VERDICT: Dying Last Words Trial — FL v. Leigha Mumby — Day 2

[00:00:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:02:00] Speaker 1: All right, is everyone ready? All right, very good. Yes, ma'am. [00:02:06] Speaker 2: Vince, let's bring in the jury. Thank you. [00:02:37] Speaker ?: We're going to go to the board room. We're going to go to the board room. We're going to go to the board room. Thank you. [00:02:56] Speaker 3: Thank you. [00:03:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:03:00] Speaker 2: Everyone, please be seated. Good morning. Good morning. [00:03:03] Speaker 1: I ask you guys every morning, has anyone been exposed to seeing or read in the media regarding the case? No. Thank you very much. Both the state and the defense have rested their cases. The attorneys now will present their final arguments. Please remember what the lawyers say is not evidence or your instruction on the law. However, do listen closely to their arguments. They are intended to aid you in understanding the case. Each side will have equal time, but the state is entitled to divide this time between an opening argument and a rebuttal argument after the defense has given its closing. [00:03:49] Speaker 2: Thank you, your honor. Do you need the podium? [00:04:09] Leah Mumby: Yes, ma'am. Leah Mumby made choices on February 9th of 2025 that irreversibly changed the course of Daniel Waterman's life, and make no mistake, the defendant is the one that made those choices. She was driving the car that night at extreme speeds and aggressively out of anger. She was irate with Daniel. She had just found out that very morning that she was pregnant with his child and then learns that he's been texting with another woman. And she's furious. She's so furious she calls her best friend to vent about it, screaming about Daniel texting with another woman. And when her best friend doesn't react the way she likes, she abruptly hangs up. That was Leah Mumby's demeanor at the time of the crash. And her driving pattern is consistent with that. We know that because the progressive data tells us that. It gives us a two-minute window of what she was doing leading up to the crash. She has speeds over 100 miles an hour, upwards of 110 miles an hour. We have the EDR data that tells us at the time of 3.5 seconds before the crash when she's traveling at 94 miles an hour. She's accelerating at 87%. She's wanting to go faster. And then jerks the wheel at a 45-degree angle, which we know is extremely dangerous and reckless. And then after that, she jerks the wheel 30 degrees to the right, a total change of 75 degrees, causing the car to veer off the road and head towards the wood line. Where it impacts those trees at 70 miles an hour, causing catastrophic injuries to Daniel Waterman, injuries that he can't come back from and that ultimately killed him on October 8th of 2025. And that's why she's been charged with two counts in this case: Reckless driving causing serious bodily injury and vehicular homicide. And I want to take a few minutes to talk about what is it that the state has to prove with respect to both of those charges. And I expect the judge is going to give you instructions on these momentarily, but I want to kind of walk through them as well. So let's talk about the first one: Reckless driving causing serious bodily injury. This is what the state has to prove. Leah Mumby drove a vehicle in Florida with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. That's reckless driving. If you find Leah Mumby guilty of reckless driving, then you must determine whether the state's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused damage to the person, of another or serious bodily injury to another as a result of operating that vehicle recklessly. And it's going to define these things for you. Well, what is willful? Intentional knowing purposely. What's wanton? With a conscious and intentional indifference to consequences. And with knowledge that damage is likely to be done to persons or property. And obviously it defines serious bodily injury for you. There should be no question at all that this was serious bodily injury. Now count two is vehicular homicide. The state has to prove Leah Mumby operated a motor vehicle in a reckless manner. Likely to cause the death or great bodily harm of another. Her reckless operation of a motor vehicle caused the death of Daniel Waterman. But the state does not have to prove that she intended to harm or injure anyone. That is not an element. And we talked about this in jury selection. Hold me to my burden with respect to the elements but don't add to them. That is not an element in this case. So let's talk about lesser included offenses. I expect the judge is going to instruct you there are lesser included offenses to both of these charges with respect to reckless driving causing serious bodily injury. The lesser included offenses are reckless driving causing injury and reckless driving. I would assert to you there should be no doubt in your mind that this is serious bodily injury as well as death. I'm just going to tell you vehicular homicide, the lesser included offense again is reckless driving. Again there should be no doubt in your mind, we heard from Dr. Terzian, that this death was directly caused by this car crash. Now the judge is also going to instruct you that if you return a verdict for guilty, it should be for the highest offense you believe the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I would assert to you the state has proven both counts and I want to walk through how we've done that. So first we have, let's talk about the injury level. There should be no doubt in your mind that this is serious bodily injury. You heard testimony that Daniel had a broken neck. He was in a coma. He had to have surgery on his neck. You can see the hardware for yourself. And he was paralyzed. He couldn't breathe on his own. He had to have a ventilator. Couldn't eat on his own. Had to have a feeding tube. He had to have a catheter. All of these contraptions because he could not control his own body. He was paralyzed. And we know that that also ultimately led to his death. You heard from