About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of YOHN CLOSING ARGUMENTS 7-17 from Muddy River News, published October 21, 2026. The transcript contains 19,881 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"Good morning. The bailiff reports all jurors have reported and are ready to continue on with this case. Any issues we need to take up prior to jurors resuming their duties? Thank you, Judge. On Friday, the defendant indicated the plan was to call Ilsa Terrell. He may want to call his father and he..."
[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Good morning. The bailiff reports all jurors have reported and are ready to continue on with this case. Any issues we need to take up prior to jurors resuming their duties?
[00:00:15] Speaker 2: Thank you, Judge. On Friday, the defendant indicated the plan was to call Ilsa Terrell. He may want to call his father and he may want to call Karen Blackledge. His father and Karen Blackledge are both in the custody of the Adams County Jail, so we need a little time to have them available. I believe Ilsa is here and available to testify at 9. And if the defendant is going to call his father, we would ask to be heard on that outside the presence of the jury before the father takes a stand.
[00:00:48] Speaker 1: All right. So, Mr. Yan, any issues to raise at this point other than addressing what the state has raised? Your Honor, give me one moment.
[00:01:05] Speaker 3: Your Honor, in reference to calling persons out of the jail, I have attempted to confer with them to determine if I need to call them this weekend and, well, the prior weeks. All right. I've not been able to. I would be fine with taking it up outside the presence of the jury. But I just wanted to notify for the record, I've not been able to confer with persons. I was able to confer with Karen Blackledge briefly. Yeah, wow. Weird. Other than that, no, I have nothing else. I would, however, still place the objection on the record to the trial continuing for lack of preparation and the fact that I attempted to attain a lawyer and due to the mold in the courthouse.
[00:02:08] Speaker 1: All right. All right. Well, Mr. Yan, your objection to the trial continuing is noted of record. We've already addressed as to the mold in the courthouse. We've already addressed the motion concerning you were going to retain counsel. And the court has already ruled on those finding that such were not sufficient reasons to grant further delay of the trial. And so as far as Mr. Jones, you're wanting to be heard about, well, who would your first witness be, Mr. Yan? It would have been my father. All right. So your next intended witness is your father, Bradley Yan Sr., correct?
[00:02:46] Speaker 3: Yes. Or Ilsa Terrell. Either or.
[00:02:50] Speaker 1: Well, if you're going to be calling your father, Mr. Jones wanted to be heard outside of the jury rather than bringing them in and dismissing them back to their assembly room. Let's take that up now, please. All right. So Mr. Jones, regarding the defendant calling Bradley on Senior.
[00:03:04] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. We would ask the court to inquire the defendant as far as an offer of proof as to what this witness would possibly testify to before they are called. And I do that for two reasons. The defendant had originally claimed that his father was going to provide an alibi. He made that claim, believe, sometime in the middle of trial. And the court has ruled on that, that because the people are entitled to an affirmative notice of any possible alibi defense, and the defense has never raised that, that that would not be a permissible use of calling his father as a witness. Outside of that, I'm not aware of any possible relevant evidence that his father can provide. If the defendant would make an offer of proof of what that relevant evidence might be, perhaps we can shorten the trial. What I don't want to have happen is have him call his father, and then I have to start objecting to everything because there's no relevant evidence that his father can provide. Additionally, his father has not mentioned any police reports. We have no indication that he was at the scene of the crime, had anything to do with anything, or has any relevant information for today's case.
[00:04:19] Speaker 1: All right. So, Mr. Jan, what do you believe your father would be able to testify to that is relevant to the guilt or innocence phase of this trial?
[00:04:27] Speaker 3: Your Honor, obviously, jewelry issues that I did have. I somewhat cleared them up with the jury, I believe, as far as certain documents that have been presented to the jury through Deputy Miller. So, I mean, other than that, I'd—
[00:04:51] Speaker 1: Okay. So, what do you believe your father would be able to testify to about the jewelry issues?
[00:04:57] Speaker 3: Well, the jewelry I had and was wearing was mine, but I mean, I think I've cleared that up with the juries, and—
[00:05:09] Speaker 1: So, your father would be testifying that the watch, bracelet, and two necklaces were your jewelry?
[00:05:14] Speaker 3: Yes. Well, I mean, he could, Your Honor. I'm not sure. I've not had a chance to inquire with him to see what he remembers. He's in Older, Maine. You know, he's a—
[00:05:23] Speaker 1: And then, any other issues you think you would be testifying about?
[00:05:28] Speaker 3: Other than where I was at and how this all come to be, no.
[00:05:34] Speaker 1: All right. The where I was at would be an alibi. Have you disclosed an alibi defense in your discovery responses to the state?
[00:05:41] Speaker 3: Your Honor, I— I tried to provide this through John Citro. I've tried to provide this since I've not— You know, as you know, there's— There's a process to these matters that you have to go through in order to identify them, in order to bring them to the state's attention. I've not been entitled to do that here in this jail, or in this county. I've not been able to inquire with certain persons. I've not been able to bring that to the state's attention because, well, it's a process that you have to do. You have to be sure. As you know, you don't want to just call a person and not know what is going to be said because it can backfire. I've not been entitled to that. I've been locked away in a hole where I do not—where I'm not able to buy correspondence the entire time I've been here, subtracting a few days. Your Honor, I've not had the chance to, so. With that said, I guess I do not have any other reasons to call my father.
[00:06:46] Speaker 1: Mr. Jones, care to respond to that?
[00:06:48] Speaker 2: Judge, with regard to the second part of the defendant's comments about there being a process, there is absolutely a process, and the defendant is required to follow that. He filed a discovery response. He disclosed witnesses. He did not disclose, as he is required to do, an alibi defense. That is required because if he would disclose an alibi defense, the people are entitled to investigate that alibi defense. That's why it can't be raised in the middle of the trial. Both sides are entitled to a fair trial. So, he did not disclose that. The court has his discovery response that he has filed, and it is clearly not there. If he calls his father for the issue of the jewelry, that is relevant. I don't have any objection to that. But just on that issue, anything else beyond that would be inadmissible and irrelevant.
[00:07:50] Speaker 1: Mr. Yon, do you know what your father would be testifying in regard to where you were or what the alibi is?
[00:07:59] Speaker 3: Actually, I'm positive. I know what he would testify to, to the best of his recollection. Now, I don't know if he could provide dates or time, specific time. That's not something people normally keep track of all the time.
[00:08:22] Speaker 1: Well, so what I'm inclined to do, Mr. Yon, because you did not comply with the discovery requirements of disclosing an affirmative defense of an alibi prior to the start of trial, is to have you call your father outside the hearing of the jury to make a record as concerning what his alibi testimony would be. And if such pans out, at least the state would then have notice of what that alibi testimony is going to be, and we can readdress the issue. So, if he's not going to be helpful to you in an alibi defense, at least we'll know that outside the hearing of the jury. And then can further address the issue. So, if you need a chance to chat with Mr. Nelson as standby counsel, that's fine.
[00:09:34] Speaker ?: Yes, your honor. That would probably be the best solution. All right. Yes, your honor. That would probably be the best solution. All right. So, are you prepared to call your father? Yes, your honor. That would probably be the best solution. All right. So, are you prepared to call your father? Yes, your honor. That would probably be the best solution. All right. So, are you prepared to call your father again outside the hearing of the jury to at least make your record on what his testimony would be concerning your alibi? Yes, sir. All right. All right. We'll do so then. Can we get it? Yes, sir. All right. All right. We'll do so then.
[00:09:52] Speaker 1: Yes, your honor. That would probably be the best solution. All right. So are you prepared to call your father again outside the hearing of the jury to at least make your record on what his testimony would be concerning your alibi? Yes, sir. All right. We'll do so then. Can we get Bradley Yon Sr. brought in? We will, your honor. We'll have to have him brought over from you. Come on forward, sir, and raise your right hand to the best of your ability. The clerk's going to swear you in right over here.
[00:10:35] Speaker 4: If you do solemnly swear, the testimony you may give and the call for this court should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so I'll be done.
[00:10:44] Speaker 1: I'm going to sit over here to my right in the witness stand. All right, Mr. Yon, you have questions for Bradley Yon Sr.
[00:11:05] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. Your honor, I just wanted to question my father in regards to potential remembrance of my whereabouts and to see if he could narrow it down to a date by the best of his memory. You're Bradley Yon Sr. for the record, correct? Yes, sir. And do you remember around about the time your son, myself, was arrested about a year and a half ago?
[00:11:33] Speaker 5: Pretty close, yeah, but not sure on the month dates for sure. Not positive, but I'd probably get close.
[00:11:41] Speaker 3: Do you remember the day hearing that your son was arrested?
[00:11:50] Speaker 5: The day, so I'm not sure on the day. Do you remember hearing that? I remember hearing when he got arrested, but...
[00:11:57] Speaker 3: Would you remember approximately how long before that that it was you saw your son?
[00:12:09] Speaker 5: Maybe a week to two? I've seen you. I'm not good at dates at all. I'm really not. I understand that, Pop.
[00:12:22] Speaker 3: Your honor, I have no more.
[00:12:25] Speaker ?: All right.
[00:12:27] Speaker 3: Thank you, Pop. Good talk, buddy.
[00:12:29] Speaker 1: Mr. Jones, any cross?
[00:12:31] Speaker 6: No.
[00:12:34] Speaker 1: So, Mr. Yon, are you going to have further questions in the presence of the jury for this witness regarding the jewelry?
[00:12:42] Speaker 3: No, sir, your honor.
[00:12:43] Speaker 1: Okay, so we don't need him to call at all to testify in front of the jury? No.
[00:12:47] Speaker 3: No, thank you.
[00:12:48] Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, sir. We'll release you back to the sheriff. Watch your...
[00:12:55] Speaker ?: Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your...
[00:13:03] Speaker 1: Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your...
[00:13:06] Speaker ?: Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... Watch your... So, Bradley Yon, Sr.
[00:13:14] Speaker 1: So, Bradley Yon, Sr. is not going to be testifying in the presence of the jury. Is that correct, Bradley Yon?
[00:13:20] Speaker 3: Yes, sir.
[00:13:21] Speaker 1: All right. So, who would your next witness be?
[00:13:24] Speaker 3: Um... Ilsa Terrell. Terrell.
[00:13:27] Speaker 1: All right. And... Wasn't she your... Fifth witness?
[00:13:33] Speaker 3: Uh... Your Honor, I... I don't remember, to be honest with you.
[00:13:37] Speaker 1: So, why... Why are we recalling her at this time?
[00:13:41] Speaker 3: Um... To... Speak on a couple items... That were... Well... That were... That were... Well, that can be cleared up. Um... And a couple issues... To clear up... For the record.
[00:14:07] Speaker 2: Mr. Jones, here to be heard on the recalling of Isla Terrell. Your Honor, what items and what issues that Ms. Terrell testified previously, the defendant had her on the stand for a fairly significant period of time. If he had more questions, he should have asked them then. I understand these things sometimes occur, but I think it's incumbent upon the defendant to explain exactly what items and issues she's going to clear up, and why he was unable to address it the first time he put her on the stand. Okay. Your Honor, uh...
[00:14:43] Speaker 3: If I...
