EXCLUSIVE: State of Georgia vs Lacy Boles Brian Steel arguing final motions before trial PART 2

追加: 2026-06-04

[00:00:01]She got the camera [music] rolling tight. Can you see it?

[00:00:05]The truth from where they [music] speaks. No filter, no buffer. Courtroom drama [music] couldn't get any tougher.

[00:00:16]From the first bang to the weakness tears, Sylvia's lens captures all [music] your hopes and fears. Uploading just one trial at a time. tune in every moment. [music] Edio show. Oh yeah, she's [music] got the inside scoop. Don't you care?

[00:00:39]With every planet the suspense [music] does grow. So hit subscribe. Let's start the show.

[00:00:47]Welcome [music] to the Sylvia show. Oh yeah. She's got the inside scoop. Don't you care?

[00:00:54]with everybody. The suspense does grow.

[00:00:58]So hit [music] subscribe. Let's start the show.

[00:01:03]They [music] tell stories. The courtroom can't hide. Sia's insight. Cut through the divide. Some jury [music] talks to the lawyer secret's world. You know you'll need it.

[00:01:19]Behind the scenes [music] where whispers are loud.

[00:01:23]The lens reveals the truth in the crowd secrets [music] to see curious make every attraction [music] every sharp retor's there to give you the [music] report exclusive footage no one else can snag from catchy headlines straight to the tagelcome to the [music] Go. Oh yeah. She's got the inside scoop.

[00:01:55]Don't you care?

[00:01:57]With every fight the [music] suspense does grow.

[00:02:01]So it's a fight. Let's start the show.

[00:02:05]Welcome to the Sylvia show. [music] Oh yeah. She's got the inside school. Don't you care?

[00:02:12]With everybody the suspense grow. So hit [music] subscribe. Let's start the show.

[00:02:21]is >> Hey guys, it's Sylvia. Um, my apologies.

[00:02:27]I fell asleep on you guys and I have uh four more parts to to show you guys. But let me go ahead and upload this now.

[00:02:37]talking about it.

[00:02:39]The clearly refers to both sides agree this and then ask, "Do I get to leave?" The answer is no.

[00:03:08]said today not for that time and then that would trigger no more communication or interrogation yet as you continue on states exhibit number one you will see that the next officer continues the interrogation and initiates the interrogation that's unlawful and it must be suppressed Look at every case 32347 286 March 3rd 2026 it's consistent courts are consistent this is by the court no one outside so But I believe it's an unequivocal request to stop the interview.

[00:04:10]She's in custody.

[00:04:13]She told >> All right. 323 right >> there's several casing I do agree with Mr. that there must be a clear and unequivocable unequivocal invocational record. That's what case law says clear.

[00:04:56]Look at the video around 28 minutes and 40 seconds. Judge, it is kind of hard to find if you're on court. It's video number two on states.

[00:05:07]It's the second video on there of three is so large they had to break it into section. So, it's video number two.

[00:05:14]states 28 29 minute 284 detective party confronts the defendant says I don't believe what you're telling me something there about she says well it's the truth I've told you several times I've been in this room several times I'm done talking about she becomes exasperated she becomes emotional I'm done talking about he says you've never talked to me about it at all because it's the first time he's ever talked to her investigation she immedately and says, "You're right. You're right."

[00:05:46]And continues on with the interview. And then another detective comes in and they continue on without duress, without coercion, without promise of leniency, hope of benefit, without fear of retribution for invocation of rights. So this is not a clear and unequivocal invocation. I'm not an attorney. I don't think coercion, threats of harm, hope is here. It's really remain and I urge the court to rule that that was not an invocation silent as much as it was just an exasperation of person who was momentarily overcome by emotions I'm done talking about just exasperation no time if she had said I'm done talking to you then we'd be having a different part or I'm done with this interview I'm done with this or something like that along those lines and maybe we have a close argument. I'm done talking about it.

[00:06:48]This is an exasperation.

[00:06:50]That's not an invocation.

[00:06:53]And I asked the court to find that she freely gave that interview without hope without fear. She was not in custody.

[00:07:03]She came there freely regarding the statement she made to take.

[00:07:08]He said, "You'll have to decide what she said." She said, "Do I need to leave?"

[00:07:13]Because they're all getting up to leave.

[00:07:16]is that do I need to leave? They said no title and they just had to see whether or not they were going to commence interviewing or not.

[00:07:41]Thank you. Thank you. is next.

[00:07:46]We have kind of a quick one. The state served upon the defense a picture in life of the deceit Daniel acres objects use of that picture in life at trial. That picture was at the time he served on the defense. It was the only picture in possession of the state and it does depict the defendant as a child. He was to be about 10 years old, 12 years old, something like that. We do we would have submitted that picture to prove a very critical important element of the case which the defense is aware of that the deed was rightanded. It shows the dean holding a pencil pen in his right hand when he's writing on a tablet or a notepad. I do believe that that's likely overly prejuditial because he's a child depict him as a child pick a youngster. So we have obtained from the family another photograph that we have served at defense picture in life of the deedent as as an adult. He's I'll just I'll just move to admit it.

[00:08:51]I'll show opposing counsel just for I don't think it needs to be admitted but I think the court does need to see what we're talking about.

[00:08:59]market for demonstrative purposes only for the purposes of today and it's been served on some time as supplemental discovery.

[00:09:14]So I guess what we're doing is we're consenting to just for demon purp we're consenting to the defense motion about the deed and depicted as as a young pre-teen early teens may approach the court consider to admit this photograph as a picture of the deceit in life but not only to depict him in life but depict there's going to be an incredible amount of controversy in this case that surrounds whether or not defendants right-handed, left-handed or handed. And that picture intends states for the purpose of the deceit who we believe is on the ladder on the right side of that photo before your honor holding a hammer in his right hand. So we contend that that's material and central element of the case on behalf of the state contend it's relevant on behalf of the state. I know in speaking with the defense council trying to work out the issues revolving involving the deceased as a child I know they're still objecting it's my understanding still objective in the initial pictures rather than just it out on the day of trial rather just have so I guess we're partially or we're totally consenting to not using a child photo I agree it's probably prejuditial but now we've come into contact since that we've come into possession of another picture that we do believe is not overly prejuditial and material central to a contested issue case. Thank you.

[00:10:45]>> Response.

[00:10:51]The claim is that law enforcement.

[00:11:08]So we are going toject number to show one moment in time.

[00:11:25]It's just another photograph testimony about it.

[00:11:33]And the introduction clearly there will be testimony about it but I don't believe that you can have photograph so I don't think that's our photograph does not help the jury at What is that person very prejudice?

[00:12:26]problem with it to get patient.

[00:12:36]So to me there's no basis to I will say this photograph Terrible fathers show this issue discussed cumulative I want to tell you guys what this argument is about the argument is about um the state had submitt a picture of Mr. um Acre Akre the um the deceased they put a picture of him using his right hand and the picture is of him as a teenager. Let me show you the picture what it looks like. Hold on a second.

[00:13:49]This is the picture of him using his right hand as a teenager. Let me make this bigger.