Dr. Terzian. He talked about mechanism of death versus cause of death. He explained the mechanism of death was the pneumonia. But the cause of death was the car crash. Why? Because the car crash, that blunt force trauma, hitting the vehicle at 70 miles an hour. That's Daniel Waterman's body hitting that dashboard 70 miles an hour. That's what caused his death, ladies and gentlemen, because it broke his neck, caused him to be paralyzed. And the doctor explained to you when someone has paralysis to this extent, they cannot get rid of their own bodily secretions. They can't cough like everyday people. So those fluids get stuck in his lungs and bacteria get in there and he gets pneumonia and dies. He fought for eight hard months, but ultimately, that crash on February 9th of 2025 killed him. But for that crash, Daniel Waterman would be alive today. He was a healthy 22-year-old man. So let's talk about how we've proven reckless driving. First, we have her state of mind at the time of the crash and you hear some of it here. [00:10:11] Speaker 3: My boyfriend and I were fighting. [00:10:32] Leah Mumby: That was what was going on. And we heard from Sarah Steppenbach regarding that issue as well. Remember, Sarah described for you after they had left, Leah Mumby called her. And when she called her, she was screaming. She was irate with Daniel, screaming about Daniel texting with another woman. He's cheating on me. And when Sarah tries to calm her down and doesn't react the way that Leah liked, what does Leah do? She abruptly hangs up. That was her demeanor when she was driving this car. She was extremely angry. And her demeanor is consistent with her driving pattern. We can see from the progressive, this is one minute before the crash. Here's the crash. So even two minutes before the crash, she's at upwards of 100 miles an hour. It never gets below 90 until we get to the crash time. She's at speeds upwards of 110 miles an hour. We also have the EDR data, which is consistent with the progressive data. Because if you look at this and the time leading up to the crash, we're at the 90 mile an hour mark. And sure enough, that's what the EDR tells us. Right? We heard from Chip O'Toole yesterday, the focal point of this EDR data when things start to go really bad is at this three and a half second mark. But even prior to that, 95, 94, 94 miles an hour. That's how fast she's driving. And mind you, 94 miles an hour wasn't fast enough. Because we have it at four seconds before the crash, she's starting to push on that accelerator. Wants to go faster. Consistent with what we saw in the progressive data. And sure enough, at the three and a half mark, we're at 87%. She's practically flooring the accelerator when she's already traveling at 94 miles an hour. Again, consistent with the progressive data. Now, you also heard from Mr. O'Toole, the accident reconstructionist, the expert, the engineer. He explained to us there was nothing wrong with the car. There were no environmental factors, which you could see for yourself. That body camera footage was so you could see the crime scene. You could see for yourself. There's no rain. There's no wind. It is a dry, clear night. There was no environmental factors whatsoever. All four of those tires, which you can see in the photographs, are fully inflated. So it's not like the tire blew and she lost control of the car. That didn't happen. This was all driver. She made choices that night that resulted in this crash. Now, you also heard from Mr. O'Toole, who explained to us how dangerous that 45-degree turn is at these speeds. Remember, he explained when you're traveling at upwards of 94, 95 miles an hour, that car is moving at 160 feet a second. It's incredibly fast. So tiny movements of the steering wheel, you're moving that car very quickly in that direction and very far in that direction because you're traveling so fast, and that was the issue here. Had she done that turn at 35, 45 miles an hour, it's still going to jerk a bit, but you can recover. You can't recover when you're doing 94 miles an hour, and a person in that situation would know that. You all get to take with you your common sense and your own driving experiences. Take that into account when you're considering the behavior here, and it would tell you that is extremely dangerous and extremely reckless because he explained to us if we're going to be doing turns at this speed, it's usually no more than about 5 degrees, 10 at the most. So let's take a look at what does that look like. That's 5 degrees at 94 miles an hour on a steering wheel. That's 45. That's a significant difference and catastrophic at that speed, which is why that car landed in the woods. This is what a car looks like when it hits trees at 70 miles an hour. There was no coming back from that. I would assert to you, the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that on February 9th of 2025, the defendant was absolutely enraged with Daniel, enraged. She had just found out that very morning she's pregnant with his child. And then she finds a text message later that night from another woman. She had previously told Sarah that morning, I am not going to put up with him cheating on me. Why? Because she's pregnant. Things have changed. And here she is that same night that she just found out she's pregnant. And she finds a text message from another woman. And she has lost it. She is furious with him. And we know that because of the phone call with Sarah Steppenbach. We know that because she even tells a paramedic that they were fighting. And we know that because her driving pattern is consistent with that. We have the progressive data. We have the EDR data. She's traveling at 94 miles an hour at three and a half seconds before that crash. She is punching on the accelerator at 87% and jerks the wheel to the left. She was making aggressive driving maneuvers because she was irate. In the heat of the moment, she's making poor decisions. But those were her decisions and her actions. It is clear that those actions then resulted in catastrophic injuries to Daniel Waterman. She handed him a death sentence that day. And that's why she's been charged with both counts. Reckless