In criminal trials, defense attorneys use affirmative defenses like duress, mistake of fact, and necessity to challenge the prosecution's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the defense argued that the defendant was acting under duress (being shot at) and had a reasonable mistake of fact (not knowing he hit the victim), which should negate criminal liability for manslaughter and failure to render aid. The defense emphasized that jurors must evaluate whether the defendant's actions were reasonable under the circumstances and whether the state proved each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Inmersión profunda
Prerrequisito
- No hay datos disponibles.
Próximos pasos
- No hay datos disponibles.
Inmersión profunda
TUES., MAY 19, 2026/JUDGE STEPHANIE BOYD/187TH DISTRICT COURT/JURY: STATE VS CASTILLOAñadido:
Mhm.
>> Mhm.
>> Ready, judge? Uh yes, we're ready.
All right, for the record.
All right, everyone, you may be seated.
And state, are you ready to proceed? We are, Judge. All right, you may proceed.
>> Thank you, Judge.
All right, guys.
So, the way this is going to work is I'm going to speak to y'all for a moment, and then David's going to have his turn, and then Megan is going to wrap everything up for everybody.
So, y'all remember this from jury selection.
Y'all have innocence phase versus punishment phase. Basically, where we're at right now is right here. The only focus at this time is did he do it? Did we prove the case to y'all beyond a reasonable doubt?
Did we give you the evidence you need and answer the questions that you have?
Everything after that goes into punishments.
So, let's go through it real quick.
Manslaughter, Texas Penal Code 19.04, person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
Now, right here, let me stop for a moment because there is a thing that's called manners and means, and there's a bunch of them for each of these counts.
So, what manners and means is is basically how the crime was done, not what crime was done. Here's the trick.
For manners and means, one of y'all can agree that it was this, one of y'all can agree that it was that, and one of y'all can agree that it was the other.
Y'all are free to disagree about which manner and means was done here, but the end goal is y'all all agree on what was done. Does everybody get that? Y'all are allowed to agree on how Y'all are allowed to disagree on how the crime was done, but y'all must you unanimous on what crime was done.
Okay?
So, let's get to that. Count one. On the 25th day of March, 2023, Robert Castillo recklessly caused the death of Eric Moody by failing to take proper evasive action to avoid driving a motor vehicle into the complainant by failing to drive the motor vehicle entirely on the roadway and or failing to apply the brake in a timely manner and or driving the motor vehicle at a speed that was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing and or driving the vehicle onto a public sidewalk and or driving while under the influence of alcohol, a drug, or dangerous drug, or combination thereof.
So, remember when I was talking to y'all about different manner and means?
When y'all see the phrase and or, it's going to be one of the phrases right around there.
Got it?
So, let's move on. Vehicle to stop and render aid. This Transportation Code 550.021.
The operator of a vehicle involved in a collision that results or is reasonably likely to result in injury to or the death of a person shall immediately stop the vehicle and immediately return to the scene of the collision and immediately determine whether a person is involved in the collision and whether that person needs aid.
So, let's move to count two.
On the 25th day of March, 2023, Robert Castillo did then and there drive a vehicle that became involved in an accident that resulted in the death of Eric Moody.
And that the And the defendant, knowing the accident had occurred and that was reasonably likely to result in injury, left the scene of the accident without giving his name, address, or registration number of the vehicle he was driving, and the name of his insurance company and or without immediately rendering reasonable assistance to Eric Moody when it was apparent that he needed medical treatment and or Robert Castillo did fail to give his name, address, registration number of the vehicle the defendant was driving, and the name of his insurance company.
So, judge told you all this in jury instructions.
I'm going to tell you all this again.
You will be provided with the law.
All the law that you need to decide this case is going to be right here in the jury instructions that the judge is going to give you.
All the evidence will be given to you.
Everything here, everything that's been admitted during trial will be for you all to review to make a decision on the case. And lastly, judge said it, and I'm going to ask you all as well, or I'm telling you as well, you cannot let bias, prejudice, or sympathy play any part in determining a verdict. The focus, the sole focus right now, is did he do it?
Judge, the state reserves the remainder of its time for rebuttal. The defense.
All right, defense.
I'm going to get your son up there. All right.
After the box.
It's been a long trial.
Okay, I appreciate you all's time. Uh I know Mr. Castillo does.
We've noticed throughout the entire trial you guys have paid attention. And you've been taking everything that's been said here seriously. Um we really, really appreciate your time and efforts here. Um So, why do we do jury trials?
Why do we do jury trials?
Why don't we just leave it up to the police?
I mean, police get it wrong sometimes, right? We all know about police states throughout the world, right?
I don't think I'd want to live in one. I don't think you would either.
Okay? Get charged with the crime and you got to prove your innocence. I don't want to do that.
That's really hard. I think they just made a movie about that. I think what's his face in that?
Some computer thing he had to prove his innocence.
Reason we have jury trials folks is so that ordinary folks like ourselves can determine the facts and determine what happens with ordinary folks like Mr. Castile.
Okay?
Philando Castile was having a pretty good day.
Um He'd gone out with his team from Take 5.
They'd won a nice award, cleanest shop in the whole district or the whole region and he was taking them out to give them a reward. It's a common thing that they did. And you saw the evidence of that. He takes them bowling, he'll take them out to, you know, an escape room. You know, they do a lot of things. This wasn't a one-time just an off situation. This was something they do on a regular basis.
He goes out, takes them out. They have a good time.
They go to back to his apartment, they go to the pool, they're hanging out.
They go back up to his apartment. Last guy leaves, Mr. Jared Loepker, Antonio Lamar, his friend, his friend at the time, was going to spend the night cuz he had a little bit to drink. Philando said, "No problem.
No problem."
Got one last thing to do.
One last thing to do that day and it's late.
By the time they leave it's close to 1:00 in the morning.
Cuz he's got to go down and take care of Ashley's car cuz it won't start and stay on.
Philando was pretty mechanical so he goes down there. Jared was going to go down there.
Move the vehicle cuz it's Fiesta. Can't wait to get out of here it's to start and at least that's what he's told and he's got to go down and move this van.
He's driving down there and and you know that Officer Forbelli talked about his driving.
I got to be honest with you. I was watching it. I didn't think it was that bad. I kind of do I think most of us do a lot of the same things. I might stop a little further than the stop bar cuz well, I can't see around the corner.
Um sometimes I'm driving a little faster than I should have been.
Um there was one lane there where they said when he jumped onto the highway, there was no marker in that lane that said he couldn't do that. It wasn't a straight only. There was no arrow there.
You guys can go back and watch the video. That's the good part about this is all those videos are in play. They're all in evidence. You get to watch them.
Okay?
He goes up on the highway.
