Judge Alicia Washington (11:07):
Everybody can be seated. Can we go ahead and bring Ms. Deller out?
Speaker 1 (11:10):
She's not here yet.
Judge Alicia Washington (11:12):
Oh, we're still waiting on her. I didn't know that part. No, you told me that there was a ...
Speaker 1 (11:17):
[inaudible 00:11:19].
Judge Alicia Washington (11:17):
[inaudible 00:11:19].
Speaker 2 (11:17):
[inaudible 00:11:24].
Mike Willard (11:17):
[inaudible 00:11:24].
Judge Alicia Washington (11:31):
I did provide copies of the [inaudible 00:11:30] ... I didn't change anything. I just did some formatting.
Brian Smith (11:33):
Yeah, I noticed that the one we added was kind of off, yes, last night.
Judge Alicia Washington (11:39):
Yeah. So I just did some formatting, justified it, that kind of thing.
Mike Willard (11:48):
And Judge, you read up to what part before we do closing?
Judge Alicia Washington (11:52):
To the final instruction.
Mike Willard (11:53):
Okay.
Judge Alicia Washington (11:55):
I save the final instruction for after the closings.
Mike Willard (11:58):
Gotcha.
Judge Alicia Washington (12:00):
So that submitting case to jury.
Mike Willard (12:03):
Got it.
Judge Alicia Washington (12:11):
I do want to thank everybody on both sides. Everybody's been very mindful of the court's expectations in terms of your reactions, your behaviors. Same thing applies for today, especially during, you know, the closing arguments can get emotional for both sides. Invariably, one side won't like what the other side is saying. Again, if you, and they may show some photos, they may show some of the evidence that may be emotional. These jurors, it's very difficult ... I don't know if any of you have ever served on a jury, but it's very difficult, number one, to take the time out of your life to sit and do this. Number two, it's very difficult in a case of this nature to have that on your conscious that you have to make that ultimate call. And so what we're trying to do is we try to protect the jurors as much as we can so that they're not making decisions based on any type of sympathy, any type of bias.
(13:13)
We want them to be able to just focus on the evidence. And so you all out there help us by not being a factor that they have to consider. And so that will remain the case. No photos, no videos, no recording of the proceedings. And we have all our jurors. They're ready to go as soon as Ms. Deller comes. We'll put a couple of things on the record about the juror discussions we had with her here and then we're ready to go.
Mike Willard (13:41):
Yes, ma'am.
Judge Alicia Washington (13:43):
Are you going to be using presentation mode?
Mike Willard (13:45):
Yes, we will.
Judge Alicia Washington (13:45):
[inaudible 00:13:46].
Mike Willard (13:45):
Can we just test it out and see?
Judge Alicia Washington (13:51):
Oh wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me go back real quick. I want to make sure that I ... I think it automatically mutes it when I go to presentation mode, but just in case it doesn't.
Mike Willard (14:04):
Perfect. [inaudible 00:14:19].
Judge Alicia Washington (14:19):
All right. And then I took the clean copy of the information that you guys gave me for jury selection. And what I did was, because you could kind of still see through the back of it, I ran it through a copy machine. So if either of you want to look at this to make sure it's appropriate, this is the copy that would go back with the jury.
Mike Willard (14:45):
I don't think this should be the right copy, Judge, 'cause the clean copy has capital felony crossed out, second-degree felony, third-degree felony. I don't think this is the clean copy.
Judge Alicia Washington (14:56):
That's why I'm giving it to you here. Here. Write out what you need? Now, write it all.
Mike Willard (15:00):
Yes, ma'am.
Judge Alicia Washington (15:01):
That's why I'm like, "Look at it."
Speaker 3 (15:02):
[inaudible 00:15:24].
Mike Willard (15:24):
Mike attested it. It works. Perfect. If you could ...
Speaker 4 (15:56):
I'm sorry, what?
Judge Alicia Washington (15:56):
Oh, I beg your pardon me. When he finishes with that, [inaudible 00:15:57] can you run it through the copier? All right. So we have Ms. Deller present. We are back in session, 24CF1197, and our jury is in the main courthouse. They are ready to come over. What I did want to put on record is counsel for both the State and Defense ... Where's the copy? Get it.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
[inaudible 00:16:22].
Judge Alicia Washington (16:22):
Oh, she has it.
Speaker 5 (16:23):
Okay.
Judge Alicia Washington (16:25):
Okay. Counsel for both the State and the Defense met with me on yesterday in chambers. We had a little discussion about whether or not, since we've made it all the way through the trial with both alternates intact, whether the court would reconsider the Defense's motion to strike juror number nine from deliberating. And I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, the State and Defense stipulated that we would remove juror number nine. She'll sit for all the closing argument, the final instruction, et cetera. It's just when they go back to deliberate, I would release juror number nine and juror number 14, who was one of the alternates. It would be juror number 13, Melissa Hasting, who would be going back to deliberate. Is the State in agreement with that?
Mike Willard (17:11):
State agrees, Judge.
Judge Alicia Washington (17:11):
And Defense in agreement with that?
Brian Smith (17:12):
Yes.
Judge Alicia Washington (17:13):
All right. Ms. Deller, do you understand that? Are you in agreement with that?
Caylen Savannah Deller (17:16):
Yes, ma'am.
Judge Alicia Washington (17:19):
All right. All right. And then are we ready now? Can we go ahead and bring them over?
Speaker 6 (17:22):
Yes.
Judge Alicia Washington (17:22):
All right.
Mike Willard (17:24):
If we can ... Judge, when we send it back, we'll just send back the stipulation of the identification. I don't know that they necessarily need to read it. We'll just send it back with them. I don't even think it's an issue in this case. I don't assume they're going to argue it because ...
Brian Smith (17:38):
It's not an issue.
Judge Alicia Washington (17:38):
I'll do whatever you guys want me to do. I haven't seen it. You want me to read it?
Mike Willard (17:42):
I don't think we need to read it. I think it's fine just to go back.
Judge Alicia Washington (17:44):
Okay.
Mike Willard (17:44):
If they want to look at it, that's fine. I don't think it's an issue. Because-
Judge Alicia Washington (17:50):
He doesn't look as sure as you do.
Mike Willard (17:51):
The only reason is is because it's going back into evidence. It was never entered, so they may wonder, "Where's this from?" Or, "What is this about?"
Brian Smith (17:59):
I mean, we're not going to argue-
Judge Alicia Washington (18:00):
Yeah. That's the reason why I asked in the beginning whether or not we wanted to number it as evidence because they're told in the instructions that they can only consider evidence that's been admitted.
Mike Willard (18:14):
I mean, we can have the court read it if you'd like.
Judge Alicia Washington (18:16):
Okay. And then that, because that would be ... Let's see.
Mike Willard (18:21):
I don't think it's a piece of evidence. It's just read by the court.
Judge Alicia Washington (18:24):
Okay.
Mike Willard (18:25):
And that's it. All right.
Brian Smith (18:27):
I guess you'd have to read the instruction on stipulation.
Mike Willard (18:30):
Right. That's right. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (18:32):
Let me read that. Let me find that.
Mike Willard (18:33):
[inaudible 00:18:40].