driving causing serious bodily injury and vehicular homicide. And that's why I'm asking you to find her guilty of both. Thank you. [00:16:24] Speaker 5: May I please the court? [00:16:25] Speaker ?: Yes, sir. [00:16:25] Speaker 5: Thank you, counsel. Members of the jury, good morning. We have a chance to speak again after our last time talking was yesterday morning. Obviously, you've had a chance to review and listen to the testimony and evidence. So I just kind of want to kind of recap it. Obviously, I understand and expect all of you to rely on your memories of the testimony and evidence that was presented to you. But as we recognized at the outset, this is a terrible accident with a tragic result. This case is not about a tragic result. This case is about a question of birth beginning. I want to talk to you about a little bit about those events of that day, because as the state recognized, Ms. Mumby started with having the best news a young woman can get. She's pregnant with her first child. Given that news, she and Ms. Stappenbeck, her best friend, and Mr. Waterman's cousin, who she's also very close to, go to the beach. Where Ms. Stappenbeck indicates that Ms. Mumby brings up, she doesn't know how it necessarily came up, but brings up that concerns regarding Mr. Waterman cheating. But again, this isn't physical cheating. This is a couple of text messages, according to Ms. Stappenbeck. Importantly, Ms. Stappenbeck's not alarmed. I know there's a statement regarding, I'm not going to let it, no alarm, no questioning, no, what do you mean? Nothing, just, I guess, girls talking. And there's no rise or irritation or even upsetness by Ms. Mumby. All indications are they stayed at the beach for a full six hours that day, continue the day just as planned, go home. Ms. Mumby makes some dip, doesn't confront Mr. Waterman about anything. Then they go to the party. And we learn from Ms. Stappenbeck that at the party, everything proceeds as normal. And that just before the game ends, Ms. Mumby and Mr. Waterman leave, believe that at that point she had no reason to believe that anything was wrong whatsoever. Everything was normal. Until it wasn't. We know the next thing that happens is Ms. Mumby calls her roommate, Michael Tolbert, who testified that when she does call him, the first things out of her mouth is, "Are you home? I don't want to be home alone with Daniel." Something changed. Right before that call hangs up, we know from Mr. Tolbert that Ms. Mumby says, "Daniel's grabbing at the phone. I've got to go." And the phone immediately hangs up. Something changed. We know then that she then calls Ms. Stappenbeck. And I know there was some discussion about whether there was one phone call or two phone calls. I ask you to recall that Ms. Stappenbeck indicated her phone records confirmed there was one phone call. Based on your knowledge and experience, phone records tend to be accurate. A human's memory can not be. But then Ms. Mumby calls Ms. Stappenbeck. After calling Mr. Tolbert to ask whether he's home, he's not. He's at a Super Bowl party of his own. She then calls Ms. Stappenbeck indicating that she's bringing Mr. Waterman back to the Stappenbeck residence. That she again does not want to be home alone with him. There is a concern about something going on in that vehicle. Something is happening. As the state advised, the judge is going to instruct you on the law. And a judge and judge alone will instruct you on the law. But the state accurately represented that in order to find Ms. Mumby guilty of both offenses, it's kind of under one umbrella that you have to find that she was operating her vehicle in a reckless manner. There's two aspects of that charge that I think are incredibly important in this case. One is that it either have been willful, meaning intentional, knowing, purposeful. Or it had to be in wanton disregard or wanton, a conscious and intentional indifference to consequences with the knowledge that damage is likely to be done to persons or property. So I understand there's no, you know, that the instructions do not require you to find that Ms. Mumby intended to harm Mr. Waterman or intended to harm herself or her unborn child. But it does require that it showed that she intended or at least had a purpose when that steering wheel was turned to the left-hand side. With these definitions in mind, you must decide again whether when she did that, Ms. Mumby chose to operate her vehicle in the manner described. But whether something happened that, but for some outside influence, but for that interruption in her driving, she would have continued straight down the highway just as she had done up to that point. And the reason we know that is because based on the progressive map, one of the things that the progressive map shows, and you'll have a chance to take this back with you in the jury room so you'll be able to see it for yourself, but it does show that she's, her path of travel. And Mr. O'Toole testified that he wasn't sure really how this works, whether it was GPS-based or that CAN-based. Obviously, Mr. O'Toole is super sharp, knows very well what he's talking about, but he did indicate that it was very good at determining path of travel. And so what this shows is where Ms. Mumby ultimately was going south, home, presumably called Mr. Tolbert, learns he's not home, and then actually makes the turn off the highway, gets off and turns back to go north. That's why all the testimony is that this crash happened as Ms. Mumby is driving north, back to the Stappenbeck residence. She had a plan. She was focused on executing that plan. She was bringing him back. She was not going to be in his presence, at least for that brief period of time, and then go from there. So we know that Ms. Mumby made those two phone calls en route. And despite the allegations and the indications from the progressive records regarding the speed, what we didn't hear was a single phone call from Mr. Waterman to his family about any concerns for his safety. Then, out of nowhere, we see that the accelerator is pressed and the steering wheel is inexplicably turned at least 45 degrees to the left. As you might recall, Mr. O'Toole