In criminal law, self-defense and defense of others require that both the defender and the person being defended must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty, the defender must have a reasonable belief of imminent danger, and the person defended must have had no other probable way to avoid the danger. The burden of proof rests on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
🔴 LIVE: Rick Chow murder trialAdded:
just so that we're making some progress.
And it's a matter I submitted to Mr. Gibson and to your clerk a moment ago. I don't know that you even had a moment to look at it, but I have uh Go ahead.
Well, your honor, we uh we we live in kind of a new time uh the era of Murdoch. And when I began practicing law in the 70s and the 80s and the '9s, uh, we used a time-honored device of in highprofile cases, sequestration of the jury. Now, we did not move for sequestration, nor did you choose to do that, your honor, and we respect that decision. But at this juncture, Yiana, this case has garnered so much publicity, so much I think I can't understate the polarization uh in this community about this case and that's for a variety of reasons that I've submitted to you and would ask to make as a court exhibit several pieces of paper. One is simply uh a photograph uh that was posted on Instagram I believe and it it is one of the more tame. I am told though I'm not uh I don't cruise the internet certainly not during a trial but I am told that there are Tik Tok messages that if there's not a conviction in this case that the courthouse will burn. Uh I know that that's of concern to everyone.
There are uh yesterday The third piece of paper, which is a dark text message, was received by a member of my client's family, and they sent it to me immediately and made no response to it. But it's alarming because it represents the other holder, the what I would call the skin head white supremacist, that lunatic fringe.
Um and your honor in in the middle uh as we have said the narrative in this case beginning shortly after the incident hasn't been held by the statements of public officials. I've attached that.
It's already a part of your record elsewhere. And and then I I've highlighted a portion of a news article which I won't read because I've highlighted it for you. It suggests that somehow this trial instead of being a factf finding mission resulting in a in a neutral detached jury's deliberation and determination of guilt or innocence is somehow a moratorum and that justice will fail if the event that this journalist seem to suggest is the the the result that should be obtained. But your honor, for all those reasons, we rely on judges instructions.
We hope, we keep our fingers crossed that juries will take that to heart, that they will avoid interference, that they will report it to the court, but we know from the Murdoch case that just doesn't happen. Now that case is different because it involved the interference of the court official, one who as our Supreme Court said in that opinion was the the court's representative. So the the jurors could have easily felt as they did in that case that it was okay because that was the court's caretaker. But I think that there is the very real potential given the amount of publicity attended to this thing, your honor, that I would ask the court though it is inconvenient. It will take 10 minutes and and I would not oppose you, your honor, going to the jury room and pulling them one at a time out in the hall. I don't know that we even need to be present. I don't know that the prosecution will have a position on this, but but I do think it's important not to pull them as a group. I think it merits in order to assure a fair trial that is free from any taint interference suggestion even to the extent of driving by the state capital this week you're likely to have seen a post and I don't want jurors to think that they're they've getting themselves in trouble if they have seen something that may have caused them to think in a in an inappropriate way. But I do ask that your honor with all respect for the time and the economy of time that I think it is that important.
Thank you.
>> Your I don't think we need to bring any additional attention to this matter. I mean the things that Mr. McCulla has brought out I appreciate the fact that he brought it to our attention but we can't control what the outside world does and I mean post by people who are not involved in this case that we had admonitions that were given uh and and to our knowledge and and and what we know is the family's done everything they're supposed to do. They've not posted. They've not engaged. They've not done any of the things that the court has uh has has asked them not to do.
What the rest of the world does outside of this courtroom is what the rest of the world does. What the rest of the world calls us calls prosecutors. I really don't care. You know, we're here to do justice and that's why we're here now to ask the jury to do something additional. Now, judge, if they've got a question, they'll they have the ability to write it down. They got the ability to say, "Hey, judge, this did or didn't occur or whatever." And to my knowledge, that's not taking place. So, in order to to pull them out and start kind of poking and asking, you know, specific questions of them, I just don't think it's proper at this point. We've had other high-profile cases. We've not done it. We didn't do it in the in the Uber case here. We didn't do it. I mean, it's not been done. um that I can recollect.
I'm not 30 years of practicing law. I've not had a case where that's happened and I don't think that we need to start doing it now. The jury has a question.
They understand your admonitions. These are grown folks who uh who went through the process. They've adhered to everything that you've asked them to do at this point. And there's no need to start pulling them out and searching for something when they're not telling you that anything is going on. I don't think it's proper right now.
>> Yeah. I I would simply say that that uh as I mentioned, we sequested juries for many decades and we did so at a time when the only access that jurors could have to pertain to themselves were much less than today. There were three TV stations.
There was no internet. There was no social media. There were neighbors. Uh and those opportunities were the only opportunities to be tainted by public opinion. And yet for three decades or four, our courts sequestered juries. To the best of my knowledge, we stopped doing that because of the expense.
Okay, I get it. But today, a thousand television channels, social media platforms that allow the worst and most scurless, degrading, disgusting uh conversations, even to the point of threats of violence and threats of destruction.
That is so ubiquitous, John. And I think I don't know that I recall making a motion like this, but having gone through the crucible of the Murdoch case, uh I recognize a couple of things.
The frailty of a jury's uh willingness to come forward. And that's a human nature. It's not a dishonesty on the part of the jury. It's just a belief that it doesn't need to be reported. So I would ask again, your honor, it's while it may be novel, uh, but I think it is necessary and the mere fact that it hasn't been asked before of you or another judge, whether in this courtroom or another, uh, I don't hesitate or have any embarrassment about asking you to do it now to ensure against the possibility that any juror has been contacted or otherwise stumbled in to the receipt of information. Thank you.
>> All right. Well, I'm I'm going to know your position on that, Mr. I don't think there's any real procedure for doing that, and I see it as fraud on a number of levels. If I were to go back there and examine each individually, myself, um again, based on what we learned from the court's ruling in Murdoch, I um hesitant to any sort of conversation off the record outside the presence of all the lawyers uh with any girl. So, um I will deny your motion in that regard. What I am going to say though too is the stuff here that you provided is troubling.
Although there's been a lot of troubling things all weekend. Um lawyers and and and I guess I'm more talking to the public here. Um we just all need to turn the temperature down much like I caution the lawyers Wednesday to turn the temperature down. The public does too.
Um this matter is actually only life a matter of life or death with the farmat belton family and the child family. The rest of the folks don't need to be sending messages like this um to lawyers. Uh I actually got emails myself over the weekend which reminds me I need to send a sled. Um so um please folks just turn the temperature down. There will be a verdict maybe here today. Um, and we're all going to be respectful of one another. And I want to commend everybody that's been in this courtroom uh for the week or all last week.
Everyone here has been respectful to one another. Um, there have been no issues.
There have been no outbursts and I commend you all on that for being respectful of your neighbor. Uh, but we're going to continue to do that. Uh, and that's how today's going to play out. Um, so with that being said, what else?
>> Jury charges.
>> Yes, your honor. Uh, I think we just have two uh quick issues to bring up with regard to what the defense's position is with uh final charges. We did send an email to the court um yesterday afternoon with the one edit and the one addition. Uh first of those would be uh to add within the element uh about bringing on the difficulty. Our position is that the language and the court's draft um the cleanest way to make this edit would be at the bottom of 16 going into 17.
um that if the conduct of the person defended or the defendant was unlawful and of the type which was reasonably calculated to and did provoke a deadly assault uh and continuing from there uh in support of that language we're relying on state versus Bryant uh 336 South Carolina 340 uh that's from 1999 9 and that exact language was reiterated in Slater and that's 373 South Carolina 66.
Um and the the direct quote from those cases that is that any act of the accused in violation of law and reasonably calculated to produce the occasion amounts to bringing on the difficulty.
uh and with bar his right to assert self-defense if those conjunctive uh conditions are met. Um so that would be the first request that we'd have. And we we also do believe that the evidence induced uh over the course of this trial does squarely put the issue of withdrawal um in front of the jury and that is a question that they must decide whether um I don't think it's going to be any surprise that the state will argue uh that Andy Chow uh andor Rick Chow were at fault in bringing on this difficulty uh with respect to the testimony uh that we have received over the course of last week. Um Andy's conduct uh his act, the jury could find that act amounts to a withdrawal from any potential difficulty the jury may have found he had brought on. Uh and if that withdrawal was effective, then uh his right to self-defense uh and by extension Mr. cow's right to defend him would be restored. Uh and in support of that withdrawal charge, the language of which is one's right to self-defense is restored after a withdrawal from the initial difficulty with the victim if that withdrawal is communicated to the victim by word or act. Um and that or act uh portion was emphasized I believe in state versus McCarti. is 437 South Carolina 355.
Uh and that is also quoting the Bryant case at 336 South Carolina 340.
Um we do believe that the withdrawal um law does need to be charged with this jury in light of what's been induced over the course of last week.
>> Continue.
>> I just don't recall any testimony regarding any withdrawal. This was one continuous act.
I don't remember any testimony whatsoever withdrawal. It was a chase that went 130 yards and there was some backing up that was testified to, but it was right at that moment.
This was a bam bam kind of situation way describing. Okay, here's what I'm going to do. I did look at all this. Um, as far as a violation of the law language, I'm not going to charge on that. it was I think the implication of that charge would mean that there would have to be a violation of the law for someone to be not without fault. So I'm not going to put it that in there. I am going to add the language of withdrawal and it is in the final charge. It'll be on page um 18 at the bottom. Uh and here's the exact language. It went a little further than what um you asked for, Mr. um because I think sort of cut sort of cut it all short. Um here's the exact language. One right to self-defense or defense of others is restored after with withdrawal from the initial difficulty with the victim if that withdrawal is communicated to the victim by word or act. Withdrawal from a conflict must be effectively communicated to the victim by word or act to restore the right to use self-defense or defense of others.
An accused who provokes or initiates an assault cannot claim self-defense or defense of others unless the person defended both withdraws from the conflict and communicates his withdrawal by word or act to his adversary. So it went a little further. Um then just I guess you pretty much had the first sentence but the model charge that we have um added basically it has to be potentially unequivocal um that the person defended is withdrawal. Um so that's that's how I'm going to do it.
They all have been emailed a copy of the final charge as well. Anything else?
>> Are you intending on or have you thought about we're going to send the obstructions back with them initially or just play?
>> I typically do not. Um and I will I will let them know that if they have a question about the law. Um the procedure for that would be to send me a note and then I can recharge them on the law.
I I just get concerned that that folk, you know, this is intended to be interpreted as a whole and I get concerned that folks one person relies solely on page 17 and nothing else as a whole.
I don't know whether I'm right or wrong.
I know some some of my colleagues send the charge back. Um but that's the way I am.
>> All right, we ready for closing? Um we got a little PowerPoint here that's just going to have some So has the thing ready? Remember, I know it takes a little time to fire up.
>> I think we have it.
Will it just turn right on whenever we're ready for the first line?
>> Okay. recall the document you gave me.
>> I did not, John. I just passed it up to you, but I'll be happy to come up and we made this report.
All right.
>> Yes, sir.
Jury seated on.
>> Thanks, sir. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
>> Good morning.
>> The authorities have presented all the evidence in the case and it's now time for the attorneys to make their closing arguments. Much like the opening statements, uh the arguments of the attorneys are not evidence in the case.
Their statements are meant to help you understand evidence and apply the law.
You should disregard any remark, statement, or argument which is not supported by the evidence presented during the trial or the law that I'm going to explain to you at the conclusion of the argument. Stay ready to close. We are >> Yes, sir.
What is the value of a human life?
That's usually posed as a rhetorical question, isn't it?
What is the value of a human life? Can we assign a monetary value to a human life, to a human soul?
We put a price on it like we're paying on a a bottle of water or a bottle of motor oil or a lampshade or a fishing boat.
Is that possible?
Are some lives worth more than others?
These are philosophical questions that that people have been wondering aloud for ages.
Do you remember that feeling of being a teenager?
You remember what it was like when your your body was new and and shiny? You remember that?
