Toddler Beating Murder Trial — GA v. Kianna Davis — Full Closings

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: This case is about a mother who refers to her child, not by his name, but calls him the child. That child's name is Carter Ambrose, and his mother, Gilbert, repeatedly called him the child. He didn't have a name, he didn't have an identity, which he testified. He's just the child, like an unnecessary piece of chattel, or an object that gets thrown in the kitchen junk drawer. I told you from the start, you don't have to choose who did what. They are each party to the crime of each other. They are parties to each other's crimes. And there is no doubt that two-year-old Carter was murdered. He was murdered by the two people who were supposed to care for him. Now, I get two opportunities to talk to you. So I get this opportunity, and then the defense is going to get to talk to you, and then I get to come back. At this point, I kind of want to walk you through the indictment, because there's a lot going on. So I want to take it charge by charge. So count one is malice murder, right? Now, the defense pointed out something. I think when talking about malice murder, it's murder that involves premeditation. Premeditation is not an element of malice murder. Malice can be formed in an instant. A depraved heart. It's an intentional killing of another without justification. What you had in this case was testimony from the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, as well as the former chief medical examiner. Evidence of those injuries of the child, right? Not one groups. There were multiple. Multiple injuries. There was abdomen and the hemorrhage in his brain. He had an injury to his groin area, his scrota, both external and internal. These repeated strikes are malice. That is what malice is. They are repeated. They are intentional. And on a two-year-old child, they are 100% of the brave heart. This was not an accident. Count two is felony murder. It's based on cruelty to children in the first degree. So this felony murder doesn't require malice. All it requires is the intentional committal of cruelty to children in the first degree, which then caused the death of Carter. Cruelty to children in the first degree is the intentional infliction of pain on a child at the age of 18. It caused the death of Carter and Ambrose. Again, the injuries, the repeated blows on that child. Count three is the cruelty to children in the first degree count. Intentionally causes cruel physical pain for a child at the age of 18. Count four is felony murder. This is based on aggravated assault. An object which we use defensively is likely to result in serious bodily injury or death caused the death of Carter and Ambrose. Now, in that indictment, and I didn't hide this from you from the beginning, the exact nature of the object being unknown to the grand jurors. And I told you, I didn't hide the ball from you, you're going to have some questions. You may have some questions. What object was used? All it has to be is an object, and you look at the nature of the object, how it was used, whether it's a baseball bat or a fist. All right, likely to result in serious bodily injury or death. Count five is the aggravated assault, which underlines the felony murder that I just outlined for you. Count six is murder in the second degree. Murder in the second degree is based on a negligence theory. Malice is not required. The only count that malice is required is the malice murder. Murder, too, does not. It operates differently. It's a negligence standard. All right? Here, the negligence caused cruel and excessive physical pain to Carter when he has a lacerated liver and has been sick all weekend and nobody gets him medical attention. That is the negligence. He should have gone to the doctor before Tuesday. And cruelty to children in the second degree. The criminal negligence which I'll be buying for you. A failure to act which shows a willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others who might reasonably be expected to be injured by the failure to act. As the moments, as the hours ticked by, ticked by, Carter slowly died. So, remember the timeline? His time of death was November 17th, 2020. It was in the mid-morning. Time of injury. Time of injury was 24 hours before he died. So, that was Monday morning. All the way up to 72 hours after that, which was Saturday morning. Remember the timeline? Sunday was when Carter was not fine. There's a couple other things I want to point out legally for you. One is the statute of limitations. So, there's dates in the indictment. They don't actually mean a whole lot. All the state has to do is prove to you that this crime was committed on a day within the statute of limitations. So, it's easy on murderers. There isn't one. All right? As it relates to the felonies, so you've got the aggravated assault, cruelty to children, second degree, all right, and a couple of the other ones. It's a four-year statute of limitations. All right? So, this happened November 17th. The indictment was towards the end of 2023. So, it was November 17th, 2020. Indictment was in 2023. On my count, we're three years, not four years. And remember, the prosecution doesn't commence at the start of trial. It commences the time of indictment. So, this indictment, regardless of the time frame complaining, was returned timely. Other issue that I want to point out, and I don't know, it really hasn't come up at this point or not, but the judge is going to read a bunch of the law to you, and in that is then you have to try a case where the crime is committed, usually. So, in this case, the injury was inflicted in the apartment in Houston County. You were wondering why we kept asking, is that in Houston County? Because that is an element of the crime that the state has to prove, right? This apartment complex is in Houston County. That is where Carter was from Saturday evening all the way until he was rushed to the hospital. During