NC v. David Prevatte Day 8

Judge (06:35):

Do both of you have an opportunity to review the jury instructions again, State?

The State (06:40):

Yes, sir.

Judge (06:41):

Any corrections?

The State (06:42):

No, sir.

Judge (06:43):

Mr. Britt?

Mr. Britt (06:45):

No, sir.

Judge (06:46):

All right. There was one correction that I had on page nine, the very end of the first degree murder instruction. It read something to the effect of if you do not so find, then you wouldn't find first degree murder, but there wasn't any indication as to not guilty.

(07:11)
So, I've changed it to if you do not so find or have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. Do you see that?

The State (07:21):

Yes, sir.

Judge (07:34):

Okay. I did make some other minor tweaks. Page one, the fourth paragraph, believability of the witnesses and then in the final instructions because we have more than one verdict form, I pluralized the word forms. All right. Anything with regard to the verdict forms themselves? Any objections, State?

The State (08:13):

No, Your Honor.

Judge (08:14):

Mr. Britt?

Mr. Britt (08:15):

No, sir.

Judge (08:28):

What's your email address? Do you all want two copies or one copy? Jury instructions. Two copies? You can print out six copies, please.

Speaker 1 (09:09):

Six.

Judge (09:09):

Thank you. While those are printing, is there anything we need to discuss on behalf of the State?

The State (09:37):

No, Your Honor.

Judge (09:38):

On behalf of the Defense?

Mr. Britt (09:39):

No, sir.

Judge (09:40):

All right. You ready for your closing argument?

The State (09:44):

Yes, sir.

Judge (09:44):

All right. Mr. Britt, you're ready as well?

Mr. Britt (09:46):

Yes, sir.

Judge (09:48):

As far as when they're done, is there anything that you need to do to set up or anything like that?

Mr. Britt (09:54):

No, sir.

Judge (09:54):

Okay. You got through? You got it?

The State (09:54):

Yeah.

Judge (09:54):

Okay. All right.

Speaker 1 (11:48):

I just had to, because I haven't really logged on this computer, so I had to add [inaudible 00:11:55].

Judge (14:00):

Yeah.

(14:00)
Here, I'll take that one to the... You got it. I was going to give it to the court reporter. Thank you. If you can put that last one in the jury folder.

(14:21)
All right. State, ready to proceed?

The State (14:23):

We are, Your Honor.

Judge (14:24):

Okay. Let's go ahead and bring our jury in.

Speaker 2 (14:33):

Bring in the jury.

Judge (14:38):

Perfect, thank you.

Speaker 2 (16:08):

Jury seated, Your Honor.

Judge (16:08):

Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has entered the courtroom. Ladies and gentlemen, all of the evidence has been presented. It is now time for the final arguments of the lawyers.

(16:28)
At the conclusion of these arguments, I will instruct you on the law in this case, and then you'll be taken to the jury room to begin your deliberations. The final arguments of the lawyers are not evidence, but are given to assist you in evaluating the evidence.

(16:43)
The lawyers are permitted in their final statements to argue, to characterize the evidence, and to attempt to persuade you to a particular verdict.

(16:51)
It is improper for a lawyer in a final argument to become abusive, to inject personal experiences, to express a personal belief as to the truth or falsity of the evidence or to make arguments on the basis of matters outside the record, except for matters concerning which the court may take judicial notice.

(17:10)
A lawyer may, however, on the basis of the lawyer's analysis of the evidence, argue any position or conclusion with respect to a matter in issue. If in the course of making a final argument, a lawyer attempts to restate a portion of the evidence, and your recollection of the evidence differs from that of the lawyer, you are, in recalling and remembering the evidence, to be guided exclusively by your own recollection of the evidence.

(17:36)
Now, at this time we will hear the closing arguments from the State. Mr. Smith, you may proceed.

The State (17:42):

Permission to move about the courtroom?

Judge (17:43):

You may.

The State (17:44):

Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning. We began this journey together approximately two weeks ago. And we began that journey by talking about the function of the jury. What is your function? We talked a little bit about how you perform your function. We talked a little bit about the law.

(18:37)
Now we're going to talk and remind you what your function is. Your function, as we discussed and as the judge will instruct you, is to listen to the evidence. And we thank you for sitting here for the last two, two and a half weeks. Thank you on behalf of the State, and we thank you for on behalf of Paitin Fields. As you listen to the evidence and as you go back into the deliberation room, you're to determine the facts. You're to judge the credibility of witnesses. And I'll remind you, you can choose to believe all, none, or some of what a witness tells you.

(19:23)
We spoke about direct and circumstantial evidence, and I will remind you direct evidence is testimony from a witness that has direct knowledge of a particular fact. But circumstantial evidence, and we spent a lot of time on this, is a proof of a chain of facts leading to the guilt or innocent of that defendant.

(19:54)
We spoke about this. When you're analyzing facts, when you're judging the credibility of witnesses, you must not do it in a vacuum. You must analyze facts and credibility of a witness against all other believable facts in the case. You must analyze against all the other believable evidence in the case.

(20:21)
And we went through some of the examples of that, if you remember the rain analogy. And we talked about if you see someone walk in, and you have one fact, and it could be a possibility of something.

(20:35)
Then we added more facts to it, and that possibility, the first time or the first possibility, kind of went away because as you looked at all the facts, you were able to come up with a different conclusion. Possibilities versus reasonable.

(20:59)
You're to apply the law as the judge instructs you. You're to render a verdict, and you're not to be influenced by any potential sentence. That's your function. That's your function. Analyze the facts against all the other believable evidence. Apply the laws that we're about to go over. Render a verdict accordingly.

(21:25)
I'm going to remind you of the burden of proof. The burden of proof, the State is only required to present evidence that fully satisfies and entirely convinces you of the defendant's guilt. That's the burden of proof. It's not required to prove. The State is not required to prove beyond all doubt, and I told you this, that you're going to have some doubt. But is it beyond a reasonable doubt?

(21:53)
We're not required to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's no such thing as shadow of a doubt. Is the doubt based on reason and common sense? Is the doubt based upon reason and common sense? A reasonable doubt is not faint, and it's not fanciful doubt. We hold this to our burden. We don't hold this to more than our burden.

(22:22)
So, let's go through the law and you'll get a copy of the judge's instructions, and it will talk about the law and the instructions. But you're going to decide two charges, the first one being statutory sexual offense of a child by an adult.

(22:42)
And we talked about that in our criminal law, there are elements. And we must prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt each element. So, for statutory sexual offense, there's only three elements. The defendant engaged in sexual act with the alleged victim. Our courts have said a sexual act means any penetration, however slight, by an object into the genital or anal opening of a person's body.

(23:13)
State v. Lucas, our Supreme Court in 302 NC 342 says this, for a sexual act by penetration, any object encompasses human body parts, including things.

