GA v. Lacy Boles Day 1

Judge Dean Bucci (23:49):

Mr. Steele is in the building.

Jason Treadaway (23:51):

[inaudible 00:23:56].

Judge Dean Bucci (23:55):

It has nothing to do with this case? Okay. Good morning everybody. The clerk tells me that a juror has called in and said that about 4:00 in the morning she started experiencing pains and she thinks it's a kidney stone and she needs to go to the doctor and she can't be here. I don't want to use her name, but I'll tell you. Let's see if we can identify this person. All right, so on the list she is the 39th juror, but the number assigned by the clerk is 85, first initial D, last initial G, so I could release her or I could hear from the attorneys. In fact, I'm soliciting input from the lawyers on what y'all want to do.

Speaker 1 (26:38):

Your Honor, can we just have a moment?

Judge Dean Bucci (26:38):

Of course.

Speaker 1 (26:38):

We need to talk about it.

Judge Dean Bucci (28:35):

Of course.

(28:35)
Y'all reached an agreement?

Speaker 1 (28:36):

We have, Judge. Thank you. We've agreed that we could replace that jury with the first offer of the judge. And we discussed that with Ms. Boles and she is amenable.

Judge Dean Bucci (28:47):

All right. That's what the court will do. The state agrees, right.

Jason Treadaway (28:51):

Yes, sir.

Judge Dean Bucci (29:12):

All right. Is there anything we need to take up prior to opening statements?

Jason Treadaway (29:24):

Not from the state.

Speaker 1 (29:24):

I don't believe so.

Judge Dean Bucci (29:28):

Okay. You ready for the jury?

Speaker 1 (29:29):

Ready for the state?

Jason Treadaway (29:29):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge Dean Bucci (32:01):

All right, jury please. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being here. Thank you for being prompt. I appreciate that. I'm going to start this morning by administering an oath. You don't have to stand, but I'm asking you to raise a hand to receive an oath. You shall well and truly try the issue formed upon this bill of indictment between the state of Georgia and Lacy Jolee Boles, who was charged as I read to you in the indictment and a true verdict give according to the evidence so help you God. You may lower your hands. I'd like to invite the state to give an opening statement.

Jason Treadaway (32:36):

I would respectfully go to the rule that we discussed.

Judge Dean Bucci (32:36):

Any witnesses that are going to testify other than a party will need to remain outside and not let anybody tell you what's going on inside the courtroom until you've been released after testifying.

Jason Treadaway (32:50):

Thank you, Your Honor. May I proceed?

Judge Dean Bucci (32:52):

Yes, sir.

Jason Treadaway (33:11):

All right. May it please the court, Your Honor, Mr. Steele, Mr. Lenial, Ms. Nerstein, ladies on the front row. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my name's Jason Treadaway. I represent the state of Georgia in this case, as you've heard. This is my opportunity to speak to you directly kind of about what this case is going to be about. I'm sure you're curious, you've heard the reading of the indictment. No details, no evidence, no pictures yet, so you're kind of probably wondering what is this all about? Of course, the indictment's not evidence. It just gives the people, the community, the jury, you, some issue to decide amongst yourselves that forms the issue to be tried by you, 12 people. The allegation is that Lacy Boles, this defendant in this courtroom murdered her husband, Daniel Akers on December 22nd, 2019.

(34:02)
And as I'm trying to think about how to talk to you about this case, what to say, what to highlight to you, I thought about something Mr. Steele raised in voir dire and I raised it as well. Mr. Cole raised it, this roller coaster type of relationship. Mr. Steele used the term roller coaster relationship. I talked about in voir dire, asked you questions, "Have you ever seen a volatile relationship?" I think Mr. Steele may have used the terms, "Hey, they loved hard and they fought hard." It was up and it was great, but when it was down, it was as low as it gets, just as bad as it gets. Start thinking about who can I compare these two people to, Dan and Lacy? And it's going to be important in this case, just important almost as to know what happened and for you people to decide what happened, it's going to be almost important for you to understand and come to know the dynamic of-

Jason Treadaway (35:00):

... understand and come to know the dynamic of Dan and Lacy. What happened? Who were these people and how did they get to this? And I started thinking about, and who were some other famous couples that we can characterize that were up and down, high and low, good and bad. Started thinking, well, Bonnie and Clyde, Bonnie Parker, Clyde Barrow, they got together. We know what happened to them. Their path together led to-

Speaker 2 (35:30):

Excuse me, Mr. Treadaway. Yes, sir.

Brian Steel (35:32):

I apologize. This is not an opening statement.

Jason Treadaway (35:36):

Okay. I'm going to need to take this outside the presence of the defense's request.

Speaker 2 (35:39):

Okay. All right. Well, I kind of gave you a heads-up that there might be a lot of in and out of the courtroom. It's starting a little sooner than I anticipated, but why don't we move y'all back into the jury room for just a brief moment? All right. I'll hear your objection.

Brian Steel (36:32):

I want to apologize to the prosecutor. I did not mean to interrupt, but Bonnie and Clyde, Your Honor, are notorious American outlaws. This is not argument at the end of the case. And they did crime sprees throughout the country during the Great Depression. I mean, none of that's symbol's... And that's why I objected. I did not object lightly. That's a terrible analogy to use with Lacy Boles on trial, and that's what my objection is.

Speaker 2 (37:16):

All right. Any response?

Jason Treadaway (37:17):

That's not a legal objection at all.

Brian Steel (37:17):

It's not open.

Jason Treadaway (37:20):

Sir, may I please respond to the court? It's my turn. Your Honor, I can't respond to objections that aren't legal in nature like... That's not an opening statement. That's not a legal objection. And I'm not going to continue a theme of Bonnie and Clyde comparison. My theme is going to be Sid and Nancy. So I'm moving on to Sid and Nancy and that'll be my central theme. But what I'm doing is comparing a well-known, I think it's a well-known couple who had a tumultuous relationship with each other, not getting into any kind of specifics or making a comparison and trying to say that this party, this defendant is exactly like these people, but I want people to identify this relationship as being extremely volatile. This relationship as being the best of times, the worst of times. A proper way to do that is just to give an example of two people in American history, Sid and Nancy, the late '70s that were together and about the same age as these participants.

(38:20)
It ended in tragedy as did this and it's a volatile relationship. Mr. Steel raised this whole theme in voir dire. He's asking a roller coaster type of relationship, a volatile relationship. Obviously that's a theme of this case on both sides.

(38:34)
I'm not talking about that Lacy Boles and Dan Akers committed a crime spurt. I'm not saying that. I'm saying they were involved in a very strikingly volatile relationship that ended in a tragedy. And that's perfectly acceptable to draw an analogy in opening statement when I show this is the evidence that's going to be before you that may remind you of these people.