that whole time frame, it's all in Houston County. So, I don't want you to get caught up by that. Thursday was the last day that he saw his son alive. This two-year-old boy on a bike. Drops him off at daycare, happy and uninjured. You'll never see Carter again, M.F. Those were her words. Boy, how true are they. Friday, he's at daycare. He's happy. He doesn't seem injured. He eats his food. He wasn't throwing up. And the defendant picks him up. Saturday takes him to granddad's house. He's happy, playing. He's uninjured. He's not throwing up. And then the defendant has Carter by herself the rest of the day, Saturday, as well as most of the day, Sunday. And during the day, he's fine. She's the only person who has him. Boyfriend comes over. They have dinner. And that's when Carter is complaining of stomach pain at bedtime. And in her first interview with Sergeant Collins, she says that's when he was thrown away. It's not until the second interview that she changes her story. She moves it out to when she didn't have access to him. But that Monday, Carter is sick in bed at early morning hours. She goes to work. Her boyfriend stays home with him all day Monday. Carter's throwing up again. Throws up overnight. He's complaining of stomach pain. And Tuesday morning is when he's rushed to primary pediatrics. She drives out of her apartment complex, within yards of the doctor's office, and continues on her day, leaving Keon to deal with her dying child. Again, you don't have to decide who did it. You don't have to pick one or the other. It's not all or nothing. All right? These two people had access to this child when he was symptomatic. The only two. Everybody else who came into contact with this child leading up to Saturday evening said that boy was happy. He wasn't throwing up. Carter never said, never told the defendant that Keon did it. He would run to me and point and tell me who hit him. He didn't do that. He didn't do that. And she didn't know what was going on. They didn't know nothing about anything. She is not particularly worthy of the belief. She changes her story. After the fact, she's making up reasons for how it happened. She's bringing up that he fell, maybe on the couch or the bed, fell in the bed, rolled back and hit his head. She's asking about CPR when Darren Meadows, Lieutenant Meadows, was talking to her. There's a lot to do about asthma, underlying conditions. He was sickly. You heard those medical examiners. There was no underlying disease. His lungs looked fine. What he had was a two-inch tear of his liver brought on by blunt force. And to claim that she doesn't know. I call 30 million times a day. I FaceTime. I always check in when someone else has my child. And she's right there. She's right there. The time frame for the injury when it was inflicted is the closest to the time of death is Monday morning. So if you go back, she's the one who was right there with him the whole time. And according to her, she watches him like a hawk. I mean, she calls him a crybaby. He's dramatic. What a way to talk about your son. These are autopsy photos that have just been shown in the world. You'll never see Carter again. And then, once the injury's been inflicted, she calls Kadeem. Because he's EMS. And he doesn't come get the child. Boy, does he regret that. I can't imagine having to carry that guilt. I cannot imagine. So she's leaving. With Kion. Because she's a single mother. What else am I supposed to do? And lets him deal with the problem. She left him holding back. But then doesn't blame him. Which is a bit odd. Rather, according to Kadeem. The man that she wanted to take the child because he was sick. Wanted Carter to go with him. When he discusses with her the autopsy report. And injuries of the child. And if he finds out Kion did something. He doesn't know what he'll do. She gets mad at him. She gets mad at a father. Grieving the death of his son. For having the audacity. To suggest that Kion did this. Now I think I brought it up. In my opening originally. And that is reasonable doubt. You're going to hear beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge is going to instruct you on that. And I spoke about it with y'all a little bit. On Monday. In my opening statement. And I like to think of it as pieces to the puzzle. Yes, this is a circumstantial case. And I told you from the beginning. We didn't have an eyewitness. There's no. See inside Miami. One hour. You know. DNA. Solve the crime. Let's go home. It's all circumstantial. But there are plenty of pieces to this puzzle. First one is that. The defendant and her boyfriend. Are the only ones with custody. Even at the outset of the symptoms. She changes her story. Her second interview. She tries to point her story away from herself. She doesn't go as far as to blame Kion. But she starts to build her own timeline. She's never blamed Kion. She's even defended him. She calls him 30 million times a day. And let's not ignore the fact. That this is a substantial injury. This is a two-year-old boy. With a lacerated liver. A two-inch laceration. But that's not the only injury he has. He has multiple injuries. Including to his groin area. His scrotum. And he's a crybaby. He cries over everything. That's what the defendant says. You're not going to sit here. And expect me to believe. That this child was not in serious pain. The two-inch laceration of the liver. And that it was just a minor tummy ache. There's no chance of that. You're not going to tell me this child wasn't in fetal position. Holding that stomach. Rocking back and forth with a lacerated liver. That's why. Kadeem couldn't see his child. That's why. He couldn't FaceTime. Or talk to that boy. Remember. She's mad. She blocks him. He said it happens sometimes. But she's never refused him access to the child. Until the weekend. His liver is lacerated. I have serious questions as to whether or not. Providing the child. Providing. Letting Carter go with his father. We're leaving him at home with a keynote. It's not