Tara Baker Murder Trial: Watch the Verdict!

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Welcome back to Court of E-Live. Well, we have a verdict in the state of Georgia, the murder of Tara Baker more than 25 years ago. It was a cold case. The defendant in this case, basically, the most damning evidence was his DNA in her apartment. But the defense was that the boyfriend did it. And the boyfriend contradicted his story a little bit to police early on. He was brought into the courtroom. He testified. So will the jury believe the defense and think that someone else other than Edric Faust was the killer of Tara Baker, a University of Georgia law student? We'll find out. Let's go into the courtroom. Everybody is assembled. [00:00:49] Speaker 2: Madam Foreperson, I understand the jury has reached a verdict. Is that correct? Would you please hand it to Mr. Terrell? The court will look it over first. Then I'm going to hand it back to you, Madam Foreperson, to read it out loud called Publishing in open court. All right, Madam Foreperson, if you would read the verdict from top to bottom, you may remain seated. If it's easier for you to stand, you certainly can. If you'll pull that microphone in front of you down to you, read it from top to bottom. It is called, again, Publishing the Verdict. Thank you. You may proceed. Okay. [00:01:36] Speaker 3: The jury finds the defendant on the following counts. Count one, Malice murder, guilty. Count two, felony murder, guilty. Count three, felony murder, guilty. Count four, felony murder, guilty. Count five, felony murder, guilty. Count six, burglary, guilty. Count seven, aggravated sodomy, guilty. Count eight, rape, guilty. Count nine, aggravated assault, guilty. Count ten, aggravated sodomy, guilty. Count 11, arson in the first degree, guilty. Count 12, possession of a knife during commission of a felony, guilty. [00:02:34] Speaker 2: All right, Madam Foreperson, if you would present that verdict to our foreperson, I mean, to our bailiff. Mr. Terrell, if you'll bring it up to the bench, may I see counsel at the bench for you all to review the form of the verdict. Thank you. [00:02:45] Speaker 1: All right, guilty on all counts. Took 11 hours and 32 minutes over two days for this jury to come to the conclusion. But in the end, they found Edric Faust guilty on all counts. They had one request today, and that was to see the video of his interview with investigators. And, well, let's go back in. [00:03:22] Speaker 2: Any objection to the form of the verdict by the defense? Thank you. You may be seated. Do either party want to poll the jury? I'll ask the state first. [00:03:32] Speaker 1: State is not, Your Honor. [00:03:34] Speaker 2: Mr. Cruz, defense? Yes, ma'am. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to poll each and every one of you, and that means the court is going to ask each juror the same questions and answer how you feel is best. I'm going to start on the front row with Madam Foreperson. Was this your verdict in the jury room? [00:03:51] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:03:52] Speaker 2: Was this verdict agreed to by you? [00:03:54] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:03:55] Speaker 2: Is this now your verdict? [00:03:56] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:03:56] Speaker 2: Thank you. Sir, was this your verdict in the jury room? [00:04:01] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:04:02] Speaker 2: Was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Is this now your verdict? Yes. Thank you. Sir, was this your verdict in the jury room? Yes. Was this verdict agreed to by you? [00:04:13] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:04:14] Speaker 2: Is this now your verdict? Yes. Thank you. I'm now going to go from right to left. Sir, was this your verdict in the jury room? [00:04:21] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:04:22] Speaker 2: Was this verdict agreed to by you? [00:04:24] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:04:25] Speaker 2: Is this now your verdict? Yes. Thank you. Ma'am, was this your verdict in the jury room? Was this verdict agreed to by you? Is this now your verdict? Thank you. Ma'am, was this your verdict in the jury room? Was this verdict agreed to by you? Is this now your verdict? Thank you. Ma'am, was this your verdict in the jury room? Was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Is this now your verdict? Thank you. Sir, was this your verdict in the jury room? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this now your verdict? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. [00:05:03] Speaker ?: Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? [00:05:04] Speaker 2: Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? [00:05:42] Speaker ?: Yes. Ma'am, was this verdict agreed to by you? [00:05:43] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:05:44] Speaker ?: Is this now your verdict? [00:05:44] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:05:45] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:05:45] Speaker 2: Anything else from the state with regard to polling the jury? No, Your Honor. Mr. Cruz, anything else with regard to polling the jury, sir? No, Your Honor. Mr. Cruz, anything else with regard to polling the jury, sir? No, Your Honor. Mr. Cruz, if you have a long month, you have been very patient, you have always been here on time. I'm going to release all of you from any further attendance in this case. With the thanks of the court, you are all going to be free to go in just a moment. The bailiff will lead you to the front door as usual. You'll be escorted to the elevator and escorted to the parking deck to your cars. With the thanks of the court, you are all free to go. Thank you. Everyone, keep their place, please. [00:06:16] Speaker 1: Okay, there you have it again, Edrick Faust found guilty on all charges after 11 hours and 32 minutes of deliberation over two days. Criminal defense attorney Marie Pereira watching along with us. Did they get it right, in your opinion? [00:06:32] Speaker 4: I don't think they got it right. I want to give the defense attorney, Ahmaud Cruz, and his entire crew their flowers because they did a good job at presenting the case. But at the end of the day, you never know what the jurors are going to do. I feel as if they did create a bunch of reasonable doubt based on the DNA, based on the testimony of their third party culprit. Mr. Melton, that was his name, was very uncomfortable on the stand. There was confirmation bias throughout the investigation. And I think there was enough there to create reasonable doubt to the level where there might have been an acquittal. But with a jury, you never know what they're going to do, like I said earlier. So it is what it is. But when you ask, do I agree? I don't agree that the state prove he murdered that poor young woman beyond a reasonable doubt. I think there were other possibilities