[00:14:00]Or using his right hand as a teenager.

[00:14:02]This is what the argument is about. They saying Mrs. Still saying it's more prejuditial because they showing a child instead of a grown man with the um using his right hand.

[00:14:16]So the state agrees with him that the picture is more prejuditial than it is pro proative. You know it's more it's it's more uh it looks more terrible than than it is to help the case. It's more it looks more against her because it's seen is shown that hey she un alive a young child. So [snorts] and people would be more sympathetic towards um that picture. So the state decide, yes, they're not going to use it. They're going to use a picture of him holding a hammer as an adult with the right hand.

[00:14:54]So Mr. and Mrs. Steel came back and said there's no reason to add a picture in it because um it's not necessary cuz then it's going to cause them to go get a find a picture of him using his left hand. So he Mrs. stills rather that there be no pictures added in there to show the difference him using the right hand. So that's what that's about. Okay, let me add this back in here. Hold on.

[00:15:35]>> They can put any any weight on that picture or zero. That's up to the collective minds of fair and impartial jury members. And it and we're not shifting a burden of the defendant to do anything. If they choose to produce evidence, it shows this man holding a hammer in his left hand or pencil or pistol or whatever in his left hand.

[00:15:52]That's up to them. They have the right to produce evidence, the right not to.

[00:15:55]But this is a crucial element of the case. I'm of course not familiar with the facts of the case, the allegations of case, but >> oh, I want to also tell you that in when they found him, they found the pistol, the gun [sighs and gasps] closer to his left hand. And that's what they're basically showing that he was right-handed. So, it's not possible for him to shoot himself because it was on his left hand side. But the argument with her, she's saying that her husband was amidext dextrous, meaning he could use both hands, use the right or the left hand. Okay.

[00:16:38]But the state is saying that um it is necessary for them to put a picture in there. That's what he's arguing right now.

[00:16:46]>> The weapon we anticipate will be shown beyond the weapon used to kill Mr. Acres was found right almost in contact with his left hand as he came to a final resting place at this place of death. So it appears it would appear to or can certainly be argued that the left hand was used for this defendant.

[00:17:08]If you believe this is a suicide that was done by his left hand you believe it's a homicide that was placed by his left hand by the defendant. But what hand he used as his dominant hand is going to be incredibly important part of this case. Hugely important. And [clears throat] there can be testimony.

[00:17:25]There can be testimony about whether or not he's left-handed, right-handed or ambidextrous. But a photograph has no bias at all. It just shows what it shows. There's other photographs that show a hammer in his left hand. This is the only photograph I have showed and I think that should go from the evidence not the courtyard state will have to lay proper foundation.

[00:18:07]I guess the order consent to their motion for child is order.

[00:18:19]>> All right. There are some motions surprisingly that we agree on. So we can take those defense follow motion. There was a guy in Ohio who took a look at the 911 tape in this case. He gave certain opinions as a retired police officer.

[00:18:36]He gave certain opinions on what the 911 statements meant, the victim's voice on the 911 tape, things she may have said in response to the 911 operator, things like that. Defense is moving to exclude that. We're not calling that witness, just for the record, his name is Tracy. I think it ends with a cy harster h we're not calling that witness to testify about anything in this case.

[00:19:07]Um everything else I believe would be knock out. Oh yeah, there was a DNA motion. That's right. So this the defense also I guess file a motion for I think it was title stop motion to receive possession of all DNA evidence in the case like anyway it's defense motion that compelled his motion for DNA testing results that motion judge we turned over all the evidence in this case as we have it as of June 2nd 2026 we turned over the evidence we our possession. I've heard over all the crime lab evidence to the defendant, all the reports, all the records, all the testing, all the the scientific reports. We don't know of any outstanding DNA. There were bubble swaps taken from the defendant and from the deceased, but I don't know of any any outstanding DNA evidence. We turned everything over. Some kind of evidence like that materializes, we certainly give it to anticipate that there's no testing that's ongoing or being undertaken of any kind. So that's the state's response to that motion.

[00:20:22]>> Your honor, I just ask you granted we don't have it. I just want to make sure there's nothing mis overlooked. I'm not saying also your honor is dealing with the harster h that was entitled motion number two.

[00:20:43]April 29th, 2026 consented to whatever he that's all on that. You can look at motion number four. It's kind of a quick one. Defend motion number four. Don't think that'll take long to argue. What that says is it says basically is moving to exclude any and all relevance, excuse me, reference to bad character prior gun violence, a shoplifting warrant, andor drug use by Mr. BS andor James P.

[00:21:26]If if your honor, your honor may remember, it's been a long time. The first interview was played with this defendant. There was a shoplifting warrant, I think it's a misdemeanor shoplifting warrant out for this defendant when she gave her first interview. And upon the conclusion of that first interview, she's actually taken custody on that uh warrant, an open warrant and arrested process. I think that case has long since been disposed of. We are going to redact the portion on her first video interview with law enforcement where they talk about I think she at the end she says something, okay, are we done? Am I free to leave? And they say, well, no, you've got a warrant out of custody. We would redact that. We're not telling the jury that she Oh my god, I'm trying to explain everything to you guys and it's been muted. Thank you. Um, VK, I'm sorry.

[00:23:44]Okay, let me explain. I was stopping pausing this to explain to you guys what this is. This is they were arguing in uh about um motion liy number four. This is when during their um interrogation, they search and they found out there was a um warrant out for her arrest that was from um a shoplifting case that she had cuz she they did some sort of diversion where she didn't go have to do time, but she was supposed to complete some stuff for the um for the diversion of her plea. Guilty her guilty plea, but she didn't complete it. She missed her court date. So they put out a bench warrant on her. So when they put out the bench warrant that she never completed that whole thing, but then I guess they found out that she did complete it, but they still had that warrant out in the system, which somebody nobody ever cleared it, right? So Mr. Steel is asking for them to suppress that part of the interview. So the prosecutor is agreeing with Mr. steel and saying that they're going to redact that part of the interrogation of the interview because it's more prejuditial than it is probative. Meaning that um it would look really bad against him. Once they mention that there was a warrant, it's going to have the jur jurors to think more negative against her and it's something that has nothing to do with this case. It's more of a bad act and the prosecutor agree that they're going to suppress that or redact that part.

[00:25:21]That's what I was trying to do, explain to you guys that part. So, that's what they're arguing about and um the prosecution is agreeing with Mr. Steel to redact that part. Okay.

[00:25:35]Thank you, VK. Cuz I I'm talking to y'all and I didn't see myself um muted.

[00:25:41]Okay.

[00:25:44]>> Do our best to redact that completely.

[00:25:46]So, that takes care of drugs by M. BS.

[00:25:51]We anticipate.

[00:25:52]>> Okay, now they're going to talk about her drug use, >> her drug use because according to them, she's been using methamine.