Speaker 2 (38:56):

All right. Anything else?

Brian Steel (39:00):

My legal objection is it's beyond the permitted parameters of an opening statement. An opening statement is for the state to discuss not what the defense is going to show under Parker versus State, but only what the state evidence will show. There'll be nothing in this case that I know about that would introduce this analogy of Bonnie and Clyde or the other individuals. So that is my objection. And it's prejudicial under 403.

Speaker 2 (39:33):

All right. The state's going to overrule the objection and you can have a continuing objection.

Jason Treadaway (39:40):

Judge, I may as well get some other things out in the air since Mr. Steel raised some case that says I can't talk about what I expect the defense to show. That's outrageous. Part of my opening statement absolutely does. I anticipate bringing in what I think the defense will show. And I'll say that the defense has no burden to produce any evidence or present any evidence whatsoever. They enjoy the right of silence and the burden of proof belongs with the state and stays there. But I do believe I'm perfectly allowed to say I anticipate based on witness names and information that I've gotten before the trial, I certainly anticipate these people to testify. This is what I anticipate them to say by the defense. They may testify, they may not, but I anticipate Ross Gardner, Dr. Jamie Downs, Dr. Carol Terry, Dr. Eric Warren, all of these experts, this is what I anticipate happening. I don't believe that's improper either. So I'll save another objection and another evacuation of the jury and ask that this be raised.

Speaker 2 (40:42):

Well, there's nothing wrong with you saying this is what you expect the evidence to show.

Jason Treadaway (40:46):

Thank you.

Speaker 2 (40:48):

I don't think that was part of the objection.

Brian Steel (40:49):

It is actually the objection. May I have one moment, Your Honor?

Speaker 2 (40:49):

Sure.

Brian Steel (41:42):

[inaudible 00:41:42] Parker, P-A-R-K-E-R versus State. Excuse me. It's Parker versus State, P-A-R-K-E-R, 277 Georgia 43958 Southeast 2D 683. It's 2003 case. And it specifically states it's been cited several times since 2003. It's in division two, third paragraph. The purpose of the opening statement is to inform the jury and the court of the nature of the case and to give them an outline of the proof the party anticipates presenting. A prosecuting attorney's opening statement is limited to the statement of what the state expects to prove. Prosecutor may state what he expects his witnesses to testify to. Although Georgia has not specifically addressed this subject, a review of our sister states reveals that many courts prohibit any mention of the other side's anticipated evidence during the opening statement. The advocate is thus precluded from criticizing the attempted, excuse me, the anticipated proof of the other side or from discussing evidence that will be elicited during the cross-examination of the adverse witnesses.

(43:09)
In Georgia, good faith is a general test for passing upon the preliminary statement of the prosecutor to the jury as to what he expects to prove in a criminal case. Based upon our review of the record, it appears that the prosecutor had a reasonable basis for believing Parker would introduce an alibi evidence. The list of defense witnesses, including his mother and his sister, the mother was present in the courtroom. The sister was under defense subpoena to appear. The prosecutor stated on the record in pretrial discussions, defense counsel indicated to the state these witnesses would testify. However, the record also reflects that Parker failed to file the alibi notice. We find the situation here comparable as discussed in the court of appeals for the 11th circuit.

(43:54)
Then I'm skipping to Hall. The United States cites Hall versus State. That's wrong. United States versus Hall, 165 F.3d 1095 7th Circuit 1999. In Hall, the 7th Circuit also determined that the prosecutor had a reasonable basis for believing that Hall would introduce the alibi evidence discussed by the state in opening. Notwithstanding that good faith belief, the Hall Court held, quote, we have serious doubts as to the appropriateness of a prosecutor commenting on a potential alibi witness of a defendant. We believe it to be a rare situation where it would be appropriate for a prosecutor to comment on anticipated defense evidence because the defendant is under no obligation to put forward evidence of his or her own behalf. When the prosecution raises the specter of a flawed alibi and the defense chooses not to offer any alibi, it may well leave the jury with an unfavorable impression of the defendant. We agree, excuse me, with the Hall court that it is inappropriate for a prosecutor in a criminal case to discuss an opening statement the evidence she anticipates the defense will present at trial.

(45:04)
The criminal defendant is under no obligation to prove or disprove anything. The law is absolutely clear that the criminal defendant carries no burden of proof or persuasion whatsoever. That's my case.

Speaker 2 (45:17):

Okay. Any response to that, Mr. Treadaway?

Jason Treadaway (45:21):

Obviously it's a specific streamlined case when you're talking about a defensive alibi. If you're in opening statement as the state said, you say this defendant's going to produce a defensive alibi and here's why that defense can't be believed or can be undermined or should not be believed by you, and then the defendant chooses not to exercise that defensive alibi, that's a special circumstance in the cases he cited. And that's why each of the cases he cited dealt with alibi. But in nowhere in my 23-year career have I ever been limited into saying I anticipate the defense calling expert witnesses. I anticipate those witnesses will try to testify to X, Y, or Z.

(46:05)
And that's always allowed. I have a right to show not only what I believe the state's evidence will be but what I anticipate the defense evidence will be. There will be ample instruction to this jury that the defendant is under no obligation to admit any testimony or evidence at all. She enjoys the right to remain silent and cannot be held against her. But let's just be honest here. We've been served with notice of six very highly paid expert witnesses by the defendant. I have a good faith basis to believe that those witnesses some or all will be called in the defense side of the case because you don't go out and hire and pay $20,000 to witnesses like that and not call them. So I think that's a good faith basis that these witnesses will be called. They've provided us with CVs. They've provided us with synopsis of what their testimony would be, what their findings were in the examinations of the defense preparation of the case.

(47:07)
So I have a good faith basis they will be called and I believe I'm entitled under Georgia law to bring that up to the jury. Now I do so at my own peril because if I go into all these expert witnesses and what they're going to say and how they're going to help defend the case and the defense chooses not to call any of those people, well then I look like an idiot and Mr. Steel, Mr. [inaudible 00:47:29] can get up here and say, " What is this? We didn't call any of those people. What is it? What's the sham? What's he trying to sell you here? We didn't do any of that." Well, fine, but I have a good faith basis to tell the jury I believe that's what the evidence will be. Thank you.

Speaker 2 (47:44):

All right. Well, I'm looking at the case law that was just cited to the court, Parker versus State. Prosecuting attorney's opening statement is limited to the statement of what the state expects to prove. And as was just read, our sister states prohibit any mention of the other side's anticipated evidence during the opening statement. The advocate is thus precluded from criticizing the anticipated proof of the other side or from discussing evidence that will be elicited during the cross-examination of adverse witnesses. So I feel bound to that law and I'll sustain the objection and limit the state and opening to its evidence. And if that creates a problem for Mr. Treadaway and you need a few minutes to change your notes, then I'll give you a little time if you want it.