(23:27)
Second, we have to prove that the victim, Paitin Fields, was a child under the age of 13 years. Lastly, the defendant was at least 18 years of age. There's only three elements. There's only three.

(23:45)
When we talk about penetration, our Supreme Court in State v. Johnson and our Court of Appeals in State v. Bellamy have said that in the context of rape cases, evidence that the defendant entered the labia sufficient to prove the element of penetration. And the court of appeals in State v. Bellamy went further and said, "We find no reason to establish a different standard for sexual offense." Penetration of the labia.

(24:17)
So, let's go back. Defendant engaged in sexual act with an alleged victim. A sexual act means any penetration of the labia, however slight, by an object into the genital or anal opening of Paitin Fields. Any object encompasses any object, including human body parts.

(24:43)
The second charge that you're going to consider is first degree murder, and we discussed this. There are two ways to prove first degree murder. The first is by premeditation deliberation. The second is felony murder, and we'll take these one at a time.

(25:04)
You may find the defendant guilty of murder either based on malice, premeditation or deliberation. We'll start there. There's five elements. Defendant intentionally and with malice killed the victim with a deadly weapon. Defendant's act was approximate cause of the victim's death. The defendant intended to kill the victim. The defendant acted after premeditation, and the defendant acted after deliberation.

(25:33)
So, let's take each one separately. Malice means this, and the judge will instruct you on this. Malice means ill will, hate or spite. It also means a condition of mind which prompts a person to take the life of another intentionally or to intentionally inflict serious bodily harm, which proximately results in death without just cause, excuse, or justification.

(25:59)
Malice. The condition of mind that prompts a person to take a ligature, wrap it around a five-year-old's neck and squeeze until she dies. That's malice.

(26:20)
Premeditation. Premeditation means you formed some intent over some period of time, however short, before the act. We talked about this in jury selection. Some would say, "Well, I need... It's a plan." You don't have to go into a particular situation with a plan before you form premeditation. It can be over some period of time, however short. I would contend that when you wrap a ligature around a five-year old's neck, you've begun your premeditation. I would contend as you squeeze for minutes, you are continuing to form your premeditation. I would contend you lay a little girl back on the sofa, whether you knew she was dead or not, she continued to suffer.

(27:29)
But as you're doing it, as you're squeezing, as the ligature is being placed around her neck, as you're cutting off blood flow, you're forming an intent to kill over some period of time, however short.

(27:49)
Deliberation, you have to act within a cool state of mind. Intent to kill was formed with a fixed purpose. Again, we go back to it. It's not some suddenly aroused violent passion. There was a conscious decision to place a ligature around a five-year-old's neck and squeeze.

(28:09)
And you've heard from multiple experts that said, "We believe it wasn't just squeeze. It was squeeze, release and squeeze due to the amount of petechiae or petechiae, in her face, her eyes, her gums, her scalp, everywhere above the ligature mark."

(28:36)
Fixed purpose. So, how do you prove it? Paitin isn't here to tell you how it happened. Paitin isn't here to tell you how it felt. Paitin can't tell you with her own voice what was said before and during.

(29:01)
So, you must look at circumstantial evidence. Look at the lack of provocation by the victim. A five-year-old? A five-year-old? What provocation is there for a five-year-old to place a ligature around her neck and squeeze until she's dead?

(29:24)
Conduct of the defendant before, during, and after the killing, and we'll get to this later when we talk about the defendant. Use of grossly excessive force. You placed a ligature around a little girl's neck, and you squeezed for minutes. And experts would say you let go, and you squeeze for minutes. Is that grossly excessive?

(29:49)
First of all, placing a ligature around a little girl's neck and squeezing is grossly excessive, but sitting there and releasing and doing it again, absolutely it's grossly excessive.

(30:02)
Brutal or vicious circumstances, the killing. What's more brutal than squeezing the life out of a child?

(30:15)
Manner and means by which the killing was done. It takes some thought to reach over and grab a ligature. It takes some thought to take the ligature and wrap it around the neck. And it takes some thought to release and squeeze.

(30:46)
So, if we go back and look at premeditation and deliberation, do we have malice? Yes. Do we have proximate cause? We didn't get into that. You've heard three experts talk about what caused her death. Do we have someone intending to kill the victim? What's the other reason for placing a ligature around somebody's neck and squeezing? Cutting off the blood flow.

(31:19)
Was there premeditation, no matter how short? And was it done with fixed purpose? The answer is yes to every one of those. The question you're going to have to answer, was it the defendant? And we'll get to that.

(31:38)
For those five elements, Paitin Fields was intentionally killed by strangulation. The question we'll have to answer is was it the defendant?

(31:57)
So, the second way we can prove this is under the felony murder rule. And if you remember, we spoke about this in jury selection, that during the course of a dangerous felony, you kill somebody.

(32:13)
And we used the example of a robbery, but let's look at this case. There's three elements. Defendant committed statutory sex offense of a child by an adult, that while committing the felony, the defendant killed the victim with a deadly weapon. The defendant's act was approximate cause for the victim's death.

(32:40)
Again, proximate cause is not an issue. You've heard from three experts. Paitin was killed by strangulation from a ligature. She was killed with a deadly weapon, the ligature.

(32:56)
Is there any question that she was sexually assaulted? Not a bit. You-

The State (33:00):

Sexually assaulted? Not a bit. You heard from a critical care doctor who said his nurse said, "Doc, there's something wrong." He looks down, says, "Something wrong." He calls SANE nurses, two of them, actually one of them, and another one came. They both saw her injuries. They walked you through the pictures. We have hemorrhaging within the labia, past the labia. We have injuries. We have hemorrhage on the three o'clock. We have hemorrhage on the five to seven o'clock. We have the hemorrhage on the 11 o'clock. We have a laceration to the clitoral hood. We have anal lacerations. Is there any question that Paitin Fields was sexually assaulted? The answer is no. Again, the question you're going to have to answer, was it the defendant? And we'll get to that.

(34:03)
Therefore, if you find sexual assault, you find that she was killed by strangulation, guilty of felony murder. Now, you may be asking yourself, well, was the killing done before the sexual assault or after the sexual assault? It doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. We don't have to prove the timing of it. What our courts say is, "If the killing is part of a series of incidents that form one continuous transaction, it is immaterial whether the felony occurred prior to or immediately after the killing," says our state Supreme Court and State v. Williams. The temporal order, meaning the timing of the order of the killing and the felony is immaterial where there's a continuous transaction. And it's immaterial whether the intent to commit the felony was formed before or after the killing, provided that the felony and the killing are aspects of a single transaction.

(35:05)
You've heard from our SANE nurses. That was an acute injury. It wasn't healing. It didn't happen days before. They are seeing these lacerations and hemorrhages on Paitin Fields hours after she was brought to Pender ER. Do not get caught up in the timing of it. We do not have to prove to you the timing of it. So let's talk. That's the law. You'll get a copy of it. Walk through it. So let's look at our case, because the question is going to be who did it? Who did it?