Speaker 7 (18:33):
[inaudible 00:18:42].
Mike Willard (18:48):
Judge, we don't have to even worry about that. It's not an issue. Let's not even worry about it. We don't even need to go into it.
Judge Alicia Washington (18:55):
So the instruction on stipulations is standard instruction 2. 3. So I will read it. When they come in, I'll just read the instruction, then I'll read the stipulation. Okay. The instruction reads, "When lawyers agree that certain facts are true, that is called a stipulation of fact. You must accept stipulated facts as having been proven. However, the significance of these facts as with all facts is for you to decide. In this case, the stipulated facts that you must accept as true are, for the purposes of the jury trial in this matter, the State of Florida and the defendant stipulate to the identity of the deceased person in this case is that of Chad Mullen." So that's just how I read it. Any objection to that?
Mike Willard (19:43):
None from the State, Judge.
Judge Alicia Washington (19:44):
Mr. Smith?
Brian Smith (19:49):
Well, the State was saying they were fine with the stipulation not being read prior to you going into the instruction. I would say I think it's been proven. My client testified that it was Chad Mullen. So rather than create confusion by reading a stipulation and then the stipulation then going into closings, they may think, "Why are they doing this now?" I'd prefer we just don't.
Mike Willard (20:10):
We're fine not doing it, Judge. I don't think there's an issue. The DNA matches up, the tattoos match up, the defendant admitted it. We're okay with that.
Judge Alicia Washington (20:17):
So if it's not evidence, is it going back?
Mike Willard (20:19):
No.
Judge Alicia Washington (20:19):
Okay.
Mike Willard (20:19):
We won't send it back at this time.
Judge Alicia Washington (20:20):
It is just going to file.
Mike Willard (20:21):
So we just wanted to talk to you for a little bit about it-
Judge Alicia Washington (20:24):
Oh, okay.
Mike Willard (20:24):
... and then decide if we didn't need it.
Judge Alicia Washington (20:26):
Just wanted to banter?
Mike Willard (20:26):
Yes.
Judge Alicia Washington (20:26):
Okay. All right. Banter [inaudible 00:20:30].
Mike Willard (20:26):
[inaudible 00:20:31].
Judge Alicia Washington (20:31):
All right. So the jurors are on the way.
Speaker 8 (20:32):
All rise, as the jurors entering the courtroom.
(20:32)
[inaudible 00:22:45].
Speaker 9 (20:32):
Oh, the quarter's in there.
Speaker 10 (20:32):
[inaudible 00:22:52].
Judge Alicia Washington (23:09):
All right. Everyone can be seated. Good morning.
Jurors (23:13):
Good morning.
Judge Alicia Washington (23:15):
Thank you again for being here. And let me just do a quick roll call again. 1 Smith, 2 Edwards-
Juror 1 Edwards (23:22):
Yes.
Judge Alicia Washington (23:23):
... 3 Ryan, 4 Santiago-
Juror 4 Santiago (23:26):
Yeah.
Judge Alicia Washington (23:26):
... 5 Mulligan-
Juror 5 Mulligan (23:26):
Yes.
Judge Alicia Washington (23:27):
6 Hazelgrove.
Juror 6 Hazelgrove (23:29):
Yes, ma'am.
Judge Alicia Washington (23:31):
7 West, 8 Moore, 9 White, 10 Frank, 11 Freeman, 12 Briggs, 13 Hasting, and 14 [inaudible 00:23:42]. All right. So I'll ask again, no cell phone devices, no smart devices, no any of that on anybody?
Jurors (23:49):
[inaudible 00:23:51].
Speaker 11 (23:51):
No.
Judge Alicia Washington (23:51):
You guys are killing it. All right. Now, has anyone heard any pre-trial or trial publicity, seen any media, Facebook posts, anything regarding this case since we were released yesterday?
Speaker 11 (24:08):
No, ma'am.
Judge Alicia Washington (24:08):
All right. So now what we're going to do is we're going to read final instructions. Now, it's in your packet. I've given you a copy of it so there's no need for you to take notes. And honestly, I just want you to listen because you'll get to take the packet back with you. I just want you to listen more for understanding. I'll read all the way up to the last instruction, and then at that point, I'll turn it over for closing arguments, and then I'll read the final instruction. What's not in this packet is the verdict form. So when I get to the part where I read the verdict form, you don't have to start flipping through it. It's not in there. I don't like having too many copies of a verdict form floating around. Okay. All right. So this is State of Florida v. Caylen Savannah Deller. It's case number 24CF1197. Members of the jury, I thank you for your attention during this trial. Please pay attention to the instructions I am about to give you. Caylen Savannah Deller, the defendant in this case, has been accused of the crimes of first-degree murder in count one, tampering with physical evidence in count two, and failure to report death of a person with intent to conceal the death or alter the evidence or circumstances surrounding such death in count three. Caylen Savannah Deller is accused of first-degree murder in count one. First-degree murder includes the lesser crimes of second-degree murder and manslaughter, all of which are unlawful. However, a killing that was excusable homicide or that was committed by the justifiable use of deadly force is lawful. If you find Chad Mullen was killed by Caylen Savannah Deller, you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was first-degree murder or second-degree murder or manslaughter or whether the killing was excusable homicide or resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
(26:24)
The use of deadly force to kill a human being is justifiable homicide and therefore lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant or to commit a felony in or upon any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. Deadly force means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Great bodily harm means harm that is more than slight, trivial, minor, or moderate. The killing of a human being is excusable homicide and therefore lawful under any one of the following three circumstances. One, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent or two, when the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or three, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
(27:46)
A dangerous weapon is any object that will likely cause death or great bodily harm if used in the ordinary and usual manner contemplated by its design and construction. Count one, first-degree murder. To prove the crime of first-degree premeditated murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. One, Chad Mullen is dead. Two, the death was caused by the criminal act of Caylen Savannah Deller. Three, there was a premeditated killing of Chad Mullen. An act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose. Killing when premeditation is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing.
(28:54)
The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing. In considering the evidence, you should consider the possibility that although the evidence may not convince you that the defendant committed the main crime of first-degree murder as charged in count one of the indictment, there may be evidence that she committed other acts that would constitute lesser-included crimes. Therefore, if you decide that the main accusation has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you will next need to decide if the defendant is guilty of any lesser-included crimes.
(29:58)
The lesser crimes indicated in the definition of first-degree murder as charged in count one of the indictment are second-degree murder and manslaughter. To prove the lesser-included crime of second-degree murder as it relates to count one of the indictment, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. One, Chad Mullen is dead. Two, the death was caused by the criminal act of Caylen Savannah Deller. Three, there was an unlawful killing of Chad Mullen by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. 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 one, a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another.
(31:06)
And two, is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent and 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. If you find that Caylen Savannah Deller committed the lesser-included crime of second-degree murder as it relates to count one of the indictment, and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the crime she discharged a firearm and in doing so caused great bodily harm or the death of Chad Mullen, you should find the defendant guilty of second-degree murder with discharge of a firearm causing great bodily harm or death. Great bodily harm means great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm and as such does not include mere bruises.