[00:26:01]Um, so they want to keep that part in of the interrogation. And I'm going to go ahead and play it for y'all. I hope you guys can hear it. It's pretty low. Um, um, one of the reason I do have a mic on my um, camera, but the where I was sitting at, it didn't pick up. So now that I know the judge is pretty cool, I can sit more closer to the defense and have the mic on on them. But um or I'm going to end up using um an a portable external mic. It's where I could put it underneath the speaker and they can hear it better. Okay, it's this is like a dry run. It's my first time in that courtroom. I did not know what the setup. I did not know what the rules of the judge but this judge is really really cool. Um he doesn't he just asked me to don't get in people face and you know like disturb the court proceeding but um I have opened uh rule 22 so I know his rules and stuff. So now I know where to go and how to do it in his courtroom. [snorts] So when trials start I'll be a little bit better hopefully.

[00:27:12]And I probably will probably do a live stream from my phone because I see he allowed that too.

[00:27:21]>> The second video on there of three is so large they had to break down section. So video number two confronts the defendant says I don't believe you're telling me something there. She says, "Well, it's the truth.

[00:27:41]I've told you several times. I've been in this room several times. I'm done talking about it." And she becomes exasperated. She becomes emotional. I'm done talking about He said, "You've never talked to me about it at all because it's the first time he's ever talked to her in the investigation." She She immediately regains composure and says, "You're right. You're right." And continues on with the interview. And then another detective comes in and they continue on without without >> my apologies like sorry to admit this photograph as a picture of the deedent in life but not only to depict him in life but depict there's going to be an incredible amount of controversy in this case that surrounds whether or not defendants rightanded move it up a little bit.

[00:28:55]>> I will say anything else on this issue.

[00:29:03]>> Sorry, my thing. I didn't know this thing with that.

[00:29:05]>> I tend to think it comes in before he >> Yeah, we already heard this part. Sorry, guys.

[00:29:11]>> I don't know any any out. We turned everything over. Some kind of evidence like that materializes, we certainly give it to I don't anticipate that.

[00:29:20]There's no testing that's on any kind. So, that's the state's response to that motion.

[00:29:33]We don't have nothing mis overlooked.

[00:29:44]Also, your honor is dealing with the harvester h that was entitled motion number two.

[00:30:08]Yes, that's all on that. You can Motion number four. That's kind of a quick one.

[00:30:14]>> That's the one.

[00:30:17]Don't think that'll take long to argue.

[00:30:20]What that says is it says basically defense is moving to exclude any and all relevance, excuse me, reference to bad character prior gun violence, a shot warrant andor drug use by Mr. BS andor James P.

[00:30:36]If if your honor your honor may remember, it's been a long time the first interview was played. defendant.

[00:30:41]There was a shoplifting warrant. I think it's a misdemeanor shoplifting warrant out for this defendant when she gave her first interview. And upon the conclusion of that first interview, she's actually taken custody on that uh warrant open warrant and arrested process. I think that case has long since been disposed of. We are going to redact the portion on her first video interview with law enforcement where they talk about I think she at the end she says something, okay, are we done? Am I free to leave?

[00:31:08]They say no. you got a warrant out to take. We would redact that. We're not telling the jury that she had a warrant out at that time. Do our best to redact that completely. So that takes care of the shot. Drug use by Miss BS. We do anticipate that the unfettered admission of evidence would show that she was using drugs, illegal drugs around this time, but but it's not admissible. We're not going to go down that road unless that door is open. And the way it could be opened We received an expert report from Dr. Matthew Norman, forensic psychiatrist in Atlanta. And he's he's moving I I guess he's being used at trial to suggest that this defendant's use or chronic use of bind benzoazipines affected her ability to recall affected her memory. So if there is extensive testimony from Dr. Norman about this defendant's use of bzzoiaines as prescribed and how that may have affected her memory and recall then I believe it is relevant for the state to inquire about how the mixture of prescribed benzoazipines could have affected her memory and recall when they were mixed with illegal drugs like methamphetamine.

[00:32:21]So I think we'll just have to wait and see if the door is open on that. I certainly don't intend to portray her as a drug user or an addict or narcotics user, but that door is is I have reason to believe that could be open based on Dr. Norman's testimony depending on what that turns out to be regarding uh it says bad character. Obviously, we know the rules of character evidence. We're not intending to breach those rules.

[00:32:46]Finally, there's there's mention by the defendant.

[00:32:50]And as far as I'm sorry, before we leave the drug use, they're also lumping in this this witness named James Pogue. We do anticipate calling Mr. Pog as a witness. He will not be we will not elicit testimony of drug use by him or the defendant andor defendant. So I don't anticipate that being a problem.

[00:33:10]We're going to stay away from this use of drugs in this case until such time as the door may be open, but we don't anticipate asking any of that. And the only thing that really remains as a sticking point on this motion as gun violence. I've talked to the defense about this before. There was an incident where there was apparently a get together or party at the this house where Miss BS was located at some point and there were people on the back porch. deck and we expect the evidence to show through multiple witnesses that there was some kind of a disturbance. Somebody made a noise or shook the deck, shook the support beams of the deck and caused it to vibrate or shake and everybody there many people there got scared including this bolt and then her response was to go inside the home where this was believe it was her home at the time to go inside the home and come out armed with a handgun to to confront whoever may have shaken the beams or rattled the deck boards or whatever. They thought it was in talking with these witnesses. It's my understanding they thought it might be some intruder or or some stranger. Miss BS retreated inside the residence came out armed with a handgun. I think that's relevant to show she has the familiarity to handle firearms. This is a firearms death. It's uncontroverted that this is a firearms death. It's just who caused the death. The only is the only issue for the jury. It's not a what is it. who done it. So, we think the use of firearms, the familiarity with firearms is relevant for the jury. I don't know that this qualifies as gun violence.

[00:34:48]It's kind of a general term used by the defense. I guess they're moving to to eliminate quote unquote gun violence before the jury. That is the only, if I wrapped my brain around what I know about this case, that's the only thing I can even imagine that would come into the realm of gun violence. The gun was not fired by this defendant. It wasn't fired at this was an intruder. It wasn't pointed at anybody. She wasn't charged.

[00:35:11]Nothing like that. It's just she came out armed, ready to apparently confront whoever did this. I think later turned out it was a practical joke by some party go that was there and tried to scare them. So I think it's not going to paint her in any kind of really bad light other than she had the familiarity to retrieve the firearm and arm herself. So that' be the only thing I can say would approach any of this material. motion defense number four. Thank you.

[00:35:41]>> All right.

[00:35:48]>> Did you guys hear him what he was saying? What did you guys understand what he's saying? Okay. Mr. still is asking them to suppress a part where [ __ ] they're talking about gun violence that because what happened is there was um one day they were she was having a party or something like that and someone shook the um I think something in the backyard they shook and so she went straight inside the house and got her gun because she heard an intruder I guess at the time. So, because she brought out her gun supposedingly, it's shows that she has the ability and the um the ability, not just the ability, but her her stance on how quick she was able to go get the gun and be able to react to that situation. And it m it makes it her to show that she had the availability of that weapon. Right.

[00:36:50]Supposingly this is the weapon that was used um during at the time of the the husband's uh unaliving and the gun supposedly belongs to her which was a gift from her father.