a setup. To point this somewhere else. She tells others. It's because Carter fell. And she doesn't tell the police that. But she tells. Dave here what was that. She tells Gazette that. Building this story. How could this have happened? And then she bragged about the investigator. Which is kind of an odd thing to do. And then when she testified. She couldn't even say Carter's name. Now this isn't the only time I'm going to speak to you. I'm going to speak to you again. I have more to say. But this is not an accident. This is cold blooded. Hate. Murder. Malice. Depravity. No child should die like this. [00:18:34] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:18:35] Speaker 2: Once again I'm Jeff Groot. Here representing Miss Davis in this matter. I'm not going to whisper to you. I may do a little shouting. But I want everyone to hear what I have to say about this. Okay. First of all Miss Davis thanks you for your service. She understands how traumatic a case this really is. And it is. This is a sad case. As you're level one here. I'm going to talk to you for a bit. Then Mr. Dwayne can come back up. And I don't have a chance to say anything else to you. This is it for me. After Mr. Dwayne finishes the next time. The judge will instruct you as to what the law is. And it's very important that you listen to what the law is. They're called jury instructions. And the judge is going to talk to you. You know about what the law is. And I may go over some of that with you. But what I want you to first understand. Or to also understand. Is you will have a copy of the indictment with you. Where you yourself will get to read the indictment. And of course the judge has read it. And you know we've heard all about it. And it's important. [00:20:07] Speaker ?: It's important that you pay close attention to the language of all the accounts in the indictment. [00:20:17] Speaker 2: First of all, understand. And I'm glad Mr. Dwayne mentioned that the statute of limitations on some offenses is four years. As we know, this offense of the child died, Carter died, on November the 17th of 2020. This case was indicted by the Houston County Grand Jury on October the 18th of 2023. Almost three years later. And of course the state will say, we return this indictment, it was returned within four years. Okay. But think of that. Three years later. Here we are July of 2026. The case is finally going to trial. And you have to think why. Okay. Of course the state can get up and argue that they did everything they're supposed to do. And you know, the fact that the sheriff's department did their thing. And then it was submitted to us. And, you know, it was the grand jury that didn't return the indictment until October 2023. But in any event, timelines are always important in everything, in life. Okay. In everything we do. And like I say, you need to be mindful of the fact that here we are, some six years later, after the child has died, that this case is going to trial. Okay. Now, you'll have this indictment, and I want you to read over it. Read over it carefully. And the state has to prove all of these charges against Mr. Davis beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's part of what the judge will explain to you is what does a reasonable doubt mean? What does it mean? And the judge will tell you what that means. She's not going to tell you that it means doubt to a specific number or to a mathematical certainty. She will tell you, as reasonable doubt means, exactly the type of evidence that you need to consider when making your decision as to whether or not the state has proved each and every essential element of each crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. All I ask you to do is, of course, you've heard the evidence, is follow what the judge tells you. Just follow what she says. And she will tell you what the law is. You know, the first charge, as Mr. Dwayne has said, deals with malice murder, malice of forethought. And I think Mr. Dwayne was, I guess he was saying, when he was telling you that my client beat this child to death. Beat this child to death. And the judge will explain to you what malice of forethought means. She'll explain that to you. But that's what the state is alleging in count one, that Ms. Davis beat her own child to death. And, of course, the state has said that they don't have any eyewitnesses or any factual evidence or direct evidence of that nature. That it's all circumstantial. And the judge will tell you the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence and what can be used. [00:24:29] Speaker ?: We understand that. [00:24:32] Speaker 2: But the bird is on the government to prove the charges as to malice murder. Malice murder is, in our way of doing business in the state, that's the most serious offense that the state can charge somebody with. For beating someone to death. I mean, you see malice murder in cases where someone's been shot or been pistol whipped or, you know, we're, you know. And the state has said that they have no, you know, no theory on what sort of weapon there was. Not that they have to, but they don't have that. So, I guess, I mean, you've seen Ms. Davis in trial this week. And you've seen her testifying. And they're saying that either she did it maliciously with malice of forethought. Or, and they've also got Keon Benton charged with the same thing. He's not here. He's not here. He's not here. Of course, they're being tried separate, but if, if he was there when this happened, then why is he not here to testify against Ms. Davis? Because it didn't happen. Malice murder. The most serious of any murder that there could be in our state. You know, the other charges, two and three, felony murder with the separate predicate offense being cruelty to children in the first degree. And then count four, felony murder. The predicate offense being count five, aggravated assault. And, of course, the indictment here says, in felony murder, that the child was beaten with an object, the