(32:11)
If you find that Caylen Savannah Deller committed the lesser-included crime of second-degree murder as it relates to count one of the indictment, and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the crime she discharged a firearm, you should find the defendant guilty of second-degree murder with discharge of a firearm. If you find that Caylen Savannah Deller committed the lesser-included crime of second-degree murder as it relates to count one of the indictment, and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the crime she actually possessed a firearm, you should find the defendant guilty of second-degree murder with actual possession of a firearm. A firearm is legally defined as any weapon which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. To actually possess a firearm means the defendant A, carried a firearm on her person, or B, had a firearm within immediate physical reach with ready access with the intent to use the firearm during the commission of the crime.
(33:24)
If you find that Caylen Savannah Deller committed second-degree murder and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the crime she personally carried, displayed, used, threatened to use or attempted to use a firearm, you should find her guilty of second-degree murder with a firearm. I have previously defined the term firearm for you. You should rely on that definition previously given. If you find that Caylen Savannah Deller committed second-degree murder, but you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she personally carried, displayed, used, threatened to use or attempted to use a firearm, then you should find her guilty only of second-degree murder. To prove the lesser-included crime of manslaughter as it relates to count one of the indictment, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt. One, Chad Mullen is dead. Two, A, Caylen Savannah Deller intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Chad Mullen, or B, the death of Chad Mullen was caused by the culpable negligence of Caylen Savannah Deller.
(34:38)
Every person has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide as I have previously instructed you.
Judge Alicia Washington (35:00):
[inaudible 00:35:00] homicide, as I have previously instructed you. In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable, and which caused death. I will now define culpable negligence for you. As I have said, every person has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
(35:37)
But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects are such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to the consequences or which shows wantoness or recklessness or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public are such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or admission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known or reasonably should have known was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you find that Kaylin Savannah Deller committed manslaughter and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the crime she personally carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, you should find her guilty of manslaughter with a firearm. I have previously defined firearm for you. You should rely on that definition previously given. If you find that Kaylin Savannah Deller committed manslaughter, but you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she personally carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, then you should find her guilty only of manslaughter.
(37:35)
Count two, tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. To prove the crime of tampering with physical evidence, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt. One, Kaylin Savannah Deller knew that a criminal trial proceeding or investigation by a duly constituted prosecuting authority, law enforcement agency, grand jury or legislative committee of Florida was pending or was about to be instituted. Two, Kaylin Savannah Deller altered, destroyed, concealed or removed the body of Chad Mullen and are ropes, ratchet traps, a net, cinder block, grappling hook, and/or other items with the purpose to impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation. If you find the defendant guilty of tampering with physical evidence, you must further determine whether the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the tampering related to a criminal trial proceeding or investigation related to a capital felony. The court instructs you that first degree murder is a capital felony.
(38:53)
Count three, failure to report death of a person with intent to conceal the death or alter the evidence or circumstances surrounding such death. To prove the crime of failure to report the death of a person with intent to conceal, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt. One, Kaylin Savannah Deller did unlawfully fail or refuse to report the death and circumstances of the death of Chad Mullen to the district medical examiner or a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the location and two, Kaylin Savannah Deller did so with the intent to conceal such death or to alter the evidence or circumstances surrounding such death. It is a defense to the crimes of first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter if the actions of Kaylin Savannah Deller constituted the justifiable use of deadly force. Deadly force means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
(39:57)
Great bodily harm means great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm. Kaylin Savannah Deller does not have the burden of proving that she was justified in using deadly force. Instead, for you to find the defendant guilty, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was not justified in using deadly force. The law on justifiable use of deadly force is as follows. Kaylin Savannah Deller was justified in using deadly force if she reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to herself. Kaylin Savannah Deller had no duty to retreat before using deadly force. The use of deadly force is justifiable if Kaylin Savannah Deller reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to herself while resisting any attempt to commit aggravated assault and/or attempted aggravated battery upon her.
(41:06)
In deciding whether Kaylin Savannah Deller was justified in the use of deadly force, you must consider the circumstances at the time the force was used. The danger need not have been actual. However, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of imminent danger must have been so real that the defendant actually believed the use of deadly force was necessary. Moreover, to justify the use of deadly force, a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed the use of deadly force was necessary. If you find that Kaylin Savannah Deller, who because of prior threats or difficulties with Chad Mullen had reasonable grounds to believe that she was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of Chad Mullen, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of Kaylin Savannah Deller were those of a reasonable person. In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of Kaylin Savannah Deller and Chad Mullen.
(42:17)
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the indictment through each stage of the trial, unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the state has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything to the crimes of first degree murder, tampering with evidence or failure to report a death as I have previously explained to you. Whenever the words reasonable doubt are used, you must consider the following. Reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all doubt. A mere possible, speculative, imaginary or forced doubt is not a reasonable doubt.
(43:17)
Such a doubt is not a guess or mere conjecture. Rather, it is a doubt based upon reasoning and common sense at the careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or lack of evidence. If after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant guilty. It is to the evidence introduced in this trial and to it alone that you are to look for that proof. It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable.
(44:18)
You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable or less reliable than other evidence. You should consider how the witnesses acted as well as what they said. Some things you should consider are one, did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified? Two, did the witness seem to have an accurate memory? Three, was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorney's questions? Four, did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided? Five, does the witness's testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case? Six, has the witness been offered or received any money, preferred treatment or other benefit in order to get the witness to testify?
(45:18)
Seven, did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he or she gave in court? Eight, has the witness been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving dishonesty or false statement? Whether the state has met its burden of proof does not depend upon the number of witnesses it has called or upon the number of exhibits it is offered, but instead upon the nature and quality of the evidence presented. The fact that a witness is employed in law enforcement does not mean that his or her testimony deserves more or less consideration than that of any other witness. Expert witnesses are like other witnesses with one exception. The law permits an expert witness to give his or her opinion. However, an expert's opinion is reliable only when given on a subject about which you believe him or her to be an expert.
(46:15)
Like other witnesses, you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony. The defendant in this case has become a witness. You should apply the same rules to consideration of her testimony that you apply to the testimony of the other witnesses. It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony. You may rely upon your own conclusion about the credibility of any witness. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness. These are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits and evidence and these instructions. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone or are angry at anyone. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.
(47:55)
Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not in accord with the law. It is the judge's job to determine a proper sentence if the defendant is found guilty. Whatever verdict you render must be unanimous, that is each juror must agree to the same verdict. Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias or sympathy. Your verdict must be based on the evidence and on the law contained in these instructions. Deciding a verdict is exclusively your job. I cannot participate in that decision in any way. Please disregard anything I or any other court personnel may have said or done that make you think I prefer one verdict over another. You may find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment or guilty of such lesser included crimes as the evidence may justify or not guilty. If you return a verdict of guilty, it should be for the highest offense on the verdict form for each count that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
(49:02)
If you find that no offense has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then of course your verdict must be not guilty. The verdict must be unanimous, that is all of you must agree to the same verdict. Only one verdict may be returned as to each crime charge. The verdict must be in writing and for your convenience, the necessary verdict form has been prepared for you. It is as follows and it's not in your packet. So it reads State of Florida versus Kaylin Savannah Deller, verdict count one of the indictment. We the jury find the defendant Kaylin Savannah Deller as follows as to count one of the indictment. Please choose only one as to count one. The first choice is guilty as charged of the crime of first degree murder. The second choice is guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder.