[00:14:44] Speaker 1: What items and issues do you expect... Your Honor, uh...
[00:14:47] Speaker 3: Clearing up? As you know, uh... A... A... A party in a trial, in adverse party, defense, state... Sometimes should have the advantage to question one by surprise. Uh... If I'm not going to be giving that, then I'll just continue on, um... Oh. To... To place... To place that fourth at this current moment would, well... Potentially give... The advantage of... Not surprised.
[00:15:22] Speaker 1: Was Ms. Terrell in the courtroom, sir?
[00:15:26] Speaker 3: Your Honor, uh... No. We'll proceed on further.
[00:15:30] Speaker 1: Well, is she in the courtroom?
[00:15:31] Speaker 3: No, she's not.
[00:15:32] Speaker 1: Okay. So, she wouldn't be hearing what issues you're going to be...
[00:15:35] Speaker 3: It's in reference to a watch, Your Honor. It's in reference to a watch. And, um... And... I guess that would be it. Uh... I was going to ask about clothing. Um... There are... Some... Vital clothing items that... Did not go into testing and did not go to the lab or not kept... Um... From a sex assault. When... People went to the hospital. Um... Clothing that could have filtered... Or could hold... DNA matter. Um... Um...
[00:16:31] Speaker ?: All right.
[00:16:32] Speaker 1: And so... Why didn't you ask Ms. Terrell these questions the first time you called her as a witness?
[00:16:38] Speaker 3: Your Honor, because... Well... In a year and a half... In this very complex... And... Extremis case... I've not had a chance to be prepared for everything, Your Honor. There's a lot... A lot more than anybody in this jail. Probably all of them combined in their cases. That I had to go through in this case. Um... And in the last... Year... Most of that's been in studying in law. And... Looking at case law from prior times. Um... I've bounced back and forth... Through... Discovery issues and case law. And tried to handle a bit of everything at the same time. But I've not been able to... Narrow down every detail... To come here to court. I actually, uh... Have been sabotaged two times, Your Honor. My discovery has been taken once. And I've been charged a felony... Criminal felony for it.
[00:17:43] Speaker 1: Mr. Yana, I want to get you back to... This trial from the start of it. When you first called Ms. Elsa Harrell. Why didn't you ask her about the watch and the clothing when you first had her on the stand?
[00:17:57] Speaker 3: Because my trial presentation and my cross-examinations have once been put together. But they were taken. And once we got to here, I was not prepared this time. So I did not remember to ask her, Your Honor.
[00:18:10] Speaker 2: Alright. So Mr. Jones, care to be heard? Judge, he did ask her about the watch. She described the watch. He didn't show her a photograph of it. But that's because he failed to do that. He also asked her about the clothing. And my memory is she said she didn't remember what clothing she wore. So if we're going to call her to ask the same questions he already asked on direct examination the last time, that's not a proper reason to recall her. He's covered these issues with her. He didn't like the answers. Now he wants to call her again to see if he can get a different answer.
[00:18:44] Speaker 3: No, Your Honor. That is wrong. I understand she does not know the clothing her mother wore. Well, she said that on the stand she does not know. But facts are, Your Honor, she has the jeans her mother wore. She has them. As stated in her statement, she still has the jeans mother wore. And they were soaked with blood. So, perjury, Your Honor, if that's the case, she does remember. She still has them at home.
[00:19:22] Speaker ?: Huh.
[00:19:22] Speaker 3: There's been a lot of lying in this case, Your Honor.
[00:19:32] Speaker 1: Let me review my notes of her testimony for a moment.
[00:19:39] Speaker 3: There's been a lot of I don't knows and can't remembers.
[00:19:44] Speaker 1: Why don't you reflect you went into questioning that witness regarding her mother's clothing. And she testified, I still have CL's pants from that night. And that CL was bleeding a lot. And that she did not know if she was bleeding through her clothing. So, you've already covered that topic with her. You've already asked her about CL wore a watch daily in gold with a black face. I didn't recall if there were any diamonds in it. Yes, sir. She was showing Defendants Exhibit 26, which she identified as CL's watch and bracelet. So, you've already covered those topics with this witness. But was she showing 39, Your Honor?
[00:20:52] Speaker 3: I don't know.
[00:20:53] Speaker 1: I have that you showed her Defendants Exhibit number I just gave. So, you've already covered these topics with her. So, I'm going to uphold the objection to state. I haven't heard a reason why you should be allowed to recall this witness, having already gone over those topics with her. So, who would your next witness be?
[00:21:18] Speaker 3: Your Honor, I guess I'd rest.
[00:21:21] Speaker 1: Do you intend to testify? Excuse me? Do you intend to testify?
[00:21:25] Speaker 3: If the state shall want to ask me a question, I have nothing to hide, Your Honor.
[00:21:30] Speaker 1: The state can't call you as a witness, sir. It's on your choice. If you wish to testify, you would have to be presenting yourself and then they would be cross-examining you. Give me one moment.
[00:22:08] Speaker 3: Your Honor, if we could, can we take a brief 10 minute, 10 to 15 minute recess, very briefly, so I can speak to Mr. Nelson.
[00:22:28] Speaker 1: All right. Now, before we do that, you had also indicated on Friday that you intended to call Ms. Blackledge, if you changed your mind on that.
[00:22:37] Speaker 3: That's a lost cause, Your Honor.
[00:22:40] Speaker 1: Okay. Well, I didn't want to get her lined up to be brought in if you're not calling her. If you were going to call her, we would get her set up during this recess. No.
[00:22:48] Speaker 3: Okay.
[00:22:49] Speaker 1: So, you're not calling Ms. Blackledge? Okay. Let's take a 15 minute recess till 20 till 10, and then we'll resume to give Mr. Yon a chance to visit with Mr. Nelson. Please jump. Please rise. That report is now written to you, Ronald. Roger B. Thompson just resided. Please proceed.
[00:23:10] Speaker ?: Okay.
[00:23:11] Speaker 1: We'll go back on the record in people versus Bradley Yon, 21 CF-715.
[00:23:13] Speaker ?: Mr. Jones and Mrs. Kent appearing for the people, Bradley Yon appearing in person pro se, but with standby counsel Mr. Nelson.
[00:23:20] Speaker 1: Mr. Yon, we had taken a break for you to consult with standby counsel as to whether you wish to testify or not. As I discussed with you, you have the right to remain silent. Part of that is that the state cannot call you as a witness to testify.
[00:23:33] Speaker ?: If you choose to testify, that is solely your choice.
[00:23:33] Speaker 1: But again, the state cannot force you or compel you to testify. Because you do have that right to testify. Because you do have that right to remain silent. Mr. Yon, we had taken a break for you to consult with standby counsel as to whether you wish to testify or not. As I discussed with you, you have the right to remain silent. Part of that is that the state cannot call you as a witness to testify. If you choose to testify, that is solely your choice. But again, the state cannot force you or compel you to testify because you do have that right to remain silent. So, have you had a chance to consult with standby counsel, Mr. Nelson, on that issue? Yes, sir. And have you decided whether you wish to testify or not? Yes. And do you wish to testify? No. All right. So, do you have any further evidence you wish to present on your side of the case?
[00:24:26] Speaker 3: I would wish to present some, but I'm not going to be able to, Your Honor, because I wasn't prepared. So, I don't, I'm not going to be able to, by law.
[00:24:43] Speaker 1: So, defendant rests and the case moves back to the state side. Is the state going to present any rebuttal testimony?
[00:24:51] Speaker 2: No, Your Honor.
[00:24:52] Speaker 1: All right. I'm advised on Friday to be prepared to present closing arguments as soon as the last witness was done testifying. You may want to briefly revisit the jury instructions. Now that both sides have rested the presentation of evidence, do you have your jury instructions handy? We do, Your Honor. We do, Your Honor. Mr. Young, do you have your jury instructions handy so if we can revisit those quickly? Your Honor, give me one over there. Here's the right one.
[00:25:35] Speaker 3: Where? Yes, sir, I do.
[00:25:37] Speaker ?: All right.
[00:25:37] Speaker 3: The state was, I'm sorry, Mr. Young had previously asked to add 3.10 as the state prepared that and if we could provide a copy for Mr. Young as well as the court.
[00:25:49] Speaker 1: Your Honor, we did prepare it although I don't know that it's come up now at this point I can give a copy to the court.
[00:26:06] Speaker 6: All right. Mr. Young.
[00:26:08] Speaker 1: And that instruction would be inserted, Mr. Young, before instruction 3.11 and after instruction 3.06-3.07. Again, let's briefly go through those, we had already addressed the 1.01. Any modifications necessary on that from the state's position? No, Your Honor. Mr. Young, from your position? No, sir. We'll give it as presented. Already went over with 1.01A, preliminary cautionary instructions were given prior to commencement of trial and open statements. Okay. 1.01B, implicit bias, was going to be given. So we'll be using 1.02, the version that does not include the second paragraph, which starts, "You should judge the testimony of the defendant because defendant has not testified." 1.03, 1.05, I gave 1.09A, civil extended media coverage prior to commencement of trial. There is a 1.09B, which we will give regarding that issue that you give at the end of trial. 2.01, we'll be given unchanged, 2.02, given without change, 2.03, given without change, 2.04. 2.04, given without change, 3.02, given without change, 3.06-3.07 discusses you have before you that the defendant made statements relating. Mr. Jones or Mrs. Keck, are you aware of any evidence that contained defendant's statements?
[00:28:58] Speaker 6: The only statements that we were referring to, which is why we prepared this with instruction, were the statements that he had made, allegedly, to the victim.
[00:29:07] Speaker 1: All right. So that will be sufficient evidence for that instruction to be given. 3.10 will be given on defense request. 3.11 will be given as previously discussed. 3.12 will be given.
[00:29:30] Speaker 6: Your Honor, I believe at this time 3.12 should be withdrawn. We would withdraw that. All right.
[00:29:36] Speaker 1: Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones, states moving to withdrawal instruction 3.12, impeachment of a witness by prior conviction, as I don't recall any evidence or impeachment by a witness by use of their prior conviction. 3.12. Do you recall any evidence that was impeached by their prior criminal convictions?
[00:29:59] Speaker 3: No, Your Honor.
[00:30:01] Speaker 1: All right. So we'll withdraw that. Will not be given. 3.13. We would also withdraw that, Your Honor. Would be withdrawn as Mr. Young has not testified. 3.17. Do we have any testimony of an accomplice? No, Your Honor. No, Your Honor. We would withdraw that at this time as well. So that can be withdrawn. 5.03 will be given as previously discussed. 5.06 given as previously discussed. 11.53 and 5.04 given as previously discussed. 11.53 and 5.04 given as previously discussed. 8.01, 8.04, 8.05 a. regarding that. Charge will be given as previously discussed. 14.23, 2.4 will be given. 11.55, 11.65e, 11.57 and 11.58 to be given as previously discussed. 14.13. 14.14 will be given as previously discussed. 14.13. 14.14 will be given as previously discussed. And then as the state made the corrections on the concluding, 26.01. Yes, Your Honor. And now it says aggravated vehicular hijacking.
[00:32:06] Speaker 6: All right.
[00:32:07] Speaker ?: And have you got a set for the court? I can prepare that in a clean copy, Judge.