exact nature of which is unknown to the grand jury, caused cruel physical pain, that being a lacerated liver to the victim. Well, circumstantial evidence is what they've established. And circumstantial can be okay. Not in this case. Aggravated assault being circumstantial evidence that the child was struck by an object unknown to the grand jury. See, you sort of need to break down the, you either have a mouse murder, you have a felony murder with these underlying predicate offenses, or you have what's in five and six, which is an unusual charge in our state, but it's a valid charge, of murder in the second degree, and, you know, you'll need to read the indictment on this one, that murder in the second degree occurs irrespective of malice, meaning there doesn't have to be malice. You have to show, or the state has to show, that they have established that the child suffered cruel physical pain by the failure of the mother to seek immediate medical attention. There has to be criminal negligence there. Criminal negligence. In other words, I mean, the state says something about want and disregard, or just, not just failure to act, but intended to act that way. And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that they have not done that. They have not done that. I mean, I'm telling you, Ms. Davis is guilty of nothing. Now, once again, the burden of proof is always on the government to prove these charges, all of these charges, beyond a reasonable doubt. You know, I'm not going to, and I don't know what Mr. Dwayne's going to do, because he goes after me. That's the way, that's the way that this works. But, you heard the evidence in this case. And as things go, you know, a case of three days and a murder case is not that long. It's, I mean, but still, what's important is what you gathered or what you gleaned from the witness stand. [00:29:34] Speaker ?: Okay? [00:29:35] Speaker 2: You heard, well, let me mention this. Timelines are important, as I mentioned before. Ms. Davis and Mr. Ambrose together conceived this child, and this child was born, as we talked about, on January the 14th of 2018. So, nine months prior to the child being born, Ms. Davis became pregnant with Mr. Ambrose's child. Okay? And during that time, they moved in together at an apartment over at Sandpiper Apartments in Warner Islands. Okay? Mr. Ambrose was working at the fire department as a firefighter, an EMS. I mean, he was doing that. And you heard Ms. Davis testify that she was, I mean, she was taking classes, and she had worked some at FedEx, and then worked at a place in Macon, a dermatology place. And that the child was born January, like I say, January the 14th of 2018, while they were still living in Sandpiper Apartments. That they continued to live there, and you heard the testimony from Ms. Davis that, I mean, I don't think I'm being derogatory by saying that the child was somewhat sickly. Okay? I mean, there's some things that we've said about sickly, and the state wants to be critical of Ms. Davis because she called her child a crybaby. I mean, you know, so what? So anyways, the child was born January of 2018. The relationship between Ms. Davis and Mr. Ambrose continued on until March or so of 2020 when it just ended. And by then, they were living over there at Lakeview Road Apartments, whatever the name of those apartments are. But it's important to note that these apartments are right next door to this pediatric place. And you heard Ms. Davis testify that that's one of the reasons why she moved over there, so she would be near where her doctors were for the child. And you'll have, and the state put into evidence, and you'll get these, the state's exhibit one, more than 40 pages of documents from when Carter, whenever Carter started going over there to the pediatric place. And y'all can look at it yourself. The state put it in there for you to look at. I mean, Ms. Davis isn't being disingenuous or dishonest with you by saying that she was over there at the doctor's office quite a bit. She was concerned about her child. Okay? I mean, all these instances of her taking the child to the doctor. And the state wants to come here and say that she's wanton and willfully disregarded the life of her child. That doesn't make any sense, folks. Doesn't make any sense at all. Now, one thing that is important to understand, too, is that Ms. Davis is raising this child as a single mother. You've heard some testimony that, for the most part, her and the father, Mr. Ambrose, got along okay, and they agreed on the amount of child support to be paid, and that he was paying it. And then, at some point in time, the decision was made October or so, right, you know, the month or so before the child died, that maybe he needed to be under a child support order. I mean, that's just, you know, a lot of times, the state will want to bring up things sort of like a red herring or a smoke screen or something to try to take your eye off the prize. Okay? You know, and you can take it for whatever it's worth, any sort of problems that Ms. Davis and Mr. Ambrose were having with each other, you know, in the day or so before the child died. You can do whatever you want to with that, okay? I mean, if, you know, there's some reference to a text that was sent by Ms. Davis and the F word was used, okay? We've never heard that before, okay? I mean, I guess that makes Ms. Davis the worst person in the world to use the F word in a communication with the father of the child. Making a mountain out of a molehill. But I think the evidence was that, I mean, I'm not going to go back through all the days before the child passed. Y'all heard all that. And we didn't go over when Ms. Davis testified today because the state put up the videos, the video interviews that she had with Sergeant Collins on the day after the child passed, and then, you know, about two or three weeks later. Okay? Y'all got to hear all that. And I guess the state's going to say that she was just putting on or making it up, but