that were well presented by Ahmaud Cruz and the attorneys that assisted him with this case. And it could have gone either way. But we're in a state where, you know, that's the way it went. I think there was a lot of confirmation bias there. And there was reasonable doubt that the DNA was not properly presented. And this was a DNA intensive case. When the DNA doesn't fit, it creates a reasonable doubt that should rise to an acquittal. It didn't happen here, of course. [00:08:05] Speaker 1: What did you -- oh, let's go back into the courtroom now and see what's happening. [00:08:13] Speaker 2: And this is a busy week here for our court. But Thursday afternoon at 3 o'clock seems to be the best time for this court. But I'll hear from both sides to see what their schedule is. [00:08:25] Speaker 1: May I have just a moment? [00:08:26] Speaker 2: Yes. [00:08:27] Speaker 1: Yes. [00:08:28] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. And then, Mr. Cruz, I'll ask you. Let me just wait to hear from them. [00:08:31] Speaker ?: And then we'll go to you. [00:08:34] Speaker 1: Thursday at 3:00 p.m. is fine with the state, Your Honor. Thank you. Mr. Cruz. [00:08:41] Speaker 2: Mr. Hill. How was Thursday at 3 o'clock? No. All right. We will see all counsel and Mr. Faust Thursday at 3 o'clock. Mr. Faust, you are in custody. Court is adjourned. Okay. [00:08:53] Speaker ?: Sentencing will be Thursday. [00:08:53] Speaker 1: Obviously, the prosecutor goes back to talk to family members and anyone who may have an interest to see if that worked. And indeed, it did. Thursday at 3:00 p.m. will be the sentencing in this case. Marie, the jury today wanted to hear and watch the video interrogation of the defendant. What do you read into that? Wanting to monitor Edric Faust? Were they, do you think they were looking for, um, trying to convince maybe a juror or two who were thinking that he was not guilty? Because 11 hours, 30 minutes is past that moment. You know, they went through everything great. But that's now to the point where not everybody's on board. One could opine. Your thoughts on that request this morning? [00:09:48] Speaker 4: I guess they wanted to see what his demeanor was during the interrogation. And there might have been one person holding out. And maybe they needed to see if he was lying based on his body chemistry and what have you. But I think that again, they got it wrong because there were so many areas of reasonable doubt. It was the ex-boyfriend who had the means, motive and opportunity. And there was also an issue with the alibi of the ex-boyfriend, where he was at the time. And the ex-boyfriend tried to make it seem like they had this wonderful relationship, when in fact, it wasn't even all that wonderful. They were an undergrad in another state. He was supposed to be a pre-med student. He flunked out. She moved to Georgia to go to law school. And he followed her. They had an opportunity to live together. And the girl ended up living by herself because she didn't want him anymore. She signed up to be with a pre-med student. He flunked out of school. And she was flourishing in law school and didn't want any parts of him. That's a motive right there. But when they interviewed him, he tried to pretend like they had this perfect relationship. Why lie about it? There was so much confirmation bias. They ruled him out. And the case just sat down for all these years. And then when they created this new cold case, they had to pull somebody in. And they pulled him in. There was enough reasonable doubt there to show that it wasn't him. The DNA was tainted. It was a DNA-intensive case. And their DNA was not on point. They opened up an envelope, for God's sake, and it was empty. They had interviews with the boyfriend where they basically told him what he needed to do to be excluded. There was so much messy policing there. Not to say what happened, because no one really knows what happened. But the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. And I feel like they did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But the attorneys for the defendant, Ahmaud Cruz, and his crew did a great job that they even had 11 hours of deliberation. And the jurors really thought about what they were doing, and they didn't take it lightly. But I don't think they got this case right. [00:12:05] Speaker 1: The confirmation bias did work against the boyfriend during the initial investigation. They thought he did it. They wanted him prosecuted. But the evidence at the time for the prosecuting attorney wasn't there in their estimation. And so it sat cold. The trigger was a look back and then the reexamining any DNA and retesting. That's when Faust comes into play. How would any DNA from a stranger end up in her apartment? What's the explanation for that? Because that's what the jury hung on to, right? That's why they came back guilty at the end of the day, even though you're right. We sat here before the verdict came down, and we thought to ourselves, you know, 99% of our verdicts at Court TV are guilty. This one, we were all here at Court TV listening and watching very closely because we didn't know. You know, we didn't know which way this was going to go after 11 and a half hours. But at the end of the day, it was DNA. As faulty as the investigation may have gone, that's what this jury had to have held on to, right? Because there was no relationship between these two. [00:13:24] Speaker 4: We don't know because he never took the stand to really testify as to whether or not there was a consensual situation or not. But the point is, this was a DNA, almost 100% reliant case. And this was basically a whodunit where he claims it wasn't him. And they had a suspect that they considered and then just cleared out of nowhere and then they chose him. But there was enough circumstantial evidence there to create reasonable doubt because the boyfriend had means, motive and opportunity. He was almost a jilted boyfriend. She was leaving him. She walked away from him. She went away to college. He flunked out and he followed her to her Georgia state where she was in law school. And when she got there, she wasn't even checking for him like that. And that's the reason why this happened. I believe he is the third party culprit. I believe maybe he might have gotten away with something, but we respect the verdict of the jurors. I just don't think that they got it right because beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. And I think with all of the problems with the DNA, the boyfriend's alibi, it should have been enough to say you haven't proven your case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the standard. We're not saying anyone is innocent 100%, but there's a standard. And I really don't think the district attorney proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. There was enough there for the jurors. They could have gone another way. [00:15:01] Speaker 1: All right. Absolutely. fair enough.