[00:37:08]Um, so that's what they're trying to bring up that, you know, the hub having the availability of the gun, the ability to go get it quickly and that type of thing and showing that it it was hers.

[00:37:22]So, the possibility of her using it on her husband is great. That's what they're trying to say. And Mrs. Steel wants that part suppressed. And um, and you're going to hear what the judge say on that part. Okay.

[00:37:39]to consider a ruling that before the state goes into anything with illegal drug use or otherwise approach and take it up outside the presur that would appropriate.

[00:38:08]Everything else I believe is saying not introduce any type of character except for this gun. It's my understanding that it's a different time to this count of the indictment. It's a different gun. They're different people.

[00:38:30]There's different because somebody believe it's an intruder. So I don't I don't understand why we are putting in that person I do that go into my house get a gun and come outside when I think there's an intruder and now a my case. So I as the court to exclude that unless Obviously there's more during the trial rolls out and the state become relevant at that time but to open up and say by the way she another occasion she runs out of the house a lot of people do that I think there's no value the way the state is using it does sound Why are we introducing this fact? No one is to say that has never claimed that she's did not know that given to her given to her.

[00:39:53]Anything else?

[00:39:55]Thank you. Please the court. I think it's a good point that Mr. Steel raised.

[00:39:58]We do anticipate the evidence to show that this this gun was used in the death of the deed. Either way, suicide or homicide, this weapon was the defendant's gun. This was given to her by her father. And again, showing the jury another instance where she came out armed with a handgun or ready to use a handgun. It just goes to show again her familiarity with this with using handguns. It's not never held a gun, doesn't know guns. In fact, it's consistent with what Mr. Steals apparently conceding that this this weapon was given to the defendant by her father, her weapon. The incident with the practical joke, we do believe it was a different weapon. I think could have been the same weapon, but I think one of the party goers described as being black. The weapon killed was silverplated, but I think it's relevant.

[00:40:49]Again, this is going to a lot about the the weight of It's not the disability.

[00:40:55]Obviously in Paul County, there's going to be a lot of people, if not everybody, on the jury that owns guns. This can be explained away concerning the weight of the evidence.

[00:41:03]Hey, so what? There was an intruder, there was a threat, she came out with a gun. That's what anybody would do. Sure, that's fine. That goes to the weight of the evidence. But the admissibility that's not what it goes to because the jury can attach whatever weight they want to the fact that she had familiarity with firearms enough to be the one person off the deck to go in arm herself and come out against this supposed threat. That's relevant and I think it's not overly prejuditial. We're not painting her as some villain [clears throat] who had this gun. We're just painting her as somebody who had the familiarity to go arm herself and come out with a handgun. It's not a rifle. It's not a shotgun. It's the same type of weapon used to end the life of no matter which version that was used in his life weapon. So I think it's very relevant very just allowed by the jury for whatever weight they attach it which could be 1% or could be 99%. That's thank you.

[00:42:00]Anything else on this?

[00:42:09]>> I can see some I don't think it's bad character.

[00:42:37]We have another quick motion, judge.

[00:42:39]It's the Did you rule?

[00:42:43]>> Sorry.

[00:42:44]>> Your court's rule.

[00:42:46]>> Did I rule?

[00:42:47]>> I said I'm inclined to let that in, but I'll address it in the order.

[00:42:52]>> Take another one that's pretty quick.

[00:42:57]Defense motion in number So, this is an interesting motion. The defense is moving the state or asking the court to limit the state to order the state, excuse me, not to be able to admit in evidence that Dan Acres quote was the type of person that would he was not the type of person to that would end his own life. Hey, he's just not that type of person. He's not the type of person that would commit suicide. I mean, I agree with that motion. So, you won't see the state in this trial ask any witness, any states witness or defense witness, hey, was Dan the type of person would end his own life. We're not going to ask that.

[00:43:31][clears throat] Nobody could get inside the mind of Daniel Acres on December 2020 December 22nd, 2019. Nobody can get inside his mind. We we don't know that.

[00:43:41]So, nobody else could know that. So, we're not going to ask people, was he the type of person that would have ended his own life? No, that's that's not an appropriate question. We're staying away from that. But we do plan to ask uh were were there times you saw him deeply depressed? What type of person was he?

[00:43:56]What was his personality? We expect the He was upbeat. He was a jokester, prankster, always looking at that glass half full. We expect answers like that because we expect that's the type of person he was.

[00:44:08]Did you ever did he ever approach the issue of suicide with you in your conversations? And these are people that worked with him every day. We have co-workers. We have family members, very close family members. Did he approach to you that he had been uh so ever that he had been so depressed that he uh just couldn't get over it? that he saw no outcome or no way out of this depression and we expect the answers to those questions to be no. So while no one can know what was in his mind on that particular night and last night of his life, I do believe it's Rowan asked witnesses who knew him very well whether or not he expressed deep expressed deep feelings of sadness over I mean overcoming grief inability to move forward whether or not he had ever brought up the issue of suicide with his co-workers or or family members. And I think that's different than asking somebody was he the type of person And again, let's just say that I was able to let's just say I asked one of his co-workers, "Hey, you guys talked all the time. Is that right?" Yeah, we talked all the time. Every day at lunch, we would talk and on the job together for years. Did he ever talk to you about suicide or you know overcome grief or deep depression? No. Crossexamination would be well, you don't know what he was do. You don't know what he was going through. Sometimes men don't want to share that. Isn't that true? And things like that. So again, weight of the evidence. This is able to be addressed in cross examination, but it shouldn't be held to be this this area of questioning shouldn't be held to be completely inadmissible because it has some value to the jury. At least I believe it might. And I think it's certainly relevant. It's the defense theories of the case is that this was suicide. So our theory is it's a homicide. So I think it's certainly relevant. This is the core issue of the of the case. It's not who did it. It's it's what happened, what was done, not who did it. I mean, we know the man died. It's just was it a suicide or a homicide? I think whe his his uh approaching these feelings or expressions of these feelings, sadness, grief, depression, suicide as a topic are relevant to that issue and I think the court I respectfully ask the court to allow, but I do agree with the specific nature of the motion. We would not ask if he was that type of person, whatever that would mean. Thank you.

[00:46:22]>> All right. Defense.

[00:46:25]rules of evidence based upon the prosecutor's statement. I don't know how any of those statements come in at all.

[00:46:39]Okay, I'll address and just to be clear everything would be from what the prosecutor I assume the court knew what I was saying when I say shaking his head. But that's what you know you're getting conversations. I was shaking my head and the person's not here. So that's why it's objection.

[00:47:10]I don't think it is judge. And here's why. Hey. Hey. Did Dan ever tell you he was going to commit suicide? That's Dan ever bring up the topic of suicide?

[00:47:20]Did you ever hear Dan talk? Did you ever hear Dan? Did the conversations you had with Dan include deep depression, feelings of grief, sadness, overwhelming uh despair? Those are topics. Those aren't what did he say about that? Those are topics of conversation, not specific statements. The only thing banned by hearay are are statements by the court.