she didn't care about her child, and therefore the indifference or the criminal negligence, therefore, at least murder in the second degree. Folks, that's for you to decide, not for me to decide, not for what Mr. Dwayne said. See, what I say is not evidence. What he says is not evidence. You have to decide the facts and the truth. We'll never know what the truth is. No one will ever know what the truth is. You know, other things that you need to be mindful of, too, and I appreciate the attention. You know, the set of facts in this case is just different. That, I mean, you heard that Ms. Davis, in her job, she worked for the Central Georgia Technical College, and she was assigned or sent to different high schools in the area to help them with their computer science classes. And you heard her testimony that she received a bachelor's degree from Mercer and also a master's degree from Mercer. Okay. And that the way that the facts happened in this case, that she had gone to work up in Jones County or in Villageville on that particular ill-fated Tuesday. And that she had been trying to get in touch with Mr. Benton. Finally got in touch with him and they FaceTimed each other. I mean, you've heard all that. There's no sense of me going back over it. And so, Mr. Benton put the child in the car and drove two or three minutes to the pediatric place for an emergency like this. And that basically the whole time Ms. Davis was on the phone with Mr. Benton. And she even heard some of the conversation when she got into the pediatric place. I don't know if it was Ms. Sledge or Ms. Baker or Ms. Gattie, whoever it was, that Ms. Davis recognized that there was a problem and she had to get back. And I'm grateful that all of the folks from the primary pediatrics came and testified and told you what they heard or what they did. I appreciate that. And apparently they did what they could to try to save the child's life. Okay? But at some point in time, the doctors there, Dr. Ford or whoever, recognized that they wouldn't be able to, they needed to get someone else that, call 911 and get someone and, you know, you heard the rest of them. Okay? And like I say, you also heard from Lisa James who was over at the Peach County emergency room and she testified that the child was unresponsive and she said what she observed. And you can remember for yourself what she observed. And also the others that testified from the pediatric place, what they observed. But once again, you'll have all the documents from the place for way on back for when the child first started needing medical treatment. Okay? Now, you know, what's important to know is that, you know, after Carter had passed, and Ms. Davis and Mr. Benton went back to the apartment and, you know, Officer Wartell from the Warner Brothers Police Department was there and you heard their conversation. You know, once again, their conversation with Ms. Davis and also with Mr. Benton was important for you to see. Once again, we're all in motion at its highest. Okay? And we're grateful to Officer Wartell for being there to offer the comfort that he did. That's important to know. Trust me, it's important to know. And, you know, they were waiting, Ms. Davis was waiting on Sergeant Collins to come back so he could search the place. And if you remember, he hand-wrote or prepared a consent form where Ms. Davis consented to let the, him, Sergeant Collins with the Sheriff's Department, go in and search and look at everything in the apartment without any restrictions. Just, you know, go in there and do it. Okay? You heard the testimony from Officer Herrera or investigator Herrera. And you'll have, you'll have with you states exhibits 15 through 61, I believe. All these photographs that we looked at the other day. And you'll have them back there to look at. Okay? All right? And you saw where, where there were certain places where it looked like, excuse me, that the child had either thrown up or vomited or spilt some of his orange juice or whatever it was. You'll have all those pictures. And you heard investigator Herrera testify that he took samples samples from the carpet, cut out samples from the carpet or from the bed or from the pelt. Have any of them been shown to you afterwards? Folks, after investigator Herrera took, took all that information or all those samples or whatever it was, he took them back to the Warner Robins Police Department and put them in a vault and nothing was ever done with them. And what does that matter? Well, I mean, if you're investigating the case from law enforcement and you're getting a pile of stuff to look at to see as to whether or not there's blood there or if they're actually, I mean, to determine what you find, then do something with it. Did they ever submit anything to the GBI? No, they didn't. You heard Sergeant Collins testify that he left in February. He didn't do anything with any of that. And Lieutenant Meadows testified he didn't do anything with it. Well, who else would do something with it? Now, Mr. Dwayne said that there's been some things that have been a little odd, but that was odd. You go to all that trouble, two, three, four hours, hour long, investigator Herrera was there and collected all this stuff and then didn't do anything with it. That proves nothing. [00:45:44] Speaker ?: Nothing. [00:45:54] Speaker 2: Proves nothing. You know, and like I say, folks, you can look at these pictures and of course they're just duplications. You saw one from one angle, one from another and one that had something that was like a measuring stick or something. You've got to figure out if it means anything or just a waste of time. You know, once again, this child passed away on November the 17th of 2020 and within a day or two, Dr. Brown, who granted his part-time and lives in Ohio and comes down here periodically to do autopsies, did the autopsy and gave a report and he testified and he testified as to his report. Okay? And that Dr. Eisenstadt, who was his superior person there in that