FL vs Curtis Reeves

[LM K]

That the only person who knows what he saw is Mr Reeves. The prosecutor said of course he has a right to testify or not, but he is the only one that knows what he saw.

Wasn't there a recent trial where there was a retrial/mistrial because the prosecutor commented on the defendant not testifying? Is that a bright line to comment on or is there some wiggle room on pointing it out?

Rittenhouse.

[LM K]

I had forgotten all about this because it's been such a long time since the incident happened. Reeves had a history of initiating complaints against moviegoevers. And none of them describe him as saying in a nice soft voice "excuse me, but...". Both of these couples indicate he "barked", "ordered" or otherwise demanded them to stop doing whatever they were doing. One couple was texting, like Oulsen, the other were talking softly to each other during previews.

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/regi ... testifying

Also in 2014, ABC Action News interviewed Micheal And Jamira Dixon about an incident they said happened just two weeks before Reeves killed Oulson. The Dixon’s said at the same theater in Wesley Chapel, Reeves was also barking at them about texting during the previews.

“He said, 'Can you do me a favor? Can you please just stop texting,'” Jamira Dixon said.

Dixon said Reeves followed her out when she went to the bathroom.

“I was like, oh my god what is wrong with this guy,” Jamira said.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Jury Instruction for Second Degree Murder in Florida:

To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

Definitions.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.
Give only if there is evidence that the defendant acted in the heat of passion on legally adequate provocation.

An issue in this case is whether (defendant) did not have a depraved mind without regard for human life because [he] [she] acted in the heat of passion based on adequate provocation. In order to find that the defendant did not have a depraved mind without regard for human life because [he] [she] acted in the heat of passion based on adequate provocation:

a. there must have been a sudden event that would have suspended the exercise of judgment in an ordinary reasonable person; and
b. a reasonable person would have lost normal self-control and would have been driven by a blind and unreasoning fury; and
c. there was not a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable person to cool off; and
d. a reasonable person would not have cooled off before committing the act that caused death; and
e. (defendant) was, in fact, so provoked and did not cool off before [he] [she] committed the act that caused the death of (victim).
If you have a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant had a depraved mind without regard for human life because [he] [she] acted in the heat of passion based on adequate provocation, you should not find [him] [her] guilty of Second Degree Murder.

Give if the defendant was a juvenile at the time of the crime alleged. § 775.082(3), Fla. Stat. Williams v. State, 242 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2018). The finding below should be made only for cases involving Second Degree Murder where it is alleged in the charging document that the defendant actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim.
If you find (defendant) guilty of Second Degree Murder, you must also determine whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that [he] [she] [actually killed] [intended to kill] [or] [attempted to kill] (victim).

Lesser Included Offenses
SECOND DEGREE (DEPRAVED MIND) MURDER — 782.04(2)

CATEGORY ONE

Manslaughter

782.07 FLA. STATUTE
7.7 INSTRUCTION NUMBER

CATEGORY TWO

Aggravated Manslaughter (Child)
782.07(3)
7.7(a)

Aggravated Manslaughter (Elderly Person/Disabled Adult)
782.07(2)
7.7(a)

Aggravated Manslaughter (Officer/Firefighter/
EMT/Paramedic)
782.07(4)
7.7(a)

Third degree (felony) murder
782.04(4)
7.6

Vehicular homicide
782.071
7.9

(Nonhomicide lessers)
Attempted Second Degree Murder
777.04(1)
6.4

Aggravated Battery
784.045
8.4

Attempted Manslaughter by Act
782.07 and 777.04
6.6

Felony battery
784.041(1)
8.5

Aggravated Assault
784.021
8.2

Battery
784.03
8.3

Culpable negligence
784.05(2)
8.9

Culpable negligence
784.05(1)
8.9

Assault
784.011
8.1

Comments

See Instruction 7.13 for the § 782.065, Fla. Stat., reclassification when the victim is a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, etc.
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1997 [697 So. 2d 84], 2008 [994 So. 2d 1038], 2014 [137 So. 3d 995], 2018 [236 So. 3d 282], and 2018.

https://www-media.floridabar.org/upload ... 0is%20dead.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Curtis Reeves trial: Defendant’s wife describes shooting at Pasco theater

Now, after a failed 2017 attempt to gain immunity under Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law, Curtis Reeves is facing charges of aggravated battery and second-degree murder. If convicted, the now 79-year-old could face life in prison. Even the most lenient sentence offered by Florida law is a minimum 25 years behind bars.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/202 ... o-theater/

[LM K]

Reeves' testimony

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Aggravated battery instruction:

8.4 AGGRAVATED BATTERY
784.045(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Aggravated Battery, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The first element is a definition of Battery.

Give 1a or 1b or both as applicable.
1. (Defendant)
a. actually and intentionally touched or struck (victim) against [his] [her] will.
b. intentionally caused bodily harm to (victim).

Give 2a or 2b or both as applicable.
2. (Defendant), in committing the Battery,

intentionally or knowingly caused

[great bodily harm to (victim)].
[permanent disability to (victim)].
[permanent disfigurement to (victim)].

used a deadly weapon.