[00:47:46]Not topics of conversation. Hey, you guys have lunch every day at Pedmont Hospital where he was a sheet metal worker. Did you ever talk about suicide with Dan? No. Do you ever have cause to fe to believe that he would take his own life? No. Not not was he the type of person that would commit suicide based on knowing him? Not that. But did you ever have did you ever talk with him about suicide, his happiness, his despair, his level of grief? Did you ever talk about those things? And then I would not go further. Well, what he says, but whether or not these topics, these general topics were discussed is not That's Thank you.

[00:48:25]Thank you. There's another pretty quick motion.

[00:48:34]All right. So, judge defense motion limiting number one. There's some facts in this case that we anticipate being able to show beyond reasonable doubt at trial that after the death of the deedent Daniel Acres. Well, let's back up. Before his death, we anticipate evidence showing that Two people named Christopher Berg and Amanda Berg sold a car to Daniel Acres on some kind of a payment plan. He was going to pay them every month or whatever it was and he paid for this car and they sold him this car. So after the death of Daniel Acres, um this defendant, shortly after the death, the funeral of Daniel Acres, this defendant returned the vehicle to Amanda Berg and Chris because now you have the deedent having died. He hasn't made the full payments for the car. And this we we believe the evidence would show that this defendant arranged to deliver the car personally back to the home of Amanda Bird and Chris B. Now these people were not just used car salesmen. These people were family members of the deedant.

[00:49:38]This was the deedant's sister person. He considered a sister to be a sister. Some complicated family involvement involved in the case. But basically he considered Amanda to be his sister and her husband. This is a family sale of this car to Daniel while he was in life. After he died, this defendant arranged to go over to the house of Amanda B. people. Amanda Berg had had spent a lot of time with this defendant personally. They were family after all had spent a lot of time together. Chris Berg had spent a lot of time with the the deedent worked with him. So these are very close-knit people, very close-knit family members who spent a lot of time with each other before the death of Daniel Acres. After the death of Danny Lakers, we believe the evidence would show that this defendant arranged to personally have the car delivered back to the home of Amanda Berg and Chrisberg, and then drove it into the driveway or in front of the home of those two people, Amanda and Chris, and then just left and and left. Caught a ride, got a ride, took an Uber, took a lift, whatever, and then texted Amanda Berg, "Hey, the car is in your driveway. See you." And I do have Amanda here to testify. I'm just profering because she's here outside subject to the rule of sequestration. So she could come testify exactly what happened to me here. I'm just profering give you an idea of the nature of the motion. And we we are planning if if permitted by this court to call Amanda to the stand for a number of things, a number of points, but one of them is the the very uh what I would consider on behalf of the state very strange interaction of of you're very close with these people. Daniel According to you committed suicide if you're the defendant according to defendant suicide he's just lost his life it's a tragedy as Mr. said earlier and you return this car to your family members, but you don't say anything. You don't come in, you don't have any interaction with your family members, you just return the car and text them, your car is back in driveway sealing. So, I think again that goes to the weight of the evidence. If the jury draws absolutely no importance from that or no weight to it, they attach no weight to it, fine. But it is relevant. It's relevant to show consciousness of guilt. It's it's relevant to show the shame of guilt and this defendant's consciousness of guilt because the state's argument is that she murdered this man and now she's in possession of his car. By the way, his car came back sanitized clean. Every single thing had been removed from it and it looked like it had been like it was from a factory. It had been clean.

[00:52:11]It was you could eat off it. And it's an old car. This is like a 20-y old car, 15y old car. And it comes back left in the driveway of Amanda B's house.

[00:52:20]absolutely polishing. Pay your cars back when driving. I mean, that has relevance because it shows conscious sense of guilt. This defendant doesn't want to confront her family members when she returned that car. She doesn't want to see face to face Amanda Berg and Chris.

[00:52:35]Why? Because she murdered their brother.

[00:52:38]And that's the relevance of it. And that's consistent with the state's theory of the case. And it's not overly prejuditial. Again, it can be explained away and cross that's what the chooses to leave under no duty to do to do anything, but they could they choose to to hey, maybe she's uncomfortable. Maybe she's still in mourning and grief, whatever. But it deserves to come in before the collective lines of the jury for them to consider it. I I think the court can agree it's extremely abnormal behavior.

[00:53:08]If your brother just committed suicide and his spouse just drops the car off in your driveway and leaves and says nothing, it's very unusual. At least that's what I'm hope to show the jury if I'm allowed to do so. So, I think that is relevant and I don't think it's overly prejuditial. I think I think it's almost a situation as it's a weird situation to be in arguing this motion because it's almost like the relevance of it is illustrated by the fact that the defense wants to exclude it. So, it almost shows its relevance by the fact that they don't want it in. If it wasn't relevant and it had no bearing on anything, they wouldn't care if it was coming in. They know it's wrong and they know it's extremely prejudicial so they won't exclude it. That's that's why an emotion is fine. But I think it's pro value is huge. I think the jury is going to think you know that's that tells a lot. That says a lot. That speaks volume. She didn't she didn't even close. Hey, you know that's relevant and it's not prejuditial. It's very conscious of guilt and what she's experiencing at the very Thank you, Mr. I'm just strained to see any of the 401 42 43 the prosecution says consciousness of guilt. I've searched that I can't find anything close to using consciousness of guilt to returning a car and saying it's in the drive and it's clean.

[00:54:44]Consciousness of guilt generally is a typious warrant crime.

[00:54:56]We now are just going I guess to the prosecution just throw everything in no type of barrier just let the jury decide what this means. I find this to be highly prejudicial motion to grant the motion.

[00:55:20]All right. Well, um I can say I don't see a lot of relevance to her turning that way.

[00:55:42]It's not again it's not really the fact she returned to call obviously we wouldn't get into that it's the circumstances surrounding the way that it was done very not just open up a floodgate for anything but I think under three because of circumstances circumstances totality circumstances.

[00:56:12]All right, I'm taking all this under advice and I'm gonna think on it some more. But I do think under 403 the relevance would be very small as far as unfairness factor in the way. So I could see a little bit on the other side of 403. I would just ask the court to take a look at the line of cases that indicate that rule of relevance favors a disability. It favors the jury being able to consider whatever even if it's relevant if it's relevant at all under 401 favors.

[00:56:56]Thank you.

[00:56:56]>> Thank you. All right. Moving right along. What is next?

[00:57:03]Except Oh, I have a motion.

[00:57:13]I'm sorry. The state propile motion, your honor. It's a motion to amend and unmand audio recording.

[00:57:24]Here's motion number one motion to admit cellular telephone audio recordings. So, in this case, please there was a forensic download and examination done of the deedent cellular telephone. And one thing and I have witnesses outside who could tell where this recording was found and that it wasn't manipulated and it was just found on the deedants phone.