He gets down to South Alamo, takes the exit. He gets down there.
There's an FJ stopped in front of him.
We know now that it was driven by a Diego Jimenez.
And he's stopped at the light and then suddenly goes left.
Mr. Castillo sees that and says, "Man, it's late. I'm tired. I'm going to go left, too."
Should he have done it? No, absolutely not.
But did that have anything to do with what happened later? No.
It doesn't.
He didn't cause an accident then.
That's not what happened. So, he takes a left. He goes down the road safely and all of a sudden things go south.
Mr. Gomez decides that he's going to pull off to the right and slow down and start backing up and waiting for Mr. Castillo to to get up next to him.
Mr. Castillo pulls up next to him. Mr. Gomez rolls down his window. Mr. Castile I He says he didn't roll down the window, but Mr. Yanez or somebody rolled down the window.
Jaxon like, "Hey, everything all right?"
And the guy starts going ballistic on him.
Super aggressive, yelling, challenging him to fight. They stop.
Mr. Gomez opens his door, starts challenging him to fight.
Mr. Castile opens his door not knowing what's going to happen. Closes it pretty shortly afterwards. You can time it on the video. Mr. Gomez keeps his door open for like another 7 seconds.
Then he shuts his door, leans back, and flashes a gun.
Mr. Castile sees that, and that's when the nightmare starts.
Because at that point he punches it.
With that Tesla that accelerates I don't know if you've been in a Tesla. Teslas accelerate like a rocket.
Super fast.
Cuz it's all direct torque to the to the rear wheels. This thing takes off faster than he's probably ever gone in that Tesla.
He's trying to get away from being shot.
And as he's leaving, he hears gunfire.
He hears shots.
Antonio Yanez testified the same thing.
We were driving away and I heard gunshots.
They're driving down the road.
He tries to negotiate the left-hand turn.
The road curves to the left. They're on Elmo. And as he's driving, he's ducking down behind the dashboard. He's literally using the dash screen to try and and drive and navigate so he doesn't get his head blown off.
And as he's negotiating this turn, Tesla doesn't respond right.
He hits the curb, hits the wall, and unbeknownst to him, hits Eric Michael Moody.
God bless Eric Michael Moody because he he didn't do anything wrong.
There's there there's no doubt. He was just walking down the sidewalk.
Wrong place at the wrong time.
Wrong place at the wrong time.
And Mr. Castillo, there is no evidence I don't even think it's presented in any charge that he meant to hit Mr. Moody.
That's absolutely not true.
What we're charged with is manslaughter.
And manslaughter has to do with recklessness. Okay?
And what you have to figure out is was Mr. Castillo acting reckless. Okay? So, when we're going through all this, and I'm going to talk to you guys about this charge a little bit, and and we're going to have to get through a couple things with that. But, when Mr. Castillo wrecks into the to the wall, he gets knocked out. He's not seatbelted.
I think the testimony was clear about that.
Um the EDR showed what speed he was going to what when they started applying brakes.
Showed he wasn't buckled in.
Okay?
Mr. Castillo testified he wasn't buckled in.
When he hits the dashboard and gets knocked out, he wakes up, and his buddy, Mr. Lerma, is gone.
Mr. Lerma testified that he didn't leave first.
That he waited until Mr. Castillo opened his door and Mr. Castillo went first.
But that's not the testimony that we heard.
Not from Mr. Castillo and not from Mr. Lerma.
But from Mr. Lilleberg that we heard from today.
When he was talking about Mr. Lilleberg, got no dog in the hunt. He lives up in Minneapolis. He was Eric Michael Moody's friend.
Why on earth would he say something that wasn't true?
No reason.
He told us today that Mr. Lerma was the one running up in front of Mr. Castillo towards the bridge over the river right there by the police station.
So we know what Mr. Castillo was saying was true. We also know that what Mr. Lerma was testifying about right there is not true.
And he testified that he waited for 4 seconds and then went up with Mr. Castillo and Mr. Castillo went first.
Well, either he went first or he stayed there for 4 seconds and saw Mr. Michael Moody, Eric Michael Moody's body.
It's one or the other. And then he testifies to you, "Oh, I didn't see Eric Michael Moody's body."
I don't think he's telling us the truth there, folks.
I don't know why he's not telling us the truth there, but I don't think he's telling us the truth.
It's one or the other.
And it I I'll be honest with you, I don't know how on earth he didn't see Mr. Moody's body when he got out of the vehicle. That makes no sense to me, either.
So is Mr. Lerma, their star witness, is he really telling us the truth?
Mhm.
Probably not.
But like most things, when you're not telling the truth about something, there's kernels of truth that are in there.
Because that makes it more believable, right?
So, the shots that got fired, Mr. Larner talked about that.
Mr. Castillo talks about the shots getting fired directly behind him from the FJ. We presented a picture to you.
Our our agent, FBI special agent Brett Pratt came in here and testified to you that that was an apparent muzzle flash.
It's not a cell phone like Detective Pavelic said.
Think about how your cell phone takes a picture.
It's a series usually of three flashes and the light stays on and then it takes the picture.
Quick flash like what we saw in that video?
That wasn't a cell phone.
I'm going to age myself. He he wants you to believe that was a Kodak Instamatic.
Little quick flash.
Some of you guys are not.
It's not.
That was a muzzle flash, folks.
Now, you get to determine what it is.
You're the trier of fact on all this stuff. Okay?
And I want you to ask you a question.
Why is it so What why why did Detective Pavelic and the state try so hard not to tell you the truth about those shots being fired?
Why did they try so hard to do that?
Because it goes directly to our affirmative defenses that we've talked about.
Necessity and duress.
Serious it imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death.
Was what Mr. Castillo doing at the time?
Was it reasonable?
With an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death?
I think so.
Let's talk about it a little bit. So, primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law. They're not here just to convict, okay?
State has the burden and must do so by proving each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
Remember we were over here talking about what the burden of proof were when we first started the trial where we're picking the jury, right? We're over here and that's the presumption of innocence.
That's enough right there that you have to acquit.
One of our affirmative defenses is duress.
And that's where we've got to get here.
This is preponderance of the evidence, right? So right about the 50-yard line, got to get the nose of the football across the 50.
Okay? That's preponderance of the evidence. We have the burden to prove that.
For duress.
The other two, the state has the burden to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt, mistake of fact and necessity.
That is here.
They got to get to that wall.
If they don't get to the wall with either their proof for the offense or to disprove mistake of fact or necessity, that's not guilty, folks.
That's a not guilty.
And I think with the evidence you've got, that's a real simple choice.
We just talked about that.
So, let's talk about manslaughter.