department, I guess he was called upon because there was such a delay in the report being completed that he got involved and you heard all about the Zoom meeting that Dr. Eisenstadt and the other doctors and the DA's office and the sheriff's department all had and came up to the conclusion that this is a homicide. And that report was issued 10, 11 months later. Okay? All the while the testimony from Ms. Davis was she was calling the sheriff's department trying to find out what was going on with the death of her child. Nothing. Crickets. That's what she got. Crickets. And you know at some point in time the doctor finished the autopsy report after there had been peer review by Dr. Eisenstadt and within a couple days they finished the report and then six weeks or so later they sent it to the sheriff's office and by that time Lieutenant Meadows had the file and was working on it. Okay? So, I mean really nothing else was being done on it and Lieutenant Meadows calls Ms. Davis she's up in Gwinnett County teaching school up there Peachtree Ridge High School and says can you come down here we've got some other information to give you and of course they go over all that and you saw the video and of course Ms. Davis questioned what happened to her son asked her a copy of that did Lieutenant Meadows give her a copy? No we didn't give her a copy what's he hiding? Give it to him I mean what's wrong with taking the report putting it in a Xerox machine and giving it to Ms. Davis then you heard the statement that Lieutenant Meadows said I'm not going to give it to you I don't know if we're even going to give it to you longer [00:49:38] Speaker ?: and of course the state can speak to that but you can remember what you heard [00:49:43] Speaker 2: you know what are they hiding? Why is it taking a cancel? So anyways there that is when Lieutenant Meadows had his conversation with Ms. Davis it's December of 2021 I guess Lieutenant Meadows sends everything to the district attorney's office and that case is there for two years before it gets indicted by the grand jury and the state may say no harm no foul I mean the whole time you've got a grieving mother here and I think we can all agree that people grieve in a different way I'm not going to make fun of anybody for grieving the way that they grieve but here it is basically three years after the child dies the case gets indicted by the grand jury and Ms. Davis gets arrested then three years October or so of 2023 here we are almost another three years later when we get here okay and the state would have you believe don't worry about nothing to it folks there is something to it that's for you to decide if that's something that you'll tolerate as citizens of this county once again the burden of proof is always on the government to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt okay and I don't mean to bore you with what I'm saying okay you know there's the way that I was raised if there flies on something then there's a problem okay and there's flies all over this you know and of course the state and I appreciate Mr. Ambrose being here and I can appreciate you know I think the state was concerned that's why they brought Ms. Tharp in who babysat the child saying that there's nothing going to happen to the child and they want to you know Dr. Eisenstadt and other doctors say that the death occurred within 24 to 72 hours of the attack or the beating of the child how do we do that I mean there's no way as a lawyer that I can match medical wits if you would or medical knowledge with the doctor the pathologist who did the autopsy and then the one who was his supervisor that approved it how can I match which of that I'm just asking simple questions and making simple statements but stated trying to prove their case has to always try to put a wedge that's why they brought Ms. Tharp in and bring all this up about I mean what is I mean Ms. Davis is grateful that Ms. Tharp made a pillow with the child's picture on it or a t-shirt or something she's grateful for that but why make it into something that it's not folks we [00:53:49] Speaker ?: will [00:53:49] Speaker 2: never ever know what happened we'll never know and I'm almost almost through let me just say this of course Mr. Kennedy came in that's that's Ms. Davis his grandfather nice old guy nice old guy and Ms. Davis lives with him I mean he's taken her in but you know I mean it's been five and a half six years that his grandson has died he doesn't remember everything I mean folks he's a nice guy I mean but I'm glad he was here you know once again you you know after all that you heard from the police officers in this and you can you can take whatever whatever you want to to determine the guilt or innocence of Ms. Davis I mean you know we understand what Heath Collins had to say he had the case and he worked pretty strong I guess for a couple two or three months and then he left and I submit to you the case just sort of sat there you know there was some there was some talk about you know from Dr. Eisenstadt or the other doctor Dr. Brown that did the autopsy about whether or not it was but you know the word homicide kept coming up but also the word undetermined kept coming up if they had decided that it was a homicide a month or so after the child died and they got the reports back on toxicology and these other reports that you heard mentioned from the GBI why didn't they do something then you know Sergeant Collins leaves Lieutenant Meadows picks it up and really nothing is done with it until the sheriff's department says they're waiting for a final autopsy report okay I think we've all been around a little bit when someone's trying to pass the buck from one to the other okay so anyways the decision is made as I mentioned before and I'm going to be finishing just a short bit today that Lieutenant Meadows gets Miss Davis in her office in December of 2021 and at that time he determines that she's a suspect you know she but he takes a statement from her doesn't give