testified that these are not symmetrical half-seconds where everything is happening on a perfect plane and thump, thump, thump, thump. It could be as little as a couple of tenths. It could be upwards of a full half-second. But nonetheless, so it was at least 45. It could have been 50. It could have been 60. And we don't know the speed at which that steering wheel was turned to that extent. And you'll have an opportunity, and I know the EDR report is 28 pages. It is a lot of things that are not going to make any sense whatsoever. But what does make sense, and is fairly easier to follow, is the table that we've been discussing throughout the trial in this case. And what it does show is that when, at three and a half seconds, when that input is made and that accelerator is pressed to 87%, the vehicle, in fact, does not gain in speed whatsoever. All indications are that this vehicle is still going straight at that time and up until that input, but it doesn't raise the speed whatsoever. So what is the reason for this? And it's simultaneous with that input. Something happened. But what you'll also be able to see from that table is that within a half second, that accelerator pedal was back to 25%. So this is not an indication that Ms. Whomby was intending to ramp it up and keep it that way. She let it off right away, because she didn't expect that to happen. And then, as the vehicle is careening off the road, Mr. O'Toole testified that as it gets closer to the minus two seconds, or two seconds before the crash, that the vehicle is actually starting to leave the roadway, which is where you see that the brakes are applied. Clearly, initially, that right-hand turn is, well, once the vehicle goes left, what's a person to do to try and stop it? You turn it right. When she does that, unfortunately, the dominoes had already been set. The proverbial wheels were already in motion. It was too late. Mr. O'Toole testified to that. We indicated that would be the case at opening statement. That's exactly what you heard. And then we learned that as it's leaving the roadway and commensurate with the brakes, the wheel is turned as aggressively to the left as it possibly could be to avoid the ultimate conclusion where it ended up in the woods. Members of the jury, in order to believe the state's version of events in this case, you would have to believe that Miss Mumby was on a suicide mission. There's absolutely zero evidence or reason to believe that she was in a place where she was going to put all of their lives, including hers and that of her unborn child, at risk of serious violence or harm or death. Her efforts to avoid the crash, as soon as that input gets made, illustrate that she never intended for that to happen in the first place. As discussed during opening, this is just about what makes sense. Members of the jury, it's obviously your job to review what has been presented to you and apply the law to the facts as the judge will instruct you. Simply stated, if you've heard something that gives you a reasonable doubt, your verdict is not guilty. And as far as reasonable doubt, we're not asking you to do any mental gymnastics or anything like that. It's common sense and logic. Just looking at human actions and that if somebody had a purpose to do something, they don't immediately try stopping it. Again, no indication that she would have been on a suicide mission that night. And again, your verdict is not a showing of support for Miss Mumby or Mr. Waterman or either family. It shouldn't be viewed that way. This is an evaluation of the facts and whether the state has carried their burden of proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Miss Mumby operated her vehicle in a reckless manner. A citizen accused of a crime can ask no more than their fellow peers than to judge her fairly. And we absolutely trust that that is exactly what you guys are going to do. Now, every day in life, I stood up here during voir dire and during opening statement as well and discussed that this trial was going to be one of the most important events in Miss Mumby's life. And now it's your decision to determine whether she is convicted of these crimes. Every day in life, we have big decisions to make, right? You can buy a house, you can get married. You can also change those decisions. You can sell your house, God forbid, get a divorce. But Miss Mumby will live with your decision for the rest of her life. [00:26:51] Speaker 3: Judging moment. [00:27:18] Speaker 5: Based on the evidence and the facts that have presented to you again, we're not asking you to do anything more than apply your common sense and logic to the facts of the case. Based on what you've heard. And even if you believe that there's a strong suspicion that Miss Mumby did what she's accused of doing, that's not enough. It's got to be beyond and due to the inclusion of every reasonable doubt. And because the state has failed to carry their burden in this case and because the facts according to the state's theory just simply don't make sense, that is why we truly believe that the only true and just verdict in this case is that I'm not guilty. Thank you. I'm going to have a podium again, Judge. [00:28:04] Leah Mumby: I'm going to use it in just a moment. I'm just going to touch on a few things that Mr. Hart was discussing with you. First, let's talk about Mr. Tolbert and his version of the phone call that he received. One of your roles as a juror is you get to judge the credibility of a witness. It's a big role. And I would assert to you that you certainly have some things to question with regard to Mr. Tolbert's credibility. He's indicated to you that he has never had a romantic relationship with Miss Mumby. He's a 50-something-year-old guy that met this woman online, told you he met her for companionship, that they became just friends, but also says, yes, I did spoil her. I would give her gifts. I would go take her out to dinner. I would help her with her bills. Even lets her move into his house two years prior to this crash. Charges her minimal rent, and if she doesn't pay the rent, it's okay. And then for the last 10 months has been letting her live completely for free