YNW Melly Closing Arguments (Volume Boosted) - Bond Hearing 4/30/2026

Added: 2026-05-03

[00:00:00]Uh, so your honor, beginning with proof, evidence, presumption. Great. Um, I know that the state is relying on the the transcript with which your honors had an opportunity to review. Um, this there was a hearing approximately 51 weeks ago. Uh, there have been change of circumstances which I'll outline for the court. We believe over the course of the last, let's say, approximately one year.

[00:00:27]Um, and I would say it's somewhat ironic. Um, we've heard testimony about, uh, our client going into custody in 2019 at 19 years old. The irony is that tomorrow this young man turns 27 years old. Uh, and he's been in custody since 19 without ever having been found guilty of a single offense with one indictment having already been voluntarily null crossed by the state. But we find ourselves here. Um and uh I want to address proof evidence presumption.

[00:00:58]Great. Um and the first thing I want to talk about is uh one of the change of circumstances is that uh Judge Murphy's um granting of the motion to suppress uh has been affirmed by the court of appeals. And it's worth noting that not only was it affirmed, but no good faith exception even applied. And the gist of of that uh affirmative finding and the underlying motion of suppress goes to the credibility of Detective Moretti.

[00:01:31]And uh we spent a lot of time studying this trial and studying the the transcripts and of course we've had the unique opportunity to see uh YouTubetubes of a trial. That's a rarity. Um and it's fair to say uh that two things take place. one um as was discussed earlier today, so much of this case um was about a hearsay statement by Courtland Henry. Um but this case um was navigated um by the field general, that being Detective Moretti. Detective Moretti um who was the subject of the affidavit um was found to his credibility was called into question in the um granting of the motion to suppress and ultimately the court of appeals position. And so to us that's really important because it actually we we know that the court we're conscious we're aware of the court having found proof evidence presumption great a year ago. But in light of his credibility into being called into question, we are strongly arguing that the court think about the chiseling away of his credibility, the chiseling away of his believability. Not to his investigation itself, but just to the issue of credibility. Because as the court is well aware, credibility and even impeachment are what generate through instructions to a jury, etc. What generate reasonable doubt. But for your purposes, what chisel away at proof evidence presumption? Great. And stepping in and looking at this. I think it's essential and we think it's essential um that the court look again at the issue that involved the July 27th, 2023 interview of of Michelle Utro regarding a statement that took place October 12th, 2022. understanding that the defense team that tried that case, the transcript as reflected to that reflected that your honor reviewed did not have the benefit of that knowledge.

[00:03:37]Um, we have studied the examination of particularly Mr. Plestein, who spent what appeared to be um hours and hours um cross-examining Detective Moretti without the benefit without the benefit of understanding and knowing and having been given that information. And we know how that impact the state attorney's office. But what happened on October 12th, 2022? Um and and of course, as the court is well aware, that involves um attorney assistant state attorney Michelle Bros. Um, and it doesn't escape me that she was with the public integrity unit at the time. Revisiting that for a second, as the court knows, at the state attorney's office in this building, there was a service of a warrant, search warrant, excuse me, an interview and a search warrant on Jamie King. And at that time, because he was outside of his uh jurisdiction from uh the city of Myiramar, he needed to have somebody from Broward County sh Broward County Sheriff's Department there. He did not. And so what transpires according to and and I just want to say for a second um as a career criminal defense attorney um with great respect to people that do crimes, major crimes, prosecutors that specialize in homicide, prosecutors that specialize in crimes against women and children. As a defense attorney, um our most difficult cases are dealing with public public integrity unit prosecutors. Um they are what we call sometimes the truth prosecutors, right? They protect the thin blue line between corrupt law enforcement, um overly violent law enforcement and the and the community.

[00:05:19]They're the ones that handle corruption, political corruption. They protect the community from corrupt public officials and public employees. Um, personally I have been dealing with public integrity unit prosecutors I have incredible respect for from my representation of law enforcement officers to elected public officials at the highest level and they consider themselves to be the integrity the truth prosecutors. So the fact that this involved somebody from a public integrity unit speaks very strongly to the defense on behalf of Mr. Demons. And so to have Ms. Bros say that she was in a room with the lead detective in this case, Detective Moretti, and the defense tried this case and Mr. Adstein do his cross-examinations and not know that she made a statement that in that meeting in 2022, Detective Moretti said to a deputy from Broward County Sheriff's Department, "You need to say you were here when I served the search warrant."