Manslaughter is if you commit an offense recklessly and that an offense if he doesn't recklessly causes the death of an individual.
That's manslaughter. Let's talk about what reckless means.
Person acts recklessly or is reckless with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct.
Circumstance result revolving around his conduct.
Mr. Castillo driving away fast, trying to get away from getting shot at.
Hitting his brakes.
We've got the the EDR that says where he was hitting his brakes five five seconds out. But the problem we know is is the EDR only goes back five seconds. We don't know when he started hitting his brakes.
Could have been before that.
Okay? We don't know.
EDR doesn't tell us.
So, his conduct as he's driving away trying to get away from being shot or the result of his conduct because he lost control and hit Ms. Moody, okay? Those are two two ways.
When he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.
By driving or driving away fast is he consciously disregarding a substantial unjustified risk?
That the circumstances exist or that the result will occur? He doesn't know Mr. Moody's going to be there. He doesn't know that him driving away fast is going to result in this horrific accident. He doesn't know that.
And he's not aware of it.
Here's the Here's the part you've got to really look at though.
The risk must be of such a nature and degree that it's disregard constitutes a gross deviation. That means a big difference from what from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances. I.E. You're getting shot at and somebody's flashing a gun at you as viewed from Mr. Castillo's standpoint.
I pose to each and every one of you.
There's not a person in this courtroom who wouldn't have done exactly what Mr. Castillo did.
Somebody flashes a gun at you, I don't know about you, I'm taking off.
I'm out of there. And especially if they start shooting at me, I'm definitely taking off. And I'm ducking down.
I don't want to get my head blown off.
Who wouldn't do that?
It doesn't make any sense to me. So, this gross deviation of what an ordinary person would have done under the circumstances, state doesn't have it.
That's What Mr. Castillo did was not reckless under those circumstances.
If he wasn't being shot at and just took off down the street as fast as he could, peeling out, racing somebody, doing something like that, yeah.
That's reckless.
Cuz we don't have those other circumstances.
He doesn't have the necessity to go that fast to get away from being shot.
He's not under duress like he is in this case because he's not being shot at.
That's where those defenses come in, folks.
Okay?
So, he's going down the road to try and keep from being shot.
Let's talk about failure to stop and render aid cuz this is this is a little more difficult, okay? To try and understand and get through.
Cuz you got a couple statutes that tie together, okay? So, the first one what we're talking about really is 550.021 A, which is Does that go up and Yes. Thank you.
The way these statutes are written is kind of tricky. So, 550.021 A and then four.
That's what it says in your charge.
That's what we're looking at.
And so, what we have to The is is that he remained at the scene of the collision until the operator complied with the requirements of section 550.023.
I think the other elements we got through pretty well.
So, first one, he immediately stops the vehicle at the scene of the collision.
Vehicle crashed into the wall, it didn't go anywhere.
Check. He did that.
Immediately return to the scene of the collision if the vehicle is not stopped at the scene.
That one doesn't apply.
Vehicle was stopped at the scene.
We don't have to worry about two.
Number three, immediately determine whether a person is involved in the collision, and if a person is involved in the collision, whether that person requires aid.
The only other person that Mr. Castillo knew was involved in the collision was Mr. Lorna.
He never saw Mr. Moody.
And I'm going to tell you this.
You You've seen the front shot, the front camera view of the Tesla when it hits Mr. Moody. That's played several times during this trial.
It's an accurate depiction of what happened when the vehicle hit Mr. Moody, for sure.
But I want you to think about this, and this is something you need to really realize, is that evidence doesn't show you what Mr. Castillo saw.
Cameras don't blink.
Cameras don't look away. Cameras don't look down under the dash because they're afraid of getting their head blown off.
What Mr. Castillo saw is not what the camera saw.
We know what happened to Mr. Moody because of those cameras. It's a very highly technical vehicle, and actually I'm very glad that all that footage was there because I think it shows what happened.
Okay?
But keep in mind, that's not necessarily what Mr. Castillo saw, okay?
So, the last one there is remain at the scene of the collision until the operator proposed the requirements of section 550.023.
Let's look at what that says.
So, 550.023 says that the operator of vehicle involved in a collision resulting in the injury or death of a person or damage to a vehicle shall, must, has to do it, give the operator's name and address, the registration number of the vehicle the operator was driving, and the name of the operator's motor vehicle liability insurance to any person injured or the operator or occupant of the vehicle involved in the in the collision. So, I've got the front part highlighted there because we don't have another person involved in the accident.
There's not another car.
So, he's got to give that information to any person who's injured.
If requested and available, show driver's license. Nobody requested it.
There's no evidence of that.
Provide any person injured in the collision reasonable assistance including transportation if it is apparent that transportation is necessary.
That part of that statute is extremely important in this case.
Mr. Castillo did not know he had hit Mr. Moody. He did not know that he was next to the car.
If Mr. Lerma knew, he never told Mr. Castillo. We've got no evidence of that. Matter of fact, the evidence is to the contrary.
It was dark. The vehicle was up against the wall.
That's the perspective.
That's the view that he had when he got out of the vehicle.
I can't see anything on the other side of that car.
The airbags are down. He can't look through the car.
He can't look over the car and there Mr. Moody's up against it. He's in a shadow.
There's nothing There There's no way he's seeing Mr. Moody there.
And what he does see is when he looks up the sidewalk that you can see right there on the side is Mr. Larner trucking it up the sidewalk.
Mr. Castillo, that's the only other person he knows is involved in the accident.
I better go see if he's all right, even though he left me for dead.
But I'm going to go check on my friend and see what's going on.
What we have to worry about is if it was apparent that treatment was necessary.
If you don't know he's there, how can you give him treatment?
If you don't know he's there, how can you give him your information?
You can't.
That goes to this mistake of fact.
And I'm going to read you that part of the charge because this one is a little I I want you to understand what you're reading when you read the charge.
So this is on page eight of the charge and it goes as the count two.
And say But if you further believe that or if you have a reasonable doubt as to whether at the time he did so Robert Castillo had through mistake formed a reasonable belief that he had not been involved in an accident that was reasonably likely to result in injury or death to another person.
And cuz that first part I'm sure sounds confusing. It did to me.
We're doing trying to figure out what to put in this charge. That part sounded like not really what his mistake of fact was. His mistake of fact was is that I didn't know that I hit Mr. Moody. I didn't know that Mr. Moody was there and needed aid.
Okay?
But the and kind of makes it clear. So, and this mistaken belief held by Robert Castillo negated the kind of culpability required for his commission of the offense of failure to comply with the duty to give information and render aid after being involved in an accident involving personal injury or death.
Okay? And so, if he doesn't know he's there, he can't give him the information.
If he doesn't know he's there, he can't give him the aid.