in his house, but wants us to believe that there's nothing more going on than they're just friends. I would assert to you he's infatuated with that woman and would do anything for her. And I think you can take that into account when determining his credibility and whether or not you believe him. You also can take into account that he was at his own Super Bowl party, having his own beers. Now, he tried to tell us it was just a couple beers yesterday, but then in his prior statement, he did admit it was at least four to six beers. So he'd been drinking that night, too. And when he got home, fell asleep to the TV. He'd had four to six beers. So you can take that into account as well regarding his credibility and what may or may not have occurred in that phone call. Now, let's talk about the reckless driving. First, let's talk about Mr. Hart had mentioned in this moment. So we've got the snapshot on. Excuse me. Let me get it fixed. Thank you. Okay, there we are. So in looking at this table, which again you can take back and look at yourself, obviously we've talked about the focal point is this three and a half seconds. That's when the dominoes start. Defense counsel says, well, clearly she didn't intend anything because we have a reduction in the accelerator. I would assert to you the reason that accelerator is getting reduced is because at this point she's losing control of the car. It doesn't change the fact of what she did just prior. Now, he wants to assert to you that this would have had to have been a suicide mission, that in order for her to have intended this, she had to have been wanting to commit suicide. I assert to you, no, that is not what the state has to prove. And we talked about this, and again, you're going to get the instructions from the court here momentarily. But right there in the vehicular homicide, the state doesn't have to prove defendant intended to harm or injure anyone. That is not an element. I don't have to prove that. I have to prove that she was operating this vehicle in a reckless manner. Reckless manner means wanton disregard. Right here. Conscious and intentional indifference to the consequences. That's what we're dealing with. We've got a woman who's enraged and driving in a way that is extremely aggressive because she's extremely angry. Now, he says, well, she couldn't have possibly intended on driving in an aggressive manner because that would mean she was ready to kill herself. You have to ask yourself, though. We know from the progressive data that leading up to this, for two minutes, she's driving at extreme speeds, extremely aggressively. So that kind of goes against the argument that she's worried about herself, worried about her unborn baby. A woman with a child that's worried about this unborn baby isn't going to be driving at 110 miles an hour. That doesn't make any sense. But a woman who's extremely angry and upset with her boyfriend because he's been texting another woman and isn't behaving in a manner that is reasonable, that kind of does make sense. She's not thinking about her unborn child at that moment. She's just extremely angry and reacting that way in the heat of the moment. Now, the other thing, too, is he says, well, something had to have happened in that car. And I want to play this again. [00:33:13] Speaker 3: Do you know where you're at? Who's going to be calling folks? Okay, well, here's the end of 2025. You're being careful today. I know what I mean. They can tell you. I don't have to ask for you, don't you? I don't have to ask for you, don't you? I don't have to ask for you. [00:33:26] Speaker ?: I don't have to ask for you. [00:33:27] Speaker 3: I don't have to ask for you, don't you? [00:33:31] Leah Mumby: So, what do we glean from this? She's being asked questions by the paramedic to kind of understand, how is she doing? Is she alert? Is she conscious? She's being asked those questions of, do you know where you are? Yes, I'm in Palm Coast. Do you know what year it is? Yes, it's 2025. She even says, it's Super Bowl Sunday. She makes a statement, I know everything that's going on. They ask her about speed, and she says, I don't remember, but then says, I was fighting with my boyfriend. At no time does she say that something else happened in that car, because nothing else did. What happened in this car is that you have a woman who's extremely upset with her boyfriend. They're arguing, and she's driving erratically, because in the heat of the moment, she's extremely angry and can't get him out of her car fast enough. She's had it with him, and she's turning around to take him back, and she's driving erratically, because she's extremely angry. That's what we have, ladies and gentlemen. Not that something else happened in that car. No, you've got a woman who, for the last two minutes, is driving at speeds of upwards 110 miles an hour, because she wants Daniel out of her car. She has had it with him. She's not going to put up with the cheating, and she's getting him back to the stepping backs, and she's angry, and she's driving aggressively, because she's angry. Now, you get to use your common sense, as well as your own driving experience. And, again, all I have to prove is that she was driving recklessly. I don't have to prove she intended to hurt Daniel, that she intended to hurt herself, or that she intended to crash that car. I just have to prove that she was driving in a reckless manner. And any person sitting in a car doing 94 miles an hour would realize when you cut the wheel in that fashion, that's reckless. That's extremely dangerous, and there's no doubt that it's going to cause a problem, and it did. She immediately lost control of the car, because, again, she's driving erratically, because she's extremely angry with Daniel. That's what I have to prove. Not that she intended to hurt him, not that she intended to hurt herself, or not that she intended to crash that car. And, ladies and gentlemen, the evidence shows you that. The progressive data shows you that. The EDR data shows you that. Her statements show you that. And I'd ask that you find her guilty of both counts. Thank you. [00:35:57] Speaker ?: I have some instructions that I'm