[00:06:24]for her to say I immediately reported this to my supervisor to her to say I would I won't work with Moretti anymore.

[00:06:32]I would not have anything to do with investigating with him for somebody from the state's attorney's office and I'll give you that transcript if your honor doesn't have it. Um >> and Judge, if I may, I'm just going to object to this point. None of this was presented in evidence. So I'm confused on how we're now bringing this up argument.

[00:06:48]>> It's just his argument. He's talking about the reason that state attorney >> and for her to say you don't have Thank you, your honor. You don't ask another law enforcement officer to lie for you as a joke and I wouldn't work with him anymore and the case was given back to the then trial attorney Christine Bradley. Um, why is that important?

[00:07:14]Well, it's important because in the transcript, your honor, there are numerous times when this when your honor is reading that transcript and taking into cons into consideration whether or not proof is evident and presumption is great, you have to think respectfully about what was lacking at the at the crescendo of Mr. Adelstein's lengthy cross-examination of detective Moretti on July 17th in the transcript page on page 95 line three he talks about lying could result talking about witnesses and his cross-examination lying could result in somebody being charged with a crime page 95 lines line 17 not being truthful could result in being arrested talking about assessory after the fact but Again, Moretti addressing the issue of lying. All this all this without Mr. Adstein having the ability to impeach and thoroughly and siftingly cross-examine Moretti about the fact that he was requesting another law enforcement officer to lie. armed with that ability to cross-examine in front of a jury that was unable to even reach a verdict in this case is something that the court should take to court should take away take into consideration as we chisel away by the original finding. He says this similar statement again. Lying could result in being charged n page 96 line 17 page 98 line 8 line could result in their arrest. And so the credibility of detective ready. This is the lead detective. This is a case again as the court noted that is basically relying on a hearsay statement by someone whose case was ultimately dismissed with the jury that couldn't reach a verdict and a detective who is literally the summary witness. He is bringing it home. Not just summary witness interviewing records, but bringing home all types of issues regarding his opinion and marshalling evidence and rendering opinion after opinion.

[00:09:33]On that same date of July 17th, 2023, in one of the most important parts of the cross-examination by Mr. Stein of Detective Moretti. He hits him with a crucial issue which is you did not seek a search warrant on or about October 26th or in the weeks afterwards regarding the one place that you should have sought a search warrant. the most obvious place possible, which is the residents of all eight people there at the studio the night this happened, including Courtland Henry, including Mr. Demens, including the two deedants, and then four other witnesses. Mr. Alstein, as he should have, cross-examined the detective, tell me about your search warrant. I didn't get one because I didn't have a nexus. I made sure I called Miss Howard to find out whether Florida was different than the rest of the United States where we look at probable cause. When a detective talks to a prosecutor and talks about probable cause, the bottom line is Detective Moretti dropped the ball. He went after the shiny objects which resulted in this massive suppression of phones and Twitter accounts and all these little shiny things but didn't look to the one place where your deedants and your defendants were residing. And his answer was I didn't have nexus. Well, if he had been armed with the fact that this detective did the most egregious thing that a detective can do, the most egregious thing, and that is request that another officer lie and get called out by a prosecutor, if he had been armed with that information, if he had been if the defense had had the ability to even not only impeach, but to call Miss Budro, because they could have done that, um, it could have been a very very different transcript and I think it's important that the court take that into consideration. It it the state attorney Broward County state attorney makes their decision on how to move forward.

[00:11:42]They made a decision after 2022 to go with a detective as a lead detective in a case that requested another officer to lie and cast aside the opinion and the philosophical and ethical beliefs of one of their public integrity prosecutors.

[00:12:01]That's something they have to live with.

[00:12:03]And obviously there's been a change of guard because of that type of behavior.