Give only if 2b alleged.
A “deadly weapon” is any object that will likely cause death or great bodily harm if used or threatened to be used in the ordinary and usual manner contemplated by its design and construction.

Give if applicable.
An object not designed to inflict bodily harm may nonetheless be a “deadly weapon” if it was used or threatened to be used in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Give if applicable.
“Great bodily harm” means great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor, or moderate harm, and as such does not include mere bruises.

Give only if applicable. Fey v. State, 125 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
An intentional touching or striking includes situations where a defendant knows that a touch or strike is substantially certain to result from his or her act.

Give only if applicable. Clark v. State, 783 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2001).
A battery may be found as a result of the intentional touching or intentional striking of something other than the actual body of the person. However, the object that is touched or struck must have such an intimate connection with the person that it is to be regarded as a part or as an extension of the person. [For example, in cases where a person intentionally drove into another occupied vehicle, it is for you to determine whether the vehicle that was struck should be considered as a part or as an extension of the person inside that vehicle. This determination may include consideration about whether the person was “touched” through the force of impact by being jostled or otherwise impacted through the transfer of energy from the collision.]
Lesser Included Offenses

AGGRAVATED BATTERY — 784.045(1)(a)

CATEGORY ONE

FLA. STAT.
INS. NO.

Felony Battery*

784.041
8.5

Battery

784.03
8.3

CATEGORY TWO

Attempt
777.04(1)
5.1

Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms
790.10
10.5

Discharging firearm in public
790.15
10.6

Comments

*The lesser included offense of Felony Battery is applicable only if element 2a is charged.

Florida law on alternative conduct statutes is unsettled. For example, in a DUI case, it is permissible for some jurors to conclude the State proved only driving while impaired, and other jurors to conclude the State proved only driving with an unlawful breath alcohol level. Euceda v. State, 711 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). However, according to the Second District, it is improper for some jurors to conclude the State proved only that the defendant intentionally caused great bodily harm, and other jurors to conclude the State proved only that the defendant used a deadly weapon. Miller v. State, 123 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Unless the case law changes, in Aggravated Battery cases where the State has charged both alternatives, trial judges must give a special instruction that informs jurors they must be unanimous on each alternative theory.
Num-chucks, which were originally designed as a farm tool, can be a deadly weapon. R.V. v. State, 497 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Jurors could find that a 7-inch straight-edged razor might be a dangerous weapon. R.R. v. State, 826 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In trials involving these types of objects, the judge should consider a special instruction informing jurors that an object can be a deadly weapon if its sole modern use is to cause great bodily harm or death. A special instruction may also be necessary in cases where the deadly weapon was an animal or a substance or something that is not commonly referred to as an “object.”

This instruction was approved in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], 2007 [962 So. 2d 310], and on April 3, 2020.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

The 2021 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 784
ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE
View Entire Chapter
784.045 Aggravated battery.—
(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2. Uses a deadly weapon.
(b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) For the purposes of sentencing under chapter 921, a violation of this section committed by a person acting in furtherance of a riot or an aggravated riot prohibited under s. 870.01 is ranked one level above the ranking under s. 921.0022 for the offense committed.
History.—s. 1, ch. 70-63; s. 732, ch. 71-136; s. 20, ch. 74-383; s. 10, ch. 75-298; s. 3, ch. 88-344; s. 7, ch. 2021-6.

[Jim]

PLEASE keep RV in mind when the Fogbow nominations are voted on in September. Not even sure what the categories are, but RV's play-by certainly belongs in a "best of" cat.

Bravo!

You are being too kind. We've had lots of people that actually went as far as BOTG, I think didn't one time you do that yourself? That is going way over and beyond. For some reason in my old age trials seem interesting to me, so I figure as long as I'm watching I can take notes. I got a little carried away this time maybe!

Well, I'm going to go ahead and second Pgirls nomination...since the pandemic hit, BOTG have been few and far between, so your reporting is a breath of fresh air and feeding my BOTG withdrawal symptoms with a wonderful replacement.

Like I said when you first posted, we'd be reading. And appreciating. Thanks!

PS: The thing that's great about this and that you can't get from reading the testimony or from most stories is the reactions by the defendant and his wife...priceless!

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

The 2021 Florida Statutes

782.04 Murder.—

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

[RVInit]

The 2021 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 784
ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE
View Entire Chapter
784.045 Aggravated battery.—
(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2. Uses a deadly weapon.
(b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) For the purposes of sentencing under chapter 921, a violation of this section committed by a person acting in furtherance of a riot or an aggravated riot prohibited under s. 870.01 is ranked one level above the ranking under s. 921.0022 for the offense committed.
History.—s. 1, ch. 70-63; s. 732, ch. 71-136; s. 20, ch. 74-383; s. 10, ch. 75-298; s. 3, ch. 88-344; s. 7, ch. 2021-6.