Jason Treadaway (48:53):

I don't want it.

Speaker 2 (49:04):

Okay. All right. Let's have the jury back.

Speaker 3 (49:04):

[inaudible 00:49:13].

Speaker 4 (49:04):

[inaudible 00:49:20].

Speaker 2 (50:08):

All right. Welcome back. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Treadaway.

Jason Treadaway (50:13):

[inaudible 00:50:13] please the court again, Your Honor. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience. I was at the analogy of some people, some star-crossed kind of people, star-crossed lovers who would experience the volatile relationship up and down, back and forth, positive and negative. And I talked about Bonnie and Clyde but really more appropriate type of kind of relationship is somebody that came across in my line last night as I was thinking about it. It's Sid and Nancy. You know Sid and Nancy in the late '70s, there was a band called the Sex Pistols. They were a punk band out of England. The bass player was named Sid Vicious and his girlfriend was Nancy Spungen. There's a movie about them. You may have seen the movie. It's called Sid and Nancy, but that's kind of a perfect example of two people who they loved each other and they loved each other really fiercely and really hard, but at the same time they were toxic to each other.

(51:13)
They couldn't persist. The relationship wasn't going to succeed. There were issues, mental health issues, dependency issues, anger issues, violence issues. And ultimately in 1978, Nancy was found stabbed in a Chelsea hotel room. Sid Vicious was there, but he said he didn't remember anything about it. He had been on some substances, he didn't remember anything about it. He was released on bail in New York City after Nancy's killing and he overdosed on heroin days later. That was the end of Sid and Nancy. But it gives you an idea of the two people that they were good for a while and they were as good as it could be, but then it went downhill and deteriorated quickly, deteriorated badly and it ended in tragedy. So that's kind of like a situation that you can look at two people probably never should have gotten together. And when they got together, it was everybody watching, it's kind of worried about how it's going to turn out.

(52:18)
So I want you to think about as this evidence comes for you, as the state's evidence unfolds before you in this case, think about these two people, their dynamics, their individual dynamics and their collective dynamics, how they interacted with each other. As I said, I respectfully believe it's going to be important and I submit to you that you really got to understand the two people to understand what happened and you decide what happened. We don't say what happened. Mr. Steel doesn't say what happened, you say what happened. That's your job and it's your job alone. You can say what happened and nobody will dispute it because you're the finders of fact. Judge is finder of law. He tells you what the law is and you have to follow the law and the instructions, but you're the finders of fact. You get to decide what happened here, what really happened in this case.

(53:06)
And for that, you'll render a verdict at the end of the case, a unanimous verdict about what did happen. Let me take you back to around the time of this murder. This is December 22nd, 2019. So a ways back, think about what was going on back then, December of 2019, December 22nd, 21st, 22nd, Christmastime, 2019, before COVID. COVID-19, people were kind of talking about it, people were getting sick, didn't know what it really was, but at that time, December, still didn't really know what it was. So I want to just orient you to the time period. If you remember back that far, it doesn't seem like it's that far back with COVID, but COVID's just coming on, just getting popular then and it's Christmastime. Dan and Lacy are married and lived in Braemill Court, on Braemill Court, 34 Braemill Court, I believe in Dallas. They lived together. They lived together with children at that location.

(54:07)
Now Dan was a hardworking guy, and you'll learn about him throughout this case. He was a local sheet metal union laborer. Good job. So he's a union laborer with a sheet metal company, local union 85, I believe, the sheet metal workers union. He would go to big commercial sites, hospitals, airport, warehouses, huge buildings to do sheet metal work when they were constructing new wings. Maybe you look at the Wellstar [inaudible 00:54:36] Hospital doing that huge wing on the back of it, doubling the size of it. You seen it with the cranes. The sheet metal workers union is probably doing that. It's that type of commercial heavy construction. So that's what Dan did. He had a good job. They were struggling, Lacy and Dan, not going to make it out like they weren't. They were struggling. Money was tight. Lacy Boles, the defendant, was a stay at home mom taking care of kids. Money was tight. Dan had a job at the hospital, not this hospital, Piedmont Hospital or Northside Hospital was kind of coming to a close and he was scheduled to go on to another job.

(55:17)
The moment he was murdered, his tools were actually still on the job at the hospital. He was going to transition into another job at the airport. But he was working and they were making it and they were making ends meet. They didn't have a lot of money, like all of us. They were watching their budget, counting their pennies and just making it work. Two or three kids, young kids, six year old son. Dan was kind of the quintessential, typical father. He coached his kids in baseball, he coached his kids in football. He was really active in their lives. All of his kids. He had kids with another marriage, another relationship. This defendant had kids with another relationship. So together they kind of made up a family, made it work with combined children and combined relationships from other people. So they were just doing what everybody would do, what anybody would do, trying to get by, trying to do the best you could.

(56:12)
Dan had just bought a new car, bought not a new car from a dealership, but he bought a car from his sister and brother-in-law, bought a used car to get back and forth to work. So he was looking forward to that, fixing that up, getting back to work. He was really looking forward to... The evidence is going to show, he was really looking forward to it. One of the last days he was alive, he was really looking forward to getting started with baseball with his son. Season's coming up early 2020, so December 2019. So baseball's going to be coming up, what, February, March, youth baseball, he's really involved with that. And actually one of the pieces of evidence we'll show you is that Dan, right before he was murdered, he went to his sister's house and he was getting a baseball club. So he was really excited to start the new season with his kid with baseball.

(57:05)
So that's kind of the scene. They were not rich people. They were just normal people trying to make it work, but their relationship was volatile. You'll see, for example, in this case, once you'll hear an audio recording in this case where Dan, he recorded one of their arguments. They would have explosive arguments and people would see these arguments. I'm sure some of you may have.

(57:32)
You may have seen people argue, married people argue. It happens, right? They hadn't been married very long, but they had been together a pretty long time. They've been together several years and then they made it official shortly before his death and got married. But Dan was actually involved in November of 2019 in a pretty bad argument with this defendant. And for whatever reason, he decided to record that on his phone and you'll hear that. You'll hear the defendant's own words or argument with him and he was just recording and we have that as a piece of his legacy to play for piece of what was left behind.