That's what relieves the culpable mental state. It's this mistake of fact. Okay?
And I know this sounds very legalese. It does. I get it.
But really in a nutshell, that's it.
If you didn't know he's there, how are you supposed to give him aid?
Or information? You can't. Okay?
Let's talk about this one. Because this goes to him staying at the scene until he performed these things. So, Mr. Castillo told you that he left the scene. Right?
He admitted that to you. He's like, "Yeah, I left the scene."
And the reason he left the scene was because it was immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm.
He had just been shot at.
This whole thing between the time he takes off, you can time it.
And he crashes into the wall, 18 seconds.
That's it.
18 seconds.
Mr. Moody's dead.
Mr. Castillo's on trial for his life.
18 seconds.
Because somebody else was shooting at him.
And so, here we are.
7 days into trial.
Was it immediately necessary to avoid him in a harm?
I think getting shot is an is imminent harm.
Imminent has to mean split second decision.
He comes to after wrecking the car, there's powder everywhere, he can't see me, the airbags are down, he doesn't know what's going on, gets out of the car, falls down, doesn't doesn't really know where he's at.
But all of a sudden he remembers I was getting shot at. I'm getting out of here.
Sees Mr. Loren out the road, Mr. Loren's already booked it.
And Mr. Loren told you, I was afraid for my life.
Well, if Mr. Loren was afraid for his life cuz his mom got murdered and was shot, doesn't it make sense that Mr. Castillo be afraid for his life, too?
Especially after what happened to his brother Paul.
Paul's in a wheelchair for the rest of his life cuz he was shot in a road rage incident. The state even called this a road rage incident.
It's what it was.
The desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh the ordinary standards of according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law prescribing the conduct.
The law prescribing the conduct says you have to stay until you do what you're required to do, render aid and give information.
Is that outweighed? Does that law outweigh by your life?
No.
No. In Texas, we are allowed to preserve our life. Self-preservation is allowed. That's why we have these justification defenses, mistake of fact, necessity, duress. You're allowed to do that. Same with self-defense, it's not an issue in this case, but everybody kind of understands that one.
Okay? Someone pulls a gun on you, you don't have to stand there and just get shot. You're going to defend yourself.
Okay?
Oh.
Hit the wrong button. Sorry.
Talk about mistake of fact. Duress. This is the one we have to prove by our preponderance of the evidence. Okay? Get the nose across the 50 in football.
Okay?
Cause he was compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.
I think we have that. I don't want to beat this to death. I told you in the beginning I'm going to talk to you and say a lot of the things over and over again cuz I can't get feedback from you.
Okay?
Um it's it's a very one-sided conversation here. Okay?
In a prosecution for an offense that Now, that one doesn't apply. Compulsion within the meaning of this section exists only if the force or threat of force would render a person reasonably firm and incapable of resisting the pressure.
Duress, when we think about that a lot of times we're talk we we think about it as somebody making us do something. Like I signed that contract under duress. And so the contract's no good, right?
In this the definition, it has to be you're you're doing something or you are compelled to do something because of a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury. We have that.
Mr. Gomez pointed a gun at him.
He fired shots at him.
He's speeding away because he had a gun pointed at him and shots were being fired at him.
Okay?
That's why he's doing what he's doing.
That's the duress.
I think we've shown that to you by our preponderance of the evidence.
I'm going to go back up just a little bit because I forgot to talk about this.
We're talking about whether or not Mr. Castillo saw Mr. Moody.
We saw the video from Mr. Willerberg.
That was that last video that we showed you guys, all those video clips. And we heard Mr. Lilburn testify to you guys.
Mr. Lilburn was Eric Michael Williams' friend.
They've been hanging out earlier that night.
And when he went up to that Tesla crash, he told you, "I didn't see her body."
And that's somebody that who don't hunt.
Why would he tell you something like that if it wasn't true?
So, he didn't see the body.
Doesn't it make sense?
Maybe Mr. Castillo didn't see the body, too.
Same perspective. Same side of the car.
Okay?
This is the guy that pulled the gun on them and was shooting at them.
You're going to get to go look at this video and look at this evidence. I want you to look at this last face.
I don't know what his problem is, but there is nothing but hate in this guy's face as he's looking at Mr. Lilburn and Mr. Castillo.
I don't know why.
I don't know why he pulled over.
I don't know why he pulled the gun.
Hid it so that you can't see it really good, you know?
And if somebody's taking pictures, they won't be able to see it.
Why else would you do it that way, right? He knows exactly what he's doing.
This is the flash. That's the muzzle flash of him shooting them.
There's three holes in that vehicle.
That vehicle was shot three times. It's not like Mr. Gomez is just shooting up in the air trying to scare them.
He's trying to kill them.
He hit them three times as that vehicle speeding away.
If he hadn't been going that fast I would have gone through the window.
I would have gone into the passenger compartment of the vehicle.
We'll never know. Thank God.
It's a very different trial.
Those are the bullet holes, folks.
That's two of them. You got pieces of trunk down here. You're going to be able to take and go back. You're going to get to take good looks at it.
That bullet went all the way through the trunk.
High velocity rounds.
You know who else didn't see the body that night?
EMS.
This is a still shot of Officer Escobar. That was the first witness we saw. This is the video that we saw. This is a still shot where he's telling EMS, "Hey, there's a body over here."
It wasn't apparent, folks. It wasn't like it was super obvious.
Mr. Castillo didn't know.
Talking about evasive action. So, there's a whole list of stuff in here that comes straight out of the indictment. And they're talking about what he did and what he didn't do.
Let me find it real quick. I'm going to read it off the indictment.
So, basically they're trying the state is trying to tell you that Mr. Castillo failed to take necessary and proper evasive action to avoid driving the motor vehicle into the complaint.
At the time that that happened, he was trying to take evasive action.
Look at the wheels on the vehicle as it hit the wall.
Those comply completely with what the EDR told you.
that he's got the steering wheel cranked as hard as it will go to the left.
They're still in that position when he hits the wall.
He's trying to take evasive action. He didn't fail to take evasive action.
This is a fourth almost 5,000 lb vehicle.
That's the gross vehicle weight.
4,000 890 or yeah, I'm sorry. Lost track. 4,894 lb. That's how much a Tesla weighs.
I asked Detective Babalick about that whether or not they knew about how these electric vehicles are handling and what they're doing.
He didn't know. He had no idea.
You'd think somebody who's a law enforcement doing crash reconstruction and all these other things that he's supposed to be an expert in would know these kinds of things.
The weight of a vehicle affects its momentum. The weight of the vehicle affects how much force is being used.
Okay?
The weight of that vehicle, it did not respond the way a normal vehicle would.