Yes, this is why the defense has tried to hammer away that Oulsen threw the phone with great force. There are obstacles to the jury reasonably believing this. Nobody saw Oulsen rear back and throw anything. If he had done this not only would it have been likely that people saw it, but the motion activated camera would likely have picked it up because there is no way he could be standing in that small of a space and heaved a cell phone with great force yet somehow managed to keep his arm from reaching into an area that would trigger the motion activated camera. And Reeves had no injuries aside from the slightest area of redness at the corner of his eye where detectives saw him rubbing away at that area constantly.

Even his wife says she didn't see anything, but she's embellished a bit too over the years finally settling on that she either closed her eyes or looked completely away from the incident as she was "too scared" to watch any of it.

One of the most effective parts of the prosecutors closing today is that in all of Reeve's history with the police force, including the SWAT team and gravitating to the high energy departments within law enforcement, he never in his life was so scared, never in his life encountered a person so out of control, never in his life saw anyone so enraged. His testimony in this regard was so over the top and I think he increased, rather than decreased chances of conviction partly because of the utter ridiculousness of most of what he testified to on direct. And of course, his story getting pretty much gutted during cross exam.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I think Curtis Reeves did a LOT of projection. HE was out of control. HE was enraged. HE had a loaded gun.

I wonder if rubbing his eye was part of an ischemic attack. Hubby's grandfather did that.

His wife probably was afraid of what might happen next knowing Reeves' history of ordering people around in movie theaters.

[Azastan]

I hope not, because that's what they call "evidence that wasn't admitted in court during the trial". The jury is supposed to consider only the evidence that was admitted in court, so if I have experience with tree stands and "testify" about those facts in the jury room (and give my opinion, basically as an expert witness), it would be nice if nobody ever finds out about it, because that's ... uncool.

This trial is being held in Florida, in a rural county. These people know all about tree stands. The video was included for the benefit of anyone HERE who doesn't know what a tree stand is.

There's sure to be someone in the jury who knows how ridiculous it is to suggest that Reeves is a fragile flower, but somehow can use a tree stand, just as someone will want to know how a LEO can be trained in de-escalation techniques and yet the first thing the man does is pull out his gun to shoot someone dead. And that same man will then suggest that he 'didn't react' to being hit because he'd had karate training, but when needing to defend himself, went for the gun?

Members of a jury bring their own life experiences into a jury room all the time. Something else to keep in mind is that members of the jury may have discussed deer hunting and tree stands PRIOR to it being discussed in court, because this is a rural county, where people hunt deer, not knowing that the defense would introduce discussion about tree stands and hunting. People talk about all sorts of stuff in the jury room when they are having a break, they just don't talk about the trial.

I've been on four different juries. You'd be amazed at what people discuss since they can't talk about the trial.

I'm beginning to suspect that many of you have never been on a jury...

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I admit it!!!! I'm a jury virgin!

[Azastan]

I admit it!!!! I'm a jury virgin!

See, that's what I mean LOL.

I'd like to also point out that there's a difference in the way people talk when it's a jury of six, versus a jury of twelve (plus spares in the event that a juror needs to be replaced).

Small juries will freely talk amongst the whole group, whereas a larger group splits into like-minded people. On my last jury experience, one of the fellow jurors had a brother who was a cattle rancher in Texas. So, we talked horses and cattle. But we also talked genealogy, because my fellow juror was Black. Another group talked about tattoos. Some of the jurors just played with their phones.

[LM K]

A Florida prosecutor told jurors Friday that a retired police SWAT commander fatally shot a fellow moviegoer because he threw popcorn in his face during an argument over cellphone use, angering him because it violated his self-image as an “alpha male.”


“He didn’t fear anything,” Rosenwasser said.

But defense attorney Richard Escobar countered that the popcorn toss did not cause the shooting. He said that Oulson, 43, made Reeves, then 71, reasonably believe his life was in danger by turning, yelling and reaching toward him. He said Reeves made the decision to shoot based on his nearly 30 years in law enforcement and hours of training on the justifiable use of deadly force. Reeves didn’t have to wait until he was hit before defending himself, Escobar said.


Escobar said the evidence proves their contention that during the disputed seconds that Oulson, before being shot, threw his cellphone at Reeves, striking him in the face, and then appeared ready to climb over the seats and attack, reaching toward him.

Reeves testified Thursday that in his entire law enforcement career he had never encountered someone so out of control and he feared he was about to be killed. Given his age, arthritis and other physical ailments, Reeves contended he could not have defended himself except by shooting.

Escobar said that it took less than three-quarters of a second between the popcorn toss and the shot. That is too fast for it to be the reason Reeves fired, he said.

“Impossible,” Escobar said.

But Rosenwasser contended Reeves’ story was a lie. Security video does not show Oulson throwing his cellphone, the prosecutor said, and Reeves had no injury on his face where he says it hit him. But the video does show Oulson grabbing Reeves’ popcorn bag, tossing it at him and Reeves firing. Witnesses testified they heard Reeves then mutter, “throw popcorn at me.”