required to lead to you. Now, these instructions will go back with you. [00:36:03] Speaker 1: You're welcome to take those, but you don't have them back there later. And I just ask that you can take them. You're a little bit lengthy. I want to thank you for your attention during this trial. And please pay attention to the instructions that I'm about to give you. Leah Mumby, the defendant in this case, has been accused of two crimes. Reckless driving with serious bodily injury and vehicular homicide. To prove, and so I'm going to start with count one. To prove the crime of reckless driving, the state must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt. Leah Mumby drove a vehicle in Florida with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. If you find Leah Mumby guilty of reckless driving, you must also determine whether the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused damage to the person of another or serious bodily injury to another as a result of operating the vehicle recklessly. Willful means intentionally, knowingly and purposely. Wanton means with a conscious and intentional indifference to consequences and with knowledge that damage is likely to be done to persons or property. If a vehicle is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, serious bodily injury means an injury to another person which consists of a physical condition that creates a substantial risk of death, serious personal disfigurement, or a contractive loss and impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. In considering the evidence, you should consider the possibility that although the evidence may not commit to you that the defendant committed a main crime of which the defendant is accused, there may be evidence that the defendant committed other acts that would constitute a lesser included crime or crime. Therefore, if you decide that the main accusation has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you will then keep it aside that the defendant is guilty of any lesser included crime. The lesser declines indicated in the definition of reckless driving and serious bodily injury are reckless driving causing injury and reckless driving. The lesser declines indicated in the definition of reckless driving and reckless driving and reckless driving and reckless driving. The lesser declines indicated in the definition of reckless driving and reckless driving and reckless driving and reckless driving and reckless driving and reckless driving. The lesser declines indicated in the definition of reckless driving and reckless driving and reckless driving and reckless driving and reckless driving. The lesser declines indicated in the definition of reckless driving and reckless driving and reckless driving and reckless driving. The lesser declines indicated in the definition of reckless driving and reckless driving and reckless driving driving and reckless driving. The reckless operation of a motor vehicle caused the death of naval watermen. Great bodily harm means harm that is more than slight, trivial, minor, or moderate. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to harm or injure anyone. However, the reckless operation of a motor vehicle requires the state to prove more than a failure to use ordinary care. A reckless manner means in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons and property. Willful means intentional, knowing, and purposeful. Wanton means for the conscious and intentional indifference and consequences, and with the knowledge that damages likely be done to persons and property. The conduct of Daniel Waterman in the defense of this crime is only when that conduct was the sole cause of the accident that resulted in a death. In considering the evidence, you should consider the possibility that although the evidence may not convince you that the defendant committed the same crime of which she is abused, there may be evident that she committed an other act that would constitute a lesser included crime. Therefore, if you decide that the main accusation has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you will next lead to decide if the defendant is guilty of any lesser included crime. The lesser crime is indicated in the definition of vehicular crime in the rest of the strike. The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty in this means, you must presume, or believe the defendant is innocent, that presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation and the information through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. to overcome the defendant's presumption of and beyond a reasonable doubt, to overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the state has the burden of proving the crime of which the defendant is charged is committed, and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. The defendant is not required to prevent evidence or to prove many things. Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used, you must consider the following: Reasonable doubt is not proved beyond all doubt. A mere possible, speculative, imaginary, or forced doubt is not a reasonable doubt. Such a doubt is not a "yes" or mere conjecture. Rather, it is a doubt based upon reasoning and common sense after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence of the conflict in the case. Conflict in the evidence or lack of evidence. If after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. It is to be evidence introduced in this trial until it alone that you are to look for that proof. It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense to decide which is the best evidence and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable or less reliable than other evidence. You should consider how the witnesses acted as well as what they said. Some things that you should consider are: One, did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified? Does the witness seem to have an accurate memory? Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the lawyer's question? Did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided? Does the witness's testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case? And did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony that person gave before? Whether the witness has confirmed the truth does not depend upon the number of witnesses that is called or upon the number of exhibits that is offered, but instead upon the nature and quality of the evidence presented. The fact that a witness is employed in law enforcement does not mean that that person's testimony deserves more or less consideration than that of any other witness. Expert witnesses are like other witnesses with one exception. The law permits an expert witness to give his or her opinion. However, an expert's opinion is reliable only when given on a subject about which you believe that person will be an expert. Like other witnesses, you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony. It is entirely proper for lawyers to talk to witnesses about what testimony a witness would give if called in the courtroom. A witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony. lawyer about his or her testimony. You may rely upon your own conclusion about the credibility of any witness. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of a witness. The Constitution requires the state to prove its accusations against the defendant. It is not necessary for the defendant to improve anything, nor is the defendant required to prove for innocence. It is up to the state to prove the defendant's guilt by evidence. The defendant exercised the fundamental right by choosing not to be a witness in this case. You must not view this as a submission of guilt or be influenced in any way by that decision. No juror should ever be concerned that a defendant did or did not take the witness's hand to be a testimony and a case. A statement claimed to have been made by the defendant outside a court has been laid before you, and such a statement should always be considered as caution, ending way with great care to make certain it was freely and voluntarily made. Therefore, you must determine from the evidence that the defendant has alleged statements with knowingly, voluntarily to be made. And making that termination, you should consider the total circumstances, including but not limited to. Whether, whether when the defendant made the statement, the defendant had been threatened in order to make the statement, to get the person to make the statement, and two, whether anyone had promised the defendant anything in order to get the defendant to make that statement. If you conclude the defendant's out of court statement was not freely and voluntarily made, you should disregard it. There are some general rules that apply to your discussions, and you must follow these rules in order to return the lawful verdict. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions, and if you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice, and there is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter. This case must be striding only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and seen in the form of the exhibits and evidence in these instructions. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone or are angry at anyone. Remember, lawyers are not on trial, and your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case. Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not in accordance with the law. It is the judge's job to determine a proper sentence if the defendant is on the case. Whatever verdict you render, it must be unanimous. That means each juror must agree to the stating verdict. Your verdict should not be influenced by dealing with prejudice, bias, or sympathy. Your verdict must be based on the evidence and on the law contained in these instructions. Deciding a verdict is exclusively your job. I cannot participate in any way. Please disregard anything I may have said or done that made you think I prefer one verdict over another. You may find an defendant guilty of charge in the information or guilty of such lesser included crimes as the evidence may justify or not guilty. If you return a verdict of guilty, it should be for the highest offense which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you find that no offense has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then of course your verdict must be not guilty. The verdict must be unanimous. The verdict must be unanimous. That is, all of you must agree to the same verdict. Only one verdict may be returned as to each prime charge. The verdict must be in writing. And for your convenience, the necessary verdict form has been secured for you. And of course I can read that to you as well. So this is a verdict form. It goes back to you. It has a case style on it. And it starts off by saying, "We the jury find the defendant, Leah Mundy, as follows." And it starts off with count one. And on count one, we choose only one of these selections. And it starts, "Guilty of the charge of reckless driving with serious bodily injury," as charged in the information. Or, "Guilty of the charge of reckless driving with injury, a lesser included offense." Or, "Guilty of the charge of reckless driving, a lesser included offense." Or, "Not guilty," as charged in the information. Or, "Guilty of the charge of reckless driving, a lesser included offense." [00:48:38] Speaker ?: Or, "Not guilty," as charged in the information. [00:48:39] Speaker 1: Or, "Guilty of the charge of reckless driving, a lesser included offense." Or, "Not guilty," as charged in the information. Or, "Guilty of the charge of reckless driving, a lesser included offense." Or, "Not guilty," as charged in the information. Or, "Guilty of the charge of reckless driving, a lesser included offense." Or, "Not guilty," as charged in the information. Or, "Guilty of the charge of reckless driving, a lesser included offense." Or, "Not guilty," as charged in the information. Or, "Not guilty," as charged in the information. Or, "Not guilty." So say we all. And this will need to be dated and signed by your foreperson. And if it could please be filled out in ink. In just a few minutes, you will be taken to the jury room. The first thing you should do is choose a foreperson who will preside over your