And unfortunately in an emergency situation, Mr. Castile found that out the hard way.
He's slowing down.
5 seconds out he's at 80 88 mph.
2 seconds out he's at 50.
1 second out he's 37 mph.
The speed limit there is 35.
The problem is is that I think it was Detective or Sergeant Davis testified about momentum. The problem is you got the weight of this vehicle and it's affecting the momentum of the vehicle. That's why it hops the car the curb. It also doesn't help that Mr. Castile is down driving like this because he has to keep his head from getting blown off. He's using the dash cam to try to drive and he hits the island.
Island Park causing the wheel pop.
2 minutes. Thank you, Ronald.
He knows his vehicle is going to call 911.
He knows his cell phone's going to hit his emergency contacts cuz there's been an accident.
We live in an age of tech.
These things happen.
Okay?
I think one of the first ones was Northstar that was used a long time ago. I think it was a GM product.
But, you're involved in an accident and it calls the 911 for you.
Let's talk about some of these other manners and means real quick.
So, one of the other manners and means is failure to drive the motor vehicle in failure on the roadway.
Yes, that happened. But, it's cuz he's being shot at and having to avoid getting killed.
Failure to apply the brakes in a timely manner.
I venture I I proffer to you that he did brake in a timely manner.
He decelerated extremely rapidly. He lost more than half of his speed in less than 3 seconds, 4 seconds.
He's braking. He's trying to make that curve. He is trying not to have an accident. He's just trying to get away from this guy.
Driving a motor vehicle at a speed that was not reasonable or prudent under the circumstances then existing.
State didn't prove that at all.
That one we know they didn't prove because the circumstances then existing are life and death.
And he's having to drive as fast as he can to get away from being shot.
Driving the vehicle onto a public sidewalk or driving while under the influence Let me just go back.
Driving the vehicle onto a public sidewalk. He just failed to mean to drive on the public sidewalk. The vehicle jumped the curb and went onto the sidewalk and straight into the the building.
He wasn't driving the vehicle down the sidewalk.
It wasn't like the guy in New Orleans going down Bourbon Street. That's not what he was doing.
What the guy did in Bourbon Street, that's reckless.
What Mr. Castillo did was not.
Because it's what an ordinary person would do under those same circumstances, okay?
And this stuff about driving while under the influence of alcohol or drug or a dangerous drug, there's zero evidence of that. None.
There's been nobody to come in here say that he was drunk or that he was under the influence of anything. The only evidence you have is that he had a beer about, I don't know, 7:30 between 7:30 and 9:00.
One beer.
And that Jared Lopez said he was dead sober when he was at El Camino.
And Ashley Lopez saying he's dead sober when he shows up at her house after the accident.
Those bookends say exactly what you need to know about sobriety, whether it's drugs or alcohol.
There's no drugs or alcohol, folks.
That's That's just not even something to even consider.
We talked a little bit during voir dire about how these kinds of cases can garner sympathy, and I get it. I do.
But you can't let bias, prejudice, or sympathy affect your verdict.
It's crucial.
Whether it's for Mr. Moody, whether it's for Mr. Castillo, whether it's for their families, or anybody else that you might think that you might have sympathy for.
You cannot use that to try and render your verdict. What you have to do is look at what the facts show.
Did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not have a mistake of fact? No.
Did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't have a necessity to um uh leave the scene of the accident and or speed away?
Did he have a mistake of fact that Mr. Gomez was still chasing him when he was driving down the road and and going as fast as he was going.
Does the state just prove that? Beyond a reasonable doubt? No.
No evidence of that. Zero.
And that's their burden.
And so when you're going through this charge, the state has to prove not only that he committed the offenses, but that they disproved that he had a mistake of fact as well and beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond a reasonable doubt that they disproved that he did that he had a necessity and they have to disprove that we didn't prove by preponderance of the evidence that he was under duress.
You got to get through all those all those have to be in favor of the state for you to get to a guilt.
We talked about this picture a little bit.
I don't want a hung jury.
I don't, but I want each and every one of you to have the same courage as that man up against the wall. I want to point you to just to make sure everybody knows which guy I'm talking about.
It's this man right here.
With his face like flint.
With courage and conviction.
Because his verdict is the one that counts.
His verdict is the one that matters.
Each one of you, your verdicts are the ones that matter.
It's not a group decision, folks.
It's 12 people come together with your verdict. With your verdict.
With your verdict. With your verdict.
With your verdict.
And if you all agree, great.
But if you don't, that's okay, too.
I think that we have clearly shown that we've got affirmative defenses that negate any kind of criminal liability with both of these allegations that are against Mr. Castillo.
He didn't commit manslaughter cuz he did what anybody else in this room would have done.
He fled from the scene when the guy pulled the gun on him and started shooting at him.
And what he did and how it ended up is horrible, but it was an accident and it's not a crime.
Him fleeing from the scene, first off, he didn't know Mr. Moody was there. So, he didn't have to comply with those requirements under 550.023 because he didn't know he was there.
Not only that, it was necessary for him to leave because he was getting shot at.
And we know that. We know that was the right decision because we saw that FJ come back through in the video. We showed that to you.
Come back with a not guilty verdict.
Tell the state they're prosecuting the wrong guy.
It's not Mr. Castillo. He's not the one who caused all this.
It's Diego Gomez.
All Diego Gomez had to do was >> Jack, he had a motion in limine regarding >> I'm not talking. No. All right, so everyone, if you all approach.
>> But for Diego Gomez firing at Mr. Castillo, and pointing a gun at him, none of this would have happened.
If Diego Gomez had just kept driving that night and not pulled off to the right and slowed down and hit his brakes and started challenging Mr. Castillo, none of this would have happened.
Everything would have just kept on going the same way it was going that night.
It'd been a good night.
It'd been a good night for Mr. Castillo.
And it turned into a nightmare.
Not just for him, but for Mr. Moody's family, too.
Is it important to convict to get Mr. Moody justice?
Or is it more important to convict the right person?
That's your question.
Mr. Moody deserves justice, but he deserves justice from the right person.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not going to get a chance to talk to you again.
State's going to get up here in a minute, and they're going to talk to you about what they think. They're probably going to get into the jail calls.
They're going to tell you that Mr. Castillo asking about probation was some sort of admission of guilt. It wasn't.
He was just hoping he could not have to go to prison.
All right. They're going to talk to you about, "Well, he lied to Ashley." He just didn't want her to have his passports.
All these things are a lot to do about nothing.
Focus on the facts in this case. Focus on the what happened. And focus what situation Mr. Castillo was in.
Ask yourself if you would have done anything different. You're ordinary folks just like me.
Ordinary folks just like you.
Go back, look at it all, and come back with an outcome.