He said Reeves’ story about fearing for his life, that he was a physical “fragile egg” despite having just come back from a hunting trip and Oulson being out of control are all fabrications. They are aimed, Rosenwasser said, at covering up the fact that Reeves has an “alpha male mindset” who liked the adrenaline rush of being a police officer and SWAT commander. He killed Oulson in anger after he had his ego hurt by being challenged and having popcorn thrown in his face, Rosenwasser said.

He said Reeves never fired his gun as he moved through the robbery/homicide bureau, fugitive apprehension and SWAT, yet somehow this movie theater argument over a cellphone escalated to the point Reeves faced the most out-of-control, scariest person he ever faced and had to shoot.

“In his entire career that is the most he has ever been scared? Absolutely unreal,” Rosenwasser said.

Reeves had pulled his gun before Oulson flipped his popcorn.

[Foggy]

I'm beginning to suspect that many of you have never been on a jury...

I've been on a Fogbow Galactic Grand Jury at a local Denny's, so there!

[Azastan]

I'm beginning to suspect that many of you have never been on a jury...

I've been on a Fogbow Galactic Grand Jury at a local Denny's, so there!

And I bet you talked about all sorts of weird stuff!

(however, I don't think a Grand Jury is quite the same as the juries I was on, 'cuz we were just petit juries.)

[Dr. Caligari]

PLEASE keep RV in mind when the Fogbow nominations are voted on in September. Not even sure what the categories are, but RV's play-by certainly belongs in a "best of" cat.

Bravo!

Amen!

[andersweinstein]

[Lani]

That hit hard. (yeah, I know, Floridah.) Can't decide whether to scream or cry. Probably both. (yeah, I know, Floridah.) My heart breaks for his wife, family, and friends.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

[Dave from down under]

Death cultists

[RVInit]

Day 10 Prosecution closing

Pointed out all the red herrings brought up by the defense including alleged cell phone thrown, age and infirmity of the defendant

"Man killed over popcorn toss"

We know this is what happened. Three unrelated witnesses sitting in different places heard the defendant say "throw popcorn at ME!" after shooting Oulsen. We know this case is truly about a man killing another man over a popcorn toss. There is no evidence to make you reasonably believe they got together to frame the defendant.

Not an indictment on law enforcement in general. Defendant trained in deescalation tactcs through l.e. and also Busch Gardens and despite all that training he instigated this situation. He started it and he stopped it.

What is happening. The defendant is a person that like the adrenaline, likes the control. Nothing wrong with leadership. But this defendant started this situation.

Both version of defendant's story are unbelievable. This person involved in SWAT, fugitives, all the dangerous forms of l.e. and yet in all those years never faced fear like he faced in Mr Oulsen. Who may have used an f=bomb. You can't kill for that. This is the most fear he's ever experienced in his life? Absolutely unbelieveable story.

he shot out of anger. We know that because of his own words. Watch the reaction he has after he shot. He lunges forward, not leaning back in a life and death struggle like he wants you to believe.

He already had taht gun ready, that is why he could react so fast. Watch teh video as much as you need. Listen to his post-Miranda statement. I submit it shows a cool, calm collected person telling an unbelievable story because he just shot someone. It contradicts every witness in this case including 2 witnesses the defense called. Including his wife, inches away sitting next to him. She never witnesses a life and death struggle.

He told that sotry because he had no idea how many people were actually witnessing these events. (Camera shows his family. His son is looking down, his daughter is sitting with chin jutted out, she was the one who got so angry with the prosecutor as he tore her story apart. The wife looks completely wiped out. I think she's just barely holding on, she may be terrified what is going to happen)

Also there is the silent witness - the video. That silent witness speaks the loudest in this case. When you watch that video, every single thing he says is untrue. Then he took the stand and told you a completely diffeent story from the first unbelievable story. Why is that? Because he knows what really happened. Just like the witness and video are telling you. He shot a man over a popcorn toss.

The three of us have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You will hear all the law, get a copy, we'll g through it.

Talksa bout reasonable doubt. Lack of evidence or conflict of evidence. 7-9 eyewitnesses and the video.

Conflict in evidence is almost always there. That is not reasonable doubt in and of itself. you woulc never prove a case. Take all the evidence analyze it, pick out the credible evidence. It's up to you to take whatever part of the evidence a witness says.

Put aside the not credible evidence. Apply the credible evidence and apply it to the law. Tells them what is NOT reasonable doubt.

Uses example of hearing thunder, lightning, smelling rain, and wake up to soaking wet outside. Common sense it rained.

Can you speculate a helicopter dumped a bucket of water? Not reasonable.

Be careful of possibility and speculation.

Let's talk about speculation. Shiny objects - if you look at those, you will forget the credible evidence.

What are shiny objecs in this case: Fairly long list If you yell shiny object it doesn't become more real

1. Sheriff's office should have recreated the scene and the theater was too dark and too loud. Shiny object. Would be impssible to recreate the scene - the best l.e. in the nation could not do taht. Too many moving parts. All the witnesses, exact scene on the screen, people talking at difrerent times. Light meter won't tell you a thing. Sond meter either. Witnesses will tell you what they saw, what they heard - and they did not conspire to tell a story about a man they did not know.