[00:12:06]But it is something that the defense was denied. So when you read that transcript, I I saw before in the previous hearing before we were involved uh that your your honor said and I appreciate it that you I believe you said uh I could do a I could do a Franks versus Delaware analysis on this. I think that was your quote from what I've read. Um and I think that's a great way to to do that. And so we would ask the court when you re-review whatever you re-review to take these things into consideration. Um, and there's just numerous other examples of of where Detective Moretti could have been cross-examined and impeached based on the fact that he has requested somebody to lie. That goes to his veracity. More importantly, that goes to his credibility, which generates reasonable doubt. When when Mr. Battlestein cross-examined him going through at the tail end of his I mean in the beginning part of his cross he went through all the places that he passed and asked if he looked at security videos and then he he said I didn't do this one and that one and then on redirect he said well in a in a question by Miss Bradley um most of them like CVS and Walmart focus what's on going on inside a store. I I will tell you something. Um, your premises liability lawyers and the limited work I've done at that is just an untrue statement. Um, that's just an untrue statement and Detective Moretti, I'm sure, knows better than that. That stores are concerned about their parking lot security and cameras are facing out all the time. But again, Mr. Alstein didn't have the fact that Detective Moretti was somebody that seeks a not a citizen, but a fellow officer to lie.

[00:13:50]And I've done I've defended officers probably more than most on violation of oath cases and they're pretty tough to defend. Um your honor, some other issues to take into consideration. Um, and that is, uh, what is different between now and then from your last time you reviewed this 51 weeks ago is that Courtland Henry, Courtland Henry, who was charged as a co-fendant in this case and charged with murder in the first degree with the use of a a firearm in counts one and two.

[00:14:29]Corin Henry, who the state in that first transcript believed was lying uh from the first trial, who the state went out of their way to show that he had gunshot residue, he had GSR, GSR on his hand.

[00:14:47]The state went out of their way to show that he had DNA on his clothing.

[00:14:52]That the state dismissed those murder charges.

[00:14:58]We don't know. All we know what's in that transcript. That transcript, the court made some observations at the beginning of the day. We don't know from what his statement is. Um, all we know is what he gave. But what we do know is that at that time he was charged with murder. For whatever reason, given all this, the state's assessment of this case is that his case without any cooperation was worthy of a dismissal. And that should speak volumes to the to the court when the court is assessing proof evidence presumption grade. Um because there's really nothing in the record that the court could look at, nothing, nothing evidentary in the volumes that you've looked at to distinguish these two individuals, Mr. Henry or Mr. Demons. And so that's yet another thing to take into consideration to the extent that the court has looked at the tampering case a year ago because a year ago that case existed to the extent that that was something that the court was contemplative about. Your honor knows that we got in this case I believe last August and Miss How and I from the very very beginning were absolutely committed to trying that case. There was no attempt for us to continue the case.

[00:16:34]As the court noted we came into the case filed a series of motions. Quite frankly from a defense perspective there wasn't a lot done on the case. We couldn't we really weren't clear which of the attorneys was actually in the case and who were not in the case. Um, but we came in and not wanting to continue anything, trying to handle things with efficiency, um, and and promptness, filed our motions, ready to go. Uh, we laughed yesterday as we prepped for today about we have text messages and phone calls on Christmas Eve. We were in communication through the holidays. Your honor was kind enough to have 250 jurors ready. I believe you said you had 250 backup the day before that trial. Um the case was dismissed with what we thought was without explanation. And then of course, as we noted in our motion for bond in our footnote one or two, um the state issued a statement about not wanting to wait for a a a ruling by by the court. That's just unacceptable. Um and the bottom line is that the state didn't give Mr. Demons the ability to get his not-guilty verdict cuz I'll say right now that would have been a 30-minute not-uilty verdict. It would have taken 25 minutes to choose a four person and 5 minutes to deliberate and he he's found not guilty in that case.

[00:17:51]So he was denied that opportunity to get his not guilty.

[00:17:58]So when we look at the first issue of proof evident presumption great um and I know these are issues that the court is very aware of. Um, and it's interesting and I I your honor, I I don't I think Prohawkbichi um is uh not a right, but it's it's a privilege and I appreciate that privilege and I'm trying to do everything I can to understand um cuz things are different when you travel around, but some things are not different. So, here's what's not different when we use this incredibly high standard in the state of Florida, which is beyond guilt and reasonable doubt, and that is that this is a case that a jury was not able to render a verdict. One, this is a case with no DNA implicating Mr. Demons. Two, this is a case with no fingerprints implicating Mr. Demons. Three, this is a case with no surveillance showing that he had anything to do with being in a vehicle or more importantly shooting anybody.