Thank you.
All right, uh ladies and gentlemen, does anyone need a break before the state begins?
All right, the state uh state you have uh 40 minutes and 55 seconds.
>> Judge, can I have 1 second to get my computer plugged in? Yes.
I shouldn't have [ __ ] told him anything.
Ladies and gentlemen, that sentence, directly from that defendant's mouth, tells you everything that you need to know about this case.
The only reason that SAPD had any inclination of who is operating that motor vehicle on the night of the crash is because Antonio Lerma came forward 7 hours later.
Now, I want to talk to you about the mental state regarding count one of manslaughter.
And that is recklessly. Aware of the defendant is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
And Mr. McLean told you that it has to be a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would use.
So, let's talk about that.
In this case, the law does not require you to be a mind reader, okay? You can infer intent from words, actions, and circumstances. That is the law.
And so, let's talk about that element of aware of but consciously disregarding the risk.
That goes to the alcohol consumption, okay?
You heard from multiple different witnesses. Antonio Lerma testified that he believed that the defendant was intoxicated, okay?
You heard from Ashley and Jared.
And I want you all to pay attention to the timeline.
>> Your Honor, I'm going to object I'm going to object to that because that was a mis- that's a mischaracterization with the evidence was. Antonio Lerma did not say that the defendant was intoxicated.
He did not testify. All right, ladies and gentlemen, you will remember the evidence the way you recall it. Does everyone understand?
All right, you may proceed. Now, I want to talk to you about the timeline of what the defense witnesses are asking you to believe, right? Because if you listen to the defendant's word, he's saying that he only consumed one beer at 7:30 p.m.
Okay? But, if you listen to Jared, he says that the defendant consumed an alcoholic beverage at 9:00 p.m.
That would have been while they were at El Camino, and you can look at those receipts that are in evidence to confirm that.
But, the video is everything, and we'll get back to that.
Now, he knows that the brick at Blue Star is there, that there's many pedestrians in the area. He testified that he had lived in that area for 10 years about. So, he's familiar with it.
He knew the curve was coming up, and aware of but consciously disregards is him cranking that steering wheel all the way to the left. The 5 seconds immediately preceding him crashing his vehicle into Mr. Moody.
And the gross deviation of the standard of care they're asking you to disregard everything that he did and just look at the crash and the vacuum with the exception of the road rage that he voluntarily engaged in with Mr. Diego Gomez.
But his gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would use started when he got in the driver's seat of that white Tesla in the garage of his apartment.
Okay? And that's confirmed by the way that he's stumbling into the driver's seat.
Detective Gillette testified to that.
How can you tell that somebody is intoxicated? It goes to the balance. If you're able to see them on the night of the offense, you can maybe see or hear or smell something.
And there's tests that they can do if you're able to make contact with them on the night of the offense.
They were unable to do that because the defendant fled.
And even though he was in such eminent danger, he's asking you to believe he never contacted 911 that night. And that tells you everything that you need to know.
Now, this is a manslaughter, but it's enhanced to it is a criminally negligent homicide enhanced to a manslaughter. So, what does that mean?
For criminally negligent homicide, the standard is that he was aware of or should have been aware of the risk. Okay? So, he should have been aware that there were multiple pedestrians in that area. You all have seen it in the state's exhibit, and had he been focused on the road instead of other things, he would have known that.
So, he should have been aware of that based on his knowledge of the area.
Okay? But we get back to that reckless standard, and that goes to what we were talking about of that him starting in the garage. You saw his driving patterns. He drives over that handicap parking space. He stops in the crosswalk multiple times. He runs the red light.
He gets over from the farthest lane onto the highway. That all goes into his reckless behavior. But, on that night, he was aware of the risk, and he consciously disregarded it by deciding to drive that 88 mph.
So, let's talk about the testimony um that you heard. Sergeant Castellano, okay? He was the first on scene. He testified to you that he immediately observed Eric Moody. He testified that that area is a high pedestrian traffic area, and he on scene contacted the follow-up unit and provided traffic control and cover.
And then you heard from Eamonn Teague Leahy, yes. He testified that he arrived at the scene of the crash, that he started on the driver's side, and he was looking for the driver, okay? And he follows that path of that white Croc.
Because at this time, due to the defendant's failure to comply with his duty, that is in your jury charge. He had a legal duty to determine if another person was involved. That's not regarding Antonio Lerma. He had a duty to do a walk-around and see exactly what he hit and if it was a person. And he told you on that stand he did not do that. Antonio Lerma told you on that stand that he didn't do that.
Eamonn Teague Leahy yes testified then that he observed Eric Moody unresponsive, that Mr. Moody had no pulse, he had clear indications of head trauma, and he was bleeding profusely, and they called his time of death at 1:46 a.m.
Now, if the San Antonio Fire Department did not know where Mr. Moody was, it was due to the defendant's failure to comply with his legal duty. And that's the reason that we have a law like this, because in cases like this, seconds matter. And had he complied with his legal duty, they could have gotten to Mr. Moody faster and rendered aid, but he did not do that.
Then you heard from CSI Salvatierra.
Now, she testified that was a mixed residential and commercial area. She observed the white Tesla with extensive front-end damage, and it had biological evidence on it. You all saw the photographs of that. She testified to the pool of blood and Eric's eyeglasses that were there on the passenger side of that motor vehicle. She also showed you all the metal rods that had damage from where the victim's body was flung into.
And then she testified about the Crocs shoes, the defendant's cell phone with his information that was left in the driver's seat. And let's be clear, on that night, that was the only indication that SAPD had that he was the driver of that vehicle.
That cell phone.
And then she testified about the firearm and then the the magazines, the two magazines, and then that black baseball cap.
And all of that is corroborated with State's Exhibit number 48, which is the Tesla videos. I encourage you all to watch them when you retire to your deliberations.
And then you hear from Dr. Evans. She testifies that Eric Moody died of craniocerebral and blunt force injuries, which was his skull fractures and brain bleeding that he sustained. And that was consistent with motor vehicle crashes into pedestrians.
Then we get to Antonio Lerma. Now, what they're asking you to do is just believe the parts of Antonio Lerma's story that are favorable to him.
But, they want you to disbelieve everything that Antonio Lerma said that goes against the defendant.
Ladies and gentlemen, you all are exclusive judges of the facts that have been proven. And so, let's talk about what Antonio Lerma testified to. That he was a friend and former former co-worker of the defendant, and they were out at El Camino.
And I take issue with the fact that the defendant is asking you to believe that this was a work event. And if you look at the pictures that defense has provided to you of these prior work events, they're all wearing Take 5 uniforms.
Okay?
On this night, the defendant was not in any Take 4 5 uniform.