2. Was it too dark? What picture is painted, what did they all say, even Joanna Turner. We could see. That's the real evidence. They saw the defendant start it and end it. Saw him kill a man over a popcorn toss.

Too Loud - all witnesses said they could hear. Names all the witnesses and where they were sitting. They all said they could see and hear.

Interesting moment - Matt Reeves - they wre in a tough situation, creidble and incredible. Think about what defendant said. While he was leaning back in a life or death struggle he's yelling "no no no" "whoa whoa whoa". What does Matt Reeves say he heard? Rely on your recollection. he said I heard "get outta my face" or somthing like that. And then he said "that was my dad's voice of course I recognized it".

Think back, who testified that they heard these same words? You can't confuse "no no no whoa whoa whoa" with "get out of my face". Who told you that was said by somebody? (Holy shit. He plays the taped interview with Reeves and Reeves told the detectives that OULSEN said "get out of my face".)

Matt is siting the whole time in the court with his head hanging down. When this part of the tape plays his eyes look up and his head moves very slightly.

Was Matt Reeves able to hear Oulsen says those words that his own father said Oulsen said? Or was he just saying something to try to help out his father? Matt Reeves is also the only witness that said it was nearly pitch black.

The Sheriff's office investigation is a super shiny object. There is a suggestion it was crappy. You now what? It was crappy. Not a single one with say they did a great job. But it's a shiny object to take you away from looking at the facts. In this case it doesn't mean a thing becaause we had credible eye witnesses who were cross examinied vigorously.

he names nine witnesses including defense witnesses. We also have the

3. Detectives didn't know enough about self defense is nother shiny object. Doesn't mean a thing. You have a defendant with all this l.e. experience and you hear his statement, do you think he did not think, with all his experience, what was important to tell detectives? He knew enough to make up a story to justify an unlawful story. Perception distortion? When paid witness says you want to ask this question. You head detective proctor say "is there anything else you want to tell us"

4. Witness contamination. it means nothing, no evidence at all of witness contamination, In fact evidence against it. They did not know each other and they would not get together to conspire to frame Mr Reeves.
You saw them on the stand. think about Joanna and Mark Turneer - even though she said she told her husband what she saw - he did NOT testify the same as she did. He never mentioned the "thermos" she claimed to see. He told what HE saw, even though it was different than what she told him she saw. Witness contamination sounds terrible but it did NOT happen. No evidence whatsoever, it's pure speculation

5. Detective Proctor interviewed two witnesses for five minutes off tape. Means just that. Nothing more. They each gave their own statment and they each saw different amount of the what happened. One saw the whle thing, the other saw about 20 seconds. And their testimony and statments reveal that very thing. Honest statements

6. Detectives interview - didn't ask the right questions.

7. A holster was in Det. Proctor's drawer locked up. So what. It was not important, no evidentiary value. If whodunnit with blood on it, one thing, but that's not the case.

8. Video was removed and taken out of state and then came back in a locked box. And you saw the video. It did go, and it came back, and you watched it. Was it best practice to let the company see it first? Maybe not. but not evidence even from experts that it is not the complete video. Hard drives all accounted for, even by defense expert

9. Jennifer Shaw, Matt Reeves they are not bad people. In this case, testifying for their father they are just not credible. They are too biased because they are too close. Remember Shaw took the stand and she cried about the moment in time she realized her dad needed help. Then the real story about the kayak paddles came out in cross examination. It wasn't his old age that caused the paddles to be stuck. They simply were stuck. Even when she tried to take them apart. Had nothing to do with his aging.

Video of MRI's and x-rays. what can the defendant to? Bike, kayak, hunt, walk, pulls wagon, washes car, mows lawn, prunes, hedges, archery, shooots sporting clay. Was he really fragile egg like she said? It seems silly but all these activities take coordination, balance, strength. Shiny object

(Jennifer Shaw looks fit to be tied. Angry look on her face, practically snarling at the prosecutor. She is the one who absolutely lost it on the stand under cross exam. Not doing herself favors today either)

Matthew Reeves the only person to say pitch black. Not good witnesses in this case, too biased.

Joana Tuner . Why we didn't call her? If you have nine witnesses and 8 of them say the light wa red and one says the light was green, that person probably not the most reliable witness

But she still agreed there was no phone thrown.

10. Testimony of Dr Adams, Foley, and Cohen. Adams charged $450 per hour. Went through incredible amount of info. Boiled down to speculation of all possible events that could happen to a human body at some future time in some unknown way under unknwon circumstances some part of the body might possibly get hurt by someone. Telling moment was when he couldn't explain something said the court reporter made a mistake because what ws on depoisition didn't match what he's saying now. Now the court reporter has some motive?