[00:19:03]Four, this is a case with no eyewitnesses whatsoever. Five, this is a case where we have a detective, the lead detective that's ties the bow and brings it home at the end that is asking another officer to lie. Your honor, I'm not one of those lawyers that says at night, you know, God, what a crappy profession. I hate it. I love being a lawyer. My history is full. That's how Miss Hal and I are friends. We're not friends from trying cases. We never tried a case together. We have both been committed our whole careers to bar associations and teaching young lawyers.

[00:19:37]That's the foundation of our friendship.

[00:19:39]So, we're both lawyers that are honored to be lawyers and respect the other side. Respect. You'll never hear me condemning prosecutors, but and I always will jump at the opportunity to represent somebody in blue because our society needs them. But here's what we don't need. We don't need a lead detective pinned up against a public integrity prosecutor and right in front of her trying to get another officer to lie. That throws casts doubt on everything that Moretti does, everything that he touches. and I will be the first person to be shocked if he stays lead detective in this case. We've all done cases where somebody for whatever reason is removed from a case and a new person comes in and picks up what they did. Um but hey, if this case goes to trial, bring him on because he's a liar. And so then we have the ultimately the the motion to suppress that is affirmed by by the court of appeals which cast doubt again on his credibility. And so when your honor does the proof evidence presumption, great. I ask you to take all of these uh into consideration and of course what we talked about earlier and the fact that a codefendant who if you read the indictment is side by side culpabilitywise that's cases dismissed. And I just would argue to the court that all of those just chisel away at the court's previous finding um of a year ago. And so um unless the court wants me to do otherwise um I'll hold off on the second part of the argument until after the state goes >> you do the whole thing. Okay. Thank you.

[00:21:32]>> That's everything.

[00:21:33]>> Yes sir. Yes sir.

[00:21:34]>> And then if I exercise discretion or if I agree with you and I find circumstances change I don't exactly want.

[00:21:43]>> Yep. I will. Thank you.

[00:21:46]>> Give me one second.

[00:21:57]Um, so, uh, your honor, in in looking at your statute statutes and looking at your law, um, I ask you, um, to exercise that discretion and set a reasonable b bond.

[00:22:12]And I'm going to talk in a second about the conditions of of release that can be, uh, reasonable. Um and I first want to talk about um protecting the community from risk of phys physical harm. Um there has been there was nothing present in the case regarding Mr. Demons that is any way involves his threat to to the community. Um and most important to me is when we talk about this second process is assuring the integrity um of the judicial process. So, I want to talk about the conditions of of release that we would suggest. First, I want the court to think about the testimony that we just heard um from Matthew Norman, a distinguished forensic psychiatrist. Um that honestly, you heard he's from Georgia. I've really been more against him than with him. Um we've had some battles through the years and he's an incredibly um ethical um and devoted to this this this issue and all forensic issues regarding mental health. It's worthy of note to me um that the state had no cross-examination and in like fashion. I know that last year there was I think at the hearing they were going to offer somebody and they served notice like the day before and we would never do that. We we served notice in plenty of time. Um and I'm sure that that's something the state looked into. But here's what I'm also sure of. Just like there was no cross- examination. There's not a mental health expert in America that would agree that these conditions that we heard about are healthy for somebody that went into custody at 19.

[00:23:53]There's no need to cross-examine because there's nothing to ask because irrefutable what we heard. It's irrefutable. It's it's irrefutable that 27% of Mr. Demen's life has been incarcerated without having been found guilty of a single offense. If we look at him from the time he was turned majority in the state of Florida at 18, 30% of his life has been incarcerated.

[00:24:22]I've looked into the the cognitive state begins they say at three years old. So his cognitive state of his existence would be 87 12% of his cognitive life has been sitting in a jail under these conditions. And so we have to come up with something over these 8 months to get him out of these set of conditions. Um because your honor, I've traveled I'm just telling you I traveled to the the ruralst areas of Mississippi, the ruralst areas of Louisiana, the ruralst areas of Alabama, and have never seen the conditions that were described here. This is the single worst thing I have ever heard. And anybody that's a member of the bar, it is shocking to the legal conscience that this has taken place to somebody unconvicted. We've heard that there's been no shanks. We've heard that he's not punched anybody, been in fights with anybody, been in big events at the jail. Um, but there's uh we wanted to see him last night and we couldn't see him because we had to wait till everybody clears the floor so we can see little 5'6, 112 lb Jamal Demons. It it's it's unbelievable. And so we believe that as you heard, humans need contact. We need him to be of clear mind because the state of Florida and Broward County State Attorney's Office is seeking a death penalty. Now, any lawyer who knows this isn't a death case. Nothing about this is a death case. That's just a bunch of crap. It's not a death case. This is let's get a death qualified jury case. Okay? It's not a death penalty case. I've tried death penalty case. How leaded the league in death penalty cases.