her Miranda rights or anything because she's not in custody that's the golden ticket there she's not in custody but that she's a suspect in his mind but he just goes ahead and tries to clean up some questions that he may have from the previous interviews that she had with Sergeant Collins and then for another almost two years nothing else is done the whole while Miss Davis is up in Gwinnett County teaching school at Peachtree High School and then she mentioned the other school that she helped open up a brand new school up in Gwinnett County with computer science okay and then at the point in time where they arrest her I mean she's out of work I mean she can't I mean once she's charged with this I mean she's out of work and so she's waiting and she appreciates your patience in being here she appreciates the attention that you've given to her in this case and like I say if there's anything that I've done that I've said hold that against me don't hold it against her I'm just trying to help her the best I know how you know I'm getting ready to sit down and the district is going to get to come up and I don't know how much longer he's going to go but you know you'll have you'll have all these photographs all all these documents and you have to decide for yourself as to whether or not the state of Georgia the state of Georgia has men's burden in proving these charges against my client all these charges beyond a reasonable doubt if [00:59:14] Speaker ?: if [00:59:14] Speaker 2: they haven't then she should be found not guilty or acquitted of these charges it's sad that this child is gone Ms. Davis is the only child okay you know I'm going to leave you with this one thing I've tried cases down here for a long time and I always tell people that don't leave your good common poor sense at those doors when you come through to serve the judge is going to give you the law you heard what the state has put up you've heard Ms. Davis as she's testified but use your own sense in making a decision about this follow the law follow the facts and when you get back there we would ask you to find Ms. Davis not guilty of these charges and we thank you for your time [01:00:20] Speaker 1: stop emailing me now you can't get or talk to Carter leave me the eff alone and that's the last time I'm going to tell you never to talk to his child again we'll never know what happened is that really true quarter inch rectangular red abrasion on the right external nare quarter inch square red abrasion on the lateral aspect of the right upper lip lip one one eighth inch irregular red abrasion on the lateral aspect of the left upper lip oblong red contusion to his cheek red contusion on the right chest adjacent to the sternum side one inch round red contusion on the midline upper abdomen along the coastal margin of the ribs three quarter inch round red contusion on the right upper abdomen along the coastal margin another separate distinct injury along with the edge ends blue green discoloration on the midline abdomen red contusion on the abdomen overlying the umbilicus quarter inch round squared red abrasions on the underside of the scrotum red abrasions on the right mid abdomen internal hemorrhages reflected on the scalp right posterior parietal and then another one multiple interior abdominal wall muscles adipose tissue and mesentery extensive hemorrhage two and one half inch gaping laceration of the liver the attachment of falciform ligament blood in the abdominal cavity pancreas and hemorrhage testicle and cord hemorrhage patchy serosol congestion hemorrhage on the small intestine but we'll never know the medical examiners told you exactly what you needed to know and Mr. Groove is absolutely right you don't leave your common sense at the door it stays with you and common sense is that Keanu denies doing herself but she doesn't blame Keanu she defended him and those are the only two people the only two people who had access to this child when the trained expert medical chief examiner tells you that this injury could have occurred and her original statement that he had growing up on Sunday night not Monday not a convenient change in her story to Monday when Keanu was home with him but Sunday when it was her or Keanu who had access to it common sense it was either one or the other or both and her testimony was really telling her evasiveness her vocational the fact that she wouldn't even say her own child's name this poor mother who's lost her only child and she can't say his name in front of you she just didn't know she's just oblivious she had no idea she didn't think anything was wrong but yet she claims that she moved to those apartments to be closer to the doctor because he has asthma and allergies like a whole lot of other kids do in that she's always paying attention when something's wrong and then she called 30 million times a day all of that vanished that weekend and that's exactly why she wouldn't let Kadeem see her son his son their son now it has become apparent to me that the defendant's main argument as to why she didn't do this is because she's had to wait too long that's the only consistent argument that has been made not about the facts as to what happened to that child there's just been argument after argument about how long it's taken the state to get this to trial without offering any real context to it without offering any reasons why if there were any other issues that came up beyond the state's control doesn't bother bringing anything like that but justice has no expiration date Carter's life had the expiration date but this trial does not you want a smoke scream there it is that's their smoke scream be mad at the state don't be mad at the two people who had custody of this child when he suffered a two inch laceration to his liver don't pay attention to that it just took too long that's not even what the law says reasonable doubt the judge is going to tell you it's not a fanciful doubt it's not to a mathematical degree of certainty that the state has