Dr Cohen told you when people get older they age and their bodies change. (I agree. She had very impressive credentials, I have no doubt of her high value to the body of knowledge of aging. But her testimony in this case after 1 hour or more of CV was about 15 minutes talking in general that bodies age)

People perceiving themselves as vulnerable may take certain actions. But in this case is there ANY evidence the defendant thought of himself as vulverable? Absolutely not. Did he try to deescalate? he instigated, he started, he kept re-engaging. The week before he's hunting and climbing in a tree stand. If his back was so bad, why not sit in aisle seat. If you see yourself as vulnerable ou don't do a single thing this defendant did

Last shiny object - cell phone DNA - the louder you talk about it just makes it shinier. There is uninterpretable DNA on that phone. There is no way that phone was EVER used in this case against this defendant. Nobody saw this phone event and his own wife did not see any violent attack or anything thrown. "I closed my eyes" Really? The defendant has no injuries. How is that remotely possible. Just a red mark BEHIND his glasses.

self serving stories don't equal self defense. How does he have no injury other than slightly red eyelid.

Take shiny object and put them away.

According to Jane Roy immediately after the message comes on the screen Reeves is already leaning forward to say something to Oulsen. She doesn't know either of them, no agenda. (Two weeks prior to this incident he had "barked" at another couple in the same theater about the same thing and had actually followed the woman out of theater when she got up to go to the restroom. She was creeped out by that. Another couple says one time the Reeve's sat in the row in front of them and they were whispering to each other during the previews and Reeves saids "why don't you shut up". I think I posted a link to a story about this. Neither of them testified but they both said when he was arrested they recognized him and they contacted prosecutors to offer their experiences with Reeves.)

Do we really believe this cell phone light was so bright it really was affecting his ability to see the preview. Nicole Oulsen and Roy both indicated Reeves demeanor that he "ordered" Oulsen to turn off his phone.

Why did he have to tell him he was going to the manager. All he had to do was just get up and go. Roy says he was mumbling to himself as he walked out. Pointing out this shows his anger.

His mannerisms show that he was agitated even if he was moderating his voice with the manager. His wife even said he was kind of ticked off. A guy that is trained in deescalation could have waited for the manager. And if he was scared or concerned could ahve waited. He goes back and Reeves still has to needle him, even though OUlsen already had put away his phone. The person who is trained in deescalation has to needle and poke Oulsen " I see you put your phone away, so I guess I didn't have to tell the manager". (This is a big part of why I am so disgusted by his behavior. He has a gun, he knows he has a gun, he knows there is a sign on the door telling people not to bring weapons, probably knows damn well it's highly unlikely that Oulsen has a gun, he has all this training in deescalation techniques and yet he needles and pokes at Oulsen at every opportunity. People like Reeves always seem to want to use the part of their l.e. training and experience that have to do with violence but never seem to think of using the part of their experience that has to do with defusing situations. Instead of defusing, he is deliberately poking at Oulsen in every encounter, and according to every person it's always Reeves initiating)

Because he's the "alpha male" he has to have the last word. He could have just sat down. There are some gems in what Reeves says. First says Oulsen turns IN his seat (confirmed by video and other witnesses). Friedhoff heard bickering, so it wasn't Reeves being polite and Oulsen being rude, they both bickered. LOL, prosecutor calls Reeves "the great instigator"

Even defendant says at no time was Oulsen turning around initiating conversation, he was the one trying to deescalate to an extent, telling Reeves to just leave him alone.

Oulsen does get up at some point. leans over, grabs popcorn and flips it. Is it reasonable to believe that when the popcorn bag was grabbed that he was going to die. (he really did say this on the stand, over and again indicating thing like "never in my life was I ever this scared, I knew I was going to die or be seriously injured". )

Talks about instructions for self defense, did he really believe...what about he saw the hand coming. First, we know it was about the popcorn because of the statement - don't forget about that. He killed him because of the popcorn, he KNEW what that was, you see he already had the gun ready, as soon as the popcorn flip he shoots from the hip.

If you are going to believe Reeves that he didn't know anything about the popcorn until he saw it on the floor later, you have to disbelieve three other witnesses. If you are going to believe that he only "saw a hand coming at him", can you really believe he honestly thought taht hand was going to kill him? Absolutely not. Did he reasonably believe that hand was going to punch him so hard that his brow would fracture and go into his brain? That is unreasonable (one of his experts testified to all this kind of injury that CAN happen, not that any of it did happen in this case, but just droned on and on about different awful thing that "can" happen to people that would result in death. It was about as useful as saying that it's possible that a person can get into a car accident and die from it. Ok, but has nothing to do with this case. I can't believe the judge even allowed all that, except she bent over backward to allow the defense almost everything they wanted)

YOu can't shoot someone for punching you anyway. Oh he's vulnerable, No he's not. He instigated.

Oulsen stand up, grabs popcorn, flips it, gets shot. The defense wants you to believe there is this royal battle between Nicole and Chad where she's struggling to stop him from attacking Reeves. How is it that nobody saw this happen? How does Vivian Reeves not see this (the camera goes to Mrs Reeves and her daughter is next to her. the daughter is mostly looking angry during this closing, but at this point she has kind of a worried look on her face and she looks over at her father. This is really notable since most of the time she's either angry, smug, or smirking. This is the first time she looks troubled. Her brother is almost doubled over at this point. Up to this point he has his head down and he's looking down. At one point his eyes kind of looked up, but his head has been down. But now his head is completely hanging down. I wonder if he realizes the evidence really does point to his father killed a man because that man didn't obey his command. I won't forget how Matt himself testified that he "ordered" the people around him to help Oulsen to the floor. That was his own word - ordered. I think like father like son. Reeves' wife has almost always just looked like she's zoned out, like she's in a daze. That has been how she's looked pretty much the entire trial.)