(49:56)
If you find the defendant guilty of secondary degree murder, do you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the offense, the defendant, please answer yes or no to each of the following and the interrogatories that you have to answer for that count is actually possessed a firearm, yes or no, discharged a firearm, yes or no, inflicted death on Chad Mullen, yes or no, carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, yes or no.
(50:29)
The next choice under count one is guilty of lesser included offense of manslaughter. And if you find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, do you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the office, the defendant, please answer yes or no to the following: carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, yes or no? And then the final choice is not guilty. Count two of the indictment. We the jury find the defendant Kaylin Savannah Deller as follows as to count two of the indictment. Please choose only one as to count two. Guilty as charged of the crime of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. If you find the defendant guilty of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, do you also find beyond a reasonable doubt the following? Please answer yes or no to the following, the tampering with or fabricating related to a criminal trial proceeding or investigation of a capital felony, choices are yes or no.
(51:30)
And then the second choice on the count two is not guilty. Count three of the indictment, we the jury find the defendant Kaylin Savannah Deller as follows as to count three of the indictment. Please choose only one as to count three, guilty as charged of the crime of failure to report death of a person with intent to conceal the death or alter the evidence or circumstances surrounding such death or not guilty. The bottom of the verdict form says, so say we all. It would be dated Palatka, Putnam County, Florida. Today's date...
Speaker 12 (52:04):
15th.
Judge Alicia Washington (52:08):
15th? Is the 15th. You select the foreperson, the foreperson would date it, sign it and print their name. A separate crime is charged in each count of the indictment and although they have been tried together, each crime and the evidence applicable to it must be considered separately and a separate verdict returned as to each. A finding of guilty or not guilty as to one crime must not affect your verdict as to the other crimes charged. And state, were the instructions read as agreed?
Speaker 12 (52:45):
Yes, Your Honor.
Judge Alicia Washington (52:45):
And defense, were the instructions read as agreed?
Speaker 13 (52:49):
Yes, your Honor.
Judge Alicia Washington (52:50):
All right. So I'm going to turn it over to the state and defense for closings. They may be a little limpy. Would you prefer to take a quick break before we start the closings or you want to just get started? All right everyone. All right, state.
Speaker 12 (53:38):
She lured Chad Mullen to her property at 465 San Mateo Road, took him to the back of the property behind a barn, shot him twice and killing him. Then afterwards, she eventually dragged Mr. Mullen's body to a pond and several days later, two or three days later, she pulled Mr. Mullen's body out of the pond once it floated back up, it had a cinder block tied to it, but it floated back up and with the help of her friend, she buried the body at Burns Farm in St. John's County committing the crime of tampering physical evidence. And by the very fact that she shot and killed Mr. Mullen, she never reported it to law enforcement or the medical examiner and then took steps to conceal the body. She committed the crime of failure to report death of a person with intent to conceal the death or alter the evidence or circumstances surrounding the death.
(54:43)
So I know we just listened through the elements of the three crimes. I do want to just quickly go through those elements and briefly apply some of the facts that came in and circumstances, the testimony to those elements, and then I want to go through all the facts and some of the evidence or the testimony that you were presented during this trial. So we learned just a couple minutes ago that first degree murder involves three elements. First element is Chad Mullen's dead and we've heard testimony from the medical examiner and obviously you've seen pictures of Mr. Mullen's body. That's an obvious proof that's been approved in this court, Chad Mullen is dead. The death was caused by the criminal act of Kaylin Deller. Well, we know through Ms. Deller's own testimony that she killed Mr. Mullen. We're arguing that it was a criminal act involved in that killing, that the defendant intentionally caused the death, killed Mr. Mullen on September 9th.
(55:56)
Then element three, there was a premeditated killing of Chad Mullen. Well, we've had testimony through Mr. Wittell that the defendant admitted to him, she lured Mr. Mullen to her property on September 9th under the guise of talking about the relationship. So she started forming this premeditated intent prior to the killing. She knew what she was going to do. She intended to do what she did and she did it. And then to continue with that premeditated intent, after she shot Mr. Mullen once and Mr. Mullen looked up at her while her gun jammed, the defendant could have stopped, could have walked away. No, she shot him again. Ladies and gentlemen, it's proof that the defendant had the premeditated intent to kill Chad Mullen.
(56:51)
So we heard the definition of an act, what an act is and killing with premeditation. I don't want to read that definition for you, but I want to kind of just go over just a discussion of what premeditated intent to kill is. So premeditated intent to kill must be formed prior to the killing and it must be long enough to allow for reflection by the defendant. So the defendant has to have this intent to kill, conscious intent formed prior to the killing, and then there's a period of reflective though that the defendant can essentially change course, that there's enough time for the defendant to form this intent and then make a decision to change course and not go through that killing. What's important is that there's no requirement to establish a minimum amount of time that must pass between formation of the intent to kill and the killing.
(57:47)
So in other words, premeditated intent to kill, regardless of what a lot of people may think, that involves weeks of planning or days of planning, writing down a manifesto of what you're going to do, a blueprint of what you plan to do, that's not required at all. You just need to have that conscious intent to commit the killing and a period of time for reflective thought. So in fact, premeditated intent to kill can be formed in a matter of seconds prior to the murder. Again, as long as there was a conscious decision to kill and enough time in that circumstance for the defendant to reflect and change course. You were advised of the lesser included crimes for first degree murder, which are second degree murder and manslaughter. I'm not going to go through those elements. You've heard them already. The state's position is that the defendant committed first degree murder. However, if you don't believe the state proved the highest charge first degree murder, you can consider second degree murder, second degree murder with a firearm and manslaughter as lesser offenses if you don't believe the state proved the highest charge, first degree murder. Tampering of physical evidence. We learned that to prove the crime of tampering with physical evidence, the state must prove two elements. Kailyn Deller knew that criminal trial proceeding or investigation by a duly constituted prosecuting authority or law enforcement agency was pending or was about to be instituted. And then number two, she altered, destroyed, concealed, removed the body of Chad Mullen and/or the ropes, ratchet straps, [inaudible 00:59:37], cinder block, grappling hook, or other items with the purpose of impairing fluidity or availability in such proceedings or investigation.
(59:43)
Well, the very fact that after the defendant shot and killed Mr. Mullen, dragging him to using ropes, ratchets, straps, a hook, netting, tarp to drag him to a pond, tying a cinder block to him to sink his body, and then two or three days later, removing him from that pond and moving him to a grave, that's evidence that she took steps to conceal, destroy, hide the evidence, knowing that there was an investigation or likely an investigation afoot or about to begin and was occurring at the time she committed this crime.
(01:00:28)
And then again, you were instructed that you find tampering with physical evidence and you also must make a decision that was this in furtherance of a crime that's a capital felony, you learn that first degree murder is a capital felony. And then the third charge, failure to report death of the person with intent to conceal the death or alter the evidence or circumstances surrounding such death. Well, once she committed the murder, when she killed Chad Mullen, she obviously did not report it to law enforcement, did not report it to the medical examiner, and then she took steps to conceal what she did so no one would ever find out, no investigation would uncover what she did.