[00:57:48]just for staying in my place and making it proper. I think we agreed that on the deedent's phone, there was a audio recording that was found in on his phone, whether it was the voice memo app or voice memo on an Apple phone where you push the voice memo, it records what's happening. There was this recording that was found on Steven's phone. He seems to be in in the company of his young son. It sounds like from the context of the recording they're playing video games. And while we cannot know exactly why the deedant chose to record this phone call, it was found on his phone. The young son is he's six years old at the time. So it's doubtful that he he record it chose to record this interaction. The interaction captures a very incredibly violent I would say it wasn't violent physically but it was emotionally violent argument between this defendant and the deceased. They're obviously in some kind of an argument a fight if you will not physical but but verbal and and really I wouldn't even say it's a fight rather as much as it's this defendant verbally abusing this deceased.

[00:59:03]And the date of the recording was December 19th, I believe, 2019. So, so very or December 14th, 2019 in the teens of December, right before the death of this deedant on December 22nd, 2019. So, it's very close in time to his death. That raises the relevance of the recording.

[00:59:25]There's going to be a lot of testimony in this case about marital difficulties between these two parties, marital disagreements, arguments between the parties. In fact, there'll be text messages admitted into the case. I'm almost certain they'll show on the date of immediately the day before this demon's death how these parties were going back and forth verbally texting each other. Very uh aggressive texts. I mean, it was angry.

[00:59:50]They were angry at each other. At least this event was angry at the deedent. So, right before this happened, within within a week or so, 10 days before his death, he pushes record on his phone and captures this argue from this defendant screaming at him, berating him, belittling and that's captured on audio and I believe it's relevant.

[01:00:20]All right, let me get the other one.

[01:00:27]Sorry about that y'all. I'm taking the I'm trying to do multiple things at the same time. Hold on a second.

[01:00:34]That was 184. Now here's one. No, which one was this? This is 180.

[01:00:40]Hold on. This is 183. Okay, now we're going to go to 184.

[01:00:45]Just one second.

[01:00:49]184.

[01:00:53]All right, here we go.

[01:00:58]witnesses foundations.

[01:01:05]>> Yeah, if it takes me a little while to get to it, just bear with me because I'm multitasking.

[01:01:10]copying manipulation of it goes about couple minutes long but it gives the gury incredible insight into the dynamic between this offend especially some of the things she says on there which threat responses I'd like it to be recording to be marked as an exhibit to listen to the first step. And then of course we're not waving any authenticity objections that have a ruling. But we listen to it.

[01:02:02]We don't believe that it should come in at all. But I believe that the evidence needs to be heard by the court before you can make that decision.

[01:02:14]>> Can you revisit it? You want to hear more?

[01:02:25]>> Yes, sir.

[01:02:28]I guess they haven't.

[01:02:31]state I'll mark it exhibit your court on it but I'll be happy to admit it off the bench why don't we do that >> yes sir I just have till the end of the afternoon thank you >> I think that completes all the motions the state had all the motions responsible for oh he did file a motion judge as you know your honor respectfully I knew your courtroom so I don't know how you exactly do things so I file a motion pursuant 15131 it's hard for me to keep track of all the potential jurors if there are question among the whole courtroom so I've asked you to sit 12 in a box at a time so I can examine 12 at a time >> well here's here's what I do I'll go [clears throat] downstairs to the jury assembly room and I'll just ask some statuto questions So if somebody doesn't count investigate that or something like that or they're clearly ever had this happen but somebody has someone who's not old enough or something like that and just kind of orient them and then come back upstairs and what we do is we we go ahead and bring up everybody. So, three panels and with y'all's permission, I will just bring up 36. Maybe we'll put a couple extra in the third box or maybe we'll do panels 14 or something like that with your permission. Make introductions, go through all the statutory questions, and then I will ask just some real basic questions.

[01:04:18]This will be number one and we'll run across six or seven and then eight will be behind number one. And so that's one pound. That's a pound. That's a pound. Typically we do this in courtroom one. It's bigger and it's just easier for the clerk to shuffle from the jury assembly room.

[01:04:42]And I'll ask state your name.

[01:04:46]Are you married?

[01:04:48]What do you do?

[01:04:53]What's your spouse?

[01:04:57]>> Very basic.

[01:04:58]>> And y'all can take notes.

[01:04:59]>> Okay. Then I will send out two and three and let y'all focus on.

[01:05:06]>> I think it's probably a good time to also since we're talking about jury, we've arrived at a consent agreement on a questionnaire and maybe we could approach that issue with the court now.

[01:05:16]We're talking kind of what year um we didn't have time to arrive at a consent on sending the questionnaire out in advance like when they get their jury summons but we would ask the court I think I'm authorized to join with defense council we would ask the court possibly to distribute the questionnaire to the potential denier allow them 45 minutes or so to answer the questions on the questionnaire and that would hopefully ultimately shorten the time it would take for one year greatly so would allow us to have a written record each what they said and their answers were.

[01:05:47]We would know a lot of the answers to the questions before we even got started. We submitted or Mr. Steel's office submitted a consent questionnaire to your honor's chambers.

[01:05:57]>> They submitted what?

[01:05:58]>> They submitted a consent questionnaire to your honor's chambers. The state signed off on it. The defense signs off on it. And we've asked the court to consider allowing that to be distributed right after your statuto questions to to the jury downstairs.

[01:06:12]>> I'm sorry. giving them a little time to answer that before they >> I have an amended unopposed motion for a jury questionnaire filed May 15th questionire attached. Is that >> I believe that's it.

[01:06:25]I share in the defense belief that it would shorten a great if your honor would entertain it.

[01:06:32]>> Um well um I I was a little concerned about process.

[01:06:43]Maybe I'm wrong. There's some questions on here that I typically don't allow.

[01:06:51]You both want it just like this. I'm hearing sir.

[01:07:00]Well, I know this is >> [clears throat] >> You don't want to lock yourselves in, but what do you anticipate for jury Mondayulate?

[01:07:56]I don't disagree with that. Of course, we'll try to That's why we did this question at the end of the day a little quicker.

[01:08:05]Whether that's one or two or three hours quicker, I don't know, but we all right. So, somebody is going to I suppose give me the clerk several dozen copies of this I'll prepare if you're question I'll give your chambers 48 to start the morning.

[01:08:45]>> Sure. All right. 48 copies or 50 copies.

[01:08:53]If your honor could just include in your orders if you will have 12 or 14.

[01:09:00]>> Well, I can't have more than 12 unless y'all.

[01:09:03]I don't I don't have a problem with 14, but that's okay.

[01:09:08]>> 12, Mr. Cole was 12 only counts numbers of 12. I guess we'd ask for 12 per pound 12. [clears throat] >> That'll probably guarantee a four pound.

[01:09:24]The defense were shaking their head.

[01:09:32]>> Okay.

[01:09:33]>> Yes, sir. I appreciate that. All right.

[01:09:35]So, that's it for file several notices of business record.

[01:09:42]Sir, >> can I ask a question?

[01:09:45]>> Yes, sir. So, thank you for agreeing to give the jury questionnaire. Do we not then submit jury questions to you next week? [snorts] Well, this is the first time I'm using the questionnaire.

[01:10:01]What I typically do is I have the lawyers submit proposed dire questions.

[01:10:04]I go through them and I eliminate some questions back and the other side never sees what I eliminated or what you gave me. Um, I would assume that since you're using this questionnaire, these are the questions you're going to ask and then of course you be allowed reasonable follow up to these questions and you wouldn't be coming up with something out of out of left field.