(35:59)
November 12th to November 13th, 2017. We know at 104 Blackwater Drive, there were five individuals in a house. Five individuals in a house. Lisa Hunt, Dale Hunt, Savannah Fields, Paitin Fields, David Prevatte. Only five people inside the house. One of them's dead. We know that the door was locked. We know nobody could have broken in there. There are no signs of forced entry. You could see pictures of the door. You know there's two pit bulls in. You know that nobody broke into that house. Nobody broke into that house. So this isn't someone coming from the outside to the inside. There are five individuals in the house. One is dead and somebody inside that house did it.

(37:09)
So let's look at the timeline. And this timeline is based upon testimony that you've heard. In the evening hours, the defendant was outside smoking weed with friends, goes riding around with Melissa Brown. So at some time in the early evening, David Prevatte is outside the house. We know while he's outside the house, there are four individuals inside the house. Lisa Hunt, Dale Hunt, Savannah and Paitin. You've heard from Lisa, there was nothing wrong with Paitin at that time. While David is outside, there's nothing wrong. She's sick. She's been feeling ill a couple of days before that. You've heard her testify to that. You've heard the doctors say, yeah, there's some congestion there. She had pneumonia. The question is, when did the pneumonia come about? But you heard from Savannah and from Lisa. Paitin was sick, but she was fine. She had no ligature marks. She was conscious.

(38:19)
So David's outside. You've heard from everyone that was outside with him. Jamie Sykes, Melissa Brown, Michael Hall. We were outside. We never went inside. We never went inside. We were hanging out with David on the outside. But what were they doing? Well, they were outside smoking weed. Both Jamie Sykes says that, both Melissa Brown says that.

(38:48)
We know David comes back in at some point, but before he does, Dale goes to bed. You heard from Dale. You've heard from Lisa. He goes to bed. Why does he go to bed so early? Because he wakes up in the early morning hours to go work at the pig farm. So he goes to bed sometime between eight and nine. There's no distress in the house. None whatsoever. Paitin is fine. She is sick, but she is fine.

(39:17)
Lisa will tell you that while David was outside, she, Dale Hunt, and Paitin Fields are laying in the bed in their bedroom. Paitin Fields falls asleep. Dale's asleep. She says that she hears a knock at the door, lets David in sometime between 10 and 11. Some 10, 10:30, some 11, but sometime between 10 and 11 she lets David in. She lets David in, David goes with his dog into his bedroom that he was sleeping in, which was the girl's old room, that northeast bedroom. She called it the front bedroom. We know which one it is. It's the closest one to the living room. He goes in there with his dog and closes the door. She takes Paitin, puts her on the couch where Savannah's already at. She goes back to bed with Dale. So now we have David in the house. We have Savannah and Paitin in the house sleeping on the couch. We have Dale and Lisa sleeping in their bedroom. Doors locked. Dogs are in.

(40:50)
Fast-forward sometime in the middle of the night, early morning, Savannah wakes up. Undisputed, Savannah wakes up. Undisputed Savannah sees something wrong with Paitin. Her eyes, undisputed. Undisputed. She is so concerned in the middle of the night, she goes not to David's room to say, "Hey, something's wrong with Paitin." She goes into Papa and Nana's room to say something was wrong with Paitin. And when she does, you've heard her testify right here. "When I go in, Papa and Nana are asleep." Papa and Nana are asleep.

(41:45)
She says, "Something is wrong with Paitin." Dale says to her, "Get your butt back in bed. Gone. Don't wake up your sister. Go back into bed." Lisa says, "I did not hear that." You know why Lisa didn't hear it? Because she was asleep. But you've heard her also say this. "I woke up when Dale goes to the bathroom." So Savannah walks in, they're both in the bed. She says, "Something's wrong with Paitin." "Get your butt back in the bed," says Dale. He gets up, he goes to the bathroom, that wakes up Lisa. They're both awake in the bedroom. Lisa says, "TV's real loud." Well, you heard Savannah say, "I went back in. They told me to go back into the living room and I turned on the TV." Lisa says then she gets up, hears the TV, says she checks on it sometime between 3:00 and 3:15. When she comes in, she sees Paitin and all hell breaks loose. She screams for Dale. She screams for David. She's urinating. Something is wrong. She's in distress. David comes out, he grabs her. David and Dale go to Pender County Memorial. They arrive at 3:42 at the side door. Lisa, while they're on their way, she calls 911. Tries to call them a couple of times. I think they called her back, but she talked to them while they were on their way. What else does Savannah say? Well, the day her sister died, when she was seven years old, she said, "I don't want to talk about it. It makes me sad." That's a weird answer. She says, "Paitin's sick, but I don't want to talk about it because it makes me sad." Two and a half months later, January, two months later, "I don't want to talk about it. It makes me sad." "Something's wrong with Paitin." By the way, in that interview, in the first interview, she says she was purple and something around her neck. Then in the second interview, she says that's what Nana told her. She also used the word seizure. Does a seven-year-old know what a seizure is? Maybe, maybe not. But what did she tell you in 2022, 11 years old? It was only her and Julie Osier in that interview room. You got to see it. You got to see the video. She says same thing she said in January, "I see something wrong with Paitin," with an additional fact of this. She sees, "David standing where Paitin is laying and I see him walk back to his bedroom. And at that point in time, when he's back in his bedroom, I go and get Nana and Papa." Why is the timeline important? Well, if you'll see here, if you remember Dr. Stoyko says this, he believes based upon his training and experience and based upon how she presented at the ER and what he has seen, what he knows about strangulation is this. This could not have occurred multiple hours before. It couldn't have. Not based upon her injuries. Not based upon how she's presenting. The strangulation would've had to been within an hour. Within an hour of when she presented to ER. Well, she was presented at the ER at 3:42. And why do we think that's a true statement? Well, listen to Dale. Listen to Lisa. They didn't see anything. They didn't see any marks around her neck at that time. They didn't see petechiae. All they saw was a little girl seizing, in distress. Well, you've heard from the experts that say this, the petechiae doesn't show up right away. It's just like a bruise. You don't see a bruise right away. It takes time.

(46:41)
Well, Dr. McGrath and his staff at 3:42, she's run through the door and into the ER. They see the petechiae. They see the ligature mark. Stoyko says had to have been an hour before. Well, what's an hour before 3:42? 2:42. 2:42. What time does Lisa say that she was woken up? Between 3:00 and 3:15. What does Savannah say when she goes in to wake up Nana and Papa? When she goes in sometime before Lisa wakes up 3:00, 3:15, Nana and Papa were asleep. We've got a tight timeline. That's without her disclosure in 2022. When she goes in, Nana and Papa are asleep.