(58:09)
So I hope you understand and I hope you will understand and keep an open mind as this evidence comes before you of their relationship and how it was and having put these little pieces in front of you. Never lose sight of the type of relationship they had because that's important. So let me take you up to the 2019, excuse me, the December 22nd, 2019, basically 2021, 2019, excuse me, December 21, December 22, because Dan was murdered in the late early hours of, I'm sorry, December 22nd. So December 21st would have been his last full day alive on earth, but he was murdered shortly after it turned into December 22nd, 2019. So over into the early, early morning hours of December 22nd is when he was murdered. But take him to December 21st, 2019, basically his last full day on earth. Well, not surprising, Dan and Lacy are arguing.

(59:21)
Christmastime can be stressful as you know that. Christmastime can be a stress. You got to buy presents for the kids. You got to have something to give them. You got to get the tree, the house decorated, it costs money. So for two people living on a budget, it can be difficult. So Dan's kind of stressed and Lacy's stressed and they're arguing a little bit. Well, Dan buys one of the kids a pig. He buys one of the kids a little pet pig. It's called a mini pig or a miniature pig, like a potbelly type of pig. It's a pet. And this defendant, she didn't like that. So she didn't like that. Number one, she thought that that was too extravagant to give to one kid when the other kids didn't really get equal types of gifts. They didn't get equal gifts monetarily. They didn't get equal gifts of kind of a notable gift, like a little pet pig, and it's a big deal.

(01:00:15)
The other kids just maybe got money or gift cards, and this defendant, she didn't like that. She didn't care for that. "So hey, you buy this kid a pig, but the other kids get this. That's not right. I don't like that." So it kind of caused some friction. Then this defendant was concerned about how they're going to feed it. It's going to have a little pen. It's going to have maybe a veterinary care. It's going to have food at a minimum, but this stuff costs money. We're actually going to show you a receipt in this case. We're going to have somebody come testify from Tractor Supply over here at 278. You'll see where Dan, in the last few days of his life, he went and bought the little pig food.

(01:00:51)
So he was planning to have this little pig and have it in their lives as a pet. He's thinking ahead. He's thinking forward. He's thinking forward about his son's baseball game. So he's thinking about things that are going to outlast December 22nd, 2019, the last day of life. He's future thinking, that's what the evidence is going to show you. So they get into an argument. So Dan and this defendant, they get into an argument about this pig and some finance issues. So Dan goes out to buy some things at the store. No abnormality there. He goes out to buy some things at the store, get a few things that were needed in the household. He takes his six-year-old son with him and they're gone a long time. They're gone an amount of time that this defendant found unusual. She thinks it's unusual that they're gone four hours to the store when all they had to pick up was a few things.

(01:01:47)
And that sets this defendant off even more. She's not happy about that. "Where have you been? Why you take my son for four hours? All you had to do was go to the Dollar General, whatever. Where have you been? Why are you gone four hours? "And they get into it again, back and forth, up and down, positive and negative. They're back into arguing again. Now, there was evidence, there will be evidence in this case that this defendant said, Well, when Dan did get home from the store that day, his last day on earth, when he got home from the store, they got into a physical argument.

(01:02:23)
Now they're going to say this defendant says that they got physical. Of course, we don't have Dan's side of that because he's dead. But after his death, this defendant says they got physical. This defendant says to the police, "Well, he came up behind me, kind of put me in a bear hug. He kind of pushed me up against the wall and chokes me and took my phone away. He took my phone because he thought I was doing something with my phone that he wanted to look at and he took my phone."

(01:02:50)
And that's what this defendant said. So she ends up leaving. This defendant left the house and goes to her father's house. He has a car lot in [inaudible 01:03:00] , sells cars, used cars. So this defendant went to her father, doesn't call the police about this supposed incident, but he goes to her father and tells her father what happened at the car lot. There's no evidence that's going to be before you did. There was any choking marks, any bruising, any kind of physical injury at all, but this is what this defendant says after the death of Dan Akers. This what happened. He took my phone, he assaulted me, he got physical with me.

(01:03:32)
So at this point, Dan finally does come back home, comes back home again. And at this point, when he comes back home, now this is a home they're living, this is both of their homes. So Dan comes back home and the defendant said she got startled because she didn't expect Dan to be back in the home. Now, think about that. She says, "I was startled when he came back into the home. I didn't expect him back even though he lives there." She says she was startled and that he was back. The phone is returned. A little later on that day, a gentleman named Terry Lee, the father, this defendant's father, the car lot owner, he comes over and he has some McDonald's food for the kids, his grandkids. Right. He comes by a lot of Saturdays and he has McDonald's food for the kids, gave Happy Meal, nuggets, whatever for the kids.

(01:04:25)
They love that stuff. So he comes over, he does that. Now this defendant says that that really made Dan angry now. She says that made Dan angry that he said something like, she tells the police, he said something like, "We don't need your charity. We have enough money to buy our food. You don't have to give us food. We have food." And this defendant says that Dan kind of took offense that the grandfather was coming over giving the kids food because Dan wants to be known as somebody who can take care of his family financially, emotionally. So this defendant claims Dan didn't like that. Instead of joining in with the family little get together, we've got Terry Lee, the grandfather, the kids. We have this defendant, Lacy Joe Lee, Boles, and the kids, obviously the grandfather. Instead of joining in that dinner, that little moment, Dan just goes out in his car. The car, the old Cadillac he bought from his brother, I believe. So he kind of goes out in his car, just wants to be alone, goes out there, goes out in his car, and he's kind of danging out his car. The six-year-old is in the car at some point with him talking with him, whatever, and eventually Dan leaves. He leaves the house.

(01:05:39)
Terry [inaudible 01:05:41] still there, the kids are still there, this defendant's still there, but Dan leaves. Maybe he was leaving to cool off or just take some time. We don't know, but he left and eventually he ends up at 278 South. We talked about that in voir dire. I think everybody asked every panel, "You know this bar, 278 South." So Dan goes there and he's having a beer there, whatever, he's just chilling, just hanging out, looking at his phone, looking at the TV. And we know what he was doing there. We know what he was doing there because total crazy coincidence. One of his old friends from school, a lady named Hope Allen, hadn't seen Dan in a while, but had been a Facebook friend, kind of text back and forth sometimes. Hope Allen just happened to come into 278 South that exact same night. I mean, crazy coincidence. Think about it.

(01:06:42)
Here's Dan, he's at this bar and here comes Hope Allen. She hadn't seen Dan in a few years, but they've been touching back and forth because actually Hope Allen worked at the hospital. She's a nurse. She's going to come talk to you. She worked at the hospital that Dan was outside helping to expand, right? So he's up in the crane or up on the roof of the hospital and he's communicating with Hope Allen. "Hey, I'm here. I'm out here working." And Hope Allen's inside working. She's the nurse. So she had seen Dan and talked to him. She had talked to him recently and she sees him at 278 South. So she goes up to him, "Hey Dan, this is me. How are you?" She's going to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that during that visit when she had with Dan on that night, and this is 30 minutes before he's murdered, she's going to tell you 30 minutes.