(01:01:20)
So let's just go over some of the evidence, a little bit of testimony. We saw pictures of the three individuals involved in this case. We have the picture of the defendant, Chad Mullen and Tina Lee Marie Ellis, who assisted the defendant in hiding and moving the body. I wanted to show you just some pictures of Chad Mullen's left arm, and this was important because as we discussed during trial, you heard testimony that one of the ways the medical examiner identified the body that was exhumed was through the tattoos on Mr. Mullen's left arm. So let's just kind of review the different places involved in this case. There's four locations which were important in this investigation. We have the victim's residence at 128 Keystone Road in Palatka. You have the defendant's farm, Stormy Stables, at 465 San Mateo Road in San Mateo, Putnam County.
(01:02:29)
You have Tina Lee Marie Ellis's address at 131 Pine Street in Putnam County. And then you have Burns Farm at 880 Hastings Federal Point Road in Hastings, St. John's. And where you see that yellow thumbtack is the location where Chad Mullen's body was recovered. This was a farm that was a rural area of the county and a rural secluded area of the farm just off the road that would not be traveled by anyone unless they have particular business there or live off of that road. And then just kind of a blown up picture of all four properties that again are important in this investigation. Chad Mullen's residence on the upper left corner, Hastings Farm, upper middle to the right a little bit, and then towards the bottom in the middle you have the defendant's farm and then Tina Marie Ellis' location towards the middle left.
(01:03:41)
So let's just kind of go through the outline of events a little bit. We heard testimony that Chad Mullen and defendant were not in the best type of relationship, an on again, off again type of relationship, constantly breaking up and getting back together. In early September 2024, one of Chad Mullen's friends, Steven Williams, gave him an iPhone 11 with the phone number 312-933-7943. He loaned him this phone because Chad, Mr. Mullen was having problems with his phone and needed the phone, so his friend loaned him his phone, a spare phone that he had. On September 8th, 2024, this was a Sunday, Mr. Mullen was last seen by another one of his friends, Mr. Killian, sometime after 8:00 PM when Mr. Mullen called Mr. Killian after he broke down in Green Cove Springs to ask him to come out, maybe help him get the car back on the road, help him fix it.
(01:04:43)
They weren't able to do that. Mr. Killian instead loaned Mr. Mullen a truck, one of his trucks so Mr. Mullen could go to traffic court the next day, September 9th. Then on September 9th, you heard that Mr. Killian went to Chad Mullen's house, picked up his truck, but Chad Mullen wasn't there, or at least didn't see him at the property.
(01:05:07)
Continuing with this outline of events, again, I just want to just briefly touch on some of these main events that were discussed through testimony or that you saw through physical evidence. So September 9th, the defendant calls Mr. Mullen after 8:30 PM. She lures him to her house under the guise of working on the relationship. She picks him up at his house and drives him to her property, Stormy Stables. Now remember, Chad Mullen didn't have his truck. He didn't have a truck, he didn't have a vehicle. So the defendant picked him up. Defendant drove from her location in San Mateo to pick up Chad Mullen to bring him back to her house. He didn't go to her property. He didn't drive there. She picked him up. And then on September 9th, sometime around 9:30, Mr. Mullen was killed. And I'm going to tighten that time period up in a minute, but just for this purpose, right around 9:30, the defendant kills Mr. Mullen.
(01:06:18)
Afterwards, on September 9th at 9:35 PM, so within minutes of killing Mr. Mullen, defendant calls a friend of hers, Michelle Roberts, 386- 937-7654. She was on a cruise at that time. She reported that or testified that the defendant was crying. She was hysterical. She couldn't understand really what she was talking about and she was worried. But since she was on a cruise, there's nothing she could do for the defense. So Ms. Roberts contacted her cousin, Tina Marie Ellis, to see if she could check on the defendant. Now, September 10th, 2024 at 1:30 PM, Mr. Mullen's Find My Phone app pings for the last time where his phone was located or where it was last located. And that was at the defendant's farm, 465 San Miguel Road, September 10th, 2024 at 1:13 PM. And we saw the Find My Phone app screenshot. And again, there's the defendant's farm to the right. And the Find My Phone app documents that his phone was last documented at that location, September 10th at 1:13 PM.
(01:07:44)
So continuing with the outline of events on September 13th, 2024, this was a Friday, defendant went to Sean and Angela Russo's house. She's crying. She's frantic. Mr. Russo testified the following. He said defendant said she knows Mr. Mullen's dead, but he came back. She asked him what would they do if someone touched their child and if she had a right to punish him for what he did to her daughter, referring to Chad, Chad Mullen. She then said after she was told, you don't have a right to react in such a way or harm someone if you believe they harmed your child or harmed you. She then said, she's not punishing his soul, she's punishing his body. Well, not only did Sean Russo tell you this, this interaction that they had with the defendant on April 13th, five days after the defendant killed Mr. Mullen, but his wife testified essentially a mirror image of what her husband testified.
(01:09:01)
She testified that, again, the defendant asked her what she would do if someone touched her child and Ms. Russo said she would effing kill them, but you can't do that. You can't do that. Defendant then asked her, "Don't I have a right to punish someone for touching my child?" And one thing the defendant never said and both Mr. Russo and Angela Russo testified that the one thing the defendant never says is that she was acting in self-defense or that Chad Mullen was attacking her that night. She never said that to either one of them. Again, five days after the murder, this was a older couple who opened up their home to defendant and her daughter in a time of their need. Defendant treated Angela Russo as a confidant, someone that she could speak to and discuss what's going on in her life with. What would their motivation be?
Speaker 12 (01:10:00):
... life with. What would their motivation be to come to court and give false testimony against the defendant? Why would they come up here and say and just make up that defendant never told them she was acting in self-defense? What would be their motivation to do that? This is a couple that opened their house up to the defendant, opened their house up to her daughter. September 15th, 2024, Kelly Stronso reports Mr. Mullen missing. So Kelly, Ms. Stronso was the mother of Chad's daughter, Holly Mullen. And she testified that on September 15th, friends and family weren't getting return calls from Mr. Mullen. No one knew where he was, so she reports him missing to law enforcement.
(01:10:52)
Case is assigned to Lieutenant Fussell, at the time, Detective Fussell, back on September 17th, 2024. This was a missing person's case at this time. They didn't know what the situation was. They didn't know if anyone was alive or dead. It was a missing person's report. At this point, they need to start investigating to figure out where is this person. On that same day, Lieutenant Fussell goes to where defendant's core stables are located at 465 San Mateo Road. After learning that she used to date or had a relationship with Chad Mullen, so of course you're going to go to the people, someone's house or contact someone that has a close relationship with the missing person, and that would've been the defendant. And then by the very fact that he was provided information of this Find My Phone app, which last pinged on September 10th at the defendant's farm, naturally he's going to go to that location.