Uh remember time before work and and bills and all the responsibility being responsible for other people? You remember that feeling? You remember what it was like having that long road of life just stretched out before you and all the possibilities?
Um, not knowing what they were, but just being excited for the ride. You remember that?
Remember the last day of school?
Remember the beginning of summer break?
sleeping in summer jobs. Fireflies, fresh peaches.
Um, what about grandma's house? Slip and slides.
Remember the smell of fresh cut grass, beach trips, no responsibilities. How do you put a price on that? You remember that?
How do you put a value on that?
I've got a a 15-year-old daughter and an 18-year-old son, and they're in that time of life. And if I'm waxing, too poetic, it's it's because I'm envious at times of them and and being in that stage and and just having that whole long road of life stretched out before you and all the possibilities.
Uh just an adventure waiting to unfurl, right?
But if I could jump in a time machine and and go back to them to being 14 years old, I don't think I would because I remember the difficulties of that time as well.
Um I I remember being 14 and a sad reminder that I'm not anymore is is sometimes when I I get a glimpse of the camera and and I see my face up there and I I say, "Who the hell is that?
Where did those wrinkles come from?
Where did that gray hair come from?
But I do remember being a 14-y old boy.
And if I could, I don't think I'd go back to being a 14-year-old boy because I remember the difficulties of being a 14-year-old boy.
I remember the idea of trying to zero in on what is my identity?
What is my personality anyway? Who am I?
Where do I fit in? How can I be cool?
To this day, I still remember things I did that make me shake my head. Things that I strongly regret.
Things that were ill- advised.
Things that were reckless and dangerous.
Things that were just plain stupid.
It It was not easy being a 14year-old boy. And that was back in 1993.
Um, but that's what being a kid is.
That's what being a 14-year-old boy is.
To make mistakes and hopefully to learn from them, right?
Isn't that what growing up is supposed to be about.
I didn't look much like Cyrus. And I think that's obvious to everybody here.
Uh, we grew up in different parts of Colombia.
We had different experiences. We went to different schools. We grew up under different circumstances, different times.
Um, seems that we were both skinny little 14-year-old boys from divorced parents trying to find our way.
Um, I remember trying to straddle that line between being a child and trying to figure out what it meant and where my place was in the world and trying to figure out how to be a teenager trying to figure things out.
And as I said, seems that to me that it would be infinitely more difficult to be a 14year-old in 2023 than it was in 1993.
There there are just things that exist now that were unimaginable back then when I was 14.
Um but some of the broader challenges would have been the same. Where do I fit in? How do I fit in?
This would have been that wisful time of life for Cyrus in May of 2023. He had just wrapped up 8th grade.
Uh we all know what comes next. Ninth grade in high school and all the craziness of that. But right now, May of 2023, it's summertime. It's the first week of summer. What's better than that?
How you put a price on that?
It's the best time of the year for a kid. There's still a few months before he has to deal with that that crazy time of ninth grade in high school.
Sunday, May 28th, 2023, it was Memorial Day weekend.
Cyrus was fresh off middle school graduation and it was summertime.
Why does a 14-year-old have a gun?
This was asked multiple times by my friend.
Known him since I was 14, Jack Swirling.
Uh, but he asked that a number of times.
And I suppose he asked that uh as a literal question that deserved an immediate, succinct, distilled, and simple answer.
That was how the question was posed.
that it is a very simple question and deserves a simple answer.
Maybe it's not that simple though. Maybe it's a much broader question that we as a society will eventually have to sit down and come up with real answers to and possible solutions to.
Um maybe it's a question with an answer that is so complex.
Uh it has so many layers that is so loaded that maybe it's not something we just figure out today.
Um but it does seem as long as guns have existed boys have been fascinated by them.
required reading when when I was in elementary school was Where the Red Fern Groves and it was all about Billy and his gun and the exploits and the adventures 10-year-old Billy and his rifle or uh you know my favorite movies back then were Tombstone and Young Guns and Predator Terminator just movies about guns and violence boys eat it Well, I did so many movies, so much imagery, so many music videos about guns. It It's just We're in America. It's part of life and boys eat it up.
You can't even get through December without Christmas story and Ralphie and his fascination with the Red Rider rifle, right? It is.
It's just a fact of life.
That was all before the internet.
But again, we live in America. And to take that one step further, Cyrus and I grew up in the South. And we were blessed to grow up in the South, weren't we? And guns are just a part of life, are they not?
A gun leaning up in the corner when I was growing up was about as exciting as a cast iron skillet on the stove or a butcher knife in the sink.
It's just part of our life. And whether that's good or bad, I'm not here to talk about that. But uh guns are prevalent and boys gravitate towards guns. Whether that's good or not, was Cyrus Wright having a pistol in his pocket May 28th to 2023? No.
Was it legal for Cyrus to have a pistol in his pocket May 28, 2023? No.
Has anybody indicated that it was okay or legal or right? No.
Did he deserve to die?
Did he deserve to die?
I remember my grandfather letting me practice with a little 22 rifle.
I remember being eight, shooting a 22 rifle. I remember my first singleshot 410 shotgun. I was probably about 12, 13 when I got that. I remember going up to the little cabinet just off the kitchen in my grandparents house and finding a little revolver he had there.
And I remember taking it down and I remember going down to the pond and shooting a few shots.
I was probably about 12 and I knew I wasn't supposed to do that and I knew I'd get in trouble if I got caught.
That didn't stop me.
I remember all those things.
Boys do things that are ill advised and not always smart.
That's part of life, though.
We hope as we grow older, we we learn some of these things. and we grow out of it.
Did Cyrus deserve to die?
When Cyrus Carmarmac Belton entered that Shell gas station at 7441 Park Lane Road about 8:00 p.m. May 28, 2023, he had no way of d knowing that he'd be dead in about 10 minutes.
You see him enter the gas station. He is immediately asked to take his book back off. a very fair request and he complies immediately. He's not rude during the encounter. He he does as he's asked to do.
Uh we see Alice check the facial recognition database once he comes in. We heard about the facial recognition database they employ at the Shell gas station. And then she went about her business or pretended to act busy um while keeping a an eye on Cyrus as he walked up and down the aisles. Some point she ducks her head into the office where Rick is.
What if anything she said to him is unknown. We don't know. But Alice and Andy continue to watch Cyrus as he walks up and down the aisles.
Eventually he goes to where the water bottles are. Uh, he had to know he was being watched, right? I mean, I don't think Alice was making um it unknown or she wasn't really disguising what she was doing.
Uh, he took four bottles of water out, put four bottles of water back in. He's caught on camera from several different angles doing so. And cameras do not lie.
Cameras do not make mistakes.
It would have taken about 17 seconds to watch him at that water cooler if Rich Chow had decided to do that.
About 17 seconds at a time. 17 seconds to confirm that he took nothing.
Failure of Rick Chow to do this will cost Cyrus his life.
Thousands and thousands of dollars of technology at Rick Child's fingertips and he chooses to act in anger.
Cyrus would be a rising senior if he was still alive.
Entering his 12th grade year high school if Rick Chow had taken about 17 minutes to review the footage.
One, two, three, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1.
As Sarus turns from the water cooler, Alice and Andy began asking him if he put a bottle of water in his pocket.
$1, 114, 130 yards, 21 g.
fight or flight. You have heard that term. It's a physiological reaction, right? It's it's ingrained in us since um you know, we were cavemen, I guess, basically. And it is a an instinct. It's a reaction that occurs in situations where there is a threat.
Okay. If Cyrus is a tough guy, right?
If Cyrus is a thug, right?
If Cyrus is a gunslinger, right? If he is that guy, okay, if he's that guy, now is the time you'd see it. Now's the time he'd pull that pistol out, point it.
If he was that guy, right?
He's not that guy.
He's a child.
He doesn't pull out his pistol. He doesn't cuss or disrespect anyone. He collects his backpack, drops his head, and he walks out.
If he was a fighter, now would be the chance for him to confront anybody.
If he ever intended to use the gun, it would have been right here.
Uh but this is the moment where cool heads should prevail. Cool reflection should be what happened here.
Uh reflection should have occurred. This is when adults should act like adults.
This could have been it.
He could have walked off. Uh, you would be a kid looking forward to senior year in high school.
You have a a mother and a father. Uh, who would still have their little boy?
One dollar, 114 pounds.
17 seconds. 1 second. 21 grams.
An entire lifetime ahead.
Unknown potential. Success. Failure.
Redemption.
Decisions.
We know the decision Rick Chow made.
It's etched in time now.
It plays back like a bad movie.
You've seen before. You already know the ending.
He did what he did. And that's why we're all here today.
Let him go. Just let him go.
We don't need to be here today.
Let the boy go.
What have you got to lose?
What is the value of human life?
As of May 28, 2023, Rick Chai had owned and operated that gas station for over 10 years. This was not his first day on the job.
Why not call 911?
It takes one second. Andy said so himself. It takes one second to call 911.
Better yet, why don't we review the vide tape?
If we think the boy took something, why don't we look at that vide tape?
because then we'd realize we don't even need to call 911.
He never did anything.
We would have learned that immediately.
All this at your fingertips. Instead, you choose to act in anger.
You choose to make split split-second decisions and you're dead wrong.
For argument sake there, let's say let's say he had committed the abominable crime of stealing a dollar bottle of water. Let's say he did that. Okay.
Well, you remember the wall of shame.
You remember the testimony about all the pictures all over the store of various people who had been suspected of shoplifting. And um what we do at the Shell gas station is we we take their picture because we have all these cameras that we can get all these pictures from and then we put it up on the wall of shame. And that's what we do. We shame them. But also if they come back in, we can confront them.
Why Why don't we put uh this little boy's picture up there then? I mean, if he stole water, let's just do that.
That would have been a better option, right?
Or we get all these pictures. Let's send them into law enforcement looking for this guy. And by the way, we know exactly what he was wearing. And by the way, he walked that way down this dead end road. Shouldn't be too hard for you guys to solve anything.
would have been better than this.
He chose to chase down an eighth grader.
The boy was so terrified that he ran out of his shoe and continued running.
The boy was so terrified.
He's losing clothing.
He drops his phone. He drops his mother's phone, but he continues running.
Wouldn't that have been even another great opportunity for them to stop?
Listen, we've scared this little boy so bad, he's come out of his shoe. Let's stop the insanity right here. Let's turn around. Let's take our butts back to the Shell gas station.
What are we even doing anyway? Why are we doing this?
But no, they continue tracking him, chasing the boy down, then he takes that hard ball, hits the ground.
What about right then? Wouldn't that have been a good time to be like, we're scaring this boy so bad that he's run out of his shoes, he's lost his cell phones now. Now he's hurt himself.
>> That's We've gone too far. We've gone too far.
But no.
130 yards, 114 lbs, 390 ft, 1 second, 17 seconds, 21 g.
Why in God's name are two grown men, one armed, chasing a child, because that's what he is, 130 yards.
Why in God's name?
Vonte Bryant, he had to hit the brakes because uh he didn't want to hit him.
They all come running out in front of him on Spring Tree.
Dead set on catching that boy. You had to put the brakes on.
He says he thought it was the police.
I said, "Well, why'd you think that?" He said, "Cuz one of the guys had a pistol and they were chasing that boy. I thought that was the police."
And so that would have been what Cyrus saw, too. He doesn't know why these men are chasing him to begin with, why they're yelling at him.
And now he sees one of them has a gun.
And he's wondering, "Why? Why are these people chasing me? What are they going to do to me?
and he's running and Devonte Bryan said he didn't have anything in his hand.
Lori Carson pulled up too. Remember her?
That's her in that BMW, a grandmother.
She recognized immediately Cyrus was a child.
She said he looked frightened.
He looked scared.
He said it looked like he needed help.
He said he didn't have anything in his hand.
Kennedy, Jasmine Broadwood, they saw him too.
He didn't have anything in his hand.
All of them had different angles to observe. None of them knew Cyrus, but they were all very clear. The boy had nothing in his hand.