You all saw what he was wearing when he entered that driver's seat.
There was testimony that all of the members of the group were consuming alcohol at El Camino.
And that the defendant consumed one more beer at the apartment.
There was testimony that the defendant was calling Ashley, and she did not answer the phone when the defendant called her.
And then the defendant got behind the wheel of that Tesla after consuming alcoholic beverages.
And then the defendant heads to Ashley Sanchez's residence. He exits on South Alamo. The defendant followed the SUV to confront after the red light. Now, this is what I want you all to think about.
If this defendant has such a high sensitivity to road rage, and his brother, you know, it's unfortunate that his brother was a victim of a road rage shooting.
One, why would he engage in a traffic violation by running that red light?
That had absolutely nothing to do with him. And so, when they're asking you to disregard the defendant's behavior and say, "Oh, this could have all been avoided had Diego Gomez acted differently." the defendant is the one that placed all of these events in motion.
Had he followed traffic laws, minded his own business, we would not be here today, and Mr. Moody would still be alive.
Now, they're asking you all to believe that the defendant just started out joking with Diego Gomez.
That was that when he decided to stop and engage with Diego Gomez, that was the appropriate time to flee.
Not after he struck and killed Mr. Moody.
And then, Antonio Lerma testifies he has no incentive to lie about this, that the defendant had the firearm on his lap, and that that other driver in the FJ saw that.
The defendant is the one that provoked this entire situation.
Look at the state's exhibit, okay?
There is no evidence of what they are asking about that gun.
We kind of walked through the positioning of the motor vehicles, and there's no way that the defendant had could have had a clear look up into that Toyota FJ to see what he says he saw.
Now, Diego, I mean, Antonio Lerma testifies that he heard gunshots after the defendant had already started driving off. He can't say if that Toyota FJ was the one, okay? He never saw that person with a firearm. The only person he observed with a firearm that night was the defendant. And that firearm is found in the car.
And they were making some mention that it was found on the passenger side, but we walked through that and how things bounced around in the car when it crashed. Okay?
And then he testified both he and the defendant exited the motor vehicle and fled failing to determine whether another person was involved.
They did not comply with their legal duty.
Antonio also testified that the defendant apologized to him and told him that they needed to leave.
He advised the defendant to call 911 and he didn't want to. And then Antonio Lerma called 911 uh roughly 7 hours later on the same day.
And then the defendant testifies, oh, he couldn't get to a phone, he couldn't notify 911, he was busy, you know, having a great time with his family when Eric Moody didn't get that luxury, but he was able to get to a phone or some type of device to log into his Instagram and send messages to Diego Gomez asking if he was all good. And while Diego Gomez was giving his uh statement, he was calling Antonio Lerma. Excuse me.
And then you heard from General Forero Razo. She is a civilian SAPD employee.
She's not a police officer. She doesn't have any type of licenses. She's a regular desk clerk that works the front desk.
That substation is less than 10 minutes from the crash site.
The defendant had every opportunity to leave the intersection of South Alamo and South Flores where this alleged road rage occurred and go and report it and call 911. He could have used his high-tech uh car to call 911. And he failed to do so. He failed to report that to anyone. The first time that we're hearing of of this from him is when he decided to take that stand.
And the defendant said that he was involved in the crash at the brick at Blue Star and he fled the scene.
Although when he testified, he wants you to believe that Jennifer is just making that up. What reason would she have to do that? I have no idea.
Then you hear from Sergeant Davis. And he tells you about the event data retrieval and how events occur when the airbags are deployed. And so he obtained the locked 5-second data that data 5 seconds prior to the crash. And so what he said was the Delta V was -50, which means that this was a severe motor vehicle versus pedestrian crash. And that speed was a factor due to the impact on the ability to maneuver in conjunction with that curved roadway.
And then he also testified that the defendant cranked the steering wheel as far left as possible. Ladies and gentlemen, you all saw when Mr. Prater was questioning Sergeant Davis. And he walked the video and paused it at exactly 5 seconds of what the defendant was seeing. And that was Mr. Moody looking like a deer in headlights wondering what his next move is to get out of the way of this motor vehicle.
And he was realizing that it was his last moments here. Because you saw him try to take off and he couldn't. He had no chance with this defendant on the road.
And then we went through the 5-second data. The 5 seconds it was 88 mph, the 4 seconds 74 mph, 3 seconds 62, 50, 137 and the the impact 33. Now, I want you all to keep in mind that some of that declining is defense was making a big deal. Well, at the time of the impact, it was only 33 mph, which is actually two under the speed limit. That was impacted by the defendant's vehicle crashing into that traffic island. When we talk about momentum, like Mr. McClain is talking to you about, that was impacted by him crashing into that traffic island.
And then you hear from Detective Pualic.
He's a lead investigator, and we kind of already talked about the signs of intoxication, but I want you all when you retire to the jury room, go look at the video of the defendant entering into the driver's side of that motor vehicle.
You all saw him walk here in court today. He has no balance issues, no staggering issues. Go look at the way that he was walking, and that's the video with 23-0325_01 11609 left repeater.
And we've already talked about his driving patterns. But the conclusion of Detective Pualic's investigation was that he had knowledge of these gunshot allegation, and he still filed the case saying that the defendant was the driver of the motor vehicle, and he felt he killed Eric Moody, and failed to render aid to him.
And then you heard from Ms. Gazellas, and she confirmed that the victim in this case is her son, Eric Michael Moody.
Then you hear from defense witnesses.
Okay, you hear from Jared Lopez. He was out at El Camino.
He can't remember who he provided alcoholic beverages to. He can't remember what he consumed, but the only thing that he can remember is that he didn't give this defendant any alcohol.
Keep that in mind.
Then you hear from Ashley Sanchez and she testifies the defendant was on the way to her house.
That he didn't say anything to her about the crash. Ladies and gentlemen, I implore to you, if he was in such fear for his life, what any reasonable and prudent person would have done is go into any number of those businesses that are there and say, "Hey, help me. This is what just happened. I'm too scared to go back.
Please get 911 out here."
But he was worried about Antonio Lerma.
If you're to believe anything that he says, that's what he was worried about.
And then he's in such danger, he's saying he thinks this Toyota FJ is coming back and he takes that right to the doorstep of his three children and their mother.
That does not make any sense.
And then they're saying that they don't hear sirens.
Ladies and gentlemen, you have the map in evidence. It's less than three blocks away. That's a near impossibility.
At any time, he could have gone back and taken responsibility.
But he did not do that.
Okay? And I implore to you that part of the reason he didn't do that is cuz he didn't want a DWI investigation to happen that night.
Then Ashley Sanchez testifies that she's aware of the new news articles and this the defendant testified, "Oh, I lied to Ashley about the Facebook password because I didn't trust her."