(01:11:53)
He also goes to Chad Mullen's house. Property was messy, but no signs of foul play, nothing suspicious to him when he went to the location. And that's when he meets, that same day he meets with Mr. Killian. And Mr. Killian tells him about receiving a call from Mr. Mullen September 8th about his truck breaking down at Green Cove Springs and how he'd loaned him his truck so he can go to traffic court the next day. September 18th, Lieutenant Fussell met with Angela Sean Russo and they both told him what happened, their interaction with the defendant on September 13th, how she was crying and upset and said that Mr. Mullen was dead.
(01:12:43)
On September 20th, Lieutenant Fussell is involved in search warrant execution on the defense stables at 465 San Mateo. At that time, again, this is a missing persons case. There's nothing that they realized or knew at the time what they observed at the stables, what they took pictures of, nothing at that time was real evidence or anything that was obvious to them what's going on here. But they did document inside the defense barn all the nets and straps, all the horse riding regalia and tools involving horse riding, which those pictures certainly show that defendant had access to all these types of straps and ropes and cords that were used and found with Mr. Mullen's body ,that were used to drag his body and eventually bury him. But this is where she got all these items from, from her barn.
(01:13:50)
So this is the front of the defendant's property at 465 San Mateo. You can see the two barns in the background, the barn to the left, barn to the right, a picture from the back of the property looking towards the barns. One of the two ponds that were on the defendant's property, picture of her truck, her phone number written clearly on the side, 386-466-4049. And again, those pictures from inside the barn, they didn't know the significance of these pictures at the time, but it documents all the straps, all the horse riding type of instruments that are hanging inside her barn.
(01:14:49)
So these pictures also document another important fact, the missing red hook, which was found buried with Mr. Mullen's body and recovered on September 12th. That red hook that was found with Mr. Mullen's body was actually documented by the defendant herself and recovered from a download of her Google account where her videos and her pictures that she took on her phone were saved in this Google account. And what's important is those pictures and video, that red hook that the defendant captured herself when she took pictures inside of her barn sometime earlier, we don't know when, but sometime earlier, and that red hook was found September 12th with Mr. Mullen's body. When law enforcement executed that search warrant in September, that red hook was not hanging on that wall. It was missing.
(01:15:49)
So here's the defendant's video of that red hook hanging on her barn or inside her barn and pay close attention to that cabinet right below. So I'm going to show you something in one of the search warrant pictures. So that red hook again that she captured hanging on the inside of her barn, same red hook found with Mr. Mullen's body, there it is in her video, missing when law enforcement conducted the search warrant in September. That's that same cabinet. I'll go back. There's a cabinet a little bit different angle. There's that same cabinet, the red hook above, this is the law enforcement search warrant picture. It's missing.
(01:16:44)
A couple of feet back, different view, still missing. And then from the opposite end of the barn, looking straight forward towards the back of the barn, again, there's that same cabinet, red hook is missing. There's the red hook found with the victim's body at Hastings Farm. On September 21st, Kenneth Waddell... Kenneth Waddell, who is the father of, at the time, the defendant's five-year-old daughter, received a call from the defendant days earlier, right around September 13th, I believe. And she told him that she's being investigated for this missing persons case. And during this phone call, the way the defendant was acting, Mr. Waddell started getting concerned. And he decided to drive all the way down from Illinois to Palatka to be in town so at least he can be there for his daughter if something happened, if she was taken into custody, that at least he can be there to take the daughter.
(01:18:04)
He rented the hotel room that night on September 21st and invited the defendant and the five-year-old daughter to stay with him. When she shows up, she appeared upset, like she hadn't slept for a while. And for the next three days while she's staying with Mr. Waddell, she starts revealing what happened to Chad Mullen and what she did. And if you recall, when he testified up there, he told you that she told him, that she confessed that she killed Mr. Mullen on her farm behind the barn. Earlier on the night, she told what happened was she lured Mr. Mullen by calling him to say that she's picking him up and that she wanted to talk to him about their relationship. At the farm, she shot Mr. Mullen twice. After the first shot, the gun jammed.
(01:19:09)
And he told you that she said that she told him that as she's working to unjam the gun, Mr. Mullen's looking up at her, staring at her, a stare that she will never forget. And then she shoots him again. And she told Mr. Waddell that she used a nine millimeter. She told him that you wouldn't believe the role her horse Stormy played in dragging the body to her truck. She told him that a friend helped her conceal the body and was first placed in water. And she told him she did this because she believed Mr. Mullen abused their five-year-old daughter, allegations which were unfounded.
(01:20:07)
So two important takeaways from this confession to Mr. Waddell. She told him, "You'll probably be the one to put me in prison." And number two, at no point did she ever tell Mr. Waddell that Chad Mullen attacked her, came after her, or that she was acting in self- defense. Never told Mr. Waddell that. One more takeaway from Mr. Waddell's testimony, and you heard this on rebuttal. He testified that defendant was actually experienced with guns. She kept them on the property, they actually kept him on the property, that they would occasionally shoot in the back of her stables and that she had experience loading, unloading, cocking, and un-jamming firearms.
(01:21:06)
One more important takeaway I want you to keep in mind with Mr. Waddell's testimony. On September 23rd, Lieutenant Fussell interviewed Mr. Waddell. He told him everything we just discussed. He has been consistent every time he's relayed this story. He told this story to Lieutenant Fussell prior to any knowledge about a reward or Crime Stoppers reward. But one more important fact about the story that he told Mr. Fussell or Lieutenant Fussell. He told this story and he told Lieutenant Fussell that the defendant told him she used a nine millimeter firearm. And this was long before FDLE determined that the caliber of the projectile fragments pulled from Mr. Mullen's body were consistent with nine millimeter rounds. This was long before FDLE made that determination.
(01:22:17)
September 30th, 2024, Lieutenant Fussell receives the cellular phone records from Mr. Mullen's phone. He plots the GPS points and discovers that on September 10th after 3:00 AM, Mr. Mullen's phone travels as far east as State Road 206 and I-95 in St. John's County. It then passes through the intersection of 206 and US-1 around 3:45 heading west on SR 206 back towards Putnam County. Well, when he looked at the license plate reader camera that was located at 206 and I- 95, right around this time period corresponding to the GPS coordinates on Mr. Mullen's phone, he saw a white GMC SUV with tag number NHQR17 pass through that intersection.
(01:23:22)
And then around the same time or sometime afterwards, that same SUV is heading west through State Road 206 and US-1. Now he wasn't able to preserve the license plate reader from 206 and 95, but he did preserve the video from 206 and US-1 right around 3:47 AM. And if this works, we will see again right around 3:47 AM, just a little bit after we see a white GMC SUV pull up to the intersection of US-1, 206 heading west on 206. And this white SUV, when he ran the tag, came back to Tina Marie Ellis who lives at 131 Pine Street.
(01:24:36)
Law enforcement conducted a search warrant at that location, Tina Marie Ellis's house, 131 Pine Street, documented the white GMC SUV with NHQR17 tag sitting in the driveway and they seized it. So on October 28th, 2024, acting on a tip, biggest break in this case, Lieutenant Fussell and K9 Officer Vore searched the property of Burns Farm at 880 Hastings Federal Point Road where they discovered Chad Mullen's body buried under a mound. We have pictures from that farm in that location. Again, this is a rural area of the county and a rural section of the farm. It's an overgrown area, a rundown house that's sitting off the street. This is a road that no one would really have any business driving on unless they had business at the farm or lived off that road, especially not early hours in the morning, 12:00 to 4:00 or 5:00 AM.