[00:26:06]I feel terrible for two deedants in this case. Uh but it's not a death case. It's not a death case when you're just relying on a hearsay of a guy you handed the case away to. So it's not a death case. And so we think that to get on the other side of of isolation, the the court should structure a bond at our suggestion. Um we will furnish the address to the court. Um we offer up security from a professional company as we just did. We think there should be 24/7 GPS monitoring. Um, we present to the court a continuum of how we can do the private security. It can either be to and from court to and from whatever whenever he leaves, whatever conditions or the ultimate which you heard during the cross- examination if it's 24/7 until now before trial. That's up to the court's discretion. We will meet any obligation. um that is set forth in a court order. Um we believe that it should be a condition that given the history of this case, we've explained to our client there'll be no social media.

[00:27:18]Um we we're not um your honor, I never ask for I just make it a part of my practice. I don't hit a number. I think that's kind of weird. Um that's for the court's discretion. The court comes up with the number. Um, and if it's a number, I I like to say when I'm in front of judges like yourself, um, it's aspir I think bond is aspirational. Um, and because it it's it would be hypocritical of me to just come up with some number. Um, I just think that's I leave that to the court's discretion. Um, what type of bond the court wants as far as the financial obligation. um prohibition to any witnesses connected to the case. Um I I just don't think I technically I could, you know, say that his mom's a witness. I think that it is time for him to have communication with his mother. Um he has not heard his mother's voice in years. Uh tomorrow will be I think the third or fourth birthday where he's not had a family member say happy birthday and and so um I think you know we'll work with the court as far as those people that he can communicate with. Uh but it is it is time um for a bond to be said. If I can just confer with council before I conclude that would be great.

[00:28:49]Sure. Thank you.

[00:29:08]Um and so your honor if uh I conclude by uh just saying the following and that is um you may have figured out um that we have studied the transcript of a year ago and we've said I don't know whenever we filed this our playbook will be to try to do things uh address some of the things that we think were not addressed.

[00:29:30]Um I know last year there were no witnesses. We wanted to make sure that we did that. And so why did we do the witnesses? We did his grandmother to show that he has ties to the community.

[00:29:39]He has ties to the Florida community. Um and um and he's just got a lot of familial support. Um, we presented somebody from 100K management to show that there were no problems with his company in terms of him being employed before and being employed now. In other words, he met work obligations then. The house is being provided by the company with a studio so he can do his work.

[00:30:07]He's in the rare set of circumstances where he's literally been incarcerated and music from back then continues to play, but he was employed then, he's employed now. Um, importantly, I I do want to remind the court, his grandmother says he doesn't even have a driver's license, let alone a passport.

[00:30:29]So, in terms of fleeing the juris jurisdiction of the court, there's nothing like that in in terms of ties to the community. um that issue is is addressed.

[00:30:40]So um we if if the court says he needs to be uh restricted to Broward County, then that's fine. If the court, you know, in terms of the his home, but anything else like other than come to Broward County courthouse or whatever, if the court requires his lawyers to just come to him and work on the case, then so be it. Um but we think that we have hit on all of those subjects that should be a of concern to the court regarding the setting of bond. And I and just finally I want to say um this is not as Dr. Norman said at the tail end of his testimony just 8 months. Um 8 months is an enormous amount of time. 8 months is an enormous amount of time when without having been convicted of a single offense, um you've been spending all this time incarcerated. And uh I did I'm mindful of what we heard in terms of infractions.