(47:57)
McGrath and his staff are focused on the strangulation. You heard what he testified to. "I'm trying to save this poor girl's life right on my table." I'm trying to get her stabilized enough where I can get her to the critical care unit and Dr. Stoyko in Wilmington. I'm not focused on anything in her genitalia region. Yes, they cleaned her up. First of all, they took off her panties and they discarded them. Never to be able to be collected. You know that she was cleaned up. She had defecated and urinated all over herself. You knew she was cleaned up. They said she was cleaned up. You see the pictures from hours earlier. She'd been cleaned up. There was not defecation. She had been cleaned up. She arrives at New Hamps Regional Medical Center at 6:54. So the question is this. How do we go from this? That's Paitin Fields, approximately three years old. How do we go from this ...

(49:43)
Just a minute, Your Honor.

Speaker 3 (49:43):

No problem.

The State (55:30):

So how did Paitin Fields go from this to that? Next photograph. From this to that. Next photograph. From this to that. Next photograph. From this to that.

(57:22)
The defense would want you to believe this based upon their opening statements. How she went from a healthy little girl to one that had been sexually assaulted, both vaginally and anally, and strangled to death. They want you to believe that A, somebody else did. Now they harped a lot in their opening and in their cross examination for this. What about the dog leash? What about a collar? What about Savannah? Witness after witness after witness said there was no dog leash found. There was no collar found. There are three dogs in there. There was none found. None at all. Since 2017, have you been presented any dog leash or collar? No. Since 2017, have you been presented a leash or a collar? The answer's no. So they want you to believe a seven-year-old little girl in the middle of the night put a dog leash or a dog collar around her sister's neck and choked her and strangled her.

(59:09)
Now, I assume that you're also saying that she sexually assaulted her sister. That's what they want you to believe? Blame the seven-year-old? You got to see what that seven year old looked like on November 15th, 2017. They believe that she had the motor skills, the strength, the demeanor, the character? Throw any other adjective in there. Do you believe that she choked and sexually assaulted her own sister? Where's the proof? Where is the proof? There is no dog leash, no collar. You know why? Because it's a rabbit trail. It's a red herring. It didn't happen.

(01:00:08)
You heard Dale and Lisa's interviews on the morning of, and in the afternoon, of the 13th. Did they mention a dog collar? Did they mention a leash? Do they even mention they believe that Savannah did this? Of course not, because they know they didn't. They know she didn't do it. But the defense would like to think she did. It's a red herring. Don't fall for it.

(01:00:46)
They also said, "Well, don't believe Savannah. Whatever she says, don't believe her. She's been coached." Was she coached on the 15th of November 2017? When she says this, "Makes me sad. I don't want to talk about it." Was she coached in January of 2018? "Makes me sad. I don't want to talk about it." Was she coached inside with Julie Osner? The only two of them in there? You saw the interview. Was she coached? "Why didn't you say something earlier, Savannah?" "I don't know. I was seven. I don't know. I was seven."

(01:01:42)
Fast-forward five years. Savannah comes in here and she testified in front of you. Not only did she testify in front of you, she's less than 50 feet from the defendant. Nobody who they say coached her was in this courtroom. You get to judge the credibility of a witness. Many of you said, "Here's how I judge the credibility of a witness. Do I make eye contact? Do I fidget? Do I tell the same story consistently?" What she's told you is this. "I was asleep. I wake up for unknown reason, and I see that defendant standing over my sister. I see him go back to his bedroom. I go to Nana and Papa's and I try to wake him up." "Get on back in there. Don't wake your sister up. Turn on the TV."

(01:03:15)
Did Savannah seem credible to you? If she was coached, do you think maybe she would've said, "I saw David do it?" She would've said or not said, "I don't remember," on some things. You got to hear her testimony. You got to hear her on cross-examination. She's 16 years old now. She was 11 when she first said it. Did she seem coached? Was it consistent? The answer's yes.

(01:03:58)
But what supports Savannah's statement? Because there's other things. It's just not Savannah's statement. What supports her statement? Her whole statement. Well, Lisa and Dale support her statement. She came in there. She says, "Something's wrong with Paitin." "I told him to get out or told her to go back to bed. She goes in and turns on the TV." That's what she says. Lisa and Dale confirmed every bit of that. They confirmed every bit of it. Paitin's condition confirms it.

(01:04:34)
So what confirms that David was standing over there? Again, are you going to analyze the facts in a vacuum, or are you going to analyze them against all other believable evidence? I'm going to ask you, analyze them against all other believable evidence. Connect the dots, put the puzzle pieces in.

(01:04:57)
The defense will say this. There's no DNA in the vagina. That isn't accurate. It's not accurate. In the clitoral hood, there is male DNA. Albeit a small, small, small amount of male DNA. One that two analysts could not amplify. There's male DNA. That's the number one thing that supports Savannah's statement. And why is it so small? Use your reason of common sense. She had been cleaned. Pender County did not know that she had been sexually assaulted. They're going in trying to save her life from a strangulation, which was obvious to them, and they go and clean her. That's why there's no DNA in vaginal swabs, vaginal smears, anal swabs, anal smears, perianal swabs. But you know what? In one place, it's a little bit difficult to clean-

The State (01:06:00):

It's a little bit difficult to clean completely in the clitoral hood. There's folds in the clitoral hood. There's a small amount of male DNA. It doesn't point to who, but it does point to a male. Because you know what? There should be zero male DNA in a five-year-old's clitoral hood. Zero. And there's 0.0002 male DNA in her clitoral hood when there should be zero.

(01:06:46)
They also want you to believe, and they said in closing... Or excuse me, in opening, "Well, there's no DNA on the wire. The DNA analyst swabbed the earbuds and the earpieces." Wrong. Ms. Chowdhury testified she swabbed the wire, not the earbuds. And whose DNA is on that wire? David's, later on determined to be Paitin's, and some unknowns. Are we starting to corroborate Savannah? Because what do we know about those earbuds? What do we know about what Dr. Kelly will tell you that it's consistent with? Those earbuds are consistent with the ligature marks on Savannah... Strike that, Paitin's neck. It's consistent in more than one way. We'll get to the earbuds here in a minute.

(01:07:58)
So, what is left for the defense to argue? " Well, Paitin was not sexually assaulted." You've heard from, I don't know how many experts, one, two, three experts state she was sexually assaulted. You can see the pictures. Look at the pictures. Use your reason and common sense. That's refuted. "Paitin wasn't strangled." Really? Dr. McGrath, Dr. Stoiko, Dr. Kelly: "She was strangled."

(01:08:37)
"Well, Dale did it." We'll get to Dale in a minute. No, we'll get to Dale now. Where was Dale? Dale's in the bedroom. Who says Dale's in the bedroom? Lisa. You've heard her say the morning of when she's being questioned by Detective Leatherwood, "I know where Dale was, he was in the bed with me all night." What did she say again later that day? "I know where Dale was, he was in the bed with me all night." Where does Savannah say he was? "He's asleep."