to prove this alright this is where your common sense comes into play we did bring up motive the state doesn't have to prove a motive it's not a legal requirement it is not a legal requirement state prove motive or premeditation for that matter and then they bring up the fact that Keon Benton isn't here well I'm not the only person in this room with subpoena power with the power to compel someone else to come in so they don't know the weapon yeah I mean I thought that was pretty evident from the moment y'all were sitting out there when the judge read the indictment to you that's no secret what we have is hemorrhaging on the head we have multiple blood force impact injuries to the abdomen it could be anything it could be anything and you don't even have to pick what it is hands are the most obvious but you don't have to make that decision all it has to be is an object the nature of which and the nature of those injuries it is clear that a hand or other object was used to inflict them this defense argues murder too is weird no not really not if you think about it not if you think about what duty a parent has to their child their two year old child not sure if there's legal duties as it relates to children who are 30 but a two who relies on his mother for protection a woman claims that she moved close to her doctor's office who said that throwing up in his sleep was a red flag or it was abnormal but then in the same breath said she didn't think anything of it while she was lying to y'all in the stand a woman who took her child to the pediatrician all the time who had him hospitalized who washed his allergies and gave his breathing treatments when he needed the absence rang her forgive damn is telling yes when your two year old child is in that much pain you have a responsibility to seek medical care and she did not do that reckless disregard or how the pain he was experiencing may affect him and we know waiting hurt we heard that testimony from the medical examiner it hurt bad I think it hurt a lot worse than she was saying I don't think there's any way he was letting on that this was just a little stomach ache and that caused pain and pain and more pain until he died whether or not you want to pick a winner and a loser who did this who didn't other than Carver who's the victim here and who's not whether or not she actually knew or didn't know at a minimum she's guilty of murder in the second degree for not performing her basic duty is feed them give them some clothes they don't have to be nice put some kind of shelter around them give them some medical care she couldn't even need that burden love [01:12:01] Speaker ?: love [01:12:01] Speaker 1: but poor her single mother as though Kadeem was not an active father in this little boy's life he didn't abandon her didn't cut ties he wanted to be involved in his child's life she took that from him she testified she lied she lied she tried to get a new phone shortly after this she said no and then we went through pages of her trying to get her new phone records that she herself identified right after this happened multiple pages why suddenly do we need the phone to concede why brag about the fact Ms. Shirley that the original investigator is no longer on the case she's calling she wants more info more info she's worried about herself she knew that the arrow pointed to two people and she was one of them she's terrified that the state may come down on her and then she testifies that if you call the pediatrician's office you can't get an appointment the same day that a pediatrician would never have the time as though a pediatrician would never anticipate the fact that younger kids often get sick simple illnesses but they can't just be seen well I gotta wait I gotta wait I can't get an appointment never mind the fact that she's a regular never mind the fact that she carried on and on and on about how awful it must be for them when she's on the body again with officer white towel she didn't even make an effort now they make an issue of the samples on the floor they didn't send anything to GBI well Carter's body went to GBI along with that liver along with those bruises those hemorrhages and what is interesting is that all of a sudden here well we don't know if he was throwing up or not when she herself tells law enforcement in one of her interviews yeah I figured out he was throwing up and now she wants to change her story on that every little thing she wants to change she wants to fight the question here isn't whether or not you tolerate how long you came to trial the question is whether or not you tolerate a two year old boy being murdered that's the question you've heard quite a bit of testimony right remember testimony is evidence you heard about what was overheard by the primary pediatrics people don't worry about that just get here or I should have brought them when you told me to not sure why I'm honest telling somebody else who's not a biological father if she's there like she said she was another [01:16:40] Speaker ?: another [01:16:40] Speaker 1: man who she broke up with shortly after this she didn't want to answer that question she didn't want to answer anything in fact when I said nothing further a grieving mother common sense here two people had access to this job and she says she didn't do it and that he didn't do it common sense tells you that statement makes no sense they were hiding covering up covering up whether she hit that child whether he hit that child at this point it doesn't matter because one of them did it or both of them did but now we have the cover up she wants you to believe that she's such a good mother that she calls all these times a day she always checks in she drives from the office at lunch to get you know to check on Carter while he's there and yet she's got no idea no idea ladies and gentlemen there are plenty plenty of pieces to this puzzle for you to see that she is 100% guilty of malice murder of felony murder and murder in the second degree thank you