Toddler Murder Trial—State ‘Failed’ to Prove Case: Defense Closing

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Once again, I'm Jeff Groove here representing Ms. 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, Ms. 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'll ever want to hear. I'm going to talk to you for a bit, and 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, it's important that you pay close attention to the language of all the counts in the indictment. 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. That's when COVID was going on, if you remember. Okay. Okay. 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 returned this indictment. It was returned within four years. Okay. But think about it. Three years later, here we are in 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 of 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 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. Duane has said, deals with malice murder. Malice of forethought. And I think Mr. Duane 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. We understand that. 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. Malice murder is, in our way of doing business in the state, that's the most serious offense that the state can charge somebody in the state, that's the most serious offense that the state can charge somebody in the state of the state. I mean, you see Malice murder in cases where someone's been shot or been pistol whipped or, I mean, you know, we're, you know. And the state has said that they have no theory on what sort of weapon there was. Not that they have to, 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 this, and they're saying that either she did it maliciously with malice aforethought, or, and they've also got Heon Benton charged with the same thing. 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, 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, 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, to the, to the liver. 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. Okay. See, you sort of need to break down the, you either have a malice murder, you have a felony murder with these underlying predicate offenses, or you have what's in five and six, which, which is, which is an unusual charge, uh, in our, uh, 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, I mean, that doesn't have to be malice, you have to show, or the state has to show, that, 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, or just, uh, not to state or 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, uh, 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, of three days in a murder case, it's not that long. It's, I mean, but still, what's important is what you gathered or what you gleaned from the witness stand. [00:10:58] Speaker ?: Okay? [00:10:59] Speaker 1: You heard, um, well, let me mention this. Timelines are important, as I mentioned before. Ms. Davis and, and Mr. Ambrose together conceived this child, and this child was born, um, as we, as we talked about on January the 14th of 2018. So, nine months prior to, uh, the child being born, uh, Ms. Davis became pregnant with Mr. Ambrose's child. Okay? And during that time, they, they, they moved in together at an apartment over at Sandpiper Apartments in Warner Robins. Okay? Mr. Ambrose was, was working at the, at the fire department as a firefighter, an EMS. I mean, he was doing that. And, and you heard Ms. Davis testify that she was, um, I mean, she was taking classes, um, and she had worked some at FedEx and then worked at a, uh, at a place in, in making a dermatology place. And that the child was born, um, and that the child was born January, like I say, January the 14th of 2018, while they were still living in the Sandpiper Apartments. And, and, and, and, and you heard the testimony from, from Ms. Davis that, um, I mean, I'm not, I don't think I'm being derogatory by saying that the child was, was somewhat sickly. Okay? I mean, there's some things that we've said about sickly and, and the state wants to be critical of Ms. Davis because she called her child a crybaby. I mean, you know, so what? Um, so anyways, the child was born January of 2018. Um, the relationship between Ms. Davis and Mr. Ambrose continued on until, um, March or so of 2020 when it just ended. Um, and by then they were living over there at Lakeview, uh, Road Apartments, whatever the name of those apartments are. But, uh, it's important to know that these apartments are right next door to this pediatric place. And, 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, and you'll have, and, and the state put into evidence, and you'll, you'll, you'll get these. The state's exhibit one. More than 40 pages of documents for when, when Carter, whenever Carter started going over there to the pediatric place. And y'all can look at it yourself and stay put it in there for you to look at. I mean, Ms. Davis didn't, in 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, instances of her taking the child to the doctor. And, and the state wants to come here and say that she's, uh, wanton and willfully, uh, 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 raised, is raising this child as, 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, 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, uh, that maybe, 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, uh, take your eye off the prize. Okay. [00:16:21] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:16:22] Speaker 1: Okay. [00:16:24] Speaker ?: Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. [00:16:38] Speaker 1: And, 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. Okay. I mean, if, um, you know, there's, there's some, some reference to a, to a text that was sent by Ms. Davis and, 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, with, uh, 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, the, the, the days before the child passed. Y'all heard all that. And we didn't go over when, 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. I mean, that's as raw emotion as you can get. Okay. And I, 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, the, the indifference or the criminal negligence, therefore, at least murder in the second degree. And, folks, that's for you to decide, not for me to decide, not for what Mr. Dwayne said. See, what I, what I say is not evidence. What, 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, um, other things that you need to be mindful of, too. And, I, I appreciate the attention. You know, the, the, the, the set of facts in this case is just different. That, I