(01:09:19)
They don't even believe that Dale did this. The defense doesn't even believe Dale did this. He had him on cross examination. He had Lisa on cross examination. They could have questioned him three ways from Sunday. "Where were you at? What time did you go to bed? Did you get up any? Did you do this? Did you do that?" They didn't question him, not one bit about it. You know why? Because they don't believe he did it. You know why? Because they're blaming the seven-year-old. If they don't believe Dale did it, you should not believe Dale did it. It's that simple. Plus, where's the other evidence against Dale? Where's the other evidence? We'll get to it in a minute.

(01:10:08)
We've already talked about Savannah did it with a dog leash, refuted. Stranger broke in, refuted. So, let's get to the heart of the matter. Why did David do it? Analyze every fact, not in a vacuum, but against all the other believable evidence. What did Dr. Stoiko say about the extent of Paitin's injuries? "She was strangled. She would've been fighting. She was strangled. She would've been fighting. Even for a five-year-old, she would've been fighting. It's not even a conscious decision," is what he said. You just react. When you're being choked, you're going to fight. You're going to thrash. If you can make noise, you're going to make noise. So, was this done on a couch with the sister right there? Was this done in a bedroom with Lisa and Dale? Or was it done somewhere in secret? We've heard from some experts and you can use your reason and common sense. Think somebody's going to sexually assault and strangle somebody in front of others? So, who had the opportunity? David. He was the only one sleeping in that room that night. It must have occurred within an hour of arriving at Pender. So, somewhere between 2:42 and 3 o'clock. Are we starting to see that Savannah is becoming more credible? What time does she go and get Dale and Lisa? Sometime right before 3:15. Why? Because Lisa says, "I did not hear her come in. Dale wakes me up. When he goes to the bathroom, I hear the TV. I come in there about 3:15." Savannah saw the defendant standing over Paitin. Saw him wearing blue shorts, maybe something black.

(01:12:38)
" Saw him wearing blue shorts and maybe black. I saw him wearing blue shorts and maybe something black." What color are these shorts? These boxers? Blue and black. We know he's wearing them. They're inside the pants that everybody says he slept in that night, that were urinated on. He drops drawers right there, pants and these boxers. And Savannah says, "I see him wearing something blue and possibly black."

(01:14:01)
If Stoiko says that she would've been thrashing around, do you think she would've woken up Paitin? Do we believe, using the reason and common sense that someone would not sexually assault a five-year-old and strangle her in front of witnesses, do you think that she was really assaulted on that couch? The answer is no.

(01:14:56)
"Well, what was David doing there?" Well, Savannah says he's standing over her or standing where she's at. All right? What supports that? Well, Lisa's own statement. Lisa's own statement, and if you remember Lisa testifying, she says this, " I put Savannah down," or Savannah's sleeping head here, foot here. She had even marked it. Head, foot. She says, "I put Paitin here, feet down there." So, they're head-to-head at the corner of the L. "But when I go in there around 3:15 and find her in distress, she is sitting up." Paitin is standing here or sitting here, with her head here and feet here.

(01:16:04)
Her condition. Could she move? She couldn't move. So, how did she get from a laying position to a seated position where she'd been strangled almost to death at that point? And if reason and common sense says she wasn't assaulted there, she was assaulted somewhere in secret, then how did she get sitting up? Savannah tells you, "I see Uncle Booboo standing over Paitin." I would contend to you that she was not assaulted on that couch, she was assaulted in that bedroom. And when Savannah wakes up to see Uncle Booboo standing over Paitin, he's putting her back. But he doesn't put her back the way that Lisa put her, which was laying down. He puts her back in a seated position. Are we starting to see Savannah's credibility? She was coached? She's got alcohol fetal syndrome at 11. You saw her at 16. What corroborates Savannah's statement? Well, Lisa, because State's Exhibit 24 is Lisa's marked up couch photograph. State's Exhibit 34 is Savannah's marked up diagram of the couch. It's the same as Lisa's. State's Exhibit 87, Savannah's marked up. Savannah's marked up couch picture when she was 11 years old in 2022 explaining what she saw. 22, Lisa's, last week or the week before. Savannah, is there evidence to corroborate Savannah? You're seeing it. It's starting to unfold. What points to the defendant? Well, we know it's a male. Why do we know it's a male? Because you've got a small amount of male DNA in the clitoral hood. It is not Lisa. It is not Savannah. "Well, it doesn't point to David." Okay. But it points to a male. Two SANE nurses observed the injuries to her vagina, anus, and bruising outside of her genitalia. That's why she was sexually... That's the evidence of sexual assault. Those injuries are consistent with some sort of penetrating trauma. Dr. Kelly confirmed the vaginal injuries days later, meaning they were starting to heal, you heard her testify to that. You heard her testify to the anal injuries. There's no medical intervention. You heard from every medical personnel that touched Paitin at Pender Memorial before the SANE nurses. Thermometers didn't cause it, catheters didn't cause it.

(01:20:28)
What other DNA evidence did you hear? Outside of the clitoral hood, you heard one other piece of DNA evidence. They took a penal swab of David on the 14th. You heard his discussion regarding that. "Did you have sex with Haley Fawcett?" "Yeah. She was on her period, that's why you see blood on my penis." But what else is there? And it confirms that, DNA testing confirms that. David has assumed Haley's the major contributor, but then there's a third contributor. While it doesn't point to a particular person, you can make inferences from the evidence. There's a third contributor. You've heard no other evidence that he was sexually involved with anybody else. I would contend that you can infer that that was Paitin's DNA. You can infer that. "Well, it was from the urine." Well, you've heard urine is not a good conductor of DNA. Could be, but you know what else could be? Her either blood or skin cells when he was assaulting her. You can infer that.

(01:22:21)
So, what else corroborates Savannah? What else points to David? The red earbuds. Not orange, but red. Red earbuds. Let's first look at the red earbuds again.

(01:22:47)
Red earbuds. Where were these red earbuds found? Right next to David's bed. Right next to David's bed. Well, there were other ligatures found near David's bed, yeah. There were. David's DNA are on these. Well, David's DNA was on another one, yeah. Paitin's DNA is on this. Paitin's DNA is not on any other ligature or possible ligature.

(01:23:49)
What do we know about them physically? They're 52 inches long. A single strand is 0.115 of an inch, which is a little less than three 16ths of an inch. If they're doubled up, they're a little bit less than a quarter of an inch. They have a distinctive characteristic that no other ligature that was readily found in that house contains: hooks. Hooks. What else can be observed about this? Well, there's a 14 inch or approximately 14 inch section that has been stretched. Two knots in it. Splits at some point. So, why is this important? You know why it's important. You know why it's important. You know why these are important. Not only are they important because they were found next to David's bed, readily available, but they're important because Dr. Kelly testified that they matched... Strike that. Are consistent with the size of the ligature mark around Paitin's neck. If you remember what she says, the area between this line and this line is about a quarter of an inch. A quarter of an inch. A quarter of an inch. Use your reason and common sense about how big a quarter of an inch is. That's a little less than.