(01:25:46)
In this picture we see as they're excavating Mr. Mullen's body, start revealing all the straps, the ropes, the nets, the red hook. You can kind of see to the right of the picture and a cinder block attached to his body. In this picture, we can clearly see the tribal tattoo on Mr. Mullen's left arm matching the live picture from Mr. Mullen. October 30th, 2024, the medical examiner identified the body belonging to Chad Mullen based on his tattoos. She testified that the body had moderate to severe decomposition. With the body were the straps, propel netting, the red hook, cinder block tied to him. Mr. Mullen had two entrance wounds consistent with two gunshots, which is consistent with what Mr. Waddell told you, two gunshots. One to the right shoulder and second one that entered the left arm and then eventually entered the chest. Both rounds perforated both the one round hitting the right lung, left side round hitting or perforating the left lung.
(01:27:29)
Fragments from those projectiles were recovered, three fragments in total, one from the right lung and then one from the left chest cavity and the left lung. And it was Dr. Lesnikova's opinion that both gunshots would've caused significant hemorrhaging and the death of Chad Mullen. Here we have the x-ray. We have the three projectile fragments. You have two of them that are just on either side, looks like in this radiograph or this x-ray of the spine. And then if you look at what would be the left side of the body, the fragment that's embedded just by the rib cage. And these were the three projectiles, the one from the fragments of the projectiles, one from the left chest wall, one from the left lung and one from the right lung.
(01:28:29)
She also documented all the straps, all the ropes, the netting that was used to bind Mr. Mullen's body. I would submit to you that helps someone to move the body. You bind the body, you tie it up, you make it tight, easier to move. Even a young woman who weighs much less than Mr. Mullen, it makes it easier for her to then attach it to a horse or what she claimed was an ATV and to move that body. There's a picture of the red hook, picture of the purple netting, which you saw in person in the court.
(01:29:13)
November 4th, 2024, Lieutenant Fussell received the data from the defendant's Google account, which includes pictures inside the barn. We talked about that. We showed those pictures. Those pictures also document that she had access to netting on her property as she kept it as a typical for inside of a horse barn. On November 6th, 2024, Lieutenant Fussell received screenshots of text messages between Tina Marie Ellis and William Burns where they discussed Ellis using a skid steer on September 12th, 2024. However, she wasn't using it to build a parking place. She was using it to bury Mr. Mullen in shallow grave. Here's the text messages I highlighted Thursday, September 12th, 1:57 PM. This is Tina Marie Ellis's phone number, 386-336-5446. And then to your far right, I highlighted she texted Mr. Burns, "I like your new Bobcat. It's nice. I used it for my parking spot." We know she didn't use it for a parking spot.
(01:30:24)
She used it to bury and conceal Chad Mullen. So on April 25th, Mr. Killian and his girlfriend took over the maintenance of Stormy Stables. So after this case was pretty much wrapped up, approximately six months later, Mr. Killian testified that him and his girlfriend took over the maintenance of Stormy Stables. And as they were kind of cleaning up the property, they locate behind the barn Chad's ID and bank card. This was behind the main barn to the left. So there's that barn to the left, if you remember the left of the picture where these cards were located. And that's important because that's not consistent with where the defendant claims she shot Mr. Mullen on the side of the barn. These cards were located behind the barn, which would make sense. If you're going to plan someone's murder and commit that murder, you're going to do it further away, further in back of the property behind structures, behind anything that might conceal what you're doing if someone's driving down the road. I'm going to just briefly, I know we spent a long time yesterday on the cell phone mapping evidence and historical cell site data. I do want to touch on that a little bit before we begin to go into that. Again, here are the numbers that are important. You have the defendant's numbers, phone number, Chad Mullen, Tina Marie Ellis, and Michelle Roberts. First of all, I want to talk about just the number of phone calls that the defendant made to Chad Mullen between September 2nd and September 9th. So between September 2nd and September 9th, and we saw the condensed record of this activity from the defendant's phone records, the defendant calls Chad Mullen between those dates a total of 26 times.
(01:32:27)
After 8:33 PM September 9th, she calls them zero. Here are those condensed phone records, the 26 times between September 2nd and September 9th, she, the defendant, calls Chad Mullen. And we expand these records a little bit more and include additional events. So between September 2nd and September 9th, the number of times Mr. Mullen and the defendant either called each other, attempted to call each other, or texted each other. We expanded out to that many times in those many events between the 2nd and 9th, there are a total of 89 attempted calls to texts between the defendant and Chad Mullen between September 2nd and September 9th. After 8:33 PM, September 9th, it's zero.
(01:33:25)
Obviously, calls and texts stopped because just after sometime around 9: 30 PM on September 9th, 2024, the defendant shot and killed Mr. Mullen. So just kind of briefly going over the cell site history and that activity and the mapping involved. So this is a legend, and again, just kind of documenting the four properties that are important in this investigation. You have Chad Mullen's residence, kind of upper middle, and it's in red. You have Burns Farm in the middle more towards the right of the screen in blue. And bottom middle, you have the defendant's residence or farm in yellow and Tina Marie Ellis's residence in green.
(01:34:15)
In this slide, we have the time period on September 9th, 2024 between 8:00 and 8:30 PM. And during that time, right around 8:16 PM, you can see the defendant's phone is moving towards Mr. Mullen's house. Mr. Mullen's house is in red. The defendant's house or farm is yellow. So her phone is moving towards that location towards Chad Mullen's residence right around 8:16 PM. By 8:25, her phone is nearly at or is at Chad Mullen's house. Our next slide, between 8:30 and 8:59 PM, what we see is that right around 8:48, both the defendant's phone and Mr. Mullen's phone are now moving south towards the defendant's residence in the yellow house. They're moving south. You can follow those red arrows as they're moving, and that's right around 8:48 PM. So she's already picked them up. They're now driving back towards her house.
(01:35:29)
This slide between 9:00 and 9:30 PM, you again follow the red arrows. They're getting closer. Both the defendant's phone and Mr. Mullen's phone are getting closer to the defendant's farm at 465 San Mateo. Between 9:32 and 10:30 PM, so at 9:32, both phones, both the defendant's phone and Chad Mullen's phone are pinging right around the area of the defendant's farm at 465 San Mateo Road. But at 9:42 PM, only the defendant's phone moves and her phone begins moving west towards Tina Marie Ellis's house, which you can see in green. Only her phone moves. Chad Mullen's phone's still near the property. And I would submit to you that this gives you the time period of when Chad Mullen was shot and killed. I would submit to you that the defendant shot and killed Chad Mullen sometime, give or take, 9:30 to 9:42, because by 9:42, defendant starts leaving the property and Mr. Mullen's phone is left at the property. Between 10:30 and 11:59, we can see that the defendant returns to her property at Stormy Stables. Between 12:01 AM and 1:00 AM, you can see that both the defendant's phones and Chad Mullen's phone are pinging in the area of Stormy Stables. Between 1:00 and 1:56 AM, the defendant's phone is moving back towards Ms. Ellis's house right around 1:15 AM. At this time, Mr. Mullen's phone is traveling with her, and both phones are heading towards the direction of Ms. Ellis's house. At between 2:07 and 2:58 in the morning, now we have the defendant, Mr. Mullen and Tina Ellis's phone. All three phones are consistent with being at Tina Marie Ellis's house. So all three phones between this 2:07 and 2: 58 time period are consistent with being in the location of Tina Marie Ellis's house. Now, the next five slides, I'm just going to go through them, just present them quickly and then give some explanation.
