be answered if you carefully reread them. If, however, you feel it necessary to ask a question about the instructions, you must do so in writing. I cannot communicate with you without first discussing your questions and the potential answer with the lawyers. The court attendant who works with you in this case from now on is in the same position as I am. You will take an oath not to communicate with you about your deliberations. She has not spoken to you during the trial except about the mechanics of being a juror. And she will not speak to you when you have retired to deliberate except to ask you if you have agreed upon a verdict and to manage the logistics of your service. Please do not place the court attendant on the spot by asking any questions about the instructions or the evidence. Jurors like to know how long each day they will deliberate and whether they will be sequestered. How long you deliberate any day between the hours of approximately 8:15 and 4:30 p.m. is up to you. You will not be sequestered. That is, you will be free to go home each evening if you deliberate more than one day. You will stay together during the day, including meals. Finally, if you need to notify anyone about the time you will be there, please notify the court attendant and we will make a phone available for you. Also, if you need confirmation of your attendance to keep peace with your employer, the clerk's office will provide you with the appropriate documents. All right, lastly, instruction number 33, forms of verdict have been prepared for you and attached to these instructions. Your foreperson and each fellow juror will sign the form of verdict which accords with your findings. When you have agreed upon a verdict and the foreman or forewoman has signed the verdict form, please notify the court attendant. And that's it for the jury instructions. So, ladies and gentlemen, what you have then are just copies. Once you return to the, or return to the jury room, we will get you the original. It has a little yellow tab with a verdict at the back. So that's the verdict that you would complete once you have reached a verdict. We will also, it may take a little few minutes, but we will assemble all the exhibits and get those to you as well. I did discuss with counsel, I don't, we are not going to send the firearm that's been admitted into evidence back to the jury room. If the jury would like to view the firearm at some point during its deliberations, you would need to let the court attendant know. And we will make arrangements for you to do that. So just wouldn't need to let the court attendant know.
[02:59:28] Speaker ?: All right.
[02:59:30] Speaker 1: At this point, ladies and gentlemen, what we're going to do is I'm going to select two alternates at random by drawing. When I select those alternates, I'm going to refer to you by number, by seat, starting at one, up at the top left, going across to six, starting at seven, going across to 14, and then 15 and 16. Excuse me. Am I right? Oh yeah, I'm right. I'm on the bottom, sorry. Math has never been my strong suit. So, once you've been excused, then the two people who are selected as alternates are excused. You're free to go. You're no longer subject to any admonition in this case that has been given previously. You're free to ask that you leave your telephone number with Ms. Davis. I will, once a verdict has come in, I will call the two alternates, let them know what the verdict was. And depending on what questions they may have, may be able to answer some of those questions. With that, Ms. Davis, over here. I'm sure this will all go digital at some point. All right. So, the first alternate is number two. And the second alternate is number 10. So, the two of you are free to go at this point. Leave your notes and we will destroy those as well. And again, if you want to leave your phone number with Ms. Davis, I'll give you a call once this matter has been finalized. Yep.
[03:01:42] Speaker ?: You're free to go.
[03:01:42] Speaker 1: Yep. Thank you very much for your service. And again, I'll talk to you later. All right. At this point, I need to administer an oath to Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that you will not allow any communication to or from the jury during its deliberation? That you will not personally make any communication to the jurors without court order except to ask if they have agreed on a verdict and not to communicate to any person the state of the jury's deliberations or the verdict agreed upon before it is rendered? Please answer, I do. All right. All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I will leave you to Ms. Davis and begin your deliberations. I believe there were two bench conferences. I don't know if people want to make a record on those. There was one, I believe. Mr. Ringel, you asked to approach during a slide that Ms. Watt had up and I believe the side slide on her PowerPoint presentation said a decision like no other. And anyway, you want to, I guess you objected to where that was going. Any further record you want to make on that? No, your honor.
[03:03:17] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[03:03:18] Speaker 1: All right. And then Ms. Watt, you had an objection during portion of Mr. or came up and asked to approach and were objecting to a portion of Mr. Ringel's closing, rebuttal closing related to, I believe, Mr. Martin's testimony. And I don't know if you want to make any further record on that.
[03:03:42] Speaker 5: My position was that he was arguing facts that were not in evidence and that were contradictory to what his experts said.
[03:03:48] Speaker 1: Okay. And I did not, again, they did not appear so to me based on my recollection. Um, so I, they appeared to be either inferences that could be drawn or accurate based on the testimony that was given. So overruled that objection. All right. With that, is there any further record that needs to be made with respect to closings, jury instructions or anything else at this point on the state's end? No. Ms. Watt?
[03:04:18] Speaker 5: No, your honor.
[03:04:19] Speaker 1: All right. Then I'm going to ask, once we go off the record, I'm going to ask that you each leave me with a cell phone number where I can get a hold of you if I need to get in touch with you. And then I'm going to want at least one person from each group to maybe work with, uh, Colleen here to make sure we have all of the exhibits, um, that, um, we need to send back to the jury on both ends. And I've got a, I believe, a complete list here and compare, you can compare that. So with that, we'll go off the record.
[03:05:03] Speaker ?: All right.
[03:05:05] Speaker 1: Go ahead and be seated, everyone. We are back on the record, uh, with, uh, the jurors, counsel, and parties present. Um, I've been informed that the jury has reached a verdict. Has the jury, in fact, reached a verdict? All right. All right. Ms. Davis. If you could hand the verdict form to Ms. Davis. Would counsel and parties please stand?
[03:05:45] Speaker ?: All right. All right. I have a form of verdict. Form of verdict two.
[03:05:49] Speaker 1: We, the jury, find the defendant, Karina Cooper, guilty of the offense of murder in the first degree. We dated this 11th day of July, 2025. And, juror number one, is that the jury's verdict?
[03:06:18] Speaker ?: Yes, it is.
[03:06:19] Speaker 1: Would you like the jury polled, Ms. Watt?
[03:06:23] Speaker ?: All right.
[03:06:27] Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, at this point, I'm going to ask that you return to the jury room, um, with Ms. Davis, just for a bit. We have a couple matters we need to wrap up here and then I will come and talk to you in just a bit before I release you from your obligations in this case. So thank you and we'll see you in just a few minutes. All right, I will, based on the verdict, I will enter an order, not today, but sometime over the weekend or Monday morning because I need to get a date and time. But I will set this matter by separate order for a sentencing hearing. I will not be ordering a PSI because of the offense charged on which the jury has rendered a verdict. Ms. Cooper, I need to advise you that you have a right to file a motion for a new trial and or motion in arrest of judgment. Any such motion must be filed no later than 45 days from today's date. But in any event, not less than five days prior to the date that is set for sentencing in your case. if you have questions about those, Ms. Watt and Mr. Hobbaker are the people to talk to. Pursuant to Iowa Code Section 811.1, prior bail provisions are revoked and no bond is authorized at this point. Is there any further record that we need to make on behalf of the state?
[03:08:31] Speaker 5: No, Your Honor, thank you.
[03:08:32] Speaker 1: Any further record we need to make on behalf of the defendant?
[03:08:34] Speaker 5: No, Your Honor.
[03:08:35] Speaker 1: All right, then we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:08:50] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.