(01:26:39)
First of all, don't fall for the red herring, "It was a belt." How many belts do you know that are quarter of an inch? If you believe there's a quarter of an inch belt or less, there are certain parts of the ligature mark that's three sixteenths. A little bit bigger than a single strand. Dr. Kelly also opined that there was a split on the side of her neck right here, where it looks like whatever the ligature split into two sections. Well, you've got this split or you could have a split like that. We don't have to prove to you the exact manner that these earbuds were wrapped around her neck. We do not. We have to prove you a deadly weapon was used to kill Paitin Fields, a ligature. The only person that can opine how these were wrapped around Paitin's neck is Paitin and the defendant.

(01:28:08)
Well, Dr. Kelly, they match in size, but so do these other ligatures. So were the TR10 cable, the RadioShack cable, the other phone charger, the 550 cord bracelet that was found outside. Well, Mr. Smith, it's because there's a distinctive pattern that shows on her neck that's consistent with these headphones. I would contend... You can see it. This is not an enhanced video or a picture. That is a picture from the autopsy table. You can see something interrupted the ligature that had a hook pattern. It's very distinctive. The only ligature that was found readily available with that distinctive pattern was found right next to David's bed with Paitin's DNA on it and David's DNA on it. What about Savannah's testimony? Does that support Savannah's testimony? Absolutely. "I saw David standing over Paitin going back to his bedroom." This is also a picture from 11/16 that Detective Leatherwood took. You can see the distinctive pattern there, too. It's the same pattern. It hasn't been enhanced. It's not shadowing. It's not seeing ghosts where ghosts don't appear. You can see it. Go to the next one. Also from a different angle, there it is. Next photograph. 8:15 on the morning she arrives at both Pender Memorial and New Hanover Regional. Detective Leatherwood's hand showing the ligature mark at 8:15 in the morning, and there it is. I want you to see this photograph. And when they talk about, "Well, it's 14 inches that are stretched." Paitin is five years old. Look how big her neck is. It's tiny. That is one finger. Look how tiny her neck is. "Well, it's not enough. That's not enough for it to wrap around her neck." Use your reason and common sense. Next photograph.

(01:31:28)
Here's a different photograph from the hospital. One hand, two hand, three hand. This is the right side of her neck. There's been some opining from Dr. Stoiko, you heard a lay opinion from Eric Short. There's bruising right there. But I want you to see this photograph for what it is. Look how big her neck is compared to those hands. Her neck is tiny. Tiny. Tiny, compared to this. "Well, these would break if you used it as a ligature." Remember what Dr. Kelly says? You only need one to two pounds of pressure on the jugular vein. One to two pounds of pressure on the jugular vein. 30 to cut off the wind or cut off the air in the windpipe, more for the arteries, but one to two pounds for the veins. They're stretched.

(01:32:53)
I want to go back. Opportunity corroborates Savannah. Vaginal injuries and the DNA resulting from them corroborates Savannah. The murder weapon or the ligature next to David's bed, with Paitin and David's DNA and the distinctive pattern, corroborates Savannah's testimony. Now, let's look at... When you look at first degree murder, remember, under premeditation/deliberation, you can look at the defendant's actions before, during, and after. Well, you know what he's doing before, he's smoking weed. You smoke weed to get high. During: violent death. After: I want you to focus on this.

(01:34:24)
When Lisa finds Paitin on the couch and she screams, " Dale, David." Well, Dale comes out in his pajamas. David comes out fully clothed. Isn't that weird? Isn't that weird? Savannah says, "I seen him in blue shorts," [inaudible 01:34:51] as boxers, but he comes out fully clothed. Why? Why? Because he knew something was wrong. Why? Because he caused it.

(01:35:09)
We played two hospital videos, three hospital videos, but look at the second. When they were in, there's two videos of them in the lobby. Look at his demeanor. Everybody else believed Paitin was having seizures. And you've heard from Lisa, when she'd been sick, "I gave her Domitab, I gave her children's Tylenol or ibuprofen." Everybody there believed she was sick, that these were seizures from being sick. And look at their demeanor while in the lobby. Look at Lisa and Dale's. Look at Savannah's. Nothing out of the ordinary. But then look at David's demeanor. Who was panicked or appeared to be panicked in the lobby? You can watch those two clips, you can ask to look at any evidence you want to look at, but look at his demeanor. You can look at his actions before, during, and after. Look at his demeanor. You know why he was so distressed? Because he knew what he did. He knew what he did and he knew the extent of her injuries. He knew that she wasn't sick. He knew that he'd wrapped something around her neck.

(01:36:44)
Look what else. On the night, the night of the 13th, the night of the 13th, the night of the 13th, as he's looking distressed inside that lobby, the night of the 13th, he goes and has sex with Haley while she's on her period. Okay, nothing wrong with having sex while you're on your period, but you remember what Detective Lobel said? When he appears during the day of the 13th, David's fingernails were nasty. David's fingernails were nasty. Then he comes back the next day on the 14th, the morning of or the afternoon after he has sex with Haley Fawcett. What did Detective Lobel say? Detective Lobel said this, "Looked like his fingers had been manicured." Now, should they have gotten his finger scrapings the day before? Absolutely. But they got them the next day. They come back single source, David. Of course they did. He cut them and they were clean.

(01:38:03)
So, he cleaned his fingernails. He cleaned his fingernails, but he didn't clean his penis. Well, how do you know he didn't clean his penis? Well, there's blood on it and there's a third DNA profile. What does that tell you? Tells you he's worried about these. He was worried about these. And you know he's worried about these because later on, he's Google searching DNA, Google searching crime scene tape. Remember, sexual offense, penetration of any object into the genital or anal opening of a victim, including fingers.

(01:38:57)
What are the injuries? Laceration to the clitoral hood. You've heard from SANE nurses.

The State (01:39:02):

You've heard from same nurses, these can cause damage, and I would contend they did, both to her anus and to her vagina. And he knew because he cut them. He cuts these, but he doesn't wash himself. Why not? Why didn't he wash himself? Because he knew that he had blood on his penis. He knew that maybe they'd find Paitin's DNA on there. Mask it, hide it. You've heard from our analysts say if there's too much of one, it could wash out the others. And by the way, there's a whole box of evidence that went testing. Five sources here, four sources there, three sources there. All of it inconclusive, or most of it inconclusive, too complex. Why? Because there's so many DNA profiles and alleles and everything else in there. You can't decide, you can't figure out what's happening. Well, guess what? You couldn't on the third profile either. So you cut these, you leave your penis unwashed because you were worried. Because you were worried.