deliberation. The foreperson should see to it that your discussions are carried on in an organized way. And that everyone has a fair chance to be heard. It is also the foreperson's job to sign and date the verdict form when all of you agree on the verdict. And to bring the verdict form back to the courtroom when you return. And whoever the foreperson is, if they can just hold back and hand it to the bailiff. And the bailiff will then hand it to me. During deliberations, jurors must communicate about the case only with one another. And only when all jurors are present in the jury room. You are not to communicate with any person outside the jury about this case. Until you have reached a verdict, you must not talk about this case in person or through phone, writing, or electronic communication. Or any other means with any other people. Do not contact anyone to assist you during deliberations. These communication rules apply until you are discharged at the end of the case. If you become aware of any violation of these instructions or any other instruction I have given, you must let me know by telling the bailiff. Many of you have cell phones, laptops, smart watches. The rules do not allow you to bring your phones or any of those types of electronic devices into the jury room. Kindly leave those devices on your seats where they will be guarded by the bailiff while you do the break. If you need to communicate with me, send a note through the bailiff signed by the foreperson. If you have voted, do not disclose the actual vote in the note. If you have questions, I will talk with the lawyers before I answer. So it may take some time. You may continue your deliberations while you wait for my answer. And I will answer any questions if I can in writing or verbally here in court. During the trial, items will receive into evidence of exhibits. And you may examine whatever exhibits you think will help you in your deliberations. Some of these exhibits will be sent into the jury room with you when you begin to deliberate. And if you wish to see exhibits that were not sent to the jury room with you, please request that in writing. In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the laws spelled out and need instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to the case. Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. For two centuries, we have lived by the Constitution and the law. And no juror has the right to violate rules we all share. Jurors number one through six are going to be going to deliberate. Jurors seven and eight are not in trouble. You guys can stay back with me. You are our alternates. And this part I just had, and Mr. Hart, just a minor typo. So I'm going to go right to the bathroom. If I could ask the deputy to grab, what is it that you left behind? [00:52:39] Speaker ?: Your phone? We'll get to your phone. Okay, great. [00:52:53] Speaker 1: The jury has left the courtroom. Let me just show the attorney. Everyone may just do this. And I'll please chat with you guys if you're going to get to your phone. Yes, she is. So this whole time I want to chat with you for a minute. I want to thank you all. You paid very close attention during the trial. I can tell you there have been many times where we have to use our alternates. We never let our alternates know who they are until we're done because we want to make sure that you pay attention. I once had a death penalty sentencing and we actually had to use one of our alternates. Someone who had become very ill. So I want to thank you very, very much for your time. Now, at this point, once you get your phone, you guys are excused. Your jury service has been completed. We can't recall you for a full year. But now you're a member of the regular public. So you're welcome to stay if you like. Or we have your phone number. If you'd like, our clerk can call you when you're going to be subverted. So some people like to stay. Some people like to phone call so that you can just get back to the regular business. That's completely up to you. All right, thank you. Thank you. All right, we should have that phone for you briefly. [00:54:35] Speaker ?: Okay. I answered. You got it? Okay. Okay. Okay. I'll leave you with this. What else do you need? It's your first. [00:54:46] Speaker 3: Okay. [00:54:47] Speaker ?: First. [00:54:48] Speaker 3: What color is it? [00:54:50] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:55:20] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:55:50] Speaker 3: Thank you. [00:56:20] Leah Mumby: Thank you. [00:56:50] Speaker 3: Thank you. [00:57:20] Speaker 6: Thank you. [00:57:50] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:58:20] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:58:50] Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. [00:59:50] Leah Mumby: Thank you. Thank you. [01:00:50] Speaker 1: Thank you. [01:01:20] Speaker 3: Thank you. [01:01:50] Speaker 6: Thank you. [01:02:20] Speaker 1: Thank you. [01:02:50] Speaker 3: Thank you. [01:03:20] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:03:50] Speaker 3: Thank you. [01:04:20] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [01:06:20] Speaker 2: Thank you. [01:06:50] Speaker 5: Thank you. [01:07:20] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [01:22:20] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. [01:23:20] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [01:24:50] Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. [01:25:50] Speaker 3: Thank you. [01:26:20] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:09:20] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. [02:10:20] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:10:50] Speaker 2: Thank you. [02:11:20] Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:12:50] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:15:20] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:15:50] Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. [02:16:50] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:17:20] Speaker 3: Thank you. [02:17:50] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:19:20] Speaker 2: Thank you. [02:19:50] Speaker ?: Thank you.