[00:32:07] Speaker 6: I can also give the court with the instruction numbers on it if the court wants. I can print that.
[00:32:21] Speaker 1: All right. And then will you have those available also for the court to give to the jury? I will, Your Honor. Yes.
[00:32:27] Speaker ?: All right.
[00:32:28] Speaker 1: And then we have the guilty, not guilty forms. Again with the vehicular invasion modified to the vehicular hijack. Have those corrections been made?
[00:32:42] Speaker 6: They have, they say now I'm not guilty of aggravated vehicular hijacking and guilty of aggravated vehicular hijacking on this. All right.
[00:32:49] Speaker 1: So I'll double check that those are all made. Any further instructions the state is asking the court to give to the jury? No, Your Honor. Mr. Yon, any further instructions you're asking the court to give to the jury other than as we previously reviewed? No, Your Honor. All right. Is the state going to be prepared to give a closing argument as soon as we get the jury in for the day? Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Yon, are you going to be prepared to give your closing arguments as soon as we get the jury in for the day? Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Yon, are you going to be prepared to give your closing arguments as soon as we get the jury in for the day?
[00:33:19] Speaker 3: Yes, sir.
[00:33:20] Speaker 1: All right.
[00:33:21] Speaker 6: Your Honor, I will print a complete set with all the changes, both with the numbers and without anything for both the court and the defendant. All right.
[00:33:37] Speaker 1: So are you ready for the jurors to return? Do you want the jury instructions in hand before we start closing, Your Honor?
[00:33:48] Speaker 2: It shouldn't take but five minutes to get those printed out, Your Honor.
[00:33:55] Speaker 3: During that five minutes, Your Honor, may I quickly use the restroom? Yes.
[00:34:00] Speaker 1: Let's do that. We'll turn until 11 o'clock to take 10 minutes. 10 o'clock, Your Honor. I'm sorry, 10 o'clock, yes. All right. So we'll go back on the record in 21 CF 715. Mr. Jones and Mrs. Keck are present. Mr. Yon, the defendant, is present pro se, and Mr. Nelson remains present as standby counsel. When we last broke, we were going to have closing arguments. So is the state ready for the jury to come in and hear closing argument?
[00:34:31] Speaker 2: We are, Your Honor. So the court's aware we are not asking that any of the exhibits go back to the jury at this point. If they ask to see anything, we can address that. But I don't think at this point it would be appropriate to send anything back to them. All right.
[00:34:45] Speaker 1: So, Mr. Yon, you prepared to have the jury come back and hear closing arguments? Yes, sir. All right. Have the bailiff bring the jury in, please. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense has rested and is not presenting any further evidence. The state likewise has rested their case and will not be presenting any further or rebuttal evidence. And so we are ready for closing argument. You have heard all the evidence in this case, but the trial has not ended. At this time, each side will have the opportunity to make a final argument. First the state will argue, then the defense will argue, then the state will have a chance to respond to the defense argument. The state has the opportunity to give the first argument and the last, not because of favoritism, but because they have the burden of proof, which as I have previously stated, is the burden to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What the parties say during the closing argument is not evidence and should not be considered by you as evidence. If a party makes a statement that is not based on the evidence or reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence, you should disregard the statement. You are to rely upon your own recollection of the evidence. After you have heard the arguments, I'll instruct you on the law and then you will retire to the jury room to consider your verdicts. Mr. Jones, Mrs. Keck, are you prepared to argue? We are, Your Honor. All right.
[00:36:30] Speaker 2: If you would do so. Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. At 77 years old, Tina Loma had raised four children. She was a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a great grandmother. She ran a successful business with her husband. But what was really important to her was her family. And in November of 2021, she was looking forward to Thanksgiving. She was looking forward to Christmas. And you know, she was one of those grandmothers that just drives me nuts. That starts listening to Christmas music before we even get to Thanksgiving. And puts up the Christmas lights before we even had a chance to digest the turkey. That's just who she was. But Tina didn't know that her last Thanksgiving on this earth was going to be spent bruised and battered. Emotionally and physically scarred. Too scared to even go back to her own home. Because at 5:30 p.m. on November 9th, 2021, when she pulled over to the side of a dark, lonely country road, looking for help, instead of a kindly stranger, that man showed up instead.
[00:37:57] Speaker 3: Objection, Your Honor. Grounds. Mr. Jones does not know that I'm that man.
[00:38:05] Speaker 1: All right, objections overruled. This is argument, Mr. Young.
[00:38:09] Speaker 2: And her worst nightmares showed up in the shape of that defendant. Over the past five days, you've heard the testimony. You've seen the evidence and learned what happened to Tina over the next 60 minutes of her life. You've heard from her husband and from deputies about what she told them. You've seen the injuries that that man inflected on her body from Dr. Kagoomba and Jacqueline Oglesby. And you've heard from her daughters about the pain and trauma that she was dealing with for the last 33 days of her life. What the defendant did to Tina Lohman on November 9th, 2021 was random. It was violent. It was horrific. It was a nightmare. It was something that no 77 year old grandmother should ever have to experience. What he did to her on that day was sick. It was twisted. It was perverted. What he did to her on that day was a crime. And we have names for these crimes. We call them aggravated kidnapping. We call them home invasion. We call them aggravated vehicular hijacking. We call them aggravated criminal sexual assault. And we call them residential burglar. And I know you have been here all of the last week and you're here today on a Monday morning. And I know you're tired, but I want you to understand what you have to do, what you have to find when you go back in that jury room to hold that man accountable for what he did. For what he did to Tina on that lonely, dark road. For what he did to Tina in her very own home. For what he did to Tina that she had to relive every day for the rest of her life. The judge is going to tell you that to prove home invasion, we have to prove five things. And again, there's a lot of information here. I apologize. We have to go through it though. The first proposition we have to talk about is we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And you have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not a peace officer acting in the line of duty. He wasn't. We all know that. That's an easy one. That one's been proven. The second proposition. The defendant knowingly and without authority entered into the dwelling place of another. We saw the photos of the door. We saw what he did to the door. We heard what he did to the door. How he kicked in that door. We saw the shoe prints. We saw the damage that he did to the door. We saw his footprint inside the residence. The shoe print that exactly matched the shoes he was wearing when he was arrested just a day later. We saw his DNA on the safe handle. There are 50 people in this room. We could multiply that by four and we would still expect to only find one person with that same DNA. Shoe prints. Shoe prints. DNA. His DNA on her bloody dependence. On Tina's bloody dependence. We could multiply the number of people in this room by six and find still only one person with that same DNA. And his fingerprint on the can next to Tina's blood. Did he enter the residence? Has that been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course it has. Did he know or have reason to know that one or more persons was present? He chased her in. Of course he knew that one or more persons was present. That's been proven. That the defendant or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible was armed with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm. You may be thinking to yourselves. Well we know that he had an accomplice. And maybe the accomplice had the knife and he wasn't holding the knife. But the fact is legally it doesn't matter. Legally, if his accomplice held the knife, he is just as responsible as if it was in his own hands. And what did Tina say? They threatened me with a knife. They told me they were going to kill me. Legally, if he aids, if he abets, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid another person in the planning or commission of the offense, you're just as responsible. In other words, in for a penny, in for a pound. It doesn't matter who held the knife. They're both responsible. And we saw that knife. And Tina told us about that knife. She told her husband. She told the deputy. She told Jacqueline Oglesman. And you heard that evidence. That's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The fifth proposition that while armed with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm, that knife, the defendant or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible, used force upon CL, a person within the dwelling. Even though somebody once told me a picture is worth a thousand words. That picture shows you exactly what was done to Tina Loman in her own home. She was bleeding from her lower body after that person shoved his penis inside her again and again and again. He left her bloody. He left her bruised. You saw those photos of the inside of her vagina and what he did to her. Did he use force on her? You're damn right he did. Did he use force on her?
[00:44:52] Speaker ?: Did he use force on her?
[00:44:59] Speaker 2: He sprayed carpet cleaner into her mouth and all over her body. Find him guilty of this count of home infection. Each of those elements has been proven. When you go back in the jury room after you find him guilty of this count and you sign that guilty form, then you'll come to this form. And again, four propositions, but three of them we've already covered. He's not a police officer acting in the line of duty. He wasn't acting with authority. He went into the dwelling place of another. He remained in the dwelling place. And then the fourth proposition that we have to talk about is did he commit the offense of criminal sexual assault on Christianity. The judge will tell you that the definition of criminal sexual assault is just this. When he commits an act of sexual penetration upon the victim by the use of force or the threat of force. We know what he did. Find him guilty of that count of home invasion and sign that verdict form. Then you'll come to the account, the count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Again, there are three propositions, but guess what? The great thing for you guys is we've already covered every one of them. Did he commit an act of sexual penetration about CL? Yes, he did. And we saw the photos and we heard the testimony and we saw the results. The act was committed by the use of force or the threat of force and that CL, Christina, did not consent to the actual sexual penetration. We've heard that evidence. It's been covered. I'm not going to show you the photos again.
[00:47:08] Speaker ?: You know.
[00:47:09] Speaker 2: And did the defendant or one for whose conduct he's legally responsible display or threaten to use a dangerous weapon other than a firearm? The knife. They threatened to kill me. They held a knife to me. They held him guilty of that count and signed that verdict form. And then move on to the next crime that the defendant committed on November 9th, 2021. Through Christina Lomond. Aggravated vehicular hijacking. Because he took a car from her. Took a motor vehicle from the person or immediate presence of CL. This car.
[00:47:51] Speaker ?: This car.
[00:47:51] Speaker 2: This car where we found not one, not two, not three, but four fingerprints and palm prints. All matching. The defendant. The car that we saw him driving in Hannibal, Missouri. The car that belongs to the keys that were found in the purse that he was wearing when he was arrested in Springfield. And the purse that he had around his shoulder when he was on that video in Hannibal, Missouri. Did he do so by the use of force or threatening the imminent use of force? Again, we've already covered that. We've talked about it in home invasion. Did he use force? Absolutely he did. And finally, the third proposition was Christina over 60 years of age. And we've heard that testimony as well. She was 77 years old when this happened. And 33 days later, she died. After you find them guilty of that count, move on to the next verdict form. Residential burglary. Again, the great thing is we've covered most of these propositions before. Did the defendant normally enter the dwelling place of another? Did the defendant do so without authority? We've covered both of them. Those have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The question then becomes, did he do so with the intent to commit a theft therein? He stole her purse. The purse that she was wearing, he was wearing it less than two hours after he did those heinous things to Tina. And inside that purse that he was wearing were the keys to the car for jewelry, a check made payable to Tina, and her voter ID card. Did he commit a theft? He absolutely did. He was wearing her watch! He had her rosary in his pocket!
[00:50:06] Speaker 3: Objection, your honor.
[00:50:08] Speaker 2: Grounds?
[00:50:10] Speaker 3: We have already cleared that they have been sent home. They were not my watches. I mean, they were not Tina's jewelry.