And he talks to her multiple times while he's in the Bear County Jail.
She's arranging his bond to get out.
She's telling him, "I love you. I'll anything for you. I'm going to protect you. She told you all that. She told him multiple times.
And she has stated that she was on the stand to make sure that things go good for the defendant. She's not interested in justice. She is interested in things going good for that defendant.
And the evidence is clear regarding count one and two. He recklessly caused the death of Mr. Moody by crashing into him.
And in count two, he left him there. He did not comply with his legal duty to determine whether he whether another person was involved and render them aid.
Then when the defendant is in Bear County Jail, the things that he's worried about while in Bear County Jail are whether Ashley's going to get back with him, whether Ashley is still with Andreas, and whether his car is totaled.
He wasn't worried about Mr. Moody or his family then.
What he was worried about was Ashley and his car.
And deactivating the Facebook.
And getting probation for this.
But now he's coming to this court and asking each one of you to find him not guilty.
And then the most important thing that Ashley testified to is that when they were on the phone talking about the crash, she tells him, this is why I keep telling you, you need to stop over drinking.
That all goes into the manner and means that we have alleged in count one regarding then intoxication in conjunction with that driver seat video.
Or front um mirror view. Left rear view.
So like I said, you are our the exclusive judges of facts.
Okay? You decide the facts that were proven, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given their testimony. You get to decide whether they have an incentive to lie, what they were doing up there, and why they would say what they said.
So, now I want to talk to you all about the defenses.
So, you're going to get this in your jury charge.
So, we'll start with the mistake of fact.
So, the first thing that I want to impart on you all is that it says a reasonable belief.
A reasonable belief. We've already established that the defendant operating under the conditions that he did on that night was not reasonable.
He did not take any additional steps to confirm whether his belief was true or not. And it was not reasonable at the time. You all saw.
He did not have a reasonable belief that he was being pursued because you all saw that Toyota FJ turn immediately turn off to the right.
Then moving on to the necessity of defense.
What that states is that immediately necessary. It has to be immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm and clearly outweigh the harm sought to be prevented by the law prescribed the conduct.
Was it immediately necessary?
He didn't even determine whether it was immediately necessary or not.
And it was not at the time. That Toyota FJ immediately takes off to the right, and it never came back. And even if it did come back, >> [clears throat] >> he never saw it because he was long gone. And at that time he didn't have to be at Ashley's residence. He could have been in one of those businesses waiting for a a Antonio Police Department officer to respond.
But, that's not what he did.
And then, the imminent harm to clearly be outweighed. You heard his testimony.
His life and his opinion was more important than Mr. Moody, who was an innocent bystander, was doing nothing wrong, and he was actually doing the right thing that night. Because you all heard testimony that he had some alcohol in his blood.
And him being responsible decided to walk home instead of get behind the wheel like that defendant did on that night.
And then, regarding duress, this defense fails every single time. Because what Mr. McClain failed to mention to you is that the defense provided by this section is unavailable. Okay, it's unavailable and fails if the actor intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it is probable that he would be subjected to the conduct.
And this is going back to what I was telling you about the provocation, about the engaging in the road rage with Diego Gomez.
Okay?
He This defense is unavailable to him because he is the one that subjected himself to that. He provoked that difficulty.
Now, just because these defenses are available to you and the jury charge, that does not mean that the court is commenting on the evidence or anything like that. That They're there for you to evaluate, look at the law, read it, and evaluate it in conjunction with what we have proven to you.
Now, what I want to leave with you all is the defendant fails to tell anyone.
If you're to believe him, he didn't say anything to Ashley. He didn't tell anyone about the circumstances surrounding the crash or this alleged him being shot at or anything like that. He tells no one this at the time. When he goes and turns himself in, he says nothing of it.
Okay?
And then comes the evidence against him.
The witness statements.
Antonio from the coming forward. That event data retrieval data. The Tesla videos. And then after viewing all of the evidence, they concoct this story where he has no criminal responsibility.
Ladies and gentlemen, that cannot stand.
Because what they are asking you to believe What they are asking you to believe is the defendant was so scared that he stayed engaging with that SUV when he had every opportunity to disengage.
Look at the state's exhibit of the videos when you retire to the jury room.
He was joking with the firearm even though he has road rage sensitivity.
>> No, I'm going to object. That is absolutely not what the evidence showed.
There's never been anything about him joking around with a firearm.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, you will remember the evidence as you've received it.
He was being pursued by this SUV as it made an immediate right turn.
That he was in fear of being shot.
But left his phone and his firearm in the car and then doesn't call 911 to report it. Doesn't tell anyone this the night of.
That he was so scared that he runs in exposed open air on the street to Ashley's residence instead of going and taking immediate shelter at Blue Star.
And And he did not return to the scene and take accountability even though it was safe to do so.
The story that they are trying to sell to you is not supported by the evidence, ladies and gentlemen.
What are not defenses is that the defendant didn't see the victim, okay?
Because that is clear in here that he had a duty to determine.
And he failed to do so.
It's not a defense that the Arabank curtains were down or that the defendant slowed down prior to the end of the car.
Your sole duty right now is to determine whether the defendant is guilty of this offense.
And it's not beyond all doubt. It's not 100%.
It has to be related to an element of the offense and we have proved this to you beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. McLean talked to you about the bias. You cannot let that play into your deliberations.
And you do have a duty to deliberate, okay? You have a duty to consult each other with a view to reaching a unanimous verdict that all of you agree on, okay?
And you should not hesitate to re-examine your own views or change your opinion if they're erroneous, okay?
Your verdict matters.
Okay, you took an oath to render a verdict, true verdict, according to the law and the evidence.
And what I want you all to know is it is easy to Monday-morning quarterback when you've never made a statement before.
You've never notified ASPD of what happened. It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback when you know that you're going to face a jury of your peers.
Mr. Moody never had a chance with this defendant on the road.
Okay?
I've watched that video many times.
You all have watched the video many times and that image of Mr. Moody and his last moments on this earth as something that is ingrained and will be ingrained in your minds, I'm sure, forever.
And then, when he's asked about it, "Well, I was driving the car, >> [clears throat] >> but I didn't cause the death."
He lied to you about little things, and now he's lying to you about big things.
Do not believe the lies.
Find him guilty as charged in count one and two. Thank you.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, uh Deputy Laura will take you to the back. Can I have any >> Mhm.
>> Mhm.
>> Mhm.
>> Mhm.
>> Mhm.
>> Mhm.
>> Mhm.
>> Mhm.
>> Mhm.
>> Mhm.
Videos Relacionados
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
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
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