So, what is the law in this case.

I'm not going to give details here, but he basically goes over the law. He's not going over in as much detail as I usually see, so I'm wondering if he's going to save that for part 2 of closing.

Talks about justifiable homicide. Every word is important. Necessary is really important here. You have to be 100% sure if you are taking another person's life. There is no attempt to murder, we know that doesn't apply, he's pointing out everything that doesn't apply and tell them to focus on the parts that apply.

Excusable homicide - He made sure to start his cross exam with asking Reeves if he accidentally shot Oulsen, he explains to the jury why he asked that question, it applies to this concept of excusable homicide - Reeves admitted that he intentionally shot Oulsen, so none of the items apply here. the entire instruction does not apply because every part of it only applies if the shooting was accidental.

Now murder in 2nd degree. Crimes are built of elements. We have to prove each of these elements. There is a highest crimes that is charged. In this case murder 2nd degree. If and only if you determine that 2nd degree does not apply, only then do you move to manslaughter. Does not have to prove Reeves intended to kill him, only that he intended to shoot him and that he did die.

Going over elements and definitions.

Talks about ill will and intent and how all the acts that Reeves committed that day show ill will and intent.

Interogatories - explains how they handle that on the jury form

Going over manslaughter.

He is going over the self defense section in more detail. Reeves lost his stand your ground. brings up justifiable use of deadly force since it's in the self defense area. Did he reasonably believe that shooting and killing Chad Oulsen was necessary to prevent imminent (right then) death or great bodily harm to himself. Did Reeves believe he was about to die. It wasn't necessary. Great bodily harm does not include bruising, and doesn't even include moderate harm. Great bodily harm. Each word means what it means. Would a reasonable person believe as the hand reached across and grabbed the popcorn that he was about to die or sugger great bodily harm? No, absolutely not. Don't lose sight of what he said. he KNEW popcorn was thrown at him (Reeves denies this, he claims that he only knew about the popcorn after seeing the video and that prior to seeing the video he only thought "something " must have happened to the popcorn since it was on the floor.)

Even if you don't accept that he knew the popcorn was thrown at him, just because a hand is coming toward him does not mean he would reasonably believe he was about to be beaten to a pulp. It's simply not true. And he started all of it. And the popcorn thrown at him is only a battery because of his age.

Did he have to kill Chad because he thought he was about to die? Focus on what he says - he knows about the popcorn, witnesses heard him say "throw popcorn at ME".


Breaking down that paragraph. Battery is when you intentially touch or strike another person, misdemeanor crime. It becomes a felony if the person is over 65.

Talking about reasonably prudent person - The defense keeps harping on the fact that the threat doesn't have to be real, Reeves only had to believe it was real. Prosecutor gives an example that if a person threatens to kill someone, runs to their car, grabs their black wallet turns around with somthing black the size of a gun in their hand, that is an example of reasoanble belief

The appearance of danger must be so real that a reasonable person believes they are in imminent danger. Even though the wallet can't kill the person, all the facts and circumstances create a situation where a person could reasonably believe they are in imminent danger.

How does this apply to what the defense is claiming about Reeves? Reeves claims that he believes there was this cell phone thrown at him 8 seconds prior to the popcorn flip. But there is no evidence whatsoever of this imaginary attack. (They are using one of the reflections in the video and trying to claim that reflection is a cell phone. But that relfection looks like the other reflections that show up on the video every single time Reeves crosses or uncrosses his legs or moves his feet.)

He did not reasonably believe he was in danger, and that is why he changed his story from his initial post-Miranda statement in the cruiser. Think about this. He went from one attack to two. His first story he believed he was punched with a fist or a cell phone was thrown at him. Now, there are two attacks and what does that give him? The day of the shooting he says he was attacked right after the "popcorn fell". Completely dispelled by the video and every witness.

But during the trial, he changed his story. And even on the witness stand he couldn't explain the differences in his story except to say he was "dazed" or in shock.

He has to add an attack because he knows that post-Miranda statement is so bad for him. So he states now the popcorn didn't go in the wayside, now he jumps up and he's on top of me and I lean back in my chair, and I got my left hand out and yelling "no no no" he's virtually on top of me. Prosecutor is pointig out the hypocrisy of his attorneys pinging on the difference between "dim light" and "low light" and this man who has written how many reports as a police officer is changing from he's virtually on top of me to he's leaning over this chair? Because in his first version where the guy is virtually on top of him is before he knows there is a video.