[00:50:16] Speaker 2: Overruled. And then, move on to the last count. The last charge he's crying with, aggravated kidnapping. Four propositions. Did the defendant act knowingly? He absolutely acted knowingly. By the use of force, or the threat of force, did he take C.L., Christina, from one place to another? Doesn't matter how far it is. He took her from the side of the road to her house so he could rob her there. He absolutely did that. It doesn't matter how far it is. And did he intend to secretly confine her? He absolutely did, because he didn't want anybody to know what he was going to do to her. And what did he do after he took her against her will? He committed that offense of criminal sexual assault. And then he sprayed her with carpet cleaner. And then, he ran away. On November 9th, 2021, the defendant stole a car from Tina Loma. He robbed her of her jewelry. He violently, sexually assaulted her in that car. Then he kidnapped her and took her to her very own home because he wanted more. He wanted more money.
[00:51:50] Speaker ?: He wanted more jewelry.
[00:51:52] Speaker 2: He wanted more of what he did to her in that car. And when Tina was able to briefly get away, that man chased her down, kicked in the door, and came after her again. He robbed her again in her very own home. He battered her again in her very own home. And he violently raped her again in her very own home. And not content to leave her bruised and battered, bleeding and torn. This man took his can of carpet cleaner and sprayed it into her mouth and onto her body and onto her vagina. Because he wanted to get away with it. Maybe he thought this 77-year-old woman wouldn't have the courage to admit what happened to her. Maybe he thought she wouldn't be strong enough to tell people how that man carjacked her and robbed her and assaulted her again and again and again. Maybe he thought she would be afraid. You know, I don't know what that man was thinking. But what I do know is that he did not know Tina. Because Tina was strong. His daughter said Tina was a survivor. Because despite the fear and despite the pain, Tina did what she needed to do. She told her husband what happened. She told Joe Lohmeyer what happened. She told Ruth Bowden what happened. And despite the blood and despite the shame, Tina did what she needed to do. And she showed Jacqueline Oglesby and Dr. Ada Kagoomba the results of what that man did to her. Tina was strong. And the defendant wasn't counting on that. He wasn't counting on that when he committed this absolutely random act of horrible and heinous violence against a 77-year-old great-grandmother. He wasn't counting on the work of the dedicated investigators of the Adams County Sheriff's Office. And he wasn't counting on the work of the Illinois State Police Crime Lab and Brandy Field, the crime scene investigator. And you know what else he wasn't counting on? He wasn't counting on you. He wasn't counting on the citizens of our county. Because if he had been, he would have known he wasn't going to get away with it. He wasn't going to get away with doing what he did to Tina Loman. He would have known that in our county, when you do what he did, we don't turn a blind eye to those things. He would have known that in our county, when you do what he did, we call them crimes. And he would have known that in our county, when defendants commit crimes in Adams County, Adams County holds defendants accountable. He would have known to find that man guilty of what he did.
[00:55:48] Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Jones, Mr. Yon, care to make any closing arguments?
[00:55:52] Speaker 3: Yes, I do, most definitely, Your Honor. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, today we're here on some sick, sick heinous matters. Matters that, if I were that person, I wouldn't care if I was a prosecutor or not. I wouldn't sit here and call the defendant a man. I'd call him a piece of shit. Excuse my terminology, Your Honor. But I'd call him a piece of shit. Because that's what he would have been. Mr. Jones has put on a great presentation today. Very great. Just like Ms. Keck did on Monday, last week. She put on a great presentation. Very abnormal, not her normal voice. Not her normal voice at all. She'd come forward with a presentation that seemed so unnatural. Just to try to persuade you people. Just to try to persuade you. You see the woman right here on the screen? That's from a video. Does it appear if she's hurt, battered, beat? Persuasion. You can persuade anybody to do anything with words. You can persuade them with actions. You can persuade them with evidence. Sometimes, evidence isn't evidence. In the beginning and during opening statement, I spoke on a limited amount of issues. Things, if you may. One of them was persuasion. Mr. Jones, he's good. He's got words. Being persuaded. People often in life persuade others, as I said with words, actions, evidence. They also persuade people with lies, deceit, vindictiveness, falseness. They try to place theories together and put stories together and embed them in the minds of jurors such as yourself or people out here in the community. You see Mr. Jones here, repeatedly, repeatedly stated, raped, beat, battered, hijacked, to try to embed that in your mind. Violating this family here. What family wants to remember that? What family wants to remember that if it's really true? What family wants to have that embedded in their minds? I spoke on being logical in the opening argument. I spoke on how being logical is logical.
[00:58:39] Speaker ?: Correct reasoning.
[00:58:41] Speaker 3: Cause and effect. I promise not to attempt to persuade you, to manipulate you. I'm still not going to. But one thing I'm going to tell you before I go any further is I'm not a creep. A person who does them things are creeps. They're sick. What I think they deserve is one of them pistols right there on the man's hips to be taken and having their heads blowing off. And that's just being point blank honest. I've never been a creep. Never will I be a creep. Persuasion. Persuasion. The state has presented a case to you formed out of mostly false accusations. Accusations not produced by them. Accusations produced by a declarant. You didn't get to hear that. You heard it from the grapevine. Mr. Jones heard it from someone who heard it from another. And them others heard it from someone. I want to speak to you on some things that we've heard and saw in the last few days. As I've already stated you heard Miss Keck. She put a heck of a presentation together. Husband Schmidt. You heard from a man who was led to believe from his wife. That certain things happened to him. Her. Excuse me. That certain things happen to her. You heard how their home was robbed. Their car was stolen. His wife was raped. Brutally beat. Brutally beat. And thrown downstairs. You heard Mr. Schmidt say he left after 5:00 p.m. After 5:00 p.m. In the states direct examination. You heard him state after 5:00 p.m. Approximately 5 to 10 minutes. Upon cross-examination. And recalling Mr. Schmidt. It changed to a little bit before 5:00. Right around 5:00. It takes approximately 5 to 8 minutes. To get. To farm and home. 30-40 minutes there. They put you at. 5:00 p.m.
[01:01:01] Speaker ?: 5:00 p.m.
[01:01:02] Speaker 3: 5:00 p.m.
[01:01:03] Speaker ?: 5:00 p.m.
[01:01:03] Speaker 3: 5:00 p.m.
[01:01:04] Speaker ?: 15:00 p.m.
[01:01:04] Speaker 3: 15:00 p.m.
[01:01:05] Speaker ?: 20 minutes home.
[01:01:06] Speaker 3: All the way out to North Bottom Road. 4300 Bottom Road. Put you after the time of 9:00 p.m. 1 call. And that's a fact. You didn't see that though. You heard Mr. Schmidt. State that he was in his garage. And he made this call by himself. By himself. At the opening of his garage. Is exactly what you heard. You heard that from Mr. Schmidt. But did you not hear the facts though? There was another person on that phone call. It wasn't by himself. It wasn't by himself at all. You heard him speak on entering the home. Approaching his wife. Talking to his wife. Going and retrieving the firearm. Bringing it back to his wife. And then going out. And making that phone call. Puts us even further after 6:09 p.m. You saw. The. Certificate or. Police notes of 9-1-1 calls. CFS report they call it.
[01:02:29] Speaker ?: Mr. Schmidt was specifically asked. Did anyone else make that call with him.
[01:02:32] Speaker 3: He said no. By himself out in the garage. Where was CL. Until. Deputies.
[01:02:37] Speaker ?: Went in that home and helped her up. Off the floor.
[01:02:39] Speaker 3: At a later time. She was in the home.
[01:02:41] Speaker ?: That's where she was. Anybody can put a theory together. A story.
[01:02:41] Speaker 3: I could.
[01:02:42] Speaker ?: Although I don't like telling stories.
[01:02:43] Speaker 3: I don't like telling falsities. I don't like telling falsities.
[01:02:45] Speaker ?: You did.
[01:02:46] Speaker 3: Cure. Cure. I don't like telling stories. I don't like telling falsities. at a later time. She was in the home. That's where she was. Anybody can put a theory together, a story. I could, although I don't like telling stories. I don't like telling falsities. You did hear that a lot of persons were in Mr. Schmidt's home this night, a lot. We're talking upwards of seven and nine individuals in a home, in a crime scene, a very violent crime scene, an extremely violent crime scene. Deputies didn't secure that. You later on heard deputies talk of a crime scene in Springfield, scene of arrest where there was a major coincidence, major coincidence. You expect to be looking for two people for a heinous crime and you find a murder, 43 feet. Didn't hear that. 43 feet from defendant on my best friend's property. My best friend and elderly man, 60 plus years old. 43 feet. Major coincidence. Didn't have nothing to do with myself, the defendant, at all. You would expect right there. Wanted for this heinous crime. Them individuals. Nothing. But what you also heard is they secured the scene. They secured the whole block over a murder. This crime to me is worse than a murder. Way worse by any means. Way worse than a murder. They didn't secure those crimes, you know. There was a bunch of them. Some of them right here in the audience. Just walking freely through the scene. There were some right over here just walking freely through the scene. Looking for clothes. You heard of blood producing, not just what you've seen by oblique lighting or special effects or flashes. You didn't see the original pictures. You didn't see the original pictures. You heard of bleeding, blood producing claims, bone breaking claims. And I apologize for getting intense with y'all. This is my life on the line for bone breaking and blood producing, abrasion producing claims. Throwing down stairs. Exhibit number 77 was on the screen for quite some time, a little while ago. That was a 77 year old woman. 77 years old. 77 years old to be battered and brutally, heinously beat and raped. Not just once claimed to be raped, but several different times. You heard about that woman CL being lifted off the floor to a couch. You saw blood by special effects on the floor. But was there any blood on that light gray suede couch? There was none. None at all. Not a bit. Was there any on that chair? Not a bit. That was an incontinence issue. And I apologize for talking about the woman's personal issues, but that was an incontinence issue. You heard Mr. Schmidt state that he relayed that the mail had taken off CL's top. You did not hear that from CL. You had the opportunity to though. All of you did. I object. Why? Because they didn't want you to hear that. They didn't want you to hear the discrepancies. The complete contradictions. Damn near everything that's been placed forth. I apologize. Excuse me again for my language. Hip replacements. Throwing downstairs. You can take your inference from that. You heard Ms. Oglesby state that an elderly female presented with sexual assault claims. The CL had tears of a centimeter value. Three of them tears. The CL was grabbed and held down. Penetrated in the anus by penis, finger, and object. Penis, finger, and object. What object was it? Because there's a knife and there's an aerosol can which is bigger than the diameter of that cup. But you saw what a penis and fingers did to a vagina. Patient declined. That was her notes. Patient declined. These are all things from CL. a whole floor, a whole floor, a whole floor she was throwing down. Brutally throwing down floor from one level to another. It appeared to be brutally throwing down a set of stairs, tumbled down a set of stairs in exhibit 77. No. Why? Because they were lies. That's exactly what they were. Husband Schmidt, excuse me, I apologize. You heard Nurse Ogilby's documentation. You saw it, I'd hope. Three bruises. Three bruises. After being physically beat. Descriptions that a doctor after her you did not hear contradicted. You heard how this assault was at 5:28 p.m. And the admittance to the hospital was at 19:43. 5:28 or 5:30 as Mr. Jones says. To 7:43 p.m. The admittance time. The exam time started at 10. Approximately 10. 9:40 p.m. You heard that from Nurse Ogilby. Four and a half hours later. Pictures. Saw pictures. Ask for the file info. Computers. They have forensic documentation. File info.