[01:10:29]>> I think that's right. I just want to make sure we don't violate your order.

[01:10:32]>> All right. So based on that um you do not have to give me proposed or dire questions and I believe the state has already given me some but It's just well that's not exactly true and it causes me to consider my consent to this jury question. If I'm going to be limited to only the questions on that question, I would draw my question because I have questions that are on questions that I submitted to your chambers. They're not on the question.

[01:11:01]These are just common. Let's do this. If you want to ask additional questions, just give them to me by >> Thank you. And then we did file a notice of business records for Miss B's Wellstar Healthcare records. She was admitted to the hospital December 22nd, 2019. Immediately after the police response to her home.

[01:11:23]Defense is objected to the entry of those records or the visibility of those records. Again, I don't think we'll be using those records at all, but there's a possibility again that some of these records could become invisible if the door is open. Again, I'm concerned about this testimony, potential testimony from Dr. Matthew Norman, forensic psychiatrist. He I believe is going to attempt to use these records to show that this administered certain drugs at the ER on the date of the death of the seedant and I think if that happens then we have a right to use not the totality of those medical records and we're not bringing up things in her medical history that not relevant to that issue but I think we have a right at that point to crossexamine Dr. with anything in the medical record history that is relevant to whatever he's testify he's going to be given he's going to be testifying that this defendant was administered some drug in the ER that could have affected her short-term recall or memory and things like that that could have affected the veracity of her initial interviews with police if there's something that's counter to that in medical record or she was administered XYZ something else history or there was a condition such as chronic illegal drug use in medical history that becomes relevant so that I would rely on so I don't know that we can really I don't know the court can really address that such open but I'll certainly stay in my place before I go into something like that and say we think the doors open on these medical records they are certified business records have the custodian stamp and seal I don't think that's really long as we could take this up because there's a lot of hearsay and information there. As long as we have an opportunity to discuss this medical records before allows to go into okay that will work.

[01:13:42]That's all for the state. Uh yes, address one thing before we move on to the next motion.

[01:13:54]>> Yes, sir. Is that okay? Um there's a lot of recordings of MS. I don't know if the court is out and what I propose to the court is maybe I can get together with the state and we can see if we can agree to redact certain portions because certain portions are nothing to do with the trial of the case with my prejudic. So after that can we come to the court with any disagreements? Of course you all something that I can address without the juror sitting there waiting. That's very helpful.

[01:14:36]>> I think that would be good. Maybe we can agree on transcripts or times and then anything we don't agree upon just >> you're talking about before the trial starts coming back.

[01:14:50]>> I would like um I don't even know if we have to come back short. Yeah. Not we would not do we would try to get to the That's my belief. I don't know. I don't want to.

[01:15:06]>> So, you would like to come back before the trial starts if there's any disagreements about >> redacted.

[01:15:13]>> We could or that's fine. I was saying we may not even have to come back as long as we can articulate to the court and get you the actual report. But whatever the state wants to do, I just don't want to be objecting.

[01:15:28]have to go out and say both sides with all due respect I thought that's what we're doing here today things are in parties are moving for example the shoplifting warrant the drug use those are on video we're going to respond to something that I don't know what's being put on the table but we're open to listening to the defense think this is always open to that of it.

[01:16:07]But I'm open to hearing from >> I would appreciate y'all working on that before the trial starts and then y'all can be here 8:30 that morning. The jury will just start working on the questionnaire about 8:30 and we'll have probably close to an hour.

[01:16:23]You can report to courtroom on the first floor because that's where we conduct more dire and then once we pick a jury here that'll give us some time.

[01:16:36]Mr. Ste, is there a motion that wasn't presented?

[01:16:56]But I think that's one of the state hospital search of our home at the hospital.

[01:17:05]There's one more left.

[01:17:06]>> Okay.

[01:17:07]>> Can I ask a question? While the witnesses are going to be called on that, do we just for scheduling of witnesses, do we have an estimate of how long is going to be?

[01:17:18]>> I think this case, your honor, respectfully, I know your case.

[01:17:25]>> That's what I was told.

[01:17:31]>> We don't this I know defense council's inquiring about Junth. I don't think the circuit has a day off.

[01:17:39]>> That was my question. So, we're working Friday.

[01:17:48]>> Okay. It is I have several witnesses outside your potential witnesses when they come back.

[01:17:59]>> Is that everything, Mr. >> I believe that's everything? Okay. All right.

[01:18:07]Any other questions?

[01:18:10]Coffee maker.

[01:18:16]Take breaks whenever a hand goes up every hour and a half. Start at 8:30 first day. Um work till 5:00 start.

[01:18:32]And if I go Anything else?

[01:18:48]What is that? It's a motion to suppress.

[01:18:52]Okay.

[01:18:57]Call Miller.

[01:19:05]No, it's basically argument by the defendant that she was unable to consent to the search of her home.

[01:19:38]swear.

[01:19:49]>> Could you state your name, please, sir?

[01:19:51]>> Yes.

[01:19:52]>> Miller.

[01:19:53]>> How are you employed?

[01:19:55]>> County Sheriff's Office. How long have you been so employed?

[01:19:59]>> 29 going on 29 years away.

[01:20:03]>> Okay. And you are a captain now? Is that correct?

[01:20:06]>> Yes, sir.

[01:20:07]>> And in March of 20 I mean in December of 2019 or what was your rank at that point?

[01:20:19]>> I was sergeant sir.

[01:20:20]>> Okay. What were your duties in December of 2019? I was assistant uh to the ship commander.

[01:20:29]>> Did you get called to a location on >> December 22nd?

[01:20:35]>> Yes.

[01:20:35]>> Of 2019?

[01:20:37]>> Yes, sir.

[01:20:38]>> And what were the nature and circumstances of you responding to that particular location?

[01:20:44]>> We responded to a person shot.

[01:20:49]>> Okay. And when you got to that location, how many people were were there for law enforcement when you arrived?

[01:20:57]>> Well, when I arrived, it was just me, sir.

[01:20:59]>> Okay. And what, if anything, did you do upon arrival at that location?

[01:21:04]>> When I got there, the defendant was standing there at the front door, was hysterical, screaming about someone being shot.

[01:21:17]>> Okay. When you say the defendant, of whom Do you speak?

[01:21:23]>> Okay. Let the record reflect. He's pointed out the defendant and identified her as Miss BS. Now, you say Miss BS was Where was she located when you first got on the scene?

[01:21:34]>> There at the front door.

[01:21:36]>> Okay. So, then what, if anything, did you do? I came up to the front door and she showed me or told me that the person that had been shot was downstairs because it was a split level house. You would go up the stairs or down the stairs. So down the stairs, it was half basement to the left and the the deceased was there on the floor.

[01:22:01]>> Okay. Now, prior to your arrival at that location, did you have any idea of where the person shot was located in the home?

[01:22:10]>> I don't believe so.

[01:22:12]>> And did you have any trouble at all understanding this defendant when she's trying to explain where the person shot is?