He had a backpack over his left shoulder, which we could see in the video, trying to hold his pants up while he ran from these men, but he had nothing in his hand.
What does a 130 yards look like?
Well, looks like this.
It's a long distance.
It's too damn long.
It's 130 yards too long.
114 lb.
One second.$1 21 g.
Cyrus was shot in his back as he ran away from Rick Child and Andy Child.
It entered his lower back just to the right of his backbone.
It traveled upwards. You see, it went through his lung. You see, it entered the right ventricle of his heart.
Came to rest there.
And that trajectory tells us he was trying to get away to the very end, trying to run from danger.
He died scared.
He died bleeding to death.
Rich Child's face being the last one he saw.
He died surrounded by strangers.
He died scared on the side of a road in nowhere America.
He died young.
He died because of rich child shot in the back.
Today, Rick Chow says, "Well, guys, I had to do it.
I had to kill that boy.
I had to chase him down and I just had to shoot him." He says his son yelled, "Gun!" and he had to shoot.
He tells you he was justified in doing it.
and he says, "Well, um, if you're wondering why I shot and killed a child in the back, it's because of, um, the doctrine of defense of others."
That's what he says to you today.
And he was dead wrong on May 28th, 2023, and he's dead wrong today.
Okay.
So what is the law of defense of others?
There are four elements uh that the state has to um disprove one of them. Okay? But these are what would get you a charge and find that you would be justified in killing somebody based on the law of defense of others.
If any of these are disproven, any one of them are disproven by the state, then he does not get that legal justification for killing. Do you understand?
If you find any of these to not fit for him, he does not get the defense of defense of others. Number one, okay, I want to be clear, he fails right off the bat.
What is the number one uh element of defense of others? The very first one that he fails miserably.
Rick Chow and Amy Chow both must be without fault for bringing on the difficulty.
Y'all remember those questions I asked Andy? And by the way, the other thing y'all get to consider is credibility of witnesses.
Y'all seen people lie before. Y'all seen people tell halftruths. Y'all seen people waver before in questions they didn't really want to answer. Y'all seen that before in life.
Y'all have a chance to sit back there and talk about whether y'all found Andy to be a credible witness or not.
But one thing I asked him is, Andy, Cyrus is still alive if y'all stay in the gas station, right?
He said, "Yeah, you're right."
But then they decided to ramp it up.
They brought this difficulty on. Okay.
One of his lawyers said, "Well, you know, Cyrus would be alive if he didn't have a gun."
And I said, "You would never have known he had a gun, would you? If you just kept your butt in the shell station, kept doing the work you were doing.
Stay behind the cash register. And Rick, stay back in the what do you call your surveillance room back there. Why don't you just stay back there?
Why are we running 130 yards off our property?
even after he loses his shoes and his cell phone. Why aren't we just stopping on the property if we need to see which direction he goes in? Well, we we see him running up that straight road and we know it's a dead end. And we got all these pictures of him.
Now we got his cell phone.
We got his shoe.
We got all these pictures of him. We got his clothing, cell phone, shoes.
Why do we bring on the difficulty when we don't have to? But right off the bat, defense of others fails.
Prong number one.
A grown man with decades of experience chose to turn suspicion into pursuit and pursuit into gunfire.
We fail immediately.
But if we were to consider going on, he fails all four of them. Let me just walk you through it just to be clear. But if any one of them fail, he does not get that defense. But number two, Rick Chow must be under the belief or have a good faith belief that Andy Chow was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury harm.
We saw that uh a fall and the after effects of it. It was such a violent fall that u it led to those wounds to his shin.
Uh he goes face down into the ground with various widths to set. And then marker AA right there. Um that would be the laser pointer, the flashlight we heard so much about. That is an interesting marker because you know what that tells us? Couple things really. It tells us where Cyrus fell and hit the ground. But it also along with those wounds to his leg shows us how violent of a fall it was. That would be where he hit the ground. And the only way this works is if his gun comes out of his hoodie, hits the ground so violently it dislodges the flashlight and that's where it came to rest. Ladies and gentlemen, if you are a 14-year-old boy and you know you're not supposed to have that gun and you're being chased by people and it spills out, the very first thing you're going to do is pick it up and continue running, which is exactly what Cyrus Carmarmac did. He was trying to get away.
But as you see right there, that that would be where he fell. And we know he continued running because his body is found past those two poles. But what is further up towards where his body came to rest?
AB right there is that shell casing.
That is approximately where Rick Child stood when he fired the weapon. So even after we see where Cyrus fell, Rick Child is still advancing towards him, still moving towards where he ultimately came to die.
I don't know how you describe being in fear of this boy and being terrified of him, but even after he falls and you supposedly become aware of a gun that spills out of his pocket, you continue to advance towards him.
How do you say now that you were in fear of him?
And would a reasonably prudent person have done this? Would a reasonably prudent person have even left the shell station? The answer is no.
He fails two and he fails three.
So finally, Andy Child must be shown to have had no other probable way to avoid the danger of death or serious violate injury than to act the way he did. Okay? I I don't understand how you can ever say, "I'm retreating." When you were the one chasing somebody, chasing them off your property, chasing them 130 yards down a road that you don't belong on.
How do you then say, "I was retreating."
No, you are advancing.
You were the one bringing on this difficulty. You started and you're the one who continues it.
Rick Chow fails all four prongs of defense of others and he fails spectacularly.
We only have to prove one. Number one, he fails right off the bat. I submit to you he fails all four.
This would be a shot by now. You know, we spent a lot of time. I know it's been boring at times trying to orient you guys with the landscape, but but it is important really to kind of have a general familiarity with this area we're talking about. But if we're looking at this picture, which is an evidence, y'all seen those poles right there a number of times. That's that's kind of a good marker. You've seen this drainage ditch right here uh on the bottom where the backpack was found. That's another good marker.
Uh behind us would be the Shell gas station and Parklane Road and Ford is just the dead end.
This would be approximately where that laser flashlight attachment would be found. And again, that's where uh reason tells us that Syrus fell um and the gun apparently hit the ground hard enough to detach the laser flashlight. That's where that was found.
A little bit further up again past where he fell. That means Rick Child is still advancing past where that boy fell and continue chasing him with his gun.
That's where the case is found. Right there with the green arrow behind those trees that there's Bradford bears right there. That that that is where and we know from the body camera that that's where uh Cyrus comes to rest. That's where you guys I mean just on the side of the road.
Nowhere South Carolina shot on the side of the road like a like a dog surrounded by strangers.
M not there.
Grandma not there.
Scared.
Murder is in South Carolina statutoily defined as the killing of another person with malice of forethought.
Okay.
What is malice of forethought?
Judge is going to define malice for you.
This is malice.
You see this right here? Y'all see that?
Look at it.
This is what malice looks like right here.
is hatred, ill will, or hostility.
We know how Rick Chow feels about shoplifterss.
Okay.
Um, he has devoted a large amount of space in his store uh to advertise shoplifterss and identify shoplifterss.
He doesn't like them.
Malice's ill will or hostility towards another person is the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse and with an intent to inflict an injury under circumstances law infer an evil intent.
When does malice need to form and when does it need to exist in the mind of Rick child?
Judge will tell you it does not mouse forth law does not require that malice exist for any particular time before the act's committed but it must exist in the mind of the defendant just before and at the time of the shooting. Okay.
Therefore there must be a combination of the evil intent the prior intent i.e. chasing a boy up the road with a gun at your side and the act shooting.
How can mouse be shown? There are two types of ways it can be shown. can be expressed or it can be inferred. They're they're not different.
Um but just uh the way they may be shown express mouths is shown when a person speaks words which express hatred or ill will for another or when the person prepared beforehand to do the act which was later accomplished.
Malice can be inferred from conduct showing a total disregard for human life. This is malice right here.
Y'all see malice?
This is what malice looks like.
Shot to the back tells the story better than any witness ever could.
state must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the standard of every criminal case from from here to Seattle all across the US.
State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. What does that mean?
Does it mean beyond all doubt? Does the state have to prove a case that leaves everyone saying, "I I have no doubt about anything anymore." No, it means that if you have a doubt that is reasonable, whether he's guilty or not, do you have a doubt that he's guilty? If you do, is it reasonable? Is it based on logic? If it is, then you should find him not guilty.
That's just the law.
That's how it's always been.
But if your doubt as to whether or not he did what he did is not reasonable or your doubt is not really logical, you must find him guilty.
Does that mean you have to be 100% certain about everything regarding this case?
It does not. The judge will tell you there are very few things in this world we know with absolute certainty. And in criminal cases, the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt.
He's going to say based on your consideration of evidence, you are firmly convinced.
I put that in bold because to me, it's the best way to understand beyond a reasonable doubt.
when you go back there and y'all are talking about issues or or what you remember about specifics of the case, um just ask yourself, are we firmly convinced? Let's all take the poll. Are we firmly convinced of his guilt? And if everybody raises their hand, then you find him guilty. That is how you determine whether or not there's reasonable doubt or whether there's proof beyond reasonable doubt. Are we all firmly convinced? Remember those two words. He's gonna say it twice when he reads those instructions to you. Firmly convinced. So when y'all get back there and you say, "What was reasonable doubt?" Again, you say, "Well, I remember Dale saying firmly convinced."
That that was um what we have to decide. Are we firmly convinced?
Cyrus will forever be 14 years old.
It'll always be the beginning of summer.
Um, ninth grade in high school, they'll never come.
He won't get the chance to catch the eye of a a pretty girl.
Oh, he won't get to feel rejection either.
He won't be at the prom with his classmates.
He won't have a chance to be cool or to take that winning shot.
He won't have the opportunity to be a loser.
Never get the chance to figure things out.
He'll never feel uh his grandmother's kiss on his forehead.
He won't get to drink that beer when he turns 21. He'll never catch snowflakes on his tongue again.
He won't get to feel the sun on his face that first warm day of spring.
He'll never get to find his way in this world that can be so cruel but so beautiful.
He won't be like this 14-year-old boy and look in the mirror and see these wrinkles and and this gray hair that that just kind of came out of nowhere and be able to trace them and think back of the memories and the experiences behind them.
He'll forever be 14, alone and scared, running up that road, trying to get somewhere safe but but never making it.
Solicitor Stephan and West and I, we walked that stretch of road on Spring Tree a dozen times or more.
The air, it just feels heavier.
The energy just it's off.
The tragedy of a life cut short is just burned into the surroundings. I can't explain.
And the question isn't why does a 14year-old have a gun.
It's why is an armed 57y old man chasing a boy 130 yards knowing how scared he is and then shooting him in the back. You know this is wrong.
You know it's wrong.
They're dead wrong about that water.
Mr. Chow, Rick Chow is dead wrong about this.
14 130 yards.
$1, one second.
21 g.
In the early 1900s, there was a there was a doctor He thought he could measure the weight of a human soul.
He thought it was possible to determine the physical weight of a human soul.
He measured six patients just before and then right after death.
And in one of them he found something interesting.
uh one of the patients he determined there was a difference of 21 grams and so he determined based on that experience that the human soul weighed 21 grams one out of six very small sample size and it wasn't well documented but still it became u popular concept that the human soul weighs 21 gram we know that's silly today in 2026. Um, what does our spirit weigh? Does it weigh 21 grams? No. We know that's silly.
Just like we know a human life uh there there's no value you can put on it.
It's worth way more than silver and gold.
It's worth way more than this.
You know it.
Ladies and gentlemen, uh you have a decision to make.
I thank you for your uh time and attention this last week and then today. I thank you.
There is only one verdict here that speaks the truth.
There there was only one verdict that addresses what what this man did and what this man took away. One verdict.
That verdict is guilty.
That's what I ask you to do.
Find Rick Chow guilty of unjustly taking Cyrus Carmarmac's life. Find him guilty. That is the only verdict that speaks the truth and speaks to the evidence in this case.
Thank you.
>> We'll take about a 10-minute break the technology and stuff out. All right, Jim, we're going to take a short break.
Um, be right back with you. About 10 minutes and don't discuss the case or anything of that nature. We'll see you short.