[00:31:41]Uh but these are infractions of somebody that has been in jail since 19. These are infractions of somebody that has not known really adult life. So much of his adult life has been shaped and formed in a county jail. And it is just impossible to judge somebody under that set of circumstances. Any of us that have been teens ourselves or parents. I mean, I sit and think of my kids. What would they be like from great kids from 19 to 27? I can say one thing. They're great lawyers. Two of them are lawyers. But I can tell you one thing, they would have had more infractions than him um because of their desire to grow and develop. Um he's been denied that opportunity to grow and develop. We can't be confused by the fact that he kind of became a musical person when all said and done.

[00:32:34]He still went in as a kid and now he's 27. So, I think the statement made that I think the state of Florida made a bold statement when they dismissed the other case and they're living with a case that's primarily relying on a hearsay comment of somebody that was worthy of reduced of dismissed murder cases, two murder cases. So, that's where we are and uh we'd ask that you set bond in the manner described.

[00:33:05]Uh listen before you sit down and I want to hear the state's position on both of these issues. I want to ask the same questions.

[00:33:15]You may not agree with me. I don't have to but uh I understand everything you're telling me about detective and all the things that we have the benefit of now but defendant is on the call right and Mr. Williams and Mr. Number two, cell phone location and the date of the homicide.

[00:33:52]You know the location homicide states tell me his cell phone location on October 26, 2018 at the high and those two things are they haven't credibility facts. Let me just can I just put note one thing? Sure. Um and that is uh so we are going to aggressively pursue every issue in this case. I think you could see the a little bit of different in how we approach things. Um, and so I will say one thing, and that is, uh, there was a contrast in the testimony of a special agent from the FBI and the way the cell phone testimony was explained and offered through Detective Moretti.

[00:34:48]Um, Detective Moretti was way more liberal in his explanation of things and was contra and contradicted that of NBI agent. And so I'm glad you bring that up um because the state went with somebody to contradict an FBI agent with somebody that they knew and the defense didn't know was encouraging another officer to lie. I think that cast doubt on the person that marshaled in that testimony. And so I we're going to dispute a lot and um and when all said and done um we're not really worried about one those limited facts are limited facts that are a mere percentage of everything else that transpired in the case. and that is specifically all the evidentary issues that were lacking in the case. Um and and I started listening for your honor because those issues are what generate reasonable doubt. You're looking at a standard beyond that. And so you're looking at and I I respect your questions and I kind of expected that, but it is it it's the kind of issue that causes a jury not to be able to reach a verdict. And that's beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is what you just presented when you contrast it to everything they didn't have. Okay.

[00:36:20]Is not proof evident. It's not surpassing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And so that's that's our position. And um I can't say um and I know Mr. rattlestein was trying to get there that a lot of these other um evidentary issues that could have been established through law enforcement were not achievable. Um but they didn't take place. They just didn't take place. And um you know I I I I served on a Department of Justice task force years ago that talked about cases like this, specifically cases like this. Um, I'll date myself because it was it was around the time of Janet Reena when I was first starting this business. I worked on a task force she put together and we I remember law enforcement saying then always reach out to organizations like the FBI just not for cell tower but for every evidentary issue. If you're struggling on an evidentary issue, reach out. um that didn't happen in this case and so this case is devoid of a lot and that's not our client's problem. Um that's the problem of folks that are trying to prove a case and so those people trying to prove that case knew knew a couple facts that are really important your honor. If you take what you just presented to me then what about Courtland Henry cuz Courtland Henry got in the car. That's not dispute. He puts himself in the car. And so Corland Henry's case is gone. Gone. And so it's disingenuous for the state of Florida to say, "Hey, we think his case should go in the waste paper basket and give him 10 years with six years probation afterwards, but hold on. Hold on to Mr. Demons."

[00:38:14]You know, that's a real problem.

[00:38:17]>> They make decisions like that.

[00:38:19]>> Well, they don't, >> your honor. They're exercising conseal discretion.

[00:38:25]>> Your honor, they may make those decisions and my role, Miss Howard's role is this young man getting ready to turn 27. And so I don't get it, but they did it. And there's only one thing that the court can do while you may have doubt, and that is holding to it because that is their take on the evidence they have in this case. If the one guy that they knows in the car, forget about the phones, that they knows in the car and they believe he's lying.

[00:38:57]If they take the position that he had DNA on him of one of the deedants, if they take the position he had GSR in his hands, but they're going to toss that case, then how in good faith can they say we got more evidence against Mr. Demings?