(01:07:30)
She had known him for years. They grew up as kids together in the neighborhood. I think she had even dated one of Dan's friends, but she's going to tell you that she had known Dan for years and she's going to tell you it was the same old Dan. What was that? Happy-go-lucky, glass half full, jokester, prankster, happy guy, fun guy, life of the party. She's going to say, "When I sat down and talked to Dan, it's like we didn't miss a beat. I hadn't seen him in a while, but we picked up our conversation and our friendship. He's showing me pictures of his kids playing baseball. He's coaching. He's telling me this, he's telling me that." And she's going to talk to you about that. And she's going to talk to you about how he was, his demeanor, what he's like 30 minutes before he gets killed."

(01:08:22)
She didn't tell you that. So we don't have to wonder why because she saw him and she talked to him and she remembered him. Found out about six days later Hope Allen [inaudible 01:08:31] that he had been killed. She's going to tell you that she was shocked.

(01:08:37)
And she's going to tell you she reached out to the family and said, "Oh my God, I was just with him Saturday night, 278 South, December 21st. I was with him." So Dan's at the 278 with Hope Allen. Hope Allen said, "Want to get back to my people. It's good seeing you." Gives him a hug and I'll see you later. Keep in touch. And hope goes on to talk with her people and leaves Dan at the bar. He doesn't stay long. He leaves and [inaudible 01:09:07] home. He leaves and he goes to McDonald's. McDonald's on [inaudible 01:09:12]. You may know it. [foreign language 01:09:14] at Chevron. He goes to McDonald's, he goes there. We have geolocation evidence that you will see. We have the time he was there, you'll see it. The exact time he was there, exact time he left. It's all on his phone. You didn't learn a lot about cell phone technology in this case. Cell phone literally tracks everywhere you're at, tracks everything you do, everybody you talk to. In fact, when you take a picture or when you text somebody, you may not know this, you're going to learn in this case that if you text somebody, your phone even backs up the location of where that text was sent when you sent it. So it's amazing. And it tracked Dan's location at the McDonald's. He was at the McDonald's after 278 but before he went home. So Dan gets a combo meal or something. He gets a McDouble and some fries and a drink. It's-

Jason Treadaway (01:10:00):

... or something, he gets a big double and some fries and a drink, his combo and he heads home. His home's only about 15 minutes from there. 10, 12, 15 minutes from there. Lady from the sheriff's office is going to show you exact time. She's routed it out. She's mapped it out. And we're going to show you when he was at McDonald's and how long it would taken to get home. So he gets home.

(01:10:24)
Now, the first thing he encounters, now remember this is late. This is like 12:23, 12:30 AM. This is kind of late. Now we're in December 22nd that I told you about. Now we've rolled over to December 22nd of 2019. Now it's early Sunday morning at 2:78, late Saturday night, 11:30-ish. Now he's at home 12:23-ish on Sunday morning. Split-level kind of house, walks up the stairs. When you go in the door, you can go up to the main living area, you can go down to a basement, kind of a finished basement. Well, the first thing Dan Akers encounters when he goes up and goes in the door, he encounters a booby trap set by her.

(01:11:13)
She set a booby trap for the man. She took a Swiffer mop. One of these Swiffers you clean the floor with. She took it and set it up against the door real carefully, real gingerly, so that when he came home... Now this is a guy that lives there. He has a key and lives there, but she sets up this trap so that when he opens the door, it's going to knock over this mop and let her know that he's back. She's upstairs with the kids. She's upstairs in the bedroom area. Remember split-level. She's up there. He goes down to the basement. He's knocked over this Swiffer mop at 12:25 AM. "What is this? Whatever." He has his McDonald's. He has his keys. Didn't eat his McDonald's yet. Has it in his hand. He goes down to a basement. We'll show you all these pictures. Goes down some stairs, goes down to a basement, but he wasn't alone.

(01:12:26)
This defendant heard that Swiffer mop, her booby trap. It was effective. She heard he knocked it over when he came in and she heard it and sends a signal to her. So she walks down the stairs too. Dan's walking, he's got his keys, his McDonald's in his right hand, his keys to his left and he's got a hat. And this defendant, this person right here, she comes up to him. He turns around, faces her, boom. She shoots him in the face with a 22 caliber pistol that her father gave to them, her pistol. Shoots him one time in the face in the face, in the nostril. One shot, one shot over already aligned because that's all that was needed to kill him. Ambushed, executed in his own basement. Christmas tree upstairs, presents underneath, kids upstairs. She shoots him, graveyard dead in his basement. And that's how he has to go out. That's what she did. So she calls the police. She calls 911. You're going to hear that tape. That tape's going to be the first thing you hear in this case. It's the first thing out of the box. I want you to listen to it. That's what happened. He's dead on the ground, the floor. He's dead. You don't survive that, you can't. So he's not going to make it, right? She calls 911. I want you to listen to it. You can decide if you believe this emotion and this outrage and these emotional expressions that she makes on 911, you listen to it. You'll have to evaluate it to see if it was genuine or if it was part of the plan, part of the act. You listen to it.

(01:14:44)
Now police come out. There is blood on the scene. You unfortunately have to see this, okay? So you just prepare yourself now. There's going to be some bloody pictures. There's blood obviously where Mr. Akers was murdered. There's blood. Lost a significant amount of blood from this one head wound, his facial wound. There is blood going up the stairs and that can only be from one person that's from Lacy Boles, blood on her hands. She says, she tells police afterwards, "Hey, I tried to do CPR. I got blood, but he was just bleeding too badly. I couldn't do CPR." And you'll hear the 911 operator actually say, "Hey, can you go down there and help him?" And she says, "No, please don't make me do that." So she goes upstairs and you'll see blood on the handrail, blood on the wall, back toward up the stairs. She's got blood on her, according to her.

(01:15:41)
And it's obvious from the forensic evidence, there is blood. There's cast off-blood on the wall. Something was... Either a hand or something was kind of brushed aside. There was cast off-blood on the wall and you'll see that. There's swipe, it's called swipe blood or pressed blood on the stairway. There's blood on the front doorknob. There's blood on the front doorknob. Think about this. She, this defendant, had to open the door for the police when they arrived, the sheriff's workers, she had to unlock the door. 911 tells her to, "Unlock the door, turn on the light so that they can get there and get in and help you." So there's blood on the handle.