(01:40:34)
Now finally, what else happened? What else happened? Did he stay at 104 Blackwater Drive? Nope. He immediately moves out, goes and lives somewhere else. Consciousness of guilt. His actions, each one of these actions is a consciousness of guilt. Each action after Paitin is found is a consciousness of guilt. There's only two people that knows what happened to Paitin, Paitin, she can't testify, and David. So let's wrap it up. Some would say, "Well, there's not a lot of evidence against David." In a vacuum, if you're looking at each piece in a vacuum, maybe. But you're going to be instructed [inaudible 01:41:42] all the other believable facts. And if you take everything together, you take the fact that he was smoking marijuana, the fact that he was staying in a room, the fact that she was assaulted in secret, the fact that she was sexually assaulted and we have male DNA, the fact that Savannah says, "I see Uncle Booboo standing over Paitin." They believe she was coached. I would say look at all the other evidence that corroborates what she says. Every piece of this evidence corroborates what she says.

(01:42:24)
You're going to be asked at the end of this, you're going to go back in the deliberation room, you're going to look at the law, you're going to be looking at the law, and you're going to have to render a verdict. Determine the facts, apply the law, render a verdict. The judge is going to give you a verdict sheet. He's going to give you a verdict sheet. Two verdict sheets to be exact. He's going to say this, "We, the jury, return a unanimous verdict that the defendant, David Prevatte is either this, guilty of first-degree murder." You got to answer yes or no.

(01:43:17)
What does the evidence tell you? What does the totality of the evidence tell you? The totality of the evidence says this. Nobody else did it. Lisa and Dale were in there together. They haven't wavered from that. They were in there together. You've got the physical evidence that links David. You've got the eyewitness testimony that links David. You've got David's own actions linking David. There's no other evidence to suggest anybody else did this. No other evidence. When the judge instructs you to go back and render your verdict on the verdict sheet as to first-degree murder, the answer should be yes. Now you're going to have to decide then under the theory of premeditation and deliberation or under felony murder or both, and you've got to make that decision. And I would suggest to you it's both premeditation and deliberation and felony murder. Then he's going to give you a second sheet and the second sheet's going to say, "We, the jury, as our unanimous verdict that the defendant David provided as to the charge of statutory sexual offense of a child by an adult, guilty or not guilty?" Guilty. There is no other evidence that anybody else did this. He had the opportunity. He had the location. There's male DNA. There's a ligature that is consistent and not just consistent. It matches or is consistent with the pattern, the special pattern of that hook. You've seen the injuries, find him guilty of sexual offense, find him guilty of murder. And only after you do that will there be justice for Paitin. Thank you.

Judge (01:45:23):

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Members of the jury, we're going to go ahead and take our mid-morning break. Go ahead and close up your notebooks. Remember, do not discuss this case amongst yourselves. You have not yet received my final instructions, so you are not allowed to deliberate or discuss this case while you are in the jury room. Do not discuss this case with anybody else. Do not have any contact with any of the parties, attorneys or witnesses. Do not post online on any social media sites and do not conduct any independent investigation or inquiry. So we'll go ahead and excuse you for about 15 minutes.

Johnson (01:45:58):

Thank you, Your Honor. Make sure you leave your closed notebooks [Inaudible 01:46:01] front row and back this way.

(01:46:02)
Jury's left the court.

Judge (01:46:33):

Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has exited the courtroom. We'll be at ease for the next 15 minutes.

Johnson (01:46:38):

Court will be at ease for 15 minutes.

Speaker 4 (01:46:39):

Johnson, do you need [inaudible 01:46:46] anything? I can try to fix it.

Johnson (01:46:39):

No.

Speaker 4 (01:46:39):

I'm going to turn it off.

Johnson (01:46:39):

Okay [inaudible 01:46:55]

Judge (01:46:39):

... defense?

Mr. Britt (01:46:39):

No, sir.

Judge (01:46:39):

Behalf of the state?

The State (02:01:25):

No, Your Honor.

Judge (02:01:26):

Let's bring our jury back in.

Johnson (02:01:28):

Bring in the jury. Jury's seated, Your Honor.

Judge (02:02:25):

Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has reentered the courtroom. Mr. Britt, you may proceed with your closing argument.

Mr. Britt (02:02:32):

May it please the court, counsel. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, David Prevatte did not rape, did not sexually assault, and did not murder Paitin Fields. Mr. Smith told you, you have two verdict forms that you'll receive. He showed them to you. "Is David Prevatte guilty of first-degree statutory sex offense? Is David Prevatte guilty of first-degree murder? When we started this case, there were three charges. Three. First-degree statutory rape. That is no longer for your consideration. Statutory rape or rape of any kind requires proof, proof that a man inserted his penis penetrated into a woman's vagina. Much of this evidence that you've heard suggest that Paitin Fields was raped. What is it that supports that? There was semen under her clitoral hood. The semen doesn't get there-

Judge (02:04:03):

Hold on. Members of the jury, you are to consider the facts as you recall or remember them based on your own recollection of the evidence. All right.

Mr. Britt (02:04:15):

Dale's testimony that there was semen under her clitoral hood.

The State (02:04:19):

Objection. Facts not in evidence.

Judge (02:04:23):

Sustained.

Mr. Britt (02:04:26):

It was suggested that there was semen.

The State (02:04:31):

Objection. Facts not in evidence.

Judge (02:04:33):

Sustained.

Mr. Britt (02:04:35):

There was no semen found in her vagina, but yet Mr. Smith argued a moment ago that Dale's semen was found in her vaginal area.

The State (02:04:56):

Objection.

Judge (02:04:57):

Sustained.

Mr. Britt (02:04:59):

That there was male DNA found in her vagina. But it could not be identified. He also argued it shouldn't be there. And with that, I agree. But that doesn't mean that David Prevatte is the person who perpetrated these crimes. Each of you said during jury selection that you recognize a defendant's right and privilege to be presumed innocent. Each of you said that you could apply that principle, that right, that privilege to David Prevatte. And that privilege, that cloak of innocence stays with him throughout this trial until and unless the state can take it away from him. And based upon this evidence, they have not done that. Based upon the testimony of witnesses, they have not done that.

(02:06:25)
What happened on the morning of November 13th, 2017? You have a glimpse, you have innuendo, you have speculation from the state as to what happened, but do you really have the facts? You have to determine the facts from this evidence. It's not something you get to guess about. It's not something you get to speculate about. It's something that you have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that happened. Paitin Fields was taken to the hospital here in Burgaw, taken by her uncle who held her, who tried to save her life because he had seen that she was struggling to breathe. He was trying to give her mouth-to-mouth. Her grandfather, Dale Hunt, driving as fast as that little car could go to get them there because they believed they could get to the hospital faster than an ambulance could get to them at 104 Blackwater Drive and then back to the hospital. And when I asked how far the distance was, he said, "Probably 15 miles."

(02:07:55)
"Well, how long did it take you to get there?"

(02:07:58)
" Eight or nine minutes. Eight or nine minutes without stopping."