[00:39:13]That is completely hypocrisy.

[00:39:19]suspect that's exactly but before you start might same question from October 26 >> yes it is your honor >> you agree with that >> I do >> okay all right so in most parts uh your argument that you want to continue to find proof evidence presumption great uh and uh I guess that I wouldn't didn't find that or I was going to exercise discretion. Anything you want to say about conditions of pre-trial or anything regarding those conditions?

[00:40:00]>> Yes, judge. Thank you. So, as to prime one proof evidence presumption rate, not only has your honor previously found evidence presumption rate, your honor specifically stated in your order that was issued that you were not considering any of the suppressed evidence by Judge Murphy. So there's no change in circumstances there because that was already not considered by your honor.

[00:40:19]Additionally, the defendant has been found uh to be held no bond not only by your honor, by Judge Murphy multiple times and by Judge Seagull multiple times despite any change in circumstance of his other case because Judge Seagull has the case before those charges were ever pending and held him no bond as did Judge Murphy after the trial before those other charges were filed. There was a bond hearing. So regardless of the other case, he has been found to be held no bond because proof evidence presumption date has been proven by the state. Additionally, your honor, to discuss Miss Budro, which again I I objected because was never discussed in any of their evidence that they presented to your honor today. Um, we can go on and on about Miss Budro and we did at length in multiple hearings in front of Judge Murphy in which the state has filed filings where you could say the same, you know, things about Miss Lutro that were just said about Detective Moretti. Opinion is an opinion and those can be argued in court at a different hearing, but for purposes of this hearing, that was not presented to the court in transcripts of any sort.

[00:41:21]And I'm asking the court to simply rely on what was given to your honor at the prior hearing that we have said we relying on. And that's the evidence of this actual case. Take Detective Moretti out of it. You still have the evidence, some of which your honor has touched on, the video of the defendant himself getting into the vehicle in the exact seat that is alleged to have been the person the shooter shooting the two victims. In addition, we not only have his cell phone evidence of the towers, which you want to get into the FBI agent versus Detective Moretti, it doesn't matter because it's not that they're convicting themselves. It's that the FBI doesn't testify to certain things because they have certain parameters they're stuck to versus other officers who can testify to other aspects of cell phone towers. In addition, we actually agreed when we were about to try the case last time that Detective Moretti would not be testifying to that. We actually hired other experts that have been hired. And so, Detective Moretti testifying to that does not matter. In addition to that evidence, we also have the defendant's own cell phone, which presents its own problem that I think the defense has to actually address because in the first trial, they said, "Not my phone, community phone.

[00:42:29]No issues, right? We can talk about anything in the phone cuz it was not my phone."

[00:42:33]Attorneys then came in and said, "No, we're filing a motion to suppress." And we are going to say for the purposes of the motion to suppress, it is our client's phone. And that I I believe since we're talking about Mr. Adele so much in this hearing, Mr. Ageline spec specifically said we will make that determination and have to let the court know before trial whether or not we are going to say it's his phone or not. So we haven't had that determination yet.

[00:42:56]We haven't been told. So that's still a an issue that has to be addressed. But in that phone, the defendant's phone, we have movement activity, health activity that has come out, step activity, all pointing to the defendant using his phone during the time of the crime, which would put him in the car, put him at the crime scene.

[00:43:20]Discussing Courtland Henry's dismissal, it shouldn't speak volumes because, as your honor notated, decisions like that are made all the time for strategic purposes or whatever it may be. But it does not matter. What matters is we know where the defendant was sitting in the car. Mr. Henry was the driver and we know that Mr. Henry was not the shooter.

[00:43:40]The defendant was the shooter.

[00:43:45]To say there's no eyewitnesses to say, sure, there's no eyewitnesses, but there were no eyewitnesses when your honor considered all this evidence a year ago.

[00:43:52]And there still is proof evidence presumption rate. And as I said earlier, your honor did not consider any suppressed evidence.

[00:43:59]I can now move on to my prong two argument if your honor has any questions. As to pron your honor, should your honor either find proof evidence presumption great and exercise your discretion or not find proof evidence presumption great, we would still ask that the defendant not be released from jail. We spent a significant amount of time today discussing his seven years in jail and the conditions of his, you know, where he's staying and how he's being treated. The only reason the defendant is not in general population in a regular dorm, in a regular pod, is because of his own actions.