(01:16:10)
So 911 operator informs Paulding County Sheriff's Office there's a shooting at Braemill Court, 34 Braemill off Davis Mill, get over there quick. As you can imagine, it was a heavy police response. So they get there and they talk to Ms. Boles then and they say, "Hey, what happened?" And she had already told 911 what happened too. She says, "He shot himself. He shot himself." She says, "He shot himself. He committed suicide. He shot himself." The 911 operator asked her, "Where's the gun now?" Because one of their jobs is obviously to make people safe, make scenes safe. "Where's the gun now?" She says, "I just picked it up and threw it. I picked it up and threw it," what she says.

(01:17:08)
Police get there. You're going to hear from all first responders what they saw, what they encountered, what they noted, what they investigated, what they detected when they first got there, notes they made, incident reports they filled out. You're going to hear about all that. This defendant was not very helpful at the scene, you're going to come to know, because she was in such a state of turmoil, I guess, that she said she thought she was going to vomit, she's having this breakdown, this hyperventilation and the police decide to take her on to the Wellstar Paulding Hospital. She needs to be checked out. Her blood pressure, hyperventilation, whatever, she needs to go to the hospital.

(01:17:53)
So she goes on, this defendant goes on to the hospital and unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, at the hospital, she throws away all the clothing that she was wearing. She washes her hands, scrubs them on the industrial soap thing up there and throws away all her clothes. Those clothes are never found again because she throws them away. She washes her hands. No scientific evidence can be gathered from that now. Her hands have been thrown. Her clothes have been destroyed. So we don't know what evidence was on that, her hands or her clothing. But she says, "This was a suicide. He killed himself." And that's what she says. And originally in her first interview, "He killed himself. He shot himself."

(01:18:49)
Now her first interview, the first time she talks to the police, she says, "Well, I saw him come home. I saw him go down the stairs." One of the detectives is going to testify to you that the vantage point where she says she saw him, it would be impossible to see him. But anyway, she says, "I saw him come down and go down the stairs. So I followed him. I walk in the room, he just shoots himself. Boom. No words, no nothing. He shoots himself." That's what she says, right? Then she starts wondering about the location of that entryway. No exit wound. The bullet you're going to find out went in the nostril, traveled upward to the right and lodged in the brain, did not exit the skull cavity.

(01:19:36)
So she starts thinking about that and then she changes her story a little bit. She says, "Well, when I walked in there," this is different now. See, this is a different story. "But when I walked in there, he says to me, 'You can't save me,' or 'God can't save me,' or something and starts to commit suicide, starts to shoot himself in the head, face." And now she says, "I grabbed a gun and we kind of tussle over it." She didn't say that to begin with, but she says that, "We kind of tussle over it," because that's going to explain why someone would shoot themselves in the nose. So she comes up with that later.

(01:20:18)
So off this man's body goes on and off to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. It's taken away for analysis, autopsy, examination by a doctor down there at the GBI and the scene is still being processed and photographed. And you're going to learn a lot about how that scene was processed, the things that were actually recovered during the examination of the scene and the processing of the scene. And I wanted to kind of show you this, kind of an example of this defendant's suicide story, okay? Do you ever play this little game with your kids? Played it with mine a bunch of times. It's called Jenga. With these little blocks up here, make this little tower. Y'all have probably seen it. I got the generic version, Toys R Us. It's called the Jumbling Tower, but most of them are called Jenga. I think that's who created it.

(01:21:33)
So you build this little tower with these little pieces and the object is of the game, y'all have played it probably with your kids or at a party, object of the game is everybody has to take a turn and remove these little parts. Y'all know what I'm talking about. Let me move this so you see it. Y'all seen this little thing. So you have to remove these little parts. You might take out this part and you try to remove these parts so that the whole tower doesn't just collapse and the last person to remove one of the pieces and it collapsed, that person loses, Jenga.

(01:22:06)
Well, that's kind of like this defendant's suicide story, right? She tells them it's a suicide, right? And when she tells them it's a suicide, the little tower has just been built because she just tells them it's a suicide. So that little tower is solid. That suicide story is solid because they have no reason to think it ain't. They don't go in there and say, " Oh, you're probably just lying to us. You're probably murdered him." No, they believe her story. It's a suicide. They worked the crime scene as a suicide. That's what they did because that's the information they have. So when she comes out with that, the tower, the suicide tower, it's solid. It has all its pieces.

(01:22:52)
But then the medical examiner calls the police in Paulding County. Medical examiner says, "Something's not right about this suicide. Something's not right here." Medical examiner's the first person that you're going to hear about in this investigation that he kind of switches off a light. Something's not right here. Medical examiner finds no sooting and no stippling on the man's body, the head of the entry wound. No sooting, no stippling. If you're not in the guns, don't worry, you'll hear about it.

(01:23:34)
Sooting, when a, let's just call this is the projectile and this is the barrel on the pistol. When the projectile comes out of the pistol, that occurs as a result of an explosion in the pistol itself. There's an explosion. The bullet, you'll see the bullets. The bullet in this case, so the 22 caliber long rifle bullet. The bullet has gunpowder and a firing pin hits the shell of the bullet, the casing of the bullet, and that causes an explosion and the projectile leaves the barrel as a result of an explosion. It's propelled out by an explosion. Well, when there's an explosion, there's gases and other items that expel also with the projectile because it's an explosion. We've seen explosions on TV, boom, all this stuff goes everywhere and that's sooting, S-O-O-T-I-N-G, I don't say it very well. Sooting. What that is some of those gases and that unburnt gunpowder, that's going to come out and get on the entry wound or around the entry room if it's a contact wound, if it's a closed wound.

(01:24:44)
Of course, if it's a non-contact wound, it's several feet away, that sooting's not going to be there. But if it's a contact wound, someone killing themselves by shooting themselves with the nose, Dr. Lehman at the medical examiner's office, he is the medical examiner, been doing it for decades, he should see sooting, he doesn't see it.

(01:25:04)
There's another concept called stippling. Stippling is when little particles, not gases, but actual particles come out of the barrel of the gun and they hit the skin or clothing, whatever the surface may be, and they can actually cause an abrasion on the skin. They cause abrasion on the skin when they come out of the barrel and they can even embed themselves under the skin and it's also called tattooing. It's stippling or tattooing. They call it tattooing because when those particles come out and get under your skin, it leaves like a black implant, like a tattoo like ink. There's none of that on Dan Akers' face. Dr. Lehman sees none of that.

(01:25:44)
So now this story about suicide, contact wound to the... In fact, this defendant doesn't even say it's a contact wound. She says the defendant, excuse me, the victim pointed the gun at himself and shot himself, but it was close enough where there should have been stippling and soothing if you believe her version of it. And Dr. Lehman doesn't see that. He doesn't see sooting, he doesn't see stippling. So he calls the investigators in the case and he says, "Hey, there's some problems here. I need to know more."