(02:08:05)
And what did you see in the first video? You saw a distraught young man with a young girl in his arms banging on the door of the emergency room so he could get in. He got out of the car holding her, clutching her and runs to the door. He goes in and he immediately tells them they need help. He turns her over to the nurses and the doctors. And yes, he was crying. Yes, he was distraught. Why? Because his niece was on the verge of dying. She was on the verge of leaving everything that she had. And they want to say that's consciousness of guilt? No, that's pure emotion. That's concern for Paitin. It's not, "Oh, I've done something horrible, so I've got to act like this."

(02:09:14)
He went down and he sat down with the registration lady, head in his hands, talking to her. After talking with her, he goes and he sits down again. He is still emotional. No one knows, he doesn't know what's happened to Paitin. And if he did, where's their evidence? David doesn't have to come into this courtroom and prove he did not do this. Simply because he is charged does not mean he did this. He does not have to present evidence. He does not have to take the sheriff's department, evidence. He doesn't have to bring it to the DA. Why? Because he's presumed to be innocent. They have to go out and find it. They have to bring it in here to prove what they believe happened. And when you don't get the evidence, you don't prove your case. And that is what has happened in this very trial that you have sat in for the last two weeks.

(02:10:24)
There's a lot of stuff they try to hang their hat on. Detective Leatherwood, the original investigating officer, who did he focus on? Who did he focus on? Dale Hunt? No. But David Prevatte. David Prevatte. David, who yesterday, Detective Short, who took over this investigation, said that there were multiple statements made during the course of this investigation by David to members of law enforcement. Did the state choose to use those? No. Why? Because they're not evidence. They're not evidence that helps them prove their case. But Detective Leatherwood and then Detective Short, Detective Short can sit up here and say, "No, I didn't make up my mind about what happened and who did it." It's the same report that Detective Leatherwood put together. Who else does it point to? No one. What other evidence did Detective Short go out and gather to try to prove that David Prevatte did-

Mr. Britt (02:12:01):

To try to prove that David Prevatte did this. He sent stuff to the lab. Oh, these weren't tested. This wasn't tested. This wasn't tested. Oh, let me Photoshop a picture to see if these hooks on these red earphones look like the hook on her neck. And then what does he do? He sends emails to Dr. Kelly. How many years after this? How many years after this is alleged to have happened? "Oh, could this have been the ligature? Could this have been the ligature?" And Dr. Kelly's response, "What is it that you want me to do? What is it you want me to say?"

(02:13:08)
"If you say that it could be or is consistent with, then I can charge you." You looked at these, you've examined these, you've seen the picture. I'm not going to put on the gloves, but when Mr. Smith stood up here and doubled them and said, "Oh, if you double it, it's the same size. It's less than a quarter of an inch." Well, let me ask you this, ladies and gentlemen, what didn't they say? What didn't they say? Because when you look at that picture, there's a J here and there's one over here. So if you double it, how do the two hooks end up imprinted on her neck? How? That's for them to explain. Detective Short tried to do it yesterday said, "Oh, if you take it and you double it and the person could have pushed back from front to back."

(02:14:32)
Well, the problem with that argument is there are marks on the back of her neck that are consistent with the marks on the front of her neck, which means the cord had to be wrapped. And if the cord is wrapped once, twice, there's still more than enough that the hooks are going to be in either one hand... In one hand or the other. So how did this happen? They have to tell you that. They have to prove that. Is David's DNA on there? Yes, because they're his. Is Paitin's DNA on there? Yes, because it was there in the house and she could play with it. It's balled up. It's balled up, found on top of a nightstand or a bedside table. Do you really believe that David Prevatte used these earbuds to choke, to strangle, to kill Paitin Fields? Why is it sitting in a spot that's so easily detected? Mr. Smith said, "Oh, the defense said this was about a dog leash." How many dogs are in this house? Three. How many of you own dogs? I don't know of a single solitary person that owns a dog that does not have a dog leash. And you have three different sized dogs, one small, one medium, and one larger. "What was it that Lisa Hunt said about why Savannah was in trouble that day? Because Savannah and Paitin played a game where Savannah wrapped the dog leash around Paitin's neck and Lisa had caught her and taken it away. Mr. Smith said, "Well, why didn't they bring the dog leash in?" Why? It's not our job. It's not our job to present their case. Why didn't Detective Lee, the crime scene man, why didn't he find it? Why didn't he find a lot of things that were discovered on other trips? Part of it's the condition of the house. There's no dispute about that. But Lisa Hunt had told them about Savannah and Paitin and the dog leash.

Mr. Smith (02:17:52):

Objection, facts not in evidence.

Judge (02:17:54):

Members of the jury, when recalling and remembering the evidence, be guided exclusively by your own recollection of the evidence.

Mr. Britt (02:18:04):

Did they believe her? Did they think it was worth pursuing? Apparently not. Why? Because that changed Detective Leatherwood's theory that it was David. The theory that from November the 13th of 2017 until February of 2021, '22 when he was arrested, the day that Prevatte had to live with that cloud over his head, that the Pender County Sheriff's Department believed he had committed murder, but yet they hadn't arrested him. Why? Because they didn't have the evidence. They had these. Why do you think Savannah was interviewed three times? More importantly, why was Savannah interviewed two days, two days on the very day that Paitin died? Why was Savannah interviewed at that point? Don't you think that was a little premature? What did they really expect to get if Savannah had witnessed what happened, put her through that trauma again so soon?

(02:19:41)
But they interviewed, attempted to interview her. And what did she say? "I don't want to talk about it because it makes me sad." Is there any evidence that she knew that Paitin had died at that point? No. Was it she didn't want to talk about it, not only because it made her sad, but perhaps Savannah hurt her sister? And when they brought her back in January of 2018, again, "Can you tell me about Paitin?"

(02:20:21)
"I don't want to talk about it. It makes me sad." That wasn't coached. That wasn't rehearsed. But when they brought her back four years later, and what was it that Detective Short said yesterday that's so key, "I wanted to have an interview with Savannah at the Carousel Clinic one more time before we made the arrest." It didn't happen because he said it had to be canceled because Savannah had COVID. And what did he do? What did Detective Short do? He calls the lady with whom Savannah has lived, her aunt, from shortly after this occurred through today to tell her that they were going to arrest David. Where was Nora? Was Nora in this courtroom during the state's case? Did anybody point her out to you? Was she even called as a witness? She wasn't here. They didn't call her as a witness. Why? Maybe it's perhaps Nora who was telling Savannah what had happened during this period from November of 2017 to when they decided they would arrest David. Nora, as Detective Short said, the only family member who ever inquired about the status of the investigation. Nora, who brought Savannah to this very courtroom. Why? So they could practice, practice what Savannah was going to say from this witness stand. And Nora, who Savannah said was here, ends up in the back room with Detective Short. Why? Perhaps Nora was more involved in this practice session than they want you to know. So when she goes back to that interview after David has been arrested, don't you know she's been told that Paitin was killed by David? And so when that interview starts, the forensic interviewer says, "Oh, it's been a long time since we've talked. You've been here before."

‍