All right.
Remain seated.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Wait on this defendant.
Yeah, >> sir.
Bring the jury, please.
seating honor.
>> Thanks, sir. Ready?
>> Yes.
Yes, sir. So, listen.
I remember growing up and watching shows with my father.
And I'm old enough to date myself a little bit that we would actually listen to radio shows. And one of the radio shows that we would listen to quite often is a guy named Paul Hervin. And what he would do is he would tell stories.
And in telling stories, what he would do is tell a story that he thought that everybody actually knew. He would tell a story and he would give details of a story that he thought that everybody actually knew already. and he would tell it and he would tell it in his interesting way. But what he would do is intentionally leave out parts of the story so that people would be a little confused because they'd heard the part of the story that they thought that they knew, but he would leave parts out. And then he would take this huge pause after he was done and everybody think it was over. And then he would say this famous line. He would say, "And now it's time for the rest of the story." And then he would spend the rest of the show telling the listener the rest of the story that they did not know.
He would do this because he understood people. He understood that we are a generation of people who simply listen to headlines, listen to flashy things, and don't hear the rest of the story. He understood that if he could tell just small parts of the story and the way that people thought that they understood them and didn't hear the rest of the story, then they would believe things one certain way. And the way that he did it was fascinating. It was interesting.
people started to understand that that's the way we have to start listening because if we only hear part of the story then we can never get to the truth.
And so as we sit here and get ready for our closing argument, all we're going to do now is tell you the rest of the story.
I will tell you wholeheartedly, this might come across as a shock. I agree with some of the stuff that the state of South Carolina said. When they got done with their closing argument, folks next to me said, "Do you want to take that dollar down?" And I said, "No." Because let me tell you with unadashed honesty, they are 1,000% right about the following statement.
If Rick Chow executed a human being over a $1 bottle of water, enjoy hell. Let's make that clear. If Rick Chow shot a man in the back stealing $1 bottle of water from his store, you do what you will because there's nothing to justify this back and forth. Was he right? Was he wrong? It doesn't matter. Taking a human life over a bottle of water is absolutely ridiculous. Is wrong under any way that you could possibly look at it. And that's why the state has gone out of their way to put this $1 bottle of water up to put this picture up because they want you to believe that this is what this case is about.
the rest of the story.
It has nothing to do with this water. It doesn't. Because if that was what it was about, this wouldn't be a complicated case.
As we sit in front of you, the things that we have to talk about is we have to break down everything that we have watched in this case. And we need to break down what the state of South Carolina has presented to you. And as we break it down, we can break it down inside of three classifications. What they've put on the scene. They put on what they call eyewitnesses.
They put on investigators and they put on experts. You remember those are the three things that they have given us. So first let's talk about the eyewitnesses.
And the reason I want to talk about the eyewitnesses first is remember and I wrote down a quote that the state said cameras don't lie. For 17 seconds you could have played the camera for 17 minutes. You could have played these cameras. If you remember these witnesses got on the stand. They sat in front of you and they I asked them questions.
They looked directly at you. They were talking about what they remembered. And they were talking about their memories and how important that is. And then I started asking them questions from right there. You remember? I said, "No, I'm not trying to be rude, but I remember you talking to 911. Do you remember that?" Yeah. And you said something different to the 911 tape that you're saying right here. Today I asked another person, "Isn't it true that we don't interview witnesses together because they can get their stories together and their brains could get something that didn't really happen?" Yeah. And that's on video, correct?
Cameras don't lie. And they called 911.
And in the 911 call, they said they didn't see anything. Correct.
Cameras don't lie.
But don't you remember? And I asked one of the witnesses, "Isn't it true that you told them something and they said that was completely impossible?" Well, yeah. And then they've met WITH YOU, THEY'VE TALKED TO YOU, THEY'VE INTERVIEWED YOU AND PUT YOU ON THE STAND, AND YOU TOLD SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
Cameras don't lie.
So, why are we sitting here and not WATCHING THOSE VIDEOS? WHY DIDN'T THE state give you THE 911 CALLS? WHY DIDN'T THEY GIVE YOU THE VIDEOS? WHY DIDN'T THEY GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION?
If cameras don't lie, the rest of the story, I talked to one of the investigators and officers as he took the stand. Remember, we asked him, "What is important as an investigator?" It's important to get the facts. It is important to get the information. is important to get the evidence as close to the incident as possible so we can do what you remember the question I asked him so we can give all the information to the jury the rest of the story because WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO IS SUBJECT AND PUT OUR EMOTIONS IN THERE OUR personal beliefs our subjective decisions that's what's happened the rest of the story but for some reason the state of South Carolina doesn't want to give it to you one of the witnesses took the stand if you remember correctly detective English took the stand. You remember one of the first ones they put on and they put the videos up on all of these screens, all this technology that the state of South Carolina has and they put up all of it.
And one of the clips they put up was of Rick Cow State, you remember? And they played it and it said my son saw I didn't initially see my son that he had a gun. So when I looked at his hand and then what did that officer do? He just walked away.
We knew there was a second part of the video. Cameras don't lie. It would have taken how long was the quote? 17 seconds to play it. Cameras don't lie. And what was the next question from the state of South Carolina? Isn't it true he didn't tell you on that scene blank?
Cameras don't lie. So, we literally had to make sure you knew the rest of the story. And what did we do to tell you the rest of the story? He brought that other officer on to tell the rest of the story. And you remember it went right together. The rest of that statement my son saw. I didn't see it initially. My son alerted me that he had a gun. So when I I'm going to go talk to his son. That's when he walked away. And then the statement kept going. Look at his hand. He actually had a handgun in his hand.
The rest of the story.
He got up running. Then my son yelled, "He's got a gun." So when I watch there is a gun IN HIS HAND. THAT WOULD BE SOME IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO tell you.
But they needed to be about a dollar.
They need to scare you. They need to make you afraid. THEY MADE YOU THINK THE GREAT RICK CHAP, THIS EVIL HUMAN BEING OVER HERE KILLED A MAN OVER A DOLLAR.
And that is disgusting. That is awful.
That is abornant. But that's not what happened.
The rest of the story.
We don't want to tell you the rest of the story because if you hear it, then you get to make an intelligent decision and we don't want you to make an intelligent decision. We don't want you to hear no 911 calls. We don't want you to watch the videos. We don't want you to hear what Rick said at that moment, at that time without a lawyer, without anyone telling him what to say or do.
We had to play those.
The rest of the story. And as we get in there and we listen to this and we go through all of this information, it becomes incredibly important.
We then had investigators take a stand.
You remember the questions I asked of the investigators and why they were so important.
The state of South Carolina for you to make a decision has come in front of you and said, "Put witnesses on the stand."
Guns aren't that bad. 14-year-old kids have guns all the time.
And they had witnesses literally with their hands on the Bible looking at you talking about guns are prevalent. It's not that big of a deal.
That was the testimony. I didn't make that up. That was the testimony that they submitted. Do I think they believed ANY PART OF THAT? NOT A LINE OF THAT.
But they have emotion.
They're upset. And they want you to believe it's about a bottle of water.
It's not the rest of the story.
And then there was an expert who took the stand.
You remember I asked her a very directly question. I had her sit right here. She stood in front of you as if she was Rick Chow and I showed her what we said Mr. Felton could have been doing. And what did she say? Yeah, that's possible.
The rest of the story.
She described the bullet path back to front, right to left, slightly upward, the rest of the story. We got to avoid all of that because that changes our narrative.
So now we go into what they did presented.
And let's talk about the part of the case that we're all wondering about, the thing that everybody's there, and if it's in your gut, it should be in everybody's gut. And they spent their entire case, their case was a day and a half, and most of it, they spent it on one part, the chase. The chase. The chase. They shouldn't have done it. They shouldn't have done it. They shouldn't have done it. You remember one of their witnesses, the investigator got on the stand and I had to ask him the question, "Is there anything illegal about that?"
"No, sir."
But that's what they're talking about.
Well, well, common sense. We don't want you to do it. But it's not illegal.
That's an important distinction to know.
This is a store. The testimony was they owned it for 11 years. Margins are small.
in the wall of shame. People have shotlifted, people have stole, chased him.
I've been stolen from. I chased the people to Georgia flat out.
It's their property. They're emotional about it. And that's why he ran afterward.
The question isn't do you think it's right. The question is, is it legal? And then you go to the second part of is it illegal. If it was illegal, don't you remember Andy Child up there on the stand and Mr. SCOTT GOT RIGHT IN HIS FACE AND HE WAS YELLING AT HIM AND HE WAS GOING ANGRY WITH HIM AND HE WAS SAYING EVERYTHING to him. But the one thing he didn't say to him is, "AND YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED with following this young man out of the store and YOU ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FOLLOWING THIS YOUNG MAN out of the store because he's not he's not liable. He's not criminally liable. He has not been charged and he did not do anything wrong." But when you Monday morning quarterback and come back and look at the situation and say, "Well, why? You know what? They could have done this. They could have done this. They could have done this."
Because that's what the state's case is.
Think about it. How many times did you hear throughout the course of this trial the great state OF SOUTH CAROLINA SAY THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE. THEY COULD HAVE done this. They could have done this.
They could have done this. They could have done this. They don't have evidence to offer, but they have fear, passion, emotion, and they want to get that out of you. They want that fear, passion, and emotion. And for you to ignore the law. We do not get to take the law the way that we want it to be. We take the law the way that it is.
Let me tell you that again. We don't get to take the way that we want it to be.
The solicitor CAN'T SAY, "WELL, I WANT IT TO BE ILLEGAL FOR A SHOPKEEPER TO GO OUT OF THE STORE. SHOPKEEPER SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FOLLOW SOMEBODY. THAT'S WHAT I WANT, ANDY. THAT'S WHAT I WANT."
That's not the law.
And then there's one last part that he for some reason has ignored.
Let's say one of you, just one of you for argument sake are sitting back there and you say, "You know what? I think they are at fault in bringing on the difficulty. It may not be legal. It may not be illegal, but I just don't like the fact that they follow him for 130 yards. I do not like the 130 yard. I do not like the 130 yards." Well, the judge is going to charge you on something on the wall.
and it's called withdrawal.
Let me explain that concept to you.
Let's say one of you start a fight.
Let's say I start a fight with Mr. Scott. And let's say I go up to him and I say, "I'm going to get you. I'm going to take you down. I'm going to hurt you." And I start the fight. And I come at him and I'm about to hurt it. And then all of a sudden, I said, "You know what? This is stupid. I don't want to do this anymore."
And I turn around and I'm like, I'm over this. And Mr. Scott brings a knife and comes out. Well, according to their theory, I got to let him stab me.
According to their theory, I got to let him hurt me even though that I have withdrawn. Well, that is the law of withdrawal.
If an individual says if they withdraw by words or actions, words or actions, their right to self-defense is back on the line.
the rest of the story. And don't take my word for it. Judge is going to instruct you on the law and that's one of the things he's going to talk about.
So when we talk about the chase, when we talk about why did they run out of the store, when we talk about they shouldn't have gone out of the store, as I've told you, you legally have a right. The officer, their own witnesses told you they legally have a right. This officer with 25 years of experience dealt with shopping, dealt with this, and says, "We prefer you not common sense."
But then there's a last part of that that wasn't on their little pretty board. The right to withdraw.
When Andy Child testified, when he told you what happened, he said, "I was following. I was running after him. He fell. When he got up, he had this gun.
And then I went this way."
And as his hands were up, you remember I asked him directly, "The gun was still pointed at you." "Yes, sir." "You were looking directly at the barrel?" "Yes, sir." And then what did you hear? I said to my dad, "HE'S GOT A GUN. HE'S GOT A GUN." AND THEN WHAT DID he say? His dad said, "DROP IT. STOP. DROP IT." NO.
There's nothing more withdrawal than that. WHEN HE IS YELLING, "STOP IT.
DROP." NO.
That's a withdrawal.
That's saying, "Look, man. You got it.
You got the gun. I'm good."