Prosecutor goes on to characterize his first story - "so I'm fightin him off I have my left hand out to try to stop him, I'm practically toughcing him and I can' tbelieve I didn't shoot my left hand off when I had to shoot him in this life and death struggle". Why doesn't he have stippling on his left hand? Same reason he doesn't have an injury from a phone taht was thrown at him. You just have to watch the video. We played it slowly and back and forth you can see that he already has his gun out when the popcorn is flipped. When he leaned back and put his right leg out in front, that was so he could get the gun out of his pocket. He's trying to say that he was tryng to get away from Oulsen, but you can't pull that gun out of your pocket if you are sitting normally in the chair. So, he leans back and stretches his right leg so he can get the gun. Then when the popcorn is flipped he shoots from the hip and he instictively puts his left hand on his chest as they are trained to do when shooting from the hip area. Watch that video his left hand goes up and he immediately brings it to his chest as he shoots. That is exactly what happened. He intentially killed Chad Oulsen because he was mad.

In court he changes his story. Says that when he comes back from the manager Chad is staring at him. Why does he do that? Because now he wants to pretend now I'm the great deescalator. I wanted to calm him down to tell him that I see everything is alright. But he never told that to Det Proctor.

Then on the stand he gives this new version, adding an attack that supposedly happens 8 seconds prior to the popcorn toss. That's when I realized I had to kill him. What is this "first attack". First he says it's a fist, then it's a fist with a phone in it and his final version during this trial is that he threw the phone from some distance.

The next illogical thing is how can he be hit with a phone and have no injury, not captured on video, his wife doesn't see it, nobody else sees it, and at the same time it happens he is moving forward on the video so he would be leaning into the supposed hit (this is the reflection that you see as he uncrosses his legs so he can lean forward. His defense is trying to say that reflection is the phone hitting Reeves and then falling down) His explanation for why he continues to move forward while being hit with a phone is "I was trained in karate". Nobody would be hit with a phone that hard (said it "dazed" him) and yet his hands don't go to his head he doesn't react to the supposed impact. It never happened. None of it. he killed Chad Oulsen for no reason other than because he was mad.

Shows the jury two photos. In my left hand, this is Curtis Reeves. You may notice his eye is slightly red where detectives said he was constantly rubbing it.

In right hand is Chad Oulsen (autopsy photo showing bullet wound)

Did this person (right hand) believe this (left hand) was necessary under the fact pattern.

End of first part of State closing.

I thought the prosecutions closing was very effective. He used evidence to eliminate all the red herrings, which I thought was excellent, not just using logic as to why the red herrings don't matter and why the jury shouldn't get distracted by them

Kept using the words defendant started it, defendant ended it.

Age and infirmity - every single thing Oulsen did shows age and infirmity were not an issue, including the very seat they chose. If your back hurts so much you would not sit in the middle of a row where you have to maneuver past people if you need to leave.

[RVInit]

I am not surprised one bit. It will be years before we start having Florida juries willing to hold law enforcement (even retired) responsible for these kind of crimes. I bet it took them 5 minutes, I didn't even read the article.

No sense in listening to the defense closing at this point.

The fact that they didn't even find battery for shooting Nicole's finger is the same thing as the Malhuer jury acquitting the guy that clearly took the vehicle for a ride to the grocery store.

We really don't have law enforcement every held responsible here. Unless it's a case like the one I mentioned earlier on the thread where a patrol officer pulled a woman over, put her in his squad car, drove the car to a wooded median, raped and killed her. Then drove her car to that wooded median and left it there.

when he was arrested he was wearing her underwear. He was found guilty. But I believe it will be a very long time before we have the kind of justice in these cases like the Chauvin case in Minnesota or Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia. Floriduh has a long long long long long long long long long long long way to go.

This is the same place where they acquitted George Zimmerman because a man who chased a Black kid with a gun, first in his car, then on foot, is assumed to be perfectly within his right to self defense. Apparently Trayvon Martin, knowing he was being followed, eventually was confronted by Zimmerman, who had a gun, Trayvon tried self defense and Zimmerman shot him. So, an armed asshole has a right to self defense, but a young unarmed Black kid is not allowed to try to prevent himself from being shot. Zimmerman was acquitted because Trayvon Martin "attacked" him, and, well, Zimmerman just HAD to shoot him because...self defense.

These are slightly different situations but they illustrate the same frame of mind and the mindset of the ultra conservative. It's perfectly OK for the armed white guy, law enforcement or not, to instigate, pester, chase, and outright threaten unarmed people, and call it self defense when they kill. But the unarmed person who is being chased, pestered, and outright threatened has no right to self defense.

And everyone knows why Black men in Florida are not going to start even attempting to defend themselves under stand your ground laws. Don't even get me started on that.

Yes, Oulsen is not a Black man, but this same concept applies to any unarmed person, Black or otherwise, being harassed by someone who at any time was associated with law enforcement. Back the Blue is a big thing here.

Sorry. End of rant. I am sick to my stomach, but not at all surprised to be honest.

[Phoenix520]

I AM surprised, and sickened and furious. I don’t know FL like you do but I find it hard to believe a normal person could hear the evidence I heard and acquit.

RV, yoeman’s work! You have my 27 votes for BotB of the year! Thank you!!!