[00:44:38]There is an evidence, hundreds of pages of violations of things he's done, the chances he's been given. And what does he do? He continues to manipulate the system, continues to violate rules, not follow rules, and he's being babysat 247 by law enforcement. And we think that a security company that he's paying for is going to be any better?

[00:45:01]I don't think so.

[00:45:07]The defendant as recently as January of this year was found to be in possession of cell phone chargers, was shown on the internet to be facetiming some woman in violation of the rules, and that deputy was in fact arrested for giving him that phone. Um, hearing from his grandma about the the letters that she's written that were returned. He gets letters. We see the mail. It comes through. He gets it. He sends it out. So that I don't know why she her letters are not getting returned and to and I already addressed the the former testimony of the FBI agent versus detective Moretti and as your honor indicated we have the defendant getting in the car the cell phone location all that evidence points to the fact that he was there and so his inability to follow the the rules and regulations while in jail where there's some of the strictest rules and regulations if we expect him to then followed rules of no social media, no contacting witnesses, things of that nature while he's out. I mean, he's proven he can't. There's evidence of him, which although we've dismissed the the tampering charges, that evidence is still evidence that is admissible in this trial against him as consciousness of guilt while he's trying to get a hold of Mariah Hamilton, who is a witness in this case. There is evidence of that.

[00:46:27]And so based on the defendant's actions through seven years of him violating rules, of not listening to the deputies, of manipulating the system, he should not be let out. I don't believe there's any sort of conditions that could make sure that the community is safe, that the witnesses are safe, that this trial is safe from all that he has done in the last seven years. And I'm asking that he be held no bond.

[00:46:55]Sorry.

[00:46:56]>> Thank you.

[00:46:57]>> Yeah, just real quickly. Um I I just on the on the proof evidence presumption.

[00:47:02]Great. I I'm I'm not going to start trying the case, but I have reviewed everything. I'm not quite sure where I read that the state knows of Florida knows that Mr. Demons was a shooter and Mr. Henry was a driver. They already said they believe that he was a liar.

[00:47:20]Um, so I'm not quite sure where that is, which is why I went through all the different types of evidence that could have been found. Not quite sure. Um, a phone, but other than that, I'm not quite sure where that came from. I haven't seen anything that says that he was a shooter. Not one thing. Um, so not quite sure unless there's going to be something that came up over the last couple years since the 2023 trial.

[00:47:42]Nothing like that you'll find in the transcript. as far as the the conditions, you know, respectfully, your honor, the the the babysat thing. I mean, like like he's being done a favor um that that people are babysitting. He didn't follow the rules. I mean, it it's judge. It's just kind of disgraceful.

[00:48:08]It it really is. Um and we're we're not talking a rural community. We're talking a major city in an important state and this is the way he's being treated cuz he's he should be happy that he's being babysat. He should be happy that he has a basketball court all to himself because he wrote some note to somebody to make them feel better because these people feel pity on him and feel terrible that he is in isolation. his mom is in the hallway crying when she hears the testimony about how her child lives. And and so I think to say that it's going to be no better when at least he is released so he can feel the tenderness, the hug of his mom so he can have that beautiful grandmother whisper in his ear, "I love you." So he can see his brother and sister and these people that love him. to compare that to his infractions for not putting his linens away cuz I read every one of those infractions and it's garbage that it's thousands. It's garbage. Okay, there's a lot in there where they're worried about him psychiatrically where he's manifesting strange behavior pacing back and forth. That's in there. Okay, and I don't know where that thing came about the nurse because that nurse note I read about that was somebody concerned about him. Okay. So to compare the two is is really just shameful. Your honor, we ask that a bond be set and that the court take that into consideration the suggestions um that we met. And I would also uh add that please be mindful of the fact um that Courtland Henry was on pre-trial release a substantial amount of time, your honor. And so precedent does exist in this case. Thank you.

[00:49:56]>> Okay. Uh listen, regarding the bond here, I appreciate your time, effort, and energy on both sides. Uh I'm going to review everything. I'm going to view all the items and evidence, and I'll get you a written order, but I appreciate the effort. Uh Mr. Finley, you wanted to talk to me about the uh trial order?

[00:50:12]>> Yes, I do. Um and uh