(01:26:12)
He has three things he can do. Number one, he has to determine cause of death, okay? Cause of death, see cause of death's a bullet to the brain. That's cause of death. That's what caused the person to die. Manner of death is how that happened. He couldn't classify manner of death as accident. I'm walking with a gun, I'm not being careful, the safety's off, I trip, I shoot myself in the head, that's an accident. The cause of death is gunshot wound, but that's an accident. He could have called it an accident. He can call it undetermined. Dr. Lehman has the ability, he has the option to say, "I can't figure out what happened. It's undetermined." Or he can call it a homicide. So he's trying to figure out what the evidence shows and what it really is.

(01:27:02)
So he calls the investigators, the detectives, and he says, "Hey, I have some questions about this. Can you send me more information?" He's doing his job. "Can you send me more information? Can I get police reports? Can I get photographs? Can I get something about this guy's personal history? Was he struggling? Was he depressed? Did he have a history of mental health issues where he was committed to a mental hospital? Anything that would lean towards suicide?" So the Paulding County Sheriff's Office says, "Here's all the stuff we got. He wasn't depressed. He's coaching his kid. He's working. That's all we know. Here." They give it to him. So he looks at everything. Dr. Lehman, he looks at everything and he even takes his findings, he takes his opinions to a peer review board at the GBI. Other people that do the same thing as he does. He puts his findings for a peer review board. "These are my findings." And ultimately Dr. Lehman still rules this and classifies this as a homicide. "This is not suicide." Dr. Lehman says that, and he'll tell you in great detail why he says that.

(01:28:20)
So now it's classified as a suicide by the medical examiner. And now police, now they have to start looking at it a different way because they gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt first. It's a suicide, fine. Now they've got information from a scientific medical professional this is not suicide. It's a homicide. So now they have to go back and start looking exactly more carefully, exactly what they find, what they saw, what they found, what they saw, looking at the photographs. And then that's when this suicide tower starts to crumble. This suicide story starts to crumble, okay? And let me give you all the ways it starts to crumble.

(01:29:00)
They asked this defendant in the interview, the first interview, Detective Ogden, you'll meet him. He says, "Hey, was your husband right-handed or left-handed?" This defendant says, "He's right-handed." You're going to see a photograph, ladies and gentlemen, of this pistol that killed this man right beside his left hand, like he was planning it, it was right beside his left hand on the floor. And she says he was right-handed. So now you're expected to believe, ladies and gentlemen, he shot himself in the nose with his left hand. So then see, that's one of the pull pieces that's coming off. He's not left-handed, but the gun was put down by his left hand.

(01:29:57)
33 minutes later in the interview with this defendant, see, she's smart. She starts thinking about it. Over 30 minutes later, she changes her story and says, "Oh, he was ambidextrous. He could use either hand." Well, you're going to see pictures in this case where he has his watch on his left wrist, indicating most people are right-handed when they do that. You're going to see a picture of him doing some siding work with his cousin's house with a hammer in his right hand. You're going to hear his family members say, "He was right-handed. I grew up with him my whole life. He was right-handed." But this defendant says he was ambidextrous. He could shoot himself with his left hand, no problem. That's the first one.

(01:30:54)
The second one is this McDonald's bag. Now, the police are going to tell you, the detective's going to tell you that this is something that is disturbing, right? So detective's going to tell you that when this detective walked in that room and Dan Akers was laying there dead, this detective distinctly smelled the odor of French fry oil. Dan Akers had walked into that room and been in there such a short period of time with that McDonald's food that the detective could smell that french fry. And he looked down and he saw a cup from the drink in the McDonald's cup with the straw and then knocked over when it dropped to the ground. Ice cubes hadn't even melted. It was still sitting. And that's how quickly they got to the scene. But it's also important to know that's how quickly, how short amount of time Dan Acres was in that room before he was executed. The fry smell was there. The ice hadn't even melted. He didn't even have time really to do nothing but turn around. Boom. So another piece comes out. They watched it, I believe, or it is proposed to you that this man goes to McDonald's at about 12 o'clock, at 12:05 [inaudible 01:32:20] gets his last meal on Earth, which is going to be this combo meal, but doesn't eat it. He just walks into a room and within seconds he shoots himself. That's an alternate theory. Let's just put it that way.

(01:32:36)
Another problem with the suicide tower here, the structure is what about the holster? Remember we asked you some questions about holster, the one here. What about this holster? Defendant says, "Well, he must have carried that weapon," that pistol, even though it's hers. "He must have carried that pistol in a holster because after he shot himself, I saw a holster on the ground on the floor and I just grabbed it and ran upstairs and put it in a gun safe." Let me get this straight, make sure I get this. This man just killed himself in your presence, spur of the moment, no warning, he just kills himself. And your thought is to get this holster, camouflage holster, you'll see it, pick it up, remove it, go upstairs, go in the closet, go into a gun safe, put it in there and lock it. That's your response? "Well, I was upset. I wasn't really thinking." Okay. So if you weren't thinking, but you're thinking about secreting evidence away in the gun locker?

(01:33:48)
That's another little piece. And all of a sudden, this little suicide structure is starting to teeter. It's starting to totter. It's not as strong as it once was. It still may get by. It still may survive a high wind, but it's not as strong as it was. But there's more. But there's more. They say to this defendant, "Hey, did you wash your hands at 34 Braemill Court at any time after this suicide? Did you wash your hands?"

(01:34:21)
"Nope, never did. I didn't wash my hands at home. I washed my hands at the hospital, but I didn't wash my hands at home."

(01:34:28)
"You sure?"

(01:34:30)
"Yeah. Positive. Oh, yeah. I didn't wash my hands at home."

(01:34:36)
They take pictures of this defendant's bathroom and the sink is covered with blood. You'll see it. Not thick coagulated blood, but blood where somebody had washed their hands. It's drips of blood. It's drips of blood diluted by water where somebody had washed their hands. She said, "I didn't wash my hands."

(01:34:53)
"Well, there's blood all at the sink."

(01:34:57)
"Oh, you know what that was? I was on my period and that was my period." What? Go ahead and take a piece out there. That's what she said. That's her story.

