Melody Farris Trial (Pt 50.1) — Closing Arguments [1/4]

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: And so I don't want to be confused. But I remember you telling me he's on the burn pile. Were you lying about Scott? I mean, you think Scott, but I don't, you tell me. [00:00:21] Speaker 2: I can tell you that there should not have been as much damage as there was done. I don't know what that means. That body should not have been burned up. [00:00:45] Speaker 3: This case is about Gary Wayne Ferris. And you're here because Melody Ferris shot him, concealed his death by putting him on a burn pile on their property like he was trash. This is not a chess match or a well-played orchestra, as Ms. Ferris would lead you to believe. This is murder, and it is not a game. Murder is the highest crime we have. And it is your duty to hold people accountable when they commit that crime. Murder does not happen often in Cherokee County. You are in a unique position as a juror, as a Cherokee County citizen, to make sure that remains the case. And to hold people accountable who commit those crimes in your county to your citizens. You have heard three and a half weeks of evidence, maybe four, I've lost count. But today, I'm going to go over the law with you and how you apply that law to the facts and the evidence that you've heard. The law instructs you to determine the facts, the facts are for you to determine. We have presented you the evidence, the witnesses, the exhibits, but you get to determine what happened in this case. And then you will apply the law that the judge instructs you to those facts. You are bound by the law. After the judge instructs you on the law, as he stated he will do for about 40 minutes or so, you will be armed with not only all of the materials that we gave you, the evidence, but you will also have the tools, which is the law. You will be in the position to convict Melody Ferris. We talk about duty a lot, a juror's duty. You took an oath. The object is the discovery of truth. It is your duty to seek the truth of what happened to Gary Ferris. You are not to seek doubt. All of the evidence before you points to her guilt. It is not your duty to go through all that evidence, to find all the holes that are unreasonable, and to come up with some hypothesis that doesn't even make sense. Your duty is the truth. And see, the defense wants you to ignore all the evidence that points to their client's guilt. They don't like the truth. They're going to lead you in a different direction. That will not make sense. That is not reasonable. Stay on the path of truth, and you will come to the conclusion to convict Melody Ferris. The defense is going to talk about the state's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As the state, we have to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. But that is just that, a reasonable doubt. The doubt of a fair-minded, impartial juror seeking the truth. If there's a doubt in your mind, it has to be reasonable to acquit. It cannot be a doubt that makes no sense, that you have no answers for. That's not a reasonable doubt. And in this case, we have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. All of the doubts that they're going to get up here and try to plant in your mind are not reasonable. And the evidence shows that. And the law demands it. The defense is going to want you to believe that this standard is unattainable. They may even show that stair-step picture that they showed in opening of each burden as it gets higher and higher with reasonable doubt at the top. You cannot define reasonable doubt with steps. It is defined in the law. It is not to a mathematical certainty. It is not beyond all doubt. Beyond all doubt is unattainable. Crimes are not committed for everyone to solve and know about every single detail. Crimes are committed and concealed because no one wants to be caught. That's what you have in this case. Crimes are not committed and no square circles. No square circles. Essentially, that's what the defense is going to want you to figure out. How to make this circle into a square. You can't do that. That's impossible. We are asking you to bring your common sense and reasoning into that deliberation room. Do not leave it behind because common sense and reason gets you through life. That's what you need to apply to this case. You make inferences. You make inferences. You can make deductions and reach the conclusions based on what you know, what you've experienced, the evidence, your common sense. That's how you'll reach the verdict in this case. In the beginning of this case, you were informed that you must be an impartial juror, not biased to either side. Impartiality. That's the starting point. And that she has the presumption of innocence. Well, that was four weeks ago. That was before you heard all the evidence. That was before you actually realized that she's just cloaked in all her lies. You no longer are impartial. You have all of the information, all of the evidence. And that leads to one conclusion, which is that she's guilty. She is no longer presumed innocent in your eyes. That is no longer where she sits. There are two types of evidence that the judge will instruct you on, direct and circumstantial. A lot of shows and podcasts and commentators, they all say, well, it's just circumstantial. Right? We've all heard that. But the law says you give whatever evidence, whatever weight to whatever evidence you want. There is no legal difference between circumstantial or direct. You could have the most convincing circumstantial evidence, and yet the direct evidence is just, well, maybe. Or you could have evidence that's actually both. Let me give an example. I have a three-year-old, and the other night he was eating dinner at the table, and I ran upstairs to go get his sister's pajamas or something. We have a box of cookies on the counter by the cookie tin. They weren't in the cookie tin. They were in the box. And I come downstairs, and he had crumbs all over his face. There was a cookie missing. And so, based on that circumstantial evidence, I could infer my child stole a cookie out of that cookie box. I'm not going to infer that some cookie fairy came into my house and took it. That's not reasonable. But that is circumstantial evidence. Now, had the box been knocked over on the floor, and the crumbs sitting there on the floor, and my dog is laying on the couch licking his