(01:38:46)
But the next five slides starting at the time period of 3:04 AM and ending at just before 5:00 AM, so between 3:04 AM and 4:59 AM, those five slides document that all three phones are now heading northeast past... Well, at some point, drive by the location of where Mr. Mullen was buried at Burns Farm and continue as far east as State Road 206 and I-95. And then the phone start heading back west into Palatka and arrive in the Palatka area by 5:00 in the morning. And I would submit to you that it was during this two hour period of time between 3:04 AM and just around 5:00 AM that the defendant and Ms. Ellis were scouting the area looking for a place to hide or conceal or dump Mr. Mullen's body. It was during that period of time they were scouting. They weren't going to Burns Farm at four in the morning so Ms. Ellis could pick up the check. They were scouting a rural area that they could eventually dump Mr. Mullen's body.
(01:40:28)
The last slide I want to show you now, this is from September 12th, so three days after the shooting. And this is this three hour time period between 2:15 AM and just before 5:00 AM. So nearly three hours. This shows that both the defendant and Ms. Ellis phones are pinging in the area of Burns Farm. They're there for nearly three hours. Plenty of time for someone to use a skid steer, bury a body and cover it with a mound of dirt. I apologize, it's a little bit small print. I probably should have broken this up with a couple of slides, but let's just briefly talk about the defense testimony. It simply does not make sense. It's not consistent. It doesn't make sense. A couple of takeaways from her story. Keep in mind, she sat through a two-day trial, listened to all the witnesses, viewed all the evidence just as you did.
(01:41:35)
She heard it all before she told her story of self-defense. So she had plenty of time to prepare. That night from September 9th throughout September, she could have called law enforcement to report that Mr. Mullen attacked her or charged at her or did something to her, but she never did. But she also had three opportunities during that period of time to tell three different people that she was attacked by Mr. Mullen that night. She could have told Ms. Roberts on September 9th. She could have told the Russos on September 13th. She could have told Mr. Waddell between September 21st and 23rd that she was attacked, that she was defending herself, but she never did.
(01:42:29)
She claims that Mr. Mullen was verbally abusive and violent after they broke up, yet she called him 26 times between September 2nd and September 9th. That doesn't sound like someone who's scared or feels threatened by someone. She knew Mr. Mullen didn't have an operating vehicle on September 9th, that she drove to his house to pick him up, drive him back to her farm in a rural part of town, took him to the back of the property where no one else was around, very little lighting, and that's where he fixed her headlight. Does that make sense?
(01:43:05)
And then at that moment, right after he fixes her headlight, she decides to confront Mr. Mullen about allegations of touching her daughter. Does that make sense? Is that the time and place to do it? You're now going to accuse someone of a horrific crime, something that's probably one of the things that's going to invoke the most emotion from someone. You're going to accuse someone else of touching the child and she chooses that time, that location, that place to do it. She claims that after she confronted him, he got angry, pushed her against the truck, choked her. Yet miraculously, she was able to reach for a gun inside her truck and back him off. Yet he grabs a hammer and starts advancing towards her as she has a gun trained on him. She has a gun trained on him, backed him up, yet he grabs a hammer and starts coming towards her. Does that make sense?
(01:44:10)
She claims she shot at him twice. He fell to the ground. She got into her truck and left for Ellis's house. She then returns to the farm with Ellis thinking, "Well, Mr. Mullen probably left by now." Now keep in mind, she said Mr. Mullen fell to the ground after she shot him twice. Does she think she didn't hit him? Does she think it was just a simple flesh wound? He would just stand up, brush it off and walk away? Does that make sense? This is a grown woman, a woman who's raised a child, raising a child, runs a business and she testified that she wanted to call 911, yet she takes her orders from Tina Marie Ellis and was talked out of it. Does that make sense? She testified that she and Ms. Ellis drove around town three in the morning on September 10th-
Speaker 12 (01:45:00):
... Round town, 3:00 in the morning on September 10th, as far east as St. Augustine with Mr. Mullen's phone in the car. Does that make sense that they were out driving to pick up a check from Burns Farm from Ms. Ellis or just to visit with Ms. Ellis's boyfriend? That doesn't make sense. What they were doing at that period of time, they were scouting the area for a place to hide and conceal Mr. Mullen's body. Lastly, she testified she never reported to police that she suspected Mr. Mullen abused her child. And on cross-exam, she said the reason she did this, the reason she didn't report it to police is because she doesn't call the police over every little thing.
(01:45:50)
Does that make sense? This is just a little thing? An accusation of child abuse is just a little thing? I would submit to you that her story simply does not add up, does not make sense. She is not being truthful. On September 9th, 2024, this defendant formed a premeditated intent to kill Chad Mullen when she lured him to her property under the guise of talking about their relationship. She had plenty of time for reflective thought, had plenty of time to change course. She didn't. She also had plenty of time to change course after she shot Mr. Mullen once when the gun jammed. She had plenty of time for reflective thought, to change course, to stop what she's doing, but she didn't. She continued through her plans and she ended up killing Mr. Mullen.
(01:46:44)
With the help of Tina Lee-Ellis, she committed tampering with physical evidence involving a capital crime by altering, destroying, concealing, removing his body or the items that she used to transport his body to impair an investigation into where Mr. Mullen was. Where was he missing? What happened to Mr. Mullen? She did that to impair the investigation to prevent law enforcement finding out what happened to Chad Mullen and where he was buried. She then failed to report his death with the intent to conceal the death and alter the evidence or circumstances surrounding his death to law enforcement, the medical examiner, with the intent to conceal Mr. Mullen's death and the circumstances surrounding it. Again, she never reported to law enforcement that Mr. Mullen died, never reported to the medical examiner's office, and she hid all the evidence associated with that death to prevent anyone from finding out. When you've listened to all the closing arguments, when you go back to that jury room to look, to deliberate, you go through all the testimony. There's two days of testimony, a lot of testimony, a lot of physical evidence.
(01:47:52)
But after you go through all the evidence and you deliberate, we ask that you find this defendant guilty as charged. Thank you.
Speaker 14 (01:48:01):
Thank you. We'll take a brief recess.
Speaker 15 (01:48:06):
All rise and jurors exit the courtroom.
Speaker 14 (01:48:47):
All right. I'm figuring it'd be about maybe 10 minutes. They're probably [inaudible 01:48:51] in the restroom. So court will be in recess.
Speaker 15 (01:48:51):
All rise. Jury enter the courtroom.
Speaker 14 (02:14:39):