[01:09:58] Speaker 2: Judge at this point, I'm going to object. There was no evidence of this and there's no evidence of tampering.
[01:10:04] Speaker 1: Sustaining.
[01:10:08] Speaker 3: Admittance times do not lie. Unless you can be persuaded. Unless you have connections. Or 7:43. Time for admittance to blessing. You heard both daughters state that they arrived to the scene after Deputy Lohmeyer. Where's Deputy Lohmeyer? Deputy Lohmeyer's not here today. He arrived at 6:36 p.m. They arrived after Deputy Lohmeyer. And was outside. You heard them both say for over an hour. And minutes time was 7:43 p.m. I don't have to lie to you.
[01:10:47] Speaker ?: I don't have to lie to you.
[01:10:47] Speaker 3: I don't have to feed you a story. That was the time. You heard it. Your soul was beat. They waited outside for over an hour. And then the daughters. Proceeded into the scene. For a while.
[01:10:59] Speaker ?: For a while.
[01:11:02] Speaker 3: Then daughters back there. And then took CL to the hospital. Arrive after 6:36. Wait outside an hour. At 7:36. Proceed into the scene for a while. Connections. How did she get to the hospital at 7:43 p.m.? They were sure about them times. They were sure about waiting for over an hour. One even said an hour and a half. When you have money, you have connections.
[01:11:31] Speaker 2: Judge, I'm going to object again. There's no evidence of that. And frankly, his fanciful tales are getting a little tall.
[01:11:38] Speaker 1: I'll sustain and there was no evidence presented to support that argument. Mr. John, if you would continue with your argument, please.
[01:11:45] Speaker 3: They say there was no evidence. 7:43 is on the documentation. All the times are on the documentation. The daughters presented evidence right here on the stand. They were sure about it. They weren't sure how long they were in the scene. But they were sure about being outside for over an hour. From 4300 Bottom Road. All the way to that hospital. And you've been at the scene for over an hour after 6:36. I'll just leave it there. You heard via Nurse Oglesby the fact that CL, a 77-year-old woman, was still having consensual sex. That was on the documentation form too. Let Mr. Jones object to it. It was on that form. Nurse Oglesby read it off. Via the vagina. And in the last three days, outside of assault. 77 years old. We all know it's common knowledge. Once you pass a certain stage in age in life, you don't secrete lubricants naturally. Where did the marks come from with that consensual sex in the last three days? You heard what CL was supposed to have related to that nurse, but you did not see the statement. You did not hear it from the person who spoke these claims originally. Next, you saw a gas station attendant appear on the stand. A gas station attendant. And attest to a gas station video at 8:03 PM and later. You heard him say that he saw a plastic bag. Who told him to say that? Because he clearly stated after cross-examination that he wasn't sure. Just a bag. Who told him to state that a bag that was not in defendant's possession at the time? Bag of jewelry. Mr. Joseph stated he didn't exit that gas station. See the emblems on that car. I won't concede that. I won't deny the car. How did I get in it? You didn't get to hear that. You heard him say that the defendant appeared normal. Does the man who just did these things appear in his hometown where he's very well known? And just seemed normal. Just going into a gas station. Just gambling. Does that happen? No. That's not common. That's not common. Not with me. That's not common. People don't just do that. I don't do drugs. I don't get high. I don't lose stability. Sergeant Lohmeyer stated in response to a car hijacking. He went to the scene. 18 years on the force. And I apologize. I'm going to take a little while. Because this is my life. Sergeant Lohmeyer stated 18 years on the force. The details. I can't remember. I don't recall. Could not remember who arrived on the scene. Could not remember. He was the second. But could not remember who arrived on the scene after him. Guess who arrived on the scene after him. The top guy in the whole department at that time. Sheriff Rich Wagner. Who didn't make a report. Who did not make any kind of report. How do you not remember. Your top superior in the whole Adams County. Right. He was dragging. She appeared on the floor. He said it. He stated. He saw her on the floor. Couldn't remember a description of clothing. 18 years on the force. Nobody could remember clothing. Nobody at all. I'm not giving you a theory. Like Mr. Jones did. I'm giving you facts. Of what was presented right there on that stand. To take my life. No shorts. Pants. Not whether it was a dress. Nobody knew what it was. Nobody out of 10 people. Nine people. Eight. Maybe at the minimum. Knew what she was wearing. She could not get up off the floor until deputies helped her up. Let me address another issue. Out of all these deputies. And daughters. And family members. Did you ever hear one. Say I helped her up. Ever. No you did not. Nobody knew. That's odd right. Nobody knew. Who helped CL up off the floor. Why? Probably because she wasn't on the floor. At all. Listen to the 911 call. Sergeant Lohmeyer was in contact with and talked to CL most. He stated that. Everything Sergeant Lohmeyer stated. To come from. And excuse me for my analogy. But the horse's mouth. The person who spoke this. Unsure about things he should know. Completely sure about things that were factually different. If you would have heard them from that mouth. Yes. Keith Kinney. Keith Kinney stated that on the scene of arrest. He cut the strap on the purse as defendant was laying on the ground. He also testified to the rosary being found in defendant's pocket. But it was intact. Look back in your notes. If you took them. It was intact. That rosary on the screen you've seen in the last week. It was broken. Minor detail. But still. It adds to the whole bunch of. Ridiculousness. Nothing about a pill bottle did he state. Nothing. Nothing about a pill bottle. Adams County placed that to next to that purse. To associate it with another crime.
[01:18:24] Speaker 2: Objection. Your honor. There is absolutely no evidence of that. And he's making stuff up. I am.
[01:18:31] Speaker 1: Sustained.
[01:18:32] Speaker 3: I am. Well. I questioned three different officers of the law. As to the specifics of that chair and that purse. Not one of them said anything about a pill bottle. That pill bottle is associated with another criminal act.
[01:18:49] Speaker 2: Objection your honor. There's no evidence of that.
[01:18:52] Speaker 1: Sustained. Make your arguments based upon evidence presented during the trial Mr. Young.
[01:19:04] Speaker 3: CSI Field. Where's she at? She's a very intriguing woman. Investigator. I loved how she pulled out that laser. It almost placed a smile on my face. Probably one of the most honest people here today. However she stated. That she only entered one footprint.
[01:19:29] Speaker 2: Objection your honor. That's not what she testified to.
[01:19:33] Speaker 3: Into evidence. I won't rule the objection it is argument. Into evidence. That was a Reebok footprint. But then she cleared everybody else. Family. Because she got footprint pictures from the hospital. Where Deputy Bowden later went. She cleared everybody else though. Because well. They wear boots. They wear boots. Standard. Items that look different. Than the natural shoe. She's also testified to a Nike. Imprint. Over a Reebok imprint. She looked for fingerprints. With her oblique lighting. And high technology instruments. Finding none. In the whole scene. She found none. Not one. You may ask yourselves. Why. Out of all them tests. That scientists put forth. There was not a single footprint. For Karen Blackledge. Not a single fingerprint. And Karen Blackledge. Was to have touched everything. With fingers. No DNA for Karen Blackledge. I'm not going to bat for her. I'm stating that it's odd. You never. Never heard once. Everything was excluded. Nor did she find any DNA. When she swabbed. But for one place. A safe. A safe. Handle. With two contributors. Assumed contributor. Contributor. CL. Other contributor. Alleged to be myself. That's what the reports say. Evidence as they say. The man who always. Touches this safe. Is sitting here in the audience. Always. He stated by many. Be the only one. To touch this safe. That the kids normally don't touch it. Because it's covered by. A partition. Or a wall. Of some kind. The only man who ever touches this. And it's built into a wall. As you saw. In a basement. What's the likeliness that he. Disinfects. Cleans. Wipes it. Every time he touches it. Guess what you also heard. His DNA wasn't there at all. Not at all. That's odd right. Very odd. You heard it. Mysteriously not there. What's the answer to that one? An objection. Ms. Field. As I stated. She was a unique. Intelligent. Crafty individual. I loved it. When she pulled that laser light out. Commend you Ms. Field. Investigator Shoney. Here. Testified. He was called. For. To 4300 Bottom Road. The same details. That everyone else. Could attest to. Home invasion. Criminal sexual assault. Kidnapping. Titles. He couldn't. Attest to clothing. That the. Declarant was wearing. He took. He couldn't. Declest. Excuse me. Attest to the order. That other deputies come in. And nobody know anything about deputies. And their orders. Or. Anything of such. She knew about titles. What investigator Shoney could do. He could tell you the exact. Denomination value. And the amounts of bills. In a bag. In a purse. Not a bag. Excuse me. A purse. Found at the scene of arrest. He ran down. The nomination values. In the exact count. On that stand. But couldn't tell you. But couldn't tell you details. The things that should matter. In law enforcement. What investigator Shoney. Did was. A search and seizure of evidence. At 1906 Cornell. At 1906 Cornell. He couldn't attest to. A scene. That he was at. At 6.58 p.m. On 11.9. And 21. I don't. I don't remembers. I don't calls. They were in abundance. And you yourselves heard this stuff. On the stand. I don't remembers. And I don't recalls. Investigator Miller. She arrived at 7.18 p.m. Then later stated that. She observed Timothy Schmidt. In the garage. Calling credit card companies. Disabling cards. It's not the information I received. It was objected to. Were your. Were yourselves. Showing the lineup. That investigator Miller. Attested to. That she organized. No. You weren't. I attempted to enter that. Another objection. That lineup showing. No positive identification. Judge. And laughs and giggles.
[01:25:31] Speaker 2: Judge. I object. He's talking about things. There's no evidence of. His closing argument. Is supposed to be talking about. The evidence that was introduced. Not his fanciful. Theories. And conspiracy theories.
[01:25:43] Speaker 3: Conspiracies.
[01:25:44] Speaker 1: I'll sustain the objection. There was no evidence. Of. Your honor. Your honor. Your honor. Uh.
[01:25:51] Speaker 3: Miss Miller. Attested to. But okay. Forensic scientist. A footwear expert. Given one shoe brand. As stated a while ago. She wasn't given that Nike brand. Or that impression. No one else in the scene. Wore Nike shoes. That were known. Were of knowledge of. None. Not even the person. Who admitted to being there. Who's already been sentenced. To 40 years. Who's Nike shoes were those. The CSI field found. You might ask yourselves. Why a big guy like myself. Would take. Two to four times. I'm at a loss. Two to four times. Or whatever it was. I believe it may have been. Three or four. To kick. A composite wooden door in. Not me. Not me. I build homes. I know what real doors are. Real wooden doors. I know what composite. Wooden doors are. That door. Wasn't taken. Three or four times. Me. Who wore them shoes.
[01:27:31] Speaker ?: No. I don't know what's going on. I don't know what's going on.
[01:27:33] Speaker 3: I don't know what's going on.
[01:27:34] Speaker ?: I don't know what's going on.
[01:27:34] Speaker 3: I don't know what's going on.
[01:27:35] Speaker ?: I don't know what's going on.
[01:27:35] Speaker 3: I don't know what's going on.
[01:27:36] Speaker ?: I don't know what's going on. I don't know what's going on. I don't know what's going on.
[01:27:36] Speaker 3: I don't know what's going on. I don't know what's going on.