paws, well, that scene points to my crazy dog probably jumped on the counter, got a cookie out of the box, and ate it on the floor. So, I don't have to see who took the cookie to know who took the cookie. And the scene leads me to believe it's one or the other. Because I know my child, and I know my crazy dog. So, circumstantial evidence is a conclusion that you can reach based on inferences. Direct evidence is something you heard, saw, tasted, smelled, Scott seeing blood on the floor in the basement. All of the testimony you heard, those are things that they experienced firsthand. The witnesses, it's direct evidence. There is no legal difference. You give whatever weight to whatever piece of evidence you deem appropriate. You get to determine the credibility of all the witnesses in this case. To do that, you can consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. And on the next slide, there's going to be a non-exhaustive list of other factors. In this case, motive, bias, all of those come up. Scott, Emily, and Chris will not get their father back. Whether they get up there. They have no motive to lie to you. Because Gary's not walking back through that door. That's their mother. They have no reason to lie. They don't want this. They don't want her sitting there. They don't want Gary gone from their lives. All they wanted is for you to have the truth. Martha, she is the epitome of a credible witness. Look up credible witness in the dictionary. It's a picture of Martha Barton. She loved Melody. She knew it was the right thing to do to come in here and tell you people the truth. Because you need to know the whole story. She had no motive to lie. Consider all of these factors when you're giving credibility to a witness. All of the facts and circumstances which they testify, their manner of testifying, their means and opportunity of knowing facts, the nature of the facts, the probability or improbability of the existence of that fact, the interest or lack of interest in the outcome of the case. You actually weigh people's credibility. You actually weigh people's credibility every single day without really thinking about it. You choose who your friends are. You choose who you want around your family, who you hang out with at work. You decide that based on a person's credibility. The nature of the facts, the nature of the facts, the nature of the facts of which they testify, let's talk about that for a second. David, Melody's friend, who came in here talking about his one experience with Scott in the driveway and the trailer, he didn't really have the means and opportunity of knowing the facts surrounding that situation. He knew Melody for like a second. Scott didn't know who he was. You know what Scott knows. Scott knows Melody killed his dad and is running around with Rusty Barton still and letting strangers over to the house and throwing Christmas parties. Yeah, he's going to be mad. His dad was just murdered and burned up in a burn pile on his own property by his mother. And now some strange man is coming and using his trailer. He's going to be mad. David had no perception of that. Zero. And he has an interest in the outcome of this case. He doesn't want to see his friend go to jail. We've talked about this. You must apply your common sense and reason to decide what testimony you believe or don't believe. Again, you weigh people's credibility all the time without even knowing it. The law allows you and demands that you determine who to believe and who not to believe. And some people, you can believe some things they say and not some things they say, right? Like Rusty Barton. He plays both sides. We know that. We saw that. We know what he said was the truth about her statement, he's in the burn pile, because of the context in which he said it. We know the recant is a lie because it makes no sense. Why, if she gave that statement at Martha Jane's house after Gary's remains were found, why would Rusty respond with, don't tell me anything else? And he references that 2.20 a.m. call. And then, the call you just heard, he references it again, and that was August 2nd of 2018. If that is a witness, you'll have to resolve the conflicts of his credibility. But, he was up there long enough, y'all know the kind of person he is. Use your common sense and reasoning. Now, I want to talk to you about what she is charged with in the indictment. And you'll have a copy of the indictment in the back, with all the charges in it. I'm going to start with 4 and 5. We've got Mal's murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, concealing the death of another, and making a false statement. I'm going to start from the bottom, and then go to more serious charges. First of all, let me say this. If the defense doesn't get up here and concede, making a false statement, no credibility to that was an argument. Knowingly, willfully, making a false statement, in any matter, within the jurisdiction of the government of any county. Like Michael Ray said in his opening, lying to the police. I lost count how many times that woman lied to those police. But specifically this charge is about having, being currently in an affair with Rusty Barton. And y'all heard that voicemail on June, I think it was 25th. It was like less than a week before Gary's remains were found. Call me back. Love you. That affair didn't end. That affair didn't end a year before. She just saw the unraveling. She didn't even own up to any affairs. She lied about Ted Wiley. Oh, we were just friends. We were all just friends. Well, no, that's not true. You literally left your husband and went to stay with him for a significant amount of time. And he had to take the stand and talk about their relationship. If they don't get up here and concede that, you can't give their closing any credibility. Concealing the death of another. Commit this crime by concealing the death of another. Hindering the discovery of whether or not such person was unlawfully killed. I.e. putting a body in a burn pile to conceal that he was shot to death. Concealing. Now we're going to go to count one. Malice murder. Causing the death of another person. In this case, Gary Ferris. Unlawfully and with malice aforethought. Malice. That's what this charge is about. Malice is doing something maliciously. Which means you have an abandoned and malignant heart. Malice. Can be formed. In an instant. Now. We have a lot of evidence of malice in this