They love to say that everything could have stopped.
He could have put the gun down, but we have to ignore that because that's not part of their story.
We cannot tell that part of the story because it's not necessary.
And when we tell this story, you might look at me and say, "Oh, Mr. Kent, that's some creative lawyer." No, that's why we played the 911 tape. And in the 911 tape, you heard. That's why we played Andy Child's interviews.
Didn't hide it. What do you say? Takes only 17 seconds.
What was the other quote? Better than any eyewitness ever could. Would have been a video.
That's what the state said. Better than any eyewitness ever could. So why wouldn't he play? Because it would have been better than any eyewitness ever could.
Now, let's talk about the fact we talked about the store and the things that happen inside of the store. And there might be questions. Why did you guys keep bringing these things up? If you remember, I had the officer on the stand.
Great officer, great investigator, great person.
But I had him on the stand and one I was talking about firearms and 14-year-olds and he went back and forth because I don't think they wanted to admit that this is a problem. But the thing that was the most important is I asked him about suspicious suspicious behavior.
Did something look weird to you when you look back? And he didn't want to admit it. But use your own common sense on that. I asked him the direct question looking back through your investigation as you have gone through and looked at the full file and looked at everything now. Do you find it weird, odd, suspicious that a young man would go into a gas station without any money with an empty book bag, bullet in the chamber, and then was looking like he was taking stuff off of the counter? I don't find that suspicious.
I find that answer suspicious.
The reason we brought this up is not to suggest I don't know what Cyrus was doing. I don't.
But use your common sense and ask yourself that does seem strange. And the reason we bring that up is that would explain why Andy who was sitting at the front counter looking back is watching this and going he's acting strange.
He's acting weird. He's putting water back up. Water back up. Water back up.
It looked weird to me. And then he came up to the counter with his hands in his hoodie and there looked to be something heavy in there.
I didn't know what it was and so I asked him and he did this and it looked like there was something heavy in there. It was the gun. Did Andy know it was the gun? Absolutely not.
But you can understand why Andy would have said there's something strange going on. His behavior, something in the pocket going weird with the water, that's what was strange.
So that is to explain why Andy made the unilateral decision that there was something strange going on here. And then Andy made the decision to follow him out of the store, chase him, run after him, whatever you want to call, but he made that decision based upon a reasonable belief of what anybody would have thought something strange here.
I asked the officer again about the suspicious behavior that 24 hours, less than 24 hours before he came into the store, he posted this on his social media. Do you remember? I asked him about it. And not only was it this, this was clipped from a video in which she was pointing a gun at a screen with a laser and a flashing light on his Instagram story.
You put all that together, you can explain that someone's behavior would have been a little strange and he would have had that firearm with the light on it.
It makes sense.
And so that explains why Andy and and don't forget when the officer was talking and asking questions and he went back to the back to look at that video surveillance that they keep talking about. Do you remember how many times he's like I had to look at it two three times. I had to zoom in on it. He had the technology to see what was taken.
Andy had one time and from his vantage point something was going on. And so he followed him out the story. He ran after short whatever you want to call it the rest of the story.
And then Andy testified that he threw stuff out of his pocket. Remember Mr. SCOTT SAID, "YOU DID NOT TESTIFY TO THAT." I had to show four different times where Andy said he was throwing something out of his pockets.
Four.
And so he went after him. He followed him. He chased him. He's going after him the entire way.
And they're right. He fell. He fell hard. And now they're saying, "Well, he would have naturally picked up his gun."
That's why this is important.
He's running or let's put it this way.
Let's try two. One, he's running and it's in his pouch. He falls. The light goes off, but the gun stays in the pouch, I guess, or the gun comes out, I guess. I don't know. But he picks it up.
And that's what they just testified to.
He picked it up. The judge is going to ask tell you something else about defense of others.
You have the right to act on appearances and you have the right to be wrong.
He's going to tell you that.
They've just told you. He was running.
He fell down and he picked up a firearm.
All this stuff, ALL THIS BACK AND FORTH, HE 100% FROM THE STATE'S MOUTH, HE PICKED up that firearm.
You have a right to be wrong.
You have a right to act on appearances.
That's what the judge is going to tell you the law is. And that's from the state.
I want you to think about that again.
Gets up.
Medical examiner shot back angle pointed right to act on appearances.
Rest of the story. Or take it another situation. What makes sense? Maybe the maybe the lights on the fire.
And then as he's running, when he falls, that's when it comes off. We don't know because the burden of proof is on the state to prove what happened in that situation. And they've just admitted the one thing we know for a fact is he picked up the firearm. That's from them, not from me. That was their admission.
And then as he picks up the firearm, then we have to go with Andy's testimony. And he's right. If you don't believe what Andy says, if you think Andy is 100% a liar, you can stop right now. Andy's lying. He made it up. This is completely not true. The gun was never pointed at him. He never saw this silver barrel that he only would have seen after he saw Discovery. He never saw it. And then let's TAKE THAT ONE STEP FURTHER. NOT ONLY DOES he must believe that he is a liar, you must believe that Rick Chow is the most creative, smartest person in the history of the world. HE IS CLAIRVOYANT, IF YOU WILL. LET'S GIVE HIM AN OSCAR. RIPCHOW WAS ABLE TO DECIDE. You know what? I want to kill this boy. I need to figure out when he's going to come into the store, when he's going to have a gun, when it's going to be in his pouch. I need to make sure that Andy sees it. And then I need to make sure Andy follows him for the direction. So, I need to make sure Andy calls 911 and says exactly what I want him to say. I need to make sure Andy says the exact thing that I'm going to say at the exact time because that's what it would be necessary to believe the state of South Carolina's case to.
that Rich set all this up in motion to execute a shoplifter to people he decides needs has to help him make a living.
It doesn't make any sense.
And if we take this one step further from the state's theory, Rick Chow is so pissed off, so damn angry about this shoplift. Hates him so much that he executes him.
Why not shoot him when he gets out of the store?
Gun's already on his hip.
Why not walk out of the store?
Shoplifter $1. He stole shot.
Shoplifter 10 yards shot. SHOPLIFTER 20 YARD SHOT. 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110.
Why wait 130?
Unless something changed.
What changed was somebody pulling a gun and pointing it directly at his son.
That's what changed.
If he wanted to execute Cyrus, he could have done it right outside of that school.
But we have to ignore that because that would be part of the rest of the story.
Use your common sense and listen to the evidence, but listen to the witnesses and listen to what they have told you.
Murder, as the state has told you, is the intentional killing of another human being with malice before without self-defense.
We have just showed you self-defense and defense of others. The state has melded a little bit of those theories together, but you need to make sure that you understand one without fault in bringing on the difficulty.
Again, I've explained to you that you have a legal right to follow somebody whether they like what the law is.
That's what it is.
And as you're going through that, then you have to talk about imminent danger.
And this is from the eyes of Andy. And they're trying to mix the two of the things together. But it's under the eyes of Andy at this point.
As Andy, does he have an fear of imminent danger?
Was a gun pointed at Andy?
Would Andy who had withdrawn from the conflict? You got it. I'm over this. No.
Would Andy have had a right to point the firearm and save his own money?
Reasonable person. A reasonable person in the same situation, what would they have done? And we can take that two ways if we want to argue the state's theory.
Way one Andy gun pointed at you. Would he have had a right as he rescends, remember that knife in the back situation? Andy would have had a right to fire to save his own life. But more importantly, in the reasonable person uh situation, Rick Chow would have had a right and did have a right to save his son. The strongest evidence that was given in entire this case when the officer got on the stand and I asked him that question and I said, "Have you ever fired your firearm?" "No." "Have you had have firearm pointed at you?" "Yes."
"I didn't fire." "What if someone was pointed at your loved one?" "Yeah." I asked that same officer the situation when officers are chasing somebody and you chase them incorrectly. You remember we asked him that question. You chase somebody incorrectly, what happens? We chase them incorrectly. It does happen.
And what would happen if that individual pointed a firearm at you? Remember the example he gave? If someone pointed a firearm as I'm chasing them incorrectly, well, I would tell and they turned around and pointed a firearm at me, I would tell them, "Stop. Drop it." and if they did not drop it, I would fire.
It sounds eerily familiar to this case.
And that's some of the rest of the story that the state of South Carolina for some reason has chosen not to tell us today.
And then we go, duty to retreat or can you retreat? As a person is pointing a firearm at you and you're pulling backwards and someone is saying, "Stop, no, don't."
That's what duty to retreat is. No one turns and runs.
The judge is going to tell you, as I mentioned, if we're talking about self-defense, and I've said it several times, you have a right to act on appearances and you have a right to be wrong.
So, as we sit here and we're in Rick Child's position and we're wondering what Rick Child is doing, as we've heard this testimony, Rick Child sees a gun pointed at his son.
His son says, "As you heard, I was afraid. I was terrified. He's got a gun.
He's got a gun." To Rich Child, that situation stands in the place of his son.
This case is not about a dollar.
This case is not about a shoplifter.
This case is about a father who sees a gun pointed at his son and had to make a decision.
I hate it. I do I hate that a young man lost his life.
I disagree with the state's theory on it's not that big a deal that kids are going around with guns. I hate it is a problem and it is a problem in this case.
I hate that we have sat here and tried to make this about something that's not.
I've listened to the state of South Carolina's opening statement talk about Cyrus's age, his future, and I understand all of that. I do.
The one thing that does not know Cyrus's age is that gun.
Doesn't know how old he is. When a gun is pointed at somebody, you have an option.
as we sit here and talk about this case and how important the details are that if you step back and look at something one way it's completely different and as you get closer you look at it more and you look at all of the details you'll never see it differently again and so what I'm asking you to do is focus on the details I wear this suit all the time in trials people say oh you always dress so flashy but you're not flashy I wear this suit all the time because it reminds me that details are the most important thing that can happen. It actually has my name and the pinstripes in it because when you look at it after realizing it's not just a pinstriped suit. It actually has my name just right down the middle. And I look at it and it reminds me in cases that if you don't take your step back and look at things in full detail, you will miss it. Like the state of South Carolina has and they want you to miss it. We have to focus on important matters. We have to see the full story.
You have to ask yourself the question, why don't they want me to know the full story?
And then finally for the state's case to make any sense whatsoever, we have to go back to our withdrawal situation.
For the state's case to make any sense whatsoever, you must be comfortable with their theory in that Andy Child is in the story.
Andy Child runs out of that store. Andy Child runs out of that store after Cyrus.
And as he's running out after the person he thinks his shot lifted him, Cyrus still points the fire. Andy still has his hands up. His dad is still watching.
His dad says, "No, I'm not going to do anything." And Cyrus shoots and kills his son.
The state wants us to believe that that's legal and that's okay.
That storekeepers should let people take stuff out of their store and if you follow them and you get killed, it's okay.
It It's not.
Now, you know the rest of the story.
Anything?
>> Yes, of course. Move a couple things around.
>> Yes, sir.
Please go ahead.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Council, >> Mr. Camp spoke to you guys, ladies and gentlemen, of the jury, for a moment or two, and he talked about Paul Harvey and the rest of the story.
Sounds a lot to me like this was the rest of Mr. Kent's story because many of the things that he said were things that he said but the actual eyewitnesses never said.
It reminds me of when I was a kid couple years maybe before Mr. Kent but a whole lot of years after Mr. McCulla and Mr. Swirling we used to um as kids go down to Augusta Georgia. My grandmother was from a small town called Trenton, South Carolina.
It's in uh Edgeville County. And way before I was born, probably when I was still a twinkle in my parents eye, she moved down there because there was just better opportunities to work. And so, as I'm growing up in the early 70s, early 80s, um my folks had dropped me and my brother off down there and we hang out with my grandmother for a week.