[01:27:38] Speaker ?: I don't know.
[01:27:38] Speaker 3: I don't know what's going on. I don't know what's going on. I don't know what's going on. I don't know what's going on. I don't know what's going on. I don't know what's going on.
[01:27:48] Speaker ?: I don't know what's going on.
[01:27:49] Speaker 3: I don't know what's going on. I don't know what's going on. And that was a fact I asked her to read them off. Dexter McIll, honey. Excluded myself. She spoke of how they passed their tests with 100% surety. How tests can cannot be false. She spoke of the different methods used to test. 100% sure, no doubt about it, right? She said that until I cross-examined her. Then she got up her own stand. And when I asked her about a test done by a scientist, she stated his findings, which were excluded. You also heard Mason Jewski test to the fact that the contributor count went from one contributor on the inner pad. Well, that depends in Dexter McIll, honey's testing. One contributor means that would be one person. CL. Two. Two contributors and her report number four. 100% sure, right? Again, you heard her testify to the fact, or I should probably say the opinion, that in item 1H2, a swab from the outer waistband of that depends. Went from one contributor in Dexter McIll, honey's testing, 100% sure test, to five contributors and her testing. Five contributors. I'll stand here while somebody tells me how that's possible in 100% sure testing. Five contributors. Five? On a depends diaper, a personal diaper? Depends? How did it go from one to five with 100% sure testing? Review your notes. I hope you took them because that's the fact that Mr. Jones objected at one. Quite odd. I want to point out one thing to you ladies and gentlemen of the jury. One thing of very high importance that should seem very logical to all. She also stated for and on the record that she did not test the actual depends. She tested the sample of Dexter McIll, honey. Yes, she did. She did. She surely did. That can of 409 spray alleged to be held by defendant. To have sprayed some elderly woman in her privates and on her body. I'm sickened by those claims. I'm sickened by it. Defendant was to have held this can and sprayed her, but there was no DNA on that can. On a ridge button. I've got the pictures. You've seen it. No DNA on that can. You heard Mason Jewski. No DNA for defendant. Number of contributors, two. I want to talk about the knife. This is a big one. This is a very, very big one. This knife with a cloth handle and a cloth handle slash string. Shoestring. It looked to be. You've seen it in person. Your honor, may we present the exhibit of the knife, please? Just so the deputies can see it.
[01:31:50] Speaker 1: Mr. Young, you can present it. I don't.
[01:31:52] Speaker 3: Deputy, would you present the exhibit to them? It's the one standing up right there in the box. Would you please just show it to them jurors? And this is a very important issue jurors, patient people. Would you please show the knife? The knife itself, Mr. Hummer.
[01:32:21] Speaker 6: I can't unseal it. Can I unseal it?
[01:32:25] Speaker 3: Can you please unseal it? Just show them the knife. It was unsealed once already.
[01:32:28] Speaker 2: Mr. Jones? Judge, there are photos of it. He doesn't have gloves on. I'm not going to let him unseal it without gloves on. There's a photo of it. Can we just use the photo?
[01:32:40] Speaker 3: You saw him pull it. Go ahead, Mr. Hummer. You're fine. Thank you. You saw Mr. Jones present the knife right here in the middle of the floor. It had a cloth string around it. No DNA for myself or alleged co-defendant. Alleged co-defendant who was supposed to have held the knife. Two contributors both being determined to be included. CL and her husband. They were included. If you leave it, Sergeant Lohmeyer, he states the declarant told him the male gained the knife and utilized it against CL. If you leave it to Sergeant Lohmeyer, he states the declarant, CL, told him the male gained the knife and utilized it against CL. Everybody else states Karen Blackledge. Then you have Deputy Ruth Bowden. And please, please patient people, pay attention. You have Deputy Ruth Bowden first on scene. The only deputy who actually walked through the whole scene and observed things with Mr. Timothy Schmidt right here. When I asked her what kind of knife it appeared to be, she said, "Just a regular knife." I said, "So, a kitchen utensil?" What did she say? I'm sure you remember this. She said, "Yes." I said, "Just a regular kitchen utensil." Yes. That right there is a railroad spike with a cloth string handle around it. A kitchen utensil, though, from the only deputy who walked through the whole home. That's major. Let's call for reasonable doubt. Then you have the stain on the floor where CL was to be seated. Item 4A, stain from kitchen floor living room. Number of contributors was one. Where a woman was supposed to have been raped several times and then sat directly down on that floor. You saw the chair, saw the floor, red blood stain. One contributor. Name me one person. One male or female who has sexual penetration is getting off on something of that nature and doesn't secrete sperm that many times. or after that many times. One contributor to that stain. Analyst Macy Jewski answered what touch DNA is. It's the genetic information recovered from epithelial cells, skin cells, left behind when a person makes contact with an object. Easily left behind. To be grabbed and pulled around one's home by arm is likely to leave a bruise or a mark. You didn't see any bruise or mark on an arm described in them diagrams. That medical forensic documentation form. You didn't hear one attested to. Nor did you hear of any DNA where she was supposed to have been grabbed and led around that home. Not mine at least. All you heard was Mr. Timothy Schmidt's DNA on that sleeve of that left or that navy blouse. I pointed them out with Analyst Macy Jewski for the record. They were facts. Facts. Real facts. You didn't hear a very important fact. I waited for the state to place forth.
[01:36:50] Speaker 2: Judge, I'm going to object. If the jury didn't hear it, it's not evidence and he can't talk about it in closing argument.
[01:36:57] Speaker 1: Overrule the objections and they argue, Mr. Young.
[01:37:01] Speaker 3: Judge overruled it. You know why? Because I think he knows what I'm getting at. You did not hear the fact that there was no DNA in or on that woman. None. After being penetrated, I believe five times. No DNA in or on that woman, period. But what you also did not hear is no male DNA, period. And that's in the documentation too. I didn't disclose that or question that because I wanted persons to be honest. I can't stand on honesty. No male DNA, period. Except for husband Timothy Schmidt up under the fingernails. Ask yourself after numerous penetrations by a male organ why there was no male DNA. And I know some of you have frowned against me since you've been here. Some of you probably still frown against me. But let's be logical. Let's be extremely logical. No male DNA, period. No secretion of sperm. Fingerprint analyst Brian Long. You heard that there's no DNA on that can, so we make up for it with a print. One singular fingerprint on a cylindrical object. I asked Mr. Brian Long. Did he observe for streaks or smears such as fingerprints sliding? He said no, he didn't observe or analyze for that. On a cylindrical object? Our defense didn't receive certain information to analyze it himself. Objection, Your Honor. I apologize. You weren't in here for that. I apologize. Thank you. Sorry, Your Honor. Dr. Addicom Goomba. She testified a week that a week later she saw the declarant at QMG. Quincy Medical Group. Here in town. A week later. And agreed to questions that you could tell she knew were coming. Why? Because it's preplanned. She attested to, or excuse me, she stated to herself right on the record. As a doctor, you always believe the patient. Always believe the patient. It saddens me because I know of people who have succumbed to pill habits and almost killed themselves over a doctor just believing them. Them or her words. You always believe the patient. A week later, she could see marks or evidence of a sexual assault. A week later, you saw the markings. Three bruises. Dr. Addicom Goomba didn't testify to the fact that the lower left knee was pigmentation. Something that's been on that woman's body for years. I have it. I wasn't able to present it. them are our words and this is my life I ask you is that logical to always believe the patient most times yes but not always officer McMahon you heard Jake McMahon state that there were numerous drawers and cabinets open and a knife left right in the middle of the floor you also heard him state that he did not go into that home he did not cross that threshold that knife if the end of that table there is the doorway and that table is about the length of that partition wall and there's an alcove here and a knife is sit back here by a sink how does mr. McMahon see these numerous drawers open and this knife sit back here in this alcove on the floor but never went into the home you heard him state that you heard him state there was numerous drawers open cabinets you saw the pictures did you not you saw the pictures one drawer no cabinets open it's quite odd right it's be logical mr. McMahon didn't know what to say to that right here on the stand i asked him what spoliation of a crime scene was spoliation is like contamination tampering altering moving things around that's what that is either the scene was spoliated contaminated which we already know is contaminated many people walking through it or else the cabbage cabinets and drawers just weren't open state presented that right there themselves the state did the ones trying to persuade you of these heinous and sick crimes by myself somebody who's never been associated with anything like this before mr. McMahon cannot see through walls just like you and i can't just like nobody here can he cannot see through that wall in that picture and if that doesn't make you a believer of false information i don't know what does as i said that knife was far and recessed into a recessed alcove that knife that was to have touched dna on it on a string handle mr. smith's knife which he could not remember if it was a rubber handle or a cloth handle mr. smith was on the stand stating well i don't know if that's a rubber handle or a cloth handle touch dna just by touching an item something karen blackledge was supposed to have carried around and threatened a woman with i'm perspiring right now why because it's my life on the line if i'm committing a crime i'm perspiring there's dna right there nobody's but mr. smith's and cl's and it's been tested you heard mr. McMahon state that he went to springfield to the scene of arrest where there just happened to be a homicide feat for myself in place of apprehension one of the biggest coincidences you will see in a lifetime a drug related gang related homicide it was taped off as i stated earlier it was very so taped off in my calling of miss miller deputy miller she states that she arrived at 718 as we've already confirmed you heard me ask about the procedure and whether officers or citizens are to help an individual identifier give clues to a subject in a photo lineup she said not normally entirely against the law to do that to point people out in reference to my jewelry my rosary my watch a complete different watch then one cl wore investigator miller gave all of us here the answer of i just processed these items as springfield gave them springfield didn't give her them items springfield didn't give her anything that i had on me why because cl cleared them items yes she did she cleared them items herself objection when i asked her to read off that paper objection that was miss miller's report how do you think she'd come to that conclusion she obviously had to talk to the person that rosary thank you sister mary it wasn't seals but it was used against me just as all that other jewelry was let me tell you something about that jewelry excluding the rosary let me tell you something about that jewelry that was on myself and in pictures that mr timothy schmidt attested to as being his wives you asked the state to present them jewelry items to you right now they never will but they acted as if they did right here in this room promise you they can't go down to the evidence room and ever retrieve them items they presented false information to you i just sit there and let it ride because well i had to prove to show you that i'd already released them exhibit 57 jewelry on myself just as this young man here is wearing a necklace i was wearing two of them a watch and a bracelet an eleven thousand dollar classic austin watch a man's watch they've been released they're not hearing evidence
[01:48:12] Speaker ?: they're not hearing evidence
[01:48:12] Speaker 3: as mr jones stated states use exhibits and items that were never in my possession exhibit number 12 exhibit number 12 which is also exhibit number 15 gold watch brooch and star pack star trek pin and watch one in the same physical versus picture they weren't found in my possession but mr jones here stated they were you heard you jurors heard deputy miller when asked about relaying to several individuals a claim of penetration by a can a full standard size aerosol can ladies we know that's not possible outside pregnancy men we also know it not why would she present them claims because i'm telling you something if you saw the truth for what it was from the person spoke these original claims you would see that that wasn't one of her claims why was deputy investigator miller going around saying these things to everybody standing out here outside the courtroom at times about a year ago stating these things to other persons family members who said man that just doesn't seem logical and contacted me people i don't even know you never once heard a deputy say they relayed that to her never once you may ask yourselves why a deputy a professional would present that type of information why because brad leon's the bad guy brad leon's so ruthless he's he's a sexual pervert a deviant a home invader a hijacker a kidnapper no no no not at all not at all not at all at this point we don't even have knowledge that there was three one centimeter tears we have what has been attested to but look at the things that have been attested to penetrated with a can of that size male or female we're not walking after that that's a violent act a can it's approximately 10 to 11 inches long about that big bigger than the diameter of this cup we're not walking after that we're not sitting in a photo lineup laughing and smiling about how people look with big ears ice burns i want to address every issue and i apologize again but ice burns do we wait forever to put them out we have a 911 call alleged to be made at 609 by one person do we wait when they give that information of a plate number or 627 when officers get there and we've had time to figure it out and give them that do we wait all the way until approximately 8 o'clock to put in is burnout which is the same thing as a bolo be on the lookout stop them people stop them people from committing crimes stop them people from doing these heinous things stop them and apprehend them we don't care about the information of who it was but in Adams County these officers right here they waited for a car that was easily identifiable a 2018 Toyota Avalon stating ABS on the license plate