mean, you heard that Miss Davis, in, in her job, she worked for the Central Georgia Technical College. And, and, and she, and she was, um, assigned or sent to different high schools, um, in, in the area to help them with their computer science classes. Okay? And, you heard her testimony that she received a, a, a bachelor's degree from Mercer and also a master's degree from Mercer. Okay. [00:20:06] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:20:06] Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. And that the way that the facts happened in this case, that, that she, she had gone to work up in Jones County or in Milledgeville, um, uh, on that particular ill-fated Tuesday. And that she had been trying to get in touch with, with Mr. Benton, I finally got in touch with him and they FaceTimed each other. I mean, I mean, you, you, 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, was on, 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. Ms. Gaddy, whoever it was, that, that Ms. Davis recognized that there was a problem and she had to get back. Okay. And, and, and I'm grateful that, that, that, that all of the, all of the folks from, uh, or those folks from the, the pediatric, primary pediatrics came in and testified and told you what, 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, the doctors there, Dr. Ford or whoever, uh, recognize that they wouldn't be able to, uh, they need to get someone else that, uh, uh, call 911 and get someone and, and, and, you know, you heard the rest of them. Okay. 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, what she, she observed. And, and also the others that, that, that, that, that testified from, from the, uh, pediatric place. What they, what they, uh, what they observed. Um, but once again, you'll have all the documents from, from, from place for, for way on back for when the child first started needing medical treatment. Okay. Now, you know, what's important to know is that, um, you know, after, after Carter had passed. And, and, and, and, and, and, and Ms. Davis and Mr. Benton went back to, to the apartment and, and, uh, you know, uh, officer, uh, Wartell from the, uh, water office police department was there. And you heard their conversation. You know, once again, um, their, their conversation with, with Ms. Davis and also with, uh, Mr. Benton was important. It's important for you to see. Once again, raw emotion at, at, at, at, at its, 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, that's important to know. And, you know, they were waiting, uh, Ms. Davis was waiting on, uh, uh, Sergeant Collins to come back so he could search the place. And, and if, and if, and if, and if you remember, uh, uh, uh, he, hand-wrote or prepared a consent form where, where Ms. Davis consented to let, uh, let the, uh, uh, uh, him, Sergeant Collins with the Sheriff's Department. Uh, uh, go in and, and, and search and, and look at everything in the, um, um, apartment. What, what, what, without any restrictions or, just, you know, go in there and do it. Okay. You heard the testimony from Officer Herrera or investigator Herrera. And, and you'll have, um, 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, the, the, the child had either thrown up or vomited or, or, or spilled some of his orange juice or, or whatever it was. You'll have all those pictures. And you heard investigator Herrera testify that he took samples from the carpet, cut out samples from the carpet or, or from the bed or from the, have any of them been, been, been, been, been shown to you afterwards? Folks, after investigator Herrera, uh, took, took all that information or all those, uh, samples or whatever it was, he took them back to the water office 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, 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, an hour long, investigator Herrera was there and collected all this stuff and then didn't do anything with it. That proves nothing. Nothing. Proves nothing. You know, 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, is part-time and lives in Ohio and comes down here periodically to do autopsies, did the autopsy and gave a report, and he testified 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. Nut and 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 get 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? No. 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? And then you heard the statement that Lieutenant Meadows said that I'm not going to give it to you. I don't know if we're even going to give it to you long term. And, of course, the state can speak to that, but you can remember what you heard. You know, where are they hiding? Why is it taking so long? 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 there. Three years. October or so of 2023. Here we are, almost another three years later, when we get here. And the state would have you believe, don't worry about it, 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, the way that I was raised, if there are 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 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 need 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 with you for that? I'm just asking simple questions and making simple statements. But the state, in trying to prove their case, has to always try to put a wedge. You know, 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 will 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 Ms. Davis' 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 know, after all that, you heard from the police officers in this, and you can take 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 talk about, you know, from Dr. Eisenstadt or the other doctor, Dr. Brown, that did the autopsy about whether or not it was homicide. 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 in just a short bit today, that Lieutenant Meadows gets Ms. 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. 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, Ms. 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 attorney's 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 all these photographs, all these documents, and you have to decide for yourself as to whether or not the state of Georgia, the state of Georgia has met its burden in proving these charges against my client. All these charges beyond a reasonable doubt. If 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've heard what the state has put up. You've heard Ms. Davis, and 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. Thank you. [00:41:45] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.