And back then when you went to your grandmother's house, you couldn't stay inside and play video games all day cuz they didn't have them. So we had to go outside. We had to find ways to busy ourselves. We had to do things outside so we didn't break anything inside and get in trouble. So what we end up doing is my brother and I would go outside and we start throwing the football around for a little while. We toss the baseball around for a little while. Then we would start running around her house because my brother was older. So I try to catch him. So we try to run around and see if I got any faster than he. At some point in time after lunch, we would make our way to this makeshift barber shop that my grandfather had built on the side of the house and we'd sit down and we'd listen to the old man playing checkers trying to pick up on some words we probably shouldn't have been hearing.
We'd hear him slapping them checkers on the board saying king me and all that kind of stuff and we'd be learning some old man stories as kids. It was fun.
We'd sneak into a little side of the barber shop and try to get his red man shoe. And the joke was we try to put a little piece in our mouth and try to hold it in there as long as you could before it burn a hole in your mouth or we try to hold it in there and try to see who could hold it the longest before you started gagging. This mischievous stuff that kids do. That's what we did.
But at the end of the day, every evening, my brother and I would end up on the front porch and my grandmother had a set of rocking chairs out there.
And we would sit in those rocking chairs and start playing what I call rocking chair games. The first game we'd sit down and then we'd try to see who could rock the fastest. I'm sure some of y'all have done this. Then we try to see who could rock the fastest and the farthest with your legs in the air. It's good ab work if you ever need to do it. were trying to go back and forth and see how fast you could go with your legs in the air.
And inevitably, the last thing that my brother Chris and I would do, we'd sit down and we rock the chair as far back as you could go without it falling over.
And we do that. And we did that over and over and over.
One evening, my grandmother came outside and she saw us stand in those gr those rocking chairs up on edge and we knew we were in trouble. Again, this is the 70s, early 80s. This is the day of knockouts, not timeouts. We knew we were about to get in trouble. But my grandmother said something to me that stuck with me and it still rings in my head today.
She said, "The funny thing about rocking chairs is that they'll keep you busy, but in the end, they don't get you anywhere."
The funny thing about rocking chairs is that they keep you busy, but in the end, they don't get you anywhere.
Ladies and gentlemen, the jury, Mr. Kent, Mr. Swirl, Mr. McCulla and that team over there has kept you busy with all of this stuff, but at the end of the day, the question still remains, what is the value of a human life?
They have kept you busy with these insinuations that Cyrus was some young thug, some thug in training running around Colombia. Their words, with the loaded pistol, an empty backpack, and no money.
Their words, they have kept you busy with this insinuation that that this case has to be about and is only about and is mostly about a 14year-old carrying a gun.
We keep talking about why do 14y olds have guns? Why do young why do children carry guns? And folks, let's be abundantly clear.
Cyrus should not have had a gun. Period.
No question. Nobody at the state table has suggested that he should have.
But let's put that aside for a second as we talk about what this case is really about because he shouldn't have had a gun. No question. question. Are we still having this conversation? If Cyrus is 24 years old, if he's 20 years old, if he's 34 years old, 44 years old, are we having this conversation?
Somebody wrongfully accused of stealing, chased out of the store after they tried to deescalate everything that they could. running, falling down, running out of your shoot, tripping, dropping phones, running farther, falling, busting your sin, gun spills out, you're still running.
And according to the testimony that you heard from this chair, grown man, Andy Child, state championship swimmer, 185 lb, excuse me, 200 lb, about 85 lbs more than Cyrus, was right on top of him when he fell.
And dad was close by in arms distance.
That's what the testimony was. Not this all this stuff. He was right on top of me. Question.
As you listen to the elements of self-defense, not bringing on the difficulty, who would have had a claim of self-defense in this case?
Silence.
being chased by two men armed with a gun on top of you after you've run 130 yards. Folks, I submit to you as I'm walking from that tip back here.
You get to the end of this quarter, that's 20 yards, 19 yards times five plus 30 more yards. That's how far he was chased.
So, who would have had a self-defense claim?
So, I'm suggesting to you that they keep insinuating these things, saying these things because they don't want you to think about it. Again, I mentioned to you this this to you multiple times when you parked your cars. You didn't leave your common sense in the parking lot.
Take it with you. Think about these things. Don't let them sway you with all of this mess and all this other stuff that takes us off of what the real issue in this case is. Don't let them do it.
The defense kept weaving this narrative again that Cyrus is some young thug walking around the streets of Columbia again with a loaded pistol, no money, no money, and an empty backpack. I submit to you that folks, if Cyrus was this thug that they keep telling you that he was by showing you pictures and trying to get you thinking in that direction, we never would have gotten 130 yards down the road. He would have held court right at 7441 Park Lane Road.
Cyrus would have been the judge, the jury, and the presenter of the sentence.
right there in that spot if he was the thug that that table want you to believe that he was.
But instead, what were his actions, folks? He ran.
He ran like a child. He ran from the adult. Let's think about who acted like the thug, the gangster, the person who chased him down the street or the person who ran while he had a gun hit him. He ran out of his shoot. How do we know that to be true? cuz we see it on camera. Shoe flies up in the air and he keeps running. Doesn't stop. Turn around. Oh, I dropped my shoe. Let me get that cuz I'm going to get in trouble if I go home with one shoe. He didn't do that. How afraid do you have to be to run out of your shoe and not turn around and pick it up? Ponder that for a minute. He ran further. Phones fell out.
They keep coming to you with this mess that Oh, he threw his cell phones out.
What sense does that make?
Did you leave your common sense in the parking lot? Did you bring it with you?
How afraid do you have to be to drop two cell phones and keep running? Again, let's be very logical about this for a minute. Two cell phones. We know how expensive they are. One cell phone belongs to you and the other belongs to your mother. Do you mean to tell me that you are going to go home that day with one shoe and tell your mother, "Mama, I I lost my cell phone and yours, too, and I didn't turn around to get it." You want that smoke? Do you really want to get what you would get if you lost two cell phones from your mother? But you know why he didn't turn around? Cuz he was scared. Because that man armed with a 45 caliber pistol and his son were chasing him for no reason down a road in South Carolina. Chasing him, didn't turn around, kept running for fell again hard. Dropped the backpack.
And by the way, since they want to keep saying it was empty, actually had some personal effects in it. There's an address in the backpack.
really fell. Dropped the backpack. Didn't stop and say, "Oh, stop, guys. Let me go get my backpack. Let me go get the phones.
Let me go get the shoe." Kept running away from them.
Is that a That's a kid who was scared of two grown men running as fast as he could, as far as he could, trying to get home. But they wouldn't allow it. They would not.
For some reason, they could not allow it. And then at some point as he fell, hit the ground that gun comes out. That tack light comes out. Now, I'll suggest to you, as Mr. This is Mr. Kent talk, he keeps saying, "Well, he was picking up the gun. He was pointing the gun, all that kind of stuff." Stop. Just stop.
Stop. Stop. Because what we say is not evidence. I told you before, the evidence is what comes from this witness. J.
There were four eyewitnesses who were not named child.
Which one of them ever said they saw Cyrus Carmarmac point a gun? Which one?
Which one? No. Four of them. Three different vantage points. Lorie Carson, Kennedy Carson, mom and daughter. They told you they watched and they saw a straight line of what happened. Cyrus ran, fell, ran, fell, hit the ground, got up running, and that's when he was shot. Asked multiple times, well, did he turn at them? Did he point at them? Did he do anything? No, we never saw anything in Cyrus's hands.
Two witnesses, mom and daughter, vantage point at the front of the store. Didn't see any of that. Any of that.
Devonte Bryant driving white Honda threw on brakes so he wouldn't run over anybody as they ran the front chasing Cyrus.
Asked as he rolled by, did you see him point anything? Cyrus Carmarmac built him point. Stop and point. No, he didn't. He didn't have anything in his hand. The book bag fell. He was flat. He fell hard. His hands were on the ground.
He got up trying to run and that's when he was started stumbling again and got shot again. trajectory here upwards to the left making perfect sense that he's running away not pointing not pointing like the defense wants you to believe remember the multiple times they tried to see with Dr. the doors there. So, well, was he doing this and was he snaking and popping and locking? No, none of that was ever said.
He was running. And when they tried to do that, she said, "No, no, it's more consistent with the shooter being directly behind him."
Folks, if he was turned in the direction that they want to believe, his spine would have been severed by that bullet.
Common sense.
You didn't leave your common sense in the parking lot when you parked today.
You brought it with you. That again is why we went through that that process some of you may think was painstaking last week to sit you as jurors because we wanted you to take the facts of this case. Not Paul Harvey, not Steve Harvey, not some other Harvey, but the facts of this case that came from this witness chair.
Not some stuff that's speculated to what we can kind of come up here and start trying to come up with about moonwalking backwards and all this kind of stuff with India. None of that. The evidence that came from this chair. Did you hear that?
Another witness. Another witness.
Jasmine Broadwater.
Another vantage point. They're running directly to her. Did she say she ever saw a gun in Cyrus's hands? No. Did she ever say she saw Cyrus Point? No.
Never. Nobody with the last name that's not Cow says that that ever happened.
And interestingly enough, interestingly enough, you saw in the video after the shooting took place, who walking around Rick Ch.
Tell him multiple times, stand still.
Don't touch evidence. I'mma charge you with obstruction. You keep messing around. Moved a gun. By the way, by the way, he and his family went to the store, came back. He had plenty of time to talk about what they were going to say. Plenty.
But at the end of the day, when Andy sat up here, there was nobody to protect him from cross-examination.
Nobody.
Nobody to protect him.
There was conversation about a barrel.
Andy says, "I saw a silver barrel."
Folks, I submit to you there is a gun lock on here. This is not the condition of the gun. You'll see it on that video.
The condition of the gun was this. That's a black barrel.
Right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we talk about credibility and believability. Well, we'll get to that in a minute. One other thing that the esteemed table said is that Cyrus Carmarmac again wandering the streets with a loaded pistol, empty book bag, no money.
Now, I'll take this on myself because at the end of the day, I'm the boss and I'm the person who at the end of the day gets the opportunity to say, "Hey, we need to bring this witness to that witness." So, y'all blame me for this one. This is my fault. I will say this, it's my fault. Maybe we should have brought in another expert. maybe a 10year-old or a 12y old or 13y old who can talk to us about the intricacies of cell phones. My gosh, maybe they could tell you that if you hit the right click button on an app.
>> Yes. Sure.
So maybe we should have had an expert to talk about apps on phones and the fact that in 2026, even back in 2023, you did not have to have cash in order to buy stuff. You can pay on the phone.
Maybe that should be an expert that we call next time.
since they made such a big stink about those things.
Folks, Andy was an interesting person on the stand and I'm sure that it's tough to have to sit in that situation and recall what was said and what wasn't said and what you thought about in those moments. But it was interesting to me that under direct examination that testimony flowed was quick.
Everything that he said was perfect.
Just came out like water.
But then on cross- examination, and y'all get a chance to watch from your vantage point, that's the word of a weak vantage point.
Every time he was asked a question on the cross- examination that wasn't pleasant, that actually required some type of thought process that may not go exactly how he rehearsed his testimony eyes to the point to where he said, "Well, well, well, my counsel said I couldn't."
You don't want to know what your counsel told you. But every time a hard question came, his eyes went from here to there.
Folks, I was taught a long time ago, when you lie, you got to remember what you see, right?
And if you lie about the small things, then you can't be trusted with the big things to tell the truth about the big things.
So, think about that for a minute because when we talk to Andy, there's a back and forth about simple stuff like through versus dropped, right? Like pulled versus point, which again, no witnesses not named child ever said the word pointed.
Like chase versus followed. Why are we having conversations about chase versus follow when you saw how fast they were going after?
Folks, I may not be the smart the sharpest tool in the shed, but to me, running after requires you to be going after something for a purpose.
Example, there's a kid. Ice cream truck passes by the house. Ding ding ding ding ding. You miss it, you go out the house and you run after the ice cream truck. Why? Cuz you want to catch it so you can get some ice cream. Simple. Or sitting, you wake up a little bit late for school and you hear the bus go by.
You're missing the bus. You run after the bus. Why? So you can catch the bus and get on and get to school.