[01:22:19]>> No. No, sir.

[01:22:20]>> Okay. Even though she was hysterical, you could understand her. Is that correct?

[01:22:24]>> That's correct.

[01:22:25]>> Okay. Did you continue to converse with the defendant at that time?

[01:22:31]I went, excuse I went down um to the basement and checked on him. He was obviously deceased at that point. I came back up to the landing and she was right there at the landing and the stairs. And then I ended up being upstairs the rest of the time with her helping her take care of the children.

[01:22:57]And Captain Pace was the second on the scene and he went down downstairs and he secured that area down there.

[01:23:08]>> Now, when you were on the scene, did you have any trouble communicating with this defendant at all?

[01:23:15]>> I mean, she was crying in hysterical, but but I mean, no problem communicating with her. I mean, as far as what she needed to do to help with kids or vice versa. So, >> she was she kind of telling you what she wanted you to help her with?

[01:23:30]I wouldn't say that she's telling me what to do, but there was communication between us.

[01:23:36]>> And at that point, she's not in custody or anything like that.

[01:23:42]>> No, sir. No, sir. At that point, uh, from what I'd understood from from what I've been told from her was that her husband shot himself. So, >> and so you never arrested her that morning?

[01:23:55]>> No, sir.

[01:23:56]>> And this is a little after midnight, is that correct? Yes.

[01:23:59]>> And uh were you able to communicate with her effectively? Did she have any trouble comprehending what you were saying?

[01:24:08]>> No, sir. Not that I recall.

[01:24:10]>> And did you have any trouble understanding what she was telling you?

[01:24:15]>> Yes, sir.

[01:24:17]>> And anything that she told you was freely voluntarily given to you. Is that correct?

[01:24:23]>> Yes, sir.

[01:24:24]>> And there was not a warning given or anything like that. Is that correct?

[01:24:32]>> No.

[01:24:33]>> And she wasn't threatened with the remotest fear of injury and she wasn't promised anything. Is that correct?

[01:24:41]>> That's correct.

[01:24:43]>> How long were you on the scene there with her?

[01:24:46]>> I was on for it was probably a couple hours. I mean, total that I was there.

[01:24:55]>> Okay. Now, at some point, left that H home, did she?

[01:24:59]>> She did.

[01:25:00]>> And who what happened to cause her to leave the home?

[01:25:04]The paramedics had come out to check her and had checked I guess her blood pressure was high or I don't really recall exactly what happened but they checked her and I don't remember if she left in the ambulance or if she left with somebody reflect that Captain Miller just winced and he is under physical dess at this point and he's here. If you want to explain to the court what problems you're having and we will take a break.

[01:25:40]>> No, I'm fine. I can get through. Okay.

[01:25:42]>> Yeah. What is exactly going on with you physically right?

[01:25:46]>> It's it's called trial neurology and it's the trigeminal nerve that comes down and it's just it's constant shocking.

[01:26:01]>> So let's just Go back. Now you're talking to uh the defendant. She's there with with the children. And are you upstairs with her with the children?

[01:26:11]>> Yes.

[01:26:12]>> Okay. And so how many children are up there?

[01:26:18]I recall two. I believe it was two that was up there.

[01:26:25]There may have been one that was sleeping, but I don't recall exactly the number.

[01:26:32]When she left, what happened with the children? Who was watching them?

[01:26:38]>> There was a family member that had showed up.

[01:26:41]>> Okay. So, she didn't leave until this family member arrived.

[01:26:44]>> Correct.

[01:26:45]>> Okay. Did she tell you the family member was on the way to help her with the children or do you recall?

[01:26:52]>> I think she had called the family member to get them to come, but I don't I don't recall. I didn't call Okay. At any time you were dealing with this defendant on that morning, did you have any trouble communicating with her?

[01:27:10]>> No, sir.

[01:27:11]>> Did she give you any indication [clears throat] that she had any trouble communicating?

[01:27:16]>> No, sir.

[01:27:18]It's all question.

[01:27:32]We hope you're okay. Yeah, I'm good. I'm good.

[01:27:37]When you went into the lower level of the home, what did you do?

[01:27:42]I went down and I don't recall if I even checked for a pulse or anything. It was an obvious deceased person. At that point, I'll walk back [clears throat] any type of check to see whe I don't recall.

[01:28:11]describe it. I don't know if this is fair. She was she was hysterical.

[01:28:16]>> I think hysterical would be a good word.

[01:28:18]She was crying and I mean she was hysterical be the word I would use.

[01:28:23]Okay.

[01:28:25]>> And she was brought to the hospital for health condition. Is that true?

[01:28:30]>> I don't recall the exact reason that she was taken.

[01:28:37]believe the parame had checked her and her blood pressure was high or something like that.

[01:28:42]>> For some reason she went to the hospital >> for health reason.

[01:28:46]>> I'm assum that's why people go to the hospital >> unless they work there.

[01:28:52]>> Yes. Yes. Okay.

[01:28:55]>> Thanks.

[01:29:00]Well, just to follow up on what Mr. Steel was asking, at any point in your conversation with this defendant, did she indicate to you that [cough] she couldn't understand what you were saying?

[01:29:14]>> No, sir.

[01:29:14]>> At any point in your conversation with this defendant, did she have any trouble communicating to you where you had trouble understanding what she was trying to convey to you?

[01:29:24]>> Yes, sir.

[01:29:27]Anything else for the service?

[01:29:32]>> All right. Thank you, sir.

[01:29:37]>> Take it.

[01:45:02]>> [music] [music] >> Thank you for watching [music] the infamous channel.

[01:45:23]Well, laughter and fun make up a panel.

[01:45:27]Together we'd build this digital spree.

[01:45:31]We appreciate [music] you and our growing [singing] family with mods by our side and chat flow free in this online space. It's just you and me. We [singing] laugh until tears roll down like the rain.

[01:45:52]In this virtual world, you ease all my pain.

[01:46:00]We're [music] family, not just a show. Every click and comment [music] makes us grow. Mars and shine, keeping the vibe so right. [music] Together we shine like stars in the night.

[01:46:18][music] [music] We cherish the moments, the highs and lows. From [music and singing] the latest gossip to stories untold. You're more than a viewer. You're part of the crew in this space of ours. It's all because of you.

[01:46:48][music] This digital [singing] world where emotion is shared. Every post and reaction showing we care. [music] The [singing] love is real in this virtual domain. With every [music] sign enjoys what we'll gain.

[01:47:07]We're a family, [singing] not just a show. [music] Every click and comment makes us grow. Mars in check, keeping the vibe so right. Together [music] we shine like stars in the night. Build me family, not just a show. Every click and come and [music] makes us grow. Mars and shine. Keeping the vibe so bright.

[01:47:35]Together we shine like stars in the night.

[01:47:39]>> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> This digital world where emotion is shared. Every post and reaction showing we care. The love is real [singing and music] in this virtual domain. With every sign enjoys what we'll [music] gain.

[01:48:44]We're a family, not just a show. [music] Every click and comment makes us grow inside. [music] Together we shine like stars in the night. [music]