they waited for information information that's like saying hey let this child molester go out on bond and commit more crimes and wait to convict him so he can do it more times you didn't get to see that evidence either I tried to draw it out that evidence was in video form video form ladies and gentlemen of the jury you're human beings I'm a human being logical I'm having trouble understanding some of these things how people lie so much in this occurrence how people place forth I don't knows I don't remembers how persons only know kidnapped raped hijacked titles but they don't know details when questioned on that stand details that persons should never ever in their life forget deputies or family members nobody knew details approximately when we left for the hospital didn't know but you knew how long you waited outside over an hour hour and a half well that puts us past the time the documents on the admittance say on the documents on the forensic documents say admittance time puts us well over that how I'm having a hard hard time understanding how a 911 call was made by a husband in a garage and stated to only be him how it was made on 11-9-21 how CL was to have bled so much to be seated on a quilt her husband Schmidt how she was seated on a quilt but that quilt where's it at it wasn't taken into evidence you saw the pictures would you like for me to attempt to pull the picture back up that quilt in color form had no color red on it it was not taken into evidence and testing take into consideration yourselves just think of that scene in that home they only showed right there in the living room area what criminal violates somebody with these objects and leaves them right there right there right there next to where a woman was brutally raped I don't even know a dumb criminal that would do that right there it just looks like a setup who am I to determine anything though I wasn't there I wasn't wearing them shoes why the pants that could have been filtered with DNA that CO was wearing to the hospital you heard daughter Ilsa there's a tarot back there she still has them at home think of that and then think of the fact there was no DNA the fact there was no DNA in or on this lady having a truck I'm having trouble understanding how seven plus persons were in a scene to have free reign how deputies assisted seal off that floor but no one ever said yeah I did when I questioned them not a one of them violently throwing down them stairs at 77 years old somebody did that to my granny she's a tough old gal but she would probably be hurt with broke bones lacerations contusions bleeding she may be dead that's a standard nine foot drop if you're going straight down but to tumble downstairs be thrown downstairs ask yourselves what that would do to you I'm a tough youngster 36 years old that would harm me that would harm me a lot to be violently thrown downstairs I'll touch base on a few more things and I want to let you go because I don't like entertaining these type of things you heard from several persons well I may I may be wrong I've heard from several persons because I've seen it all you've heard from a few how the female was the worst does anybody remember that the female was the worst of the two the female was the worst of the two everything you're hearing from me is facts that has been presented except for a couple inferences I have made but they're facts they derive from facts anything I state here today derives from facts of a discovery put together not factual happenings you heard that the female was the worst of the two find that hard to believe find that very hard to believe I would expect myself if Joe was to rape Sally brutally beat her and throw her down the stairs and Joe had an accomplice who walked around going through items threatening I would expect that Joe was still worse than the accomplice brutally beat raped but the female was worse call them back up on the stand and ask them again ask them all who was worse that's coming from excuse my analogy with the horse's mouth I have hard time understanding steel that the state has presented that railroad spike but the only deputy who really went to the scene said kitchen utensil if you look back on all the testimony there was more I don't knows or I don't recalls than anything else supposed to be one of the most ridiculous and rememberable criminal acts locally ever you jurors aren't numb to some of the facts you jurors aren't numb to things you've probably heard outside of here probably one of the worst crimes I've ever heard of in history but out of officers Bowden Lohmeyer McMahon Shoney Summers Miller daughter Ilsa Terrell daughter Heidi Young and husband Schmidt nine persons and no one knows details that matter except for hijacking kidnapping found on the floor and went to the hospital they just want a man's life taken I the defendant I came in here ridiculously unprepared state said don't hold that against me I don't expect it to I expect you to pay attention to the facts remember the facts that Mr. Jones did not state in his closing argument he stated a theory he stated a theory a theory but does he know the truth does that man Mr. Schmidt back there even know the truth no no does anyone know the truth no person that knows the truth is gone and I feel for that family back there I feel for them because if somebody would have really done these things to my grandmother I'd be in a killing mode I feel for what they've been led to be believed I came in here telling you jurors that I would show you things show you descriptions from the horse's mouth I was not able to you should have been entitled to see that because it's a lot different than being presented here a high level reasonable doubt is what you've seen today you've seen things placed together want to know what you did not see something the state says they had a co-defendant who's sitting right over in that jail why did you not see her ask yourself I can't say it's against court rules although I should and I will she's a liar she did some stupid stupid things when she shouldn't have I asked you to be logical I value you for your time I do because myself I don't know if I'd be able to sit through this and listen to this shit excuse me apologize man I don't know if I'd be able to sit through here and listen to this like y'all have I'm not a heinous perverted creep I do not go around robbing people my two greatest friends are elderly people one just happens to be 76 years old she was my next door neighbor never my best friend in the world he's 62 years old just turned 62 words can bring harsh comments especially when spoken in a slanderous and demeaning way such as the way Miss Keck presented them last Monday doing what is considered their jobs what is considered their jobs to take
[02:06:01] Speaker ?: take
[02:06:01] Speaker 3: man's life for something they believe or have been led to believe to happen what they perceive to be true there have been a lot of words spoken words that can determine my life you people determine it you 12 right here right now you know I'm gonna stop reading from the paper although I'm not really reading from it I'm gonna read from the heart because that's who I am people laugh people think it's a joke really okay they have their opinions I've always been a caring person considerate loving my mama taught me better than this she didn't teach me to go out and do these things nor did I do them please stop man you've been presented with some very sick things very sick things that are not true experts experts can attest to what they believe what they believe what they believe if you want the truth I'll tell you the truth do you want the truth the truth is I wasn't there that night but I'm very aware of who certain people are that's the truth the truth would hurt people in this courtroom today ask for the rest of the evidence ask for the rest of it so you can send me home right below because I'm not a sick perverted creep not at all Chad I'm not a sick perverted creep at all thank you
[02:08:21] Speaker 1: thank you
[02:08:33] Speaker 2: your honor I want to clear up a couple of things first and I know it's been a long day and I won't be long but I do have a couple of things that I want to clear up first of all it's pronounced heinous not heinous secondly we have rules of evidence and everybody who's in this courtroom has to follow the rules of evidence we have to follow the rules of evidence the defendant is of the opinion that he shouldn't have to just like the rules of society didn't apply to him when he decided to rape a 77 year old grandma he has no more respect for the rules of evidence than he does for the rules of our society and then he comes up in front of you and he says a 77 year old woman had sex good for her I hope when I'm 77 I can say that I had sex three days ago big whoop big whoop you know defendant said it's his life on the line the other day an attorney in our office came up to me and he said I feel sorry for you guys you guys have put up with a lot for the last week and you know at first I thought to myself yeah it's kind of sucked last five or six days the last hour and 15 minutes it's kind of sucked and it'd be easy to focus on what we've been put through for the last hour and 15 minutes the last five minutes it's easy to focus on our own thoughts and emotions and feelings but then it hit me what we've been through with this defendant in the last hour and 15 minutes and five days before that there's nothing compared to the 60 minutes that Tina Lohman had to spend here we've heard about what he did to Tina Lohman on November 9th Tina lived it we've heard from the witnesses we've seen the photographs of what that defendant did to her body we've seen the tears and the bruises and the bleed Tina felt it she felt every tear she felt every bruise she felt every burn every second of every day of every minute for the rest of her life when this trial is over after you've reached your verdict we all get to go home we get to move on with our lives we get to go home to our husbands our wives our loved ones our children our family we get a chance to try to forget what we've seen in the last five days forget what we've heard we get to move on to the next case Tina never got that chance she didn't get a chance to heal she didn't get a chance to see that man be held accountable for what he did to her on november 9th 2021 Tina was on the side of a lonely dark country road looking for help but instead of help that man showed up and we know what happened to Tina in the next 60 minutes today Tina doesn't need help she needs justice and unlike what happened on november 9th the right person the right 12 people are going to show up and do exactly that go back to that jury room pick a foreman sign the verdict forms and come back here and tell that man in Adams County we hold criminals accountable members
[02:13:22] Speaker 1: members of the jury the evidence and arguments in this case have been completed I will now instruct you as to the law the law that applies to this case is stated in these instructions and it is your duty to follow all of them you must not single out certain instructions and disregard others when I use the word he in these instructions I mean a male or a female it is your duty to determine the facts and to determine them only from the evidence in this case you are to apply the law to the facts and in this way decide the case you are not to concern yourself with possible punishment or sentence for the offenses charged during your deliberation it is the function of the trial judge to determine the sentence should there be a verdict of guilt neither sympathy nor prejudice should influence you you should not be biased in favor or against any person because of that person's race ethnicity national ancestry religion gender sexual orientation age disability or socioeconomic status from time to time it has been the duty of the court to rule on the admissibility of evidence you should not concern yourselves with the reasons for these rulings you should disregard questions and exhibits which were withdrawn or to which objections were sustained any evidence that was received for a limited purpose should not be considered by you or any other purpose you should disregard testimony and exhibits which the court has refused or stricken the evidence which you should consider consists only of the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits which the court has received you should consider all the evidence in the light of your own observations and experience in life we all have feelings assumptions perceptions fears and stereotypes about others some biases we are aware of and others we might not be fully aware of which is why they are called implicit biases or unconscious biases our biases often affect how we act favorably or unfavorably towards someone biases also can affect our thoughts how we remember what we see and hear whom we believe or disbelieve and how we make important decisions as jurors you are being asked to make important decisions in this case you must resist jumping to conclusions based on personal likes or dislikes you must not let bias prejudice or public opinion influence your decision neither by these instructions nor by any ruling or remark which I have made do I mean to indicate any opinion as to the facts or as to what your verdict should be faithful performance by you of your duties as jurors is vital to the administration of justice only you are the judges of the believability of the witnesses and of the weight to be given to the testimony of each witness in considering the testimony of any witness you may take into account his ability and opportunity to observe his age his memory his manner while testifying any interest bias or prejudice he may have and the reasonableness of his testimony considered in the light of all the evidence in the case opening statements are made by the attorneys or parties to acquaint you with the facts they expect to prove closing arguments are made by the attorneys or parties to discuss the facts and circumstances in the case and should be confined to the evidence into reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence neither opening statements nor closing arguments are evidence and any statement or argument made by the attorney or party which is not based on the evidence should be disregarded those of you who took notes during trial may use your notes to refresh your memory during jury deliberations each juror should rely on his or her recollection of the evidence just because a juror has taken notes does not necessarily mean that his or her recollection of the evidence is any better or more accurate than the recollection of a juror who did not take notes when you are discharged from further service in this case your notes will be collected by the deputy and destroyed throughout that process your notes will remain confidential and no one will be allowed to see them in this case the news media was permitted to film and photograph the proceedings pursuant to the Illinois Supreme Court policy for extended media coverage in the circuit courts of Illinois in your deliberation you should not draw any inferences or conclusions from the fact that cameras were present at this particular trial nor should you concern yourself with why certain witnesses were filmed and photographed and others were not whether a particular witness was filmed or photographed is not any indication as to the value of or weight to be given to that witness's testimony the defendant the defendant is charged with the offenses