Or maybe more recently, Uh, you're flying from Columbia to North Dakota and there's a flight that first leg takes you to Charlotte. Second leg takes you to Minneapolis. You get to concourse A, your flight takes off in 28 minutes. What you going to do? You're going to run to concourse C to catch the flight. Why? Because you don't want it to leak. You run with the purpose to catch. Folks, I ran after my wife for two years and I caught her.
But do you think when I caught her, I said, "Hey, hey, I want to give you directions about how to get to that dude so he can tell somebody else about something." Come on, folks. When you parked your cars, you didn't leave your common sense. They ran to catch. At the end of the day, what happened here is simple, and they don't want to admit it cuz it hurts. They ran after Cyrus emotionally. They were irritated. They were mad. For whatever reason, they ran after him. They caught him. They were pl They caught up to him because he fell multiple times. They wanted to shake him down and get that bottle of water and then figure out what to do with the police later. That's why they ran.
That's the simple truth. That's the simple truth. That gun spilled out and then that man made a rash decision. He overreacted. Andy saw the gun.
He said gun and he shot it. There wasn't all this time to back up. No witnesses even say that they even backed up. They said they were advancing the entire time. Folks, don't let the defense rewrite the facts because the things they talked about didn't happen that way.
They didn't happen that way.
For over an hour, Andy sat on that stand and he said a lot of things. said, "A whole well." He said a lot of things, but did you ever hear the two words? I'm sorry.
I'm sorry that I wrongfully accused this kid of stealing and chased him down the road. You know why he didn't hear that?
Cuz he not.
This is about product over people. This is about inventory.
This is not about a person's life.
Mr. Kent spoke about withdrawal and he keeps trying to suggest that Andy Child withdrew by doing this and coming backwards all this way and saying that, "Hey, stop. Hey, Dad, you got to go." Nobody testifies that that happened. who doesn't have the last name of child. Four people who don't know one another, who had to be subpoenaed to come to this court, spoke to you and they never said that it happened cuz it didn't happen. He did not withdraw. They kept going forward. They kept going forward. And ultimately, this gun was never pointed. But folks, I suggest to you, even if it was pointed, he was running in the opposite direction.
opposite direction. That's what the evidence shows by the way he was shot.
It was in the opposite direction trying to get away.
I'll say this.
It's offensive to hear the defense keep trying to characterize Cyrus as this young thug, but it's equally offensive to then try to characterize Andy Child as Mr. Rogers. Excuse me. Rick Child, the defendant in this case is Mr. Rogers.
You know, the man who chased a kid down, shot him in the back, and then they want to say, "Well, he was trying to help, you know, clean vomit out of his mouth to resuscitate him." Folks, that's offensive. Because the last face this scared child saw as he ran away was that man peering over him.
Peering over him. And none of this happens if they stay there behinds in the store and used that intricate camera system that picked up on every angle could see everything from what he wore, the type of shoes that he wore, the direction he went, everything.
Couple seconds is all it would have taken, just like it did in the store, to say, "Hey, you know what? We were wrong." But they didn't do that because they were overcome with something. Maybe it was meanless. Maybe it was malice.
Maybe there's some nefarious intent in their heart, a reason for them to chase him and shoot him in the back and end his life.
But again, never the two words that matter most. and I'm sorry or why I made a mistake. However, none of them because they're not.
I talked to you about a poem by Omar Cayam called the Ruba and I told you that I would link it all together.
The moving finger writes, "And having ripped moves on, nor all your piety, nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half the line, nor all your tears wipe out a word."
Folks, that's a poem about time and how you can't erase what's been done. You can't go back and change what's been done with all your piety or what? No matter how many degrees you got, how many doctorates you got, when you do something, it's there. It's done. And you can't reverse time. You may try, you may get up here and and and get on the stand and try to think your way through it and reason your way through it, but at the end of the day, what they did was murder. So, in a more literal sense, eventually we're going to be asking that your moving hand, come back and write these words cuz Rick Child is guilty of the murder of 14-year-old Cyrus Carmarmac.
My folks You're going to have a chance to deliberate in a moment. And as you deliberate, you will apply the facts of this case to the law that the judge is going to give you in a couple of moments. And as you do that, we're asking, I'm asking, Dale Scott is asking, Stephanie Taylor, Wesley Lee, for all of us are asking that you return a verdict of guilty in this case.
I'm just looking to make sure that I covered everything that Mr. can't cover.
I ask you to think one last thing and I'm out of your face.
We all know there 50 states in South, excuse me, in the United States of America, but I think I've learned sitting in this trial that there actually 51. There's the state of denial.
The state of denial is where that man lives because he's denying that what he did was wrong. He's denying that he chased and killed that young child, Syrus, Tom, who never pointed a gun at him. The witnesses tell you so, not his son who's got every motive, every reason to twist it around in order to protect his father.
Denial that you, the jury, believe or will believe that what he did was wrong.
Denial that at the end of the day, he believed that a human life was not more than that.
Folks, it's for these reasons that the state of South Carolina is asking you to return a verdict of guilty because Chai Key Rick child is guilty of murdering Cyrus Carmarmac.
Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you.
Madam court lady, ladies and gentlemen, the jury, you've heard the evidence and the arguments of both parties. I'm now going to explain the law which you will apply in this case.
>> Maybe I'll do that in a moment.
>> Quiet. Quiet is dealing with Satan.
Now, the charges that I'm going to read to you will not be back to the jury room. So, it's important that you listen carefully to the instruction. If you have any questions during your deliberation, I can bring you back out um and explain the law to you again if you have if you have specific questions about the law. Now, you and I have specific duties to perform like we discussed from the outset. As the trial judge, it is my responsibility to preside over the trial. It's your responsibility to consider the testimony which has been presented from the witness stand and the exhibits introduced. I have the duty to charge the law applicable in this case. As presiding judge, I am the sole judge of the law and is your duty as your order to accept and apply the law as I now state it to you. If you already have any idea as to what the law is or what the law ought to be and it does not agree with what I tell you uh the law is, you must abandon your idea because you are sworn to accept the law and apply the law exactly as I stated it to you. Your duty is to determine the facts. In every case, the jury is the sole and exclusive judge of the facts. A trial judge cannot suggest, state, comment on, or make any statement to a trial jury about the facts of the case. Since you are the sole judges of the facts, you are not to infer from what I have said during the progress of this trial uh in ruling upon the admissibility of evidence or otherwise or anything that I say now during the course of this instruction to you that I have any opinion about the facts in the case. The law does not allow me to have an opinion about the facts. This is a matter solely for you to determine. As jurors, it is your duty to determine the effect, value, and weight of the evidence presented during the trial. The indictment charges the defendant with murder. The fact the defendant was arrested, charged, and indicted is not evidence and cannot be considered by you as evidence of guilt, nor does it create any presumption or inference of guilt at all. This indictment is simply the formal written instrument which contains the charge made against the defendant. It is the formal document by by which this case is brought into this court and gives this court jurisdiction.
The defendant has pled not guilty to the indictment and that plea puts the burden on the state to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A person charged with committing a criminal offense in South Carolina is never required to prove himself innocent. I charge you that it is a guiding rule of law that the defendant in a criminal trial, no matter how serious the charge, is always presumed innocent of the crime for which the indictment was issued, unless guilt is proven by evidence satis satisfying you of that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
This presumption of innocence does not end when you begin your deliberations, but it accompanies the defendant throughout the trial until you reach a verdict of guilt based on the evidence satisfying you of that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is like a robe of righteousness placed about the shoulders of the defendant which remains with the defendant until it has been stripped from the defendant by evidence satisfying you of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is not mere legal theory. It is not just a legal phrase. It is a real and substantial right to which every defendant is entitled unless you, the jury, are satisfied from the evidence of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What is reasonable doubt in the law? A reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act. The state has the burden of establishing every fact necessary to prove that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The law presumes every person charged with a crime to be innocent and the burden of establishing guilt is placed solely on the state. The defendant is not required to prove his innocence. Some of you may have served as jurors in civil cases where you were told it's only necessary to prove that a fact is more likely true than not true, such as by the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence.
Other civil cases use the clear and convincing standard. In those cases, it's necessary to prove their fact is highly probable.
But this is a criminal case and the state's proof must be more powerful than those burdens of proof. In criminal cases, the state's proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced that the defendant's guilty. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty. And in criminal cases, the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charge, you must find the defendant guilty. The defendant is not required to prove to his innocence. If on the other hand, you think there's a real possibility the defendant is not guilty.
You must give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt and find him not guilty.
necessarily uh during your del deliberations you must determine the credibility of witnesses who have testified. Credibility simply means believability.
It is your duty as your to analyze and evaluate the evidence and determine which evidence convinces you of its truth and determine the believability of witnesses you have testified in the case. You may believe one witness over several witnesses or several witnesses over one witness. You may believe part of the testimony of a witness and reject the remaining part of the testimony of that same witness. You may believe the witness of You may believe the testimony of a witness in its entirety or reject the testimony of the witness in its entirety. You may consider whether any witness has exhibited to you any interest, bias, prejudice, or other motive in the case. You may also consider the appearance and manner of a witness while on the witness stand.
There's been evidence presented that witnesses have made prior statements which are not consistent with the witness's present testimony. You may use this evidence to decide whether to believe the witness. You may also use the evidence of the earlier contradictory statements to determine the truth of those statements. It's up to you to decide whether to believe the earlier statements or the testimony given at trial. If a witness is shown to have knowingly testified untruthfully concerning any material matter, you may consider this in determining whether to trust a witness's testimony as to other matters. You may reject all testimony of that witness or give all or part of the testimony the weight you think it deserves.
In order to establish criminal liability, criminal intent is required.
For example, the mental state required to be proven by the state for a particular crime might be purpose, intent, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence. Criminal intent must be proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal intent is always a matter that must be determined by the jury from the circumstances existing at that time. There is no way to prove intent to mathematical certainty. There is no way medical science can dissect a person's brain and determine what the person had in mind.
So the law says that criminal intent may be inferred from the circumstances showed to have existed. This is how you make determination of whether or not the element requiring intent was present. It is not necessary to establish intent by direct and positive evidence. But intent may be established by inference in the same way as any other fact taking into consideration the acts of the parties and all the facts and circumstances of the case. Criminal intent is a mental state of conscious wrongdoing. You must determine what the defendant intended to do based on the circumstances existing at that time. Criminal intent can arise from action or a failure to act. It may arise from negligence, recklessness or an indifference to duty or to consequences that are considered by the law to be the equivalent of criminal intent.
There are two types of evidence which are generally presented during a trial.
Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence directly proves the existence of a fact and does not require an induction. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating the existence of a fact. Crimes may be proven by circumstantial evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.
However, to the extent the state relies on circumstantial evidence, circumstances must be consistent with each other and when taken together point conclusively to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If these circumstances merely portray the defendants's behavior as suspicious, the proof has failed. The state has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond reason or without. This burden rests with the state regardless of whether the state relies on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or some combination of the two.
As I mentioned to you during the trial, the rules of evidence ordinarily do not permit witnesses to testify to opinions or conclusions. An exception uh to this rule exists for witnesses we call expert witness. A witness who by education and experience has become an expert in some art, science, profession, or calling may state an opinion as to relevant and material matter in which the witness claims to be an expert and may also state the reasons for the opinion.
You should consider any expert opinion received in evidence in this case and like any other evidence, give it the weight you think it deserves. If you decide that the opinion of an expert witness is not based on sufficient education and experience, or if you conclude that the reasons given in support of the opinion are not sound, or that the opinion is outweighed by other evidence, you may disregard the opinion entirely. An expert witnesses testimony is to be given no greater weight than that of other witnesses simply because the witness is an expert. Further, you're not required to accept an expert's opinion even though it is not contradicted.
I instruct and emphasize to you that the fact that the defendant did not testify is not a factor to be considered by you in any way in your deliberation and in your consideration on the question of the guilt or the innocence of the defendant. It must not be considered by you in any manner whatsoever. I repeat, under you your oath, you are to draw no conclusion whatsoever for the fact the defendant did not testify. Fact the defendant did not testify should not even be discussed in the jury room. The burden of proof as I have stated to you is on the state. Defendant is not required to prove his innocence. The burden of proof remains on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to the charge against the defendant. The defendant is charged with one count of murder. The state must prove beyond reasonable doubt the defendant killed another person with malice before.