case. Malice is not premeditation or anything like that. It's not ill will or hatred. Although we have hatred. She despised Gary. That's no secret. She intended to kill him. Without a legal justification. The state does not have to prove premeditation. Although we have evidence of premeditation in this case. Taking that gun from Martha. Telling Addison not to spend the night. She knew. She knew. This day would come. There is no required time to form malice. Like I said. Malice can be formed in an instant. Every time she saw Gary. She had malice. [00:21:38] Speaker ?: Felony murder. [00:21:38] Speaker 3: Felony murder. Is another type of murder. Which essentially. Is when you cause the death of another. During the commission of a felony. And in this case. That's aggravated assault. Aggravated assault. Will be defined in the next slide. But it's shooting someone. Or pointing a gun at someone. That's aggravated assault. And that caused the death of Gary Ferris. We do not have to show. In felony murder. That Melody acted with malice. Even though we know she did. This charge. Does not require malice. It just requires. The commission of a felony. And someone. Resulting. In somebody dying. The judge. Will instruct you. Aggravated assault. Is a felony. There needs to be. What's called. Proximate cause. To the death. So the felony. Has to have resulted. Somehow. In the death. Or be connected. To the death. Which we have. The judge will give you. A definition. Of a simple assault. So you know. What assaulted means. Assaulted another person. With a deadly weapon. And he will also instruct you. That a firearm. Legally. Is a deadly weapon. We do not have to prove. Injury. Although we have that. In this case. It's not required. You can assault a person. By instilling fear. But that's not what we have here. We actually have a shooting. And we have a death. I want to talk about. The state's burden. Like I said, reasonable doubt cannot be measured. They will want you to believe that that burden cannot be reached, and it is unattainable. They will get up here and try to instill upon you that there is no way we can ever prove this case beyond reasonable doubt. Well, that is just not the law. The law does not require beyond all doubt. We need order and justice, and that means we prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. You have more than what you need in this case to convict Melanie Ferris. I want to talk about grave suspicion in your presence because I assure you that Mr. Ray or Mr. Weaver will get up here and talk about how we just have grave suspicion of Melanie. She was merely present at the home when he died. No, no, no. We have way more than that. What they have is a grave suspicion of Scott, which is based on speculation and conjecture, and that's what that charge says. You cannot convict on speculation and conjecture. We can't even indict on speculation and conjecture. That's not even probable cause. Mere presence. Scott wasn't even merely present in the home. He was merely present at the barn. Compare the two, right? Grave suspicion, mere presence. Scott Ferris. They have suspicion based on, what, he's 6'5", he has a messy apartment, he was in the military. I'm sorry, is that a suspicion these days? Do we have to suspect everybody in the military is a murderer? Grave suspicion. Speculation and conjecture. That's what they're going to throw at you about Scott Ferris. That was their entire, all their defense, their defense witnesses. Well, I just didn't like the way he talked to me. Well, I'm sorry his dad was brutally murdered by his mother. I think he's allowed to be angry. But Melody, we're here because Melody is sitting in that chair. And we have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she is the one that murdered Gary Ferris. The judge is going to instruct you on what impeaching a witness is. It's essentially showing that a witness is unworthy of belief. You attack the credibility. And he'll give you all those charges in the jury charge. We saw some of that here. But, you know, the person whose credibility that was attacked the most is Melody's. I mean, you saw Amanda sit on that stand. And Mr. Fogus showed her the text messages of Melody lying to her about going to Minnesota. Did you see Amanda's demeanor? Betrayal, disappointment. That's attacking her credibility. She's not worthy of belief. Amanda knows that. Her other children definitely know that. They sat up here and told you that. To that same vein, consider the source of a witness's information. If that witness's information is coming from Melody's heirs, it is not worthy of belief. That's why you impeach someone. Every crime must be committed with criminal intent. To determine criminal intent, you can consider words of the defendant, conduct, demeanor, motive, and any other circumstance that you deem relevant. We have a lot of intent in this case. We even have a text message where she says, I told him I hope you die a gruesome death. If that's not direct evidence of intent, I don't know what is. Her demeanor when she found out about Rusty's statement, she was angry. She was mad at him. Her motive, she had plenty of motive. She's the only one that had motive. I've said this, she despised Gary. She hated that he was giving away their money, her money. That was the main motive. Rusty was a bonus. She was mad about that money. And you could tell that was her motive because after the offense, she was on a money hunt. It was all about the money. We'll get into that in the next close. Telling Addison not to sleep over. She had criminal intent that night to kill her husband. And she, one, didn't want witnesses. Two, never told her grandkids that they could not spend the night. Telling people to, shh, I thought I told you to stop talking. Everything she said and did in this case, not only proves that she committed these crimes, but she did it with malice before thought and an abandoned malignant heart. She stood to inherit all of his money. She burned the remains of her husband for almost 39 years in the hopes it would look like an accident. All because she wanted his money and to live her life with Rusty. In my next close, I'm going to talk about the evidence and why the evidence and the law demands a verdict of guilty in this case. Let's go ahead and take a quick break. I'm going to try to set up another microphone. [00:31:39] Speaker ?: I'm going to try to set up another microphone.