(01:35:19)
Talking about that holster for a moment more, you're going to see that this was... We'll bring it to you. This is a holster that goes on a belt. You're going to see that we're going to show you Mr. Akers' blood clothing that he was wearing when he was killed. There's no belt, it's sweatpants, there's no place to put a belt. But this defendant claims, "Well, he must have had the gun in that holster on a belt, or he must have it in that holster because I found the holster and I put the holster in the safe. So that's where he was carrying it, I guess." Well, he has no belt. Is he carrying in his hand? Is he carrying the gun in the holster in his hand? Well, remember, he's got the McDonald's bag, but you're going to see that McDonald's bag drops straight to the floor when he was shot, he loses all control of his body motions. He can't hold him anything anymore. He's fallen backwards. He's dead. He's done.

(01:36:05)
That bag falls to the floor. So we got McDonald's bag right here. We got the keys over here, his car keys. So it seems to indicate that he was holding his car keys. They follow right there. Where was he holding this holster? It wasn't on a belt because he didn't have one.

(01:36:26)
And let's talk about a little bit more about that gun safe where this defendant hid the holster away. Police come back out to the house a couple months later and they want to do a search warrant. They execute a search warrant at the home trying to find that holster. They want to find it and want to examine it. Well, they find it. They go up and they find this gun safe and we're going to bring you the safe, you'll see the safe. But before they open the safe, they do a test on it. It's called a BLUESTAR test. You may have watched Forensic Files or crime scene show and another word for it is luminol, but in this county, BLUESTAR is a little cheaper, so they use a test called BLUESTAR, but this is the same. It comes in a squeeze bottle. They squeeze BLUESTAR and they spray it onto the gun safe that they found in this defendant's closet. They spray it with BLUESTAR.

(01:37:15)
BLUESTAR is a chemical that it's a reagent to the iron in blood. So the iron in blood will react to this BLUESTAR chemical and they can see if this gun safe has blood on it or has it had blood on it. Even if you clean it with bleach, you can see this blood react on this gun safe through this BLUESTAR if blood had been on it. No blood on this gun safe. Well, who cares? So what? Remember, she said she had blood all over her because she tried to perform CPR. So she said she had blood on her hands. There's blood going up the stairs, there's blood in the sink. She says, "I had blood on me." There's no blood on that gun safe, zero. Even though she said, "I grabbed that holster, ran upstairs, put it in that safe." There's no blood on that safe.

(01:38:08)
So they're talking to this defendant at her home during the execution of the search warrant. They say, "Hey, would you mind coming back and just talking to us and the police statement again? Can we clear up some more things? We had some more questions." She says, "Sure, I'll go." She gave three interviews, one written statement and two live interviews. She was cooperative. She had her story down and she was going to stick to it. It changed. It evolved. It matched the evidence evolutions, but it changed, it matched the evidence, but it pretty much was the same. She gave three statements.

(01:38:38)
So they asked her, "Can you come back and give a statement?" She says, "Yeah." Well, she grabs her keyring, keychain, bunch of keys on it, kind of grabbing it, holding it close to her. And they say, "You won't need your keys? We're going to drive. We'll drive you and we'll drive you back. It's a voluntary interview. If you don't want to go, you don't have to and we'll drive you there. You don't need your keys. We'll drive you to station and bring you back." And they say, "You don't need your keys. But speaking of keys, do you have a key to this gun safe? Because we know the holster is in there. You told us it was. Do you have a key to it?"

(01:39:09)
"Nope. I don't have a key. I don't have a key to that gun safe. I threw that holster in there on December 22nd, 2019. I haven't opened it since. I don't want to open it. I want nothing to do with that gun safe. I don't have a key."

(01:39:22)
But she's kind of holding these keys, big keychain, a bunch of keys, and a sharp-eyed detective who's trained to see things we may not see. A detective who's trained to notice things we may not notice. He sees a key on that keychain that he thinks will match this gun safe. He sees it, makes a note of it. Well, they tell her again, "You don't need your keys, we'll bring you back." She puts the keys down. That detective picks up the keychain. She said she didn't have a key to the gun safe. Turns the key and it opens right up.

(01:39:59)
Why would somebody lie about that? She had the key on her keychain to the gun safe. They open it right up. They get the holster, camouflage holster. They do the BLUESTAR testing on that holster. Same result, no blood on that holster. But she says she grabbed the holster and she was bloodied and went upstairs and put it in the safe. There's no blood on that holster either. Go ahead and take another piece away because that's just this whole suicide tower, this theory, it's being weakened worse and worse. Look, it's being weakened further and further and further because the pieces are falling apart. The foundation is falling apart.

(01:40:46)
She says that Dan, he must have had this gun. He got the gun two weeks ago for some reason. Dan's friends and workers, coworkers and family, they're going to come in here and tell you, "Dan never used guns. He didn't have guns. He's on probation. He wasn't even allowed to have a gun. He didn't go to the shooting range. He didn't carry a gun. We never saw him with a gun." But they saw this defendant with a gun. She went to the range and there's one episode that we're going to talk to you about, that witnesses are going to tell you about where they were having a party on a deck, having a get together with family and somebody was doing a prank and they make a big noise on the side of the deck and everybody gets kind of scared. This defendant went in and got a gun and came out with it.

(01:41:35)
So she knows guns. That's what the evidence is going to show you. She's familiar with shooting. Dan, he didn't mess with guns, but she says he must have been carrying this gun, but it belongs to her. 22 caliber high standard Sentinel pistol, a revolver. Her gun. Told you about that Dan had looked forward to baseball with his kids, looked forward to living, did the mundane things that we all do. And one thing that is important, you're going to find that that next Monday, had he been alive, he had an eye appointment at Walmart to get some new glasses. He had made that appointment. So you see the important part of that is going to show you through the evidence, this is a man who's just living his life. He's making plans for after December 22nd. He's making plans, future thinking forward plans. This is not somebody who's writing a suicide note. "This is it. I've decided to end it all. Thank you. See you later." No suicide note. This is somebody making future plans. Somebody that wants to be around. Think about this, think about this. Think about when you get to know Dan Akers and when his family describes him, and hopefully by the end of this trial you'll know him, you'll get to know him. Family man, he lives for his kids. And think about this person making a decision to kill himself at Christmastime in his own home. Think about it. He lives for his kids. That's his shining light. But he's going to kill himself on December 22nd so for the rest of their entire lives, their kids can think about, "Well it's Christmas again. That's when Dad killed himself." And he does it in his own home with them upstairs asleep. Think about that. Think about if that's likely, if that's reasonable to believe. For a variety of reasons, this case is old. It's almost seven years later she's free to walk before, it's a variety of reasons for that. And Dan's long gone. But as you listen to this evidence and as this evidence comes before you, Dan still has a voice. He still speaks and I hope he speaks to you because his voice will be through this evidence. His voice will speak to you when there's a pistol that she said she threw across the room that is conveniently or not so conveniently put by the man's left hand when he's not left-handed. So-