Malice is hatred, ill will, or hostility towards another person. It is the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse and with an intent to inflict an injury or under circumstances that the law will infer an equal intent. Malice of law does not require that malice exists for any particular time before the act is committed. But malice must exist in the mind of the defendant just before and at the time the act is committed.
Therefore, there must be a combination of the evil intent and the act. Malice of forethought may be expressed or inferred. These terms expressed and inferred do not mean different kinds of malice, but merely the manner in which malice may be shown to exist. That is either by direct evidence or by inference from the facts and circumstances which are proved. Express malice is shown when a person speaks words which express hatred or ill will for another or the person prepared beforehand to do the act which was later accomplished. For example, lying and wait for a person or any other act of preparation going to show that the deed was within the defendant's mind would be expressed malice.
Malice may be inferred from conduct showing a total disregard for human life. If facts are proven beyond reasonable doubt sufficient to raise an inference of malice to your satisfaction, this inference would simply be um an evidentiary fact to be considered by you along with the other evidence in the case and you may give it the weight you decide it should receive.
The defendant has asserted defense of others as a defense to his prosecution under the law of self-defense. The defendant may take another's life in defense of others. The right to intervene to protect another person is subject to the same rights and limitations as the right of self-defense. Defendant may take the life of a person who assaults a friend, relative or bystander. If that friend, relative, or bystander would have would have had the right of self-defense.
Defense of others is a complete defense.
And if it is established, you must find the defendant not guilty. The state has the burden of disproving defense of others by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And the burden is carried by disproving any one of the four elements by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt after considering all of the evidence, including the evidence or defense of others, then you must find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if you have no reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt after considering all the evidence, including the evidence of defense of others, then you must find the defendant guilty.
The following elements are required to establish self-defense and in this case, defense of others. First, to show that the person being defended um had the right to self-defense, it must first be shown that the person being defended and the defendant were both without fault in bringing on the difficulty. If the conduct of the person defended or the defendant was the type which was reasonably calculated to and did provoke a deadly assault, the person would be at fault in bringing on the difficulty and would not have the right of self-defense. Therefore, the defendant would not have the right to use deadly force in defending that person. One's right to self-defense or defense of others is restored after a withdrawal from the initial difficulty with the victim. If that withdrawal is communicated to the victim by word or act, withdrawal from a conflict must be effectively communicated to the victim by word or act to restore the right to use self-defense or defense of others.
An accused who provokes or initiates an assault cannot claim self-defense or defense of others unless the person defended both withdraws from the conflict and communicates his withdrawal by word or act to his adversary.
Second, the defense of another person is excusable if the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe and in good faith did believe that the person being defended was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from the victim. In deciding whether the person defended actually was or that defendant actually believed the person was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, you should consider all the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime, including the physical condition and characteristics of the parties.
Defendant does not have to show that the person defend defended was actually in danger. It is enough if the defendant believed the person was in imminent danger. The defendant has the right to act on appearances even though the defendant's beliefs may have been mistaken. The third element of self-defense required the defendant to show that under uh the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant, defendant believed the person defended was in danger and that a reasonably prudent person of ordinary firmness and courage would have had the same belief under the same circumstances. It is for you jury to decide whether the defendant's fear of immediate danger or of death more serious bodily injury to the person defendant was reasonable and would have been felt by an ordinary person in the same situation. The defendant does not have to wait till the victim inflicts harm on the person defended. The defendant has the right to act under the law of self-defense of others under the law of defense of others rather to prevent the victim from inflicting harm on the person defended.
The final element necessary in order to be entitled to defend another requires that the person defended have had no other probable way to avoid the danger of death or serious bodily injury than to act as the person defended did in this particular instance. When a person being defendant had no duty to retreat, the defendant likewise would have no duty to retreat. Defendant the defendant had no duty to retreat if by doing so the danger to the person defended of being killed or suffering serious bodily injury would increase. When considering defense of others, the relative sizes, ages, and weights of the party may be considered in deciding the apparent or actual need for force in defense of others and the amount of force needed.
A person cannot be required to make an exact calculation as to the degree or amount of force which may be needed to avoid death or serious bodily harm.
Therefore, in defense of others, the defendant has the right to use the force needed to avoid death or serious bodily harm to the person defendant. The force used in defense of others does not have to be limited to the degree or amount of force used by the victim. Defender has the right to use so much force as appeared to be necessary for complete protection of the person defended and which a person of ordinary reason and firmness would have believed to be needed to prevent death or serious bodily harm to the person defended.
Where a person inflicts an injury or death on another person, you must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that defendants's actions were approximate cause of the victim's injury or death.
Proximate cause is the direct cause. It is that immediate cause. It is the efficient cause. It is that cause without which the injury to the victim would not have resulted. There must be a chain of causation from the defendants's actions until the time of the victim's injury or death. Proximate cause does not necessarily mean that it occurred immediately prior to the injury or death. There may be more than one proximate cause. The acts of two or more persons may combine together to be approximate cause of the injury or death of a person. Defendants act may be regarded as approximate cause if it is a contributing cause of the injury or death of the victim. The fact that other causes also contribute to the injury or death of the victim does not relieve the defendants from responsibility.
Defendants act need not be the sole cause of the injury or death but must be approximate cause contributing to the injury and death of the victim.
Negligence on the part of someone else would not relieve the defendant from criminal responsibility if the actions of the defendant were approximate cause of the victim's injury or death. Ladies and gentlemen, I declared the law to you through these instructions to help guide you to a verdict. Whether some of these instructions apply depends on what you find to be the facts. The fact that I instructed you on various subjects in this case should not be taken as indicating an opinion of this court as to what you should find to be the facts or as to what your verdict should be.
Your verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree. Your verdict must be unanimous. All 12 of you must agree on your verdict. The verdict cannot be based on sympathy, passion, prejudice, emotion, or any other consideration, not in evidence in the case. Disagreements may arise during deliberations, and your debates may become theory. I urge you to be courteous to one another and respectful of your fellow jurors perspective as you work for a verdict. Remember, at all times, you are not partisans, favoring one party over another through the judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to determine whether the state has proved the defendants's guilt to the charges beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence presented to you in this case. Again, ladies and gentlemen, uh your verdict must be unanimous. Madam, lady, when the jury agrees on the verdict, you will fill out the verdict form, which I have here. It is very self-explanatory.
Um it will go back with the evidence. Um after you after you reach the verdict um matter will fill out the verdict form and sign uh then knock on the jury room door and inform the bail you have reached the verdict. At that time we'll receive you back in the courtroom. We'll ask you to return to the jury room but not begin deliberations until you're told by the clerk or the baiff to do so.
Uh there are a few more matters of law that I need to discuss with the lawyer before you begin your deliberation. All right. So, I'm going to ask you to come back. I believe your lunch is already here. Um, so y'all can get started with that. We'll be with you very shortly.
I'm going to ask the alternates to please stay with us.
exceptions that >> none just one moment. What are you doing?
Give me a minute.
>> All right. While yall are working on that, um, our alternates, you are now excused. Um, you do have lunch back there. Um, but thank you for being here again. Like I said from the outset, we can't do our job without folks being willing to show up.
As you can see, a very important job. So again, thank you for being here, but you are excused.
I've always told you, you certainly have the uh right to discuss your observations with lawyers. Sometimes the lawyers would like to see input, but you do not have to. If anyone contacts you in any way about this case and you feel uncomfortable about it, you call back in through the clerk's office and I will take care of it. Um, but you're free to discuss a case with anyone at this point that you see fit. Again, you certainly have the right not to discuss it with anyone. Again, thank you for being here and will show you that.
Well, they confirmed me. We started to go through the exhibits, but I first Quiet, please.
Uh I I would like to just go ahead and uh as to the elements of self-defense, I believe you're on a charge.
Okay.
>> With respect to the self-defense said it was up to the defendant to show these various elements of self-defense.
And of course you also said it was the burden of proof on the state history of those elements or any one of them. And I just I'm just like on the record I think that may be burden shifting as to the defendant being required to show and sort of contradicts the defendant to rely on the state's failure to prove u those elements. So, I just want to go ahead and uh put that on the record that I I don't I think that may be error that would be off.
>> Well, I guess my question to you, how would the state prove something that defendant never show?
>> Well, u I don't know how else to describe it. I mean, I understand what you're saying.
>> Yeah. I I just it just troubles me because I mean, I tried a lot of self-defense cases, but I I just don't remember the charge being exactly like that where I have not changed it in the four years I >> not saying I'm right or I'm perfect but that's that's what was has been standard charge >> and I understand I and I just want to if if down the road the court decides that that is burden shifting I just wanted to be on the record >> you are on the record and that is certainly possible >> that's that's the that's the argument >> okay otherwise no other exceptions >> no subject to our original request, your honor.
>> Yep.
>> All right. Um, are the exhibits ready?
>> Not yet, your honor. We're just going back and making sure there's a clean copy of the uh states seven goes back.
There was >> I'm sorry, the defense seven. Uh, there was Carter and uh and the defendant, Mr. Chow. We just want to make sure that's the clean copy, the profit go back. And we're just going through the count right now. So, we'll move quickly. Write a couple things up. All right. else.
Check, check, check, check, check, check. One, two. Test.
instruction.
Um, with y'all's permission, I think I'm going to ask the poor lady exactly what part of the instructions they want. Um, I don't know that it would be necessary for them to hear, you know, my job, their job, and all that.
envisioning something like you don't have a specific section >> you just call for that that's you everyone just bring in the four ladies >> we do All right, just bring in the board, please.
Just for the record, Madam Forl, we got your note about um wanting us to read instructions again.
Is there a specific provision in the uh instructions you have in mind or did the jury want to have the entire thing read?
>> They did not want the entire thing read again.
>> Okay.
>> Um we didn't know that we could have a portion of it read. Okay.
>> Um but we did want to um go over um the aspects of malice, what constitutes malice. Okay.
>> All right. That was it.
>> Yes. And you know um someone had spoke about you know you know what is the charge of murder and what are the things that would make him guilty of murder.
>> Okay.
>> And I think that's one and the same I'm talking about.
>> Okay. Well that's what we need to know if you'll step. Well you can just stay.
>> Okay. and you can get um I y'all what I think I'll do is I'll just read the entire murder section and stop after that we get into because I think it flows right into section I'll just stop anybody bring the jury please sir Yes, sir.
Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, jury understand you like to be recharged on how we define murder. So, I'm going to recharge you on uh the murder portion of the instructions.
The defendant is charged with one count of murder. The state must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant killed another person with malice of malice is hatred, ill will, or hostility towards another person. It is the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse and with an intent to inflict an injury or under circumstances that the law will infer an evil intent. Malice of forethought does not require that malice exists for any particular time before the act is committed. But malice must exist in the mind of the defendant just before and at the time the act is committed.
Therefore, there must be a combination of the evil intent and the act. Malice or forthought may be expressed or inferred. These terms expressed and inferred do not mean different kinds of malice, but merely the manner in which malice may be shown to exist. That is either by direct evidence or by inference from the facts and circumstances which are proved.
Expressed malice is shown when a person speaks words which express hatred or ill will for another or when the person prepared beforehand to do the act which was later accomplished. For example, lying in weight for a person or any other acts of preparation going to show that the deed was within the defendant's mind would be expressed malice. Malice may be inferred from conduct showing a total disregard for human life. If facts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt sufficient to raise an inference of malice to your satisfaction, this inference would simply would be simply an evidentiary fact to be considered by you along with the other evidence in the case. You may give it the weight you decide it should be.
That's it. I'm going you back to your jury room. And if you have any other questions, just let us know.
All right. Any concessions from the state?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Anything for defense?
>> No.
>> All right. We'll be at ease.
Thank you.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