of home invasion dangerous weapon home invasion criminal sexual assault aggravated kidnapping aggravated vehicular hijacking aggravated criminal sexual assault and residential burglary the defendant has pleaded not guilty the charges against the defendant in this case are contained in the document called the indictment this document is the formal method of charging the defendant and placing the defendant on trial it is not any evidence against the defendant the defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him this presumption remains with him throughout every stage of the trial and during your deliberations on the verdict and is not overcome unless from all the evidence in this case you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty the state has the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt and this burden remains on the state throughout the case the defendant is not required to prove his innocence the fact that the defendant did not testify must not be considered by you in any way in arriving at your verdict circumstantial evidence is the proof of facts or circumstances which give rise to a reasonable inference of other facts which tend to show the guilt or innocence of the defendant circumstantial evidence should be considered by you together with all the other evidence in this case in arriving at your verdict you have before you evidence that the defendant made statements relating to the offenses charged in the information it is for you to determine whether the defendant made the statements and if so what weight should be given to the statements in determining the weight to be given to a statement you should consider all of the evidence under which it was made it is proper for an attorney or party to interview or attempt to interview a witness for the purpose of learning the testimony the witness will give however the law does not require a witness to speak to an attorney or party before testifying the belief the believability of a witness may be challenged by evidence that on some former occasion he made a statement or acted in a manner that was not consistent with his testimony in this case evidence of this kind ordinarily may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of deciding the weight to be given the testimony you heard from the witness in the courtroom however you may consider a witness's earlier inconsistent statement as evidence without this limitation when the statement narrates describes or explains any event or condition the witness had personal knowledge of and the witness acknowledged under oath that he made the statement or the statement was written or signed by the witness or the statement was accurately recorded by tape recorder video recording or similar electronic means of sound recording it is for you to determine whether the witness made the earlier statement and if so what weight should be given to the statement and determining the weight to be given in earlier statement you should consider all of the circumstances under which it was made a person is legally responsible for the conduct of another person when either before or during the commission of an offense and with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of an offense he knowingly solicits aides abets agrees to aid or attempts to aid the other person in the planning or commission of the offense the word conduct includes any criminal act done in furtherance of the planned and intended act a person who is legally responsible for the conduct of another I'm sorry a person who is legally responsible for the conduct of another may be convicted for the offense committed by the other person even though the other person who it has claimed committed the offense has not been convicted or has been convicted of a different offense a person commits the offense of home invasion when he not being a peace officer acting in the line of duty without authority knowingly enters the dwelling place of another and remains in such dwelling place until he knows or has reason to know that one or more persons is present and while armed with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm he uses force or threatens the imminent use of force upon any person or persons within the dwelling place whether or not injury occurs or commits against any person or persons within that dwelling place the offense of criminal sexual assault to sustain the charge of home invasion dangerous weapon the state must prove the following propositions first proposition that the defendant was not a peace officer acting in the line of duty and second proposition that the defendant knowingly and without authority entered the dwelling place of another and third proposition that the defendant remained in the dwelling place until he knew or had reason to know that one or more persons was present and fourth proposition that the defendant or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible was armed with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm and fifth proposition that while armed with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm the defendant or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible uses force upon CL a person within the dwelling if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant guilty if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant not guilty to sustain the charge of home invasion criminal sexual assault the state must prove the following proposition first proposition that the defendant was not a peace officer acting in the line of duty and second proposition that the defendant knowingly and without authority entered the dwelling place of another and third proposition that the defendant remained in the dwelling place until he knew or had reason to know that one or more persons was present and fourth proposition that the defendant committed the offense of criminal sexual assault on CL a person within the dwelling place if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant guilty if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant not guilty a person commits the offense of kidnapping when he knowingly and by force or by threat or imminent force or threat of imminent force carries another person from one place to another with intent secretly to confine that other person against his will a person who kidnaps another commits the offense of aggravated kidnapping when he commits criminal sexual assault upon the victim to sustain the charge of aggravated kidnapping the state must prove the following propositions first proposition that the defendant acted knowingly and second proposition that the defendant by force or threat of imminent force carried CL from one place to another place and third proposition that when the defendant did so he intended secretly to confine CL against her will and fourth proposition that the defendant committed criminal sexual assault upon CL if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant guilty if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant not guilty a person commits the offense of aggravated vehicular hijacking when he knowingly takes a motor vehicle from the person or the immediate presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force and the person from whose immediate presence the motor vehicle is taken is a person 60 years of age or over to sustain the charge of aggravated vehicular hijacking the state must prove the following propositions first proposition that the defendant knowingly took a motor vehicle from the person or the immediate presence of CL and second proposition that the defendant did so by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force and third proposition that the person from whose immediate presence the motor vehicle was taken was a person 60 years of age or over if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant guilty if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant not guilty a person commits the offense of criminal sexual assault when he commits an act of sexual penetration upon the victim by use of force or threat of force the term sexual penetration means any contact however slight between the sex organ or anus of one person in an object sex organ mouth or anus of another person or intrusion however slight of any part of the body of one person or any object into the sex organ or anus of another person evidence of emission of semen is not required to prove sexual penetration a person commits the offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault when he commits criminal sexual assault and displays or threatens to use a dangerous weapon other than a firearm to sustain the charge of aggravated criminal sexual assault the state must prove the following propositions first proposition that the defendant committed an act of sexual penetration upon CL and second proposition that the act was committed by the use of force or threat of force and that CL did not consent to the act of sexual penetration and third proposition that the defendant or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible displayed or threatened to use a dangerous weapon other than a firearm if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant guilty if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant not guilty the person commits the offense of residential burglary when he knowingly and without authority enters the dwelling place of another with the intent to commit therein a theft to sustain the charge of residential burglary the state must prove the following propositions first proposition that the defendant knowingly entered the dwelling place of another and second proposition that the defendant did so without authority and third proposition that the defendant did so with the intent to commit therein the offense of theft if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant guilty if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant not guilty when you retire to the jury room you will first elect one of your members as your foreperson he or she will preside during your deliberations on the verdict your agreement on a verdict must be unanimous your verdict must be in writing and signed by all of you including your foreperson the defendant is charged with the offenses of home invasion dangerous weapon home invasion criminal sexual assault aggravated kidnapping aggravated vehicular hijacking aggravated criminal sexual assault and residential burglary you will receive two forms of verdict as to each charge you will be provided with both a not guilty and a guilty form of verdict as to each charge from these two verdict forms you must select the one verdict form that reflects your verdict as to that charge and sign it as I have stated do not write on the other verdict form sign only one verdict form as to each charge
[02:32:05] Speaker ?: members of the jury
[02:32:13] Speaker 1: you are now in the care of Mr. Hummer who is the bailiff of this court they have been instructed by this court not to permit any person to speak to or otherwise communicate with you on any subject connected with the trial except with the permission of the court I'm directing the bailiff not to communicate with you on any subject connected with the trial and I direct you not to ask him any questions pertaining thereto when you have reached your verdict notify the bailiff who will then inform the court Madam Deputy Clerk would you swear in the bailiff
[02:33:11] Speaker 4: do you solemnly swear that you will take charge of and attend this jury to some private and convenient place and keep them together unless by leave of court until they have agreed upon their verdict nor permit others to speak to them and that when they have agreed upon their verdict or at the direction of the court you will return them to the court so he'll be back Mr. Hummer
[02:33:34] Speaker 1: you are hereby sworn to carry out the directions of this court to keep this jury together and not to permit any person to speak to them or speak to them yourself or otherwise communicate with them on any subject connected with the trial except with permission of the court and when they have reached their verdict return them into open court I'll present you with the jury instructions which I have just read to the jurors and jurors 48, 27, and 86 if you will remain in the courtroom I'll ask the bailiff to take the remaining 12 jurors to the jury the assembly room to begin their deliberations will that jump
[02:34:26] Speaker 2: please rise
[02:34:26] Speaker 1: grab your clip or some waters please
[02:34:30] Speaker ?: please rise up to the jury please rise up to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury and we'll be right back to the jury
[02:34:52] Speaker 1: jurors remaining number 48, 37, and 86 you were alternate jurors for this case and will remain as alternate jurors until the verdict is returned what I'll ask you to do is to when you go to gather your things from the jury room give the bailiff your contact number so a phone number for your cell phone where the bailiff could reach you if a juror drops out for some reason we may need to call you to return to jury service if that were to happen they would begin deliberating all over again with you being present but at this time I thank you for your service and again be sure and give the bailiff your contact number where you can be reached in case he needs to notify you to return to court so until a verdict is rendered you should not do any independent investigation or research on any subject, place, or person relating to the case this means you may not go outside the courtroom for any information concerning the case parties, lawyers, issues, or terms used or to visit any place described or to do any independent examination measurement or testing of facts what you have seen or heard outside the courtroom is not evidence this also includes any press, radio, or television programs and it also includes any information available on the internet you must not use the internet or any other sources to search for any information about the case or the law which applies to the case such programs, reports, and information are not evidence and your verdict must not be influenced in any way by such material during the course of the trial do not text, tweet, blog communicate by any means to anyone or provide information personally in writing or electronically to anyone about this case not even your own families or friends courtroom personnel and also not even amongst yourselves until instructed otherwise lawyers, parties, and witnesses are not permitted to speak with you about any subject even if unrelated to this case until after the case is over and you are discharged from your duties as jurors it is your duty to report any such contact to me immediately please wear your juror badges when remaining in the area of the courthouse or nearby restaurants while serving as a juror if you would give the bailiff your contact information on the pad he'll provide to you or in oral form Thank you. Thank you. If a verdict is reached, so you know that you're released from further service. All right. Thank you. You're free to go.
[02:39:04] Speaker ?: All right. All right.
[02:39:21] Speaker 1: I'm seated.
[02:39:24] Speaker ?: Anything further for the people?
[02:39:27] Speaker 1: Prayer to take in your recess, spending the verdict. No, Your Honor. Mr. John, anything for defense to be taken up at this time, waiting for the verdict?
[02:39:38] Speaker 3: No, thank you, Judge.
[02:39:39] Speaker 1: All right. Court will be in recess. All rise.