11.Rebuttal Closing — Prosecution

MR. JAY: Ladies and gentlemen, Jorge Torres is dead because the defendant believed he deserved to be Zipped shut in a suitcase so that she could make him feel how she felt when he cheated on her, when he choked her, and to hold him there as a captive audience, according to her testimony. Now he has to listen to me.

Well, right out of the gate, there are credibility issues. Cheating to me means viewing pornography. Well, we saw cheating really means women, and a heated conversation on June 4th about these women and Facebook, and that is what leads to the arrest on June 15th. He's out whoring, Candy Crush, all the bizarre things that you see in her phone. She uses the legal system as a weapon at times.

There's no denying that they are engaging in violent behavior, and it is over nonsense. It is smashing TVs. They call the police and then they're standing there looking bewildered about what to do and who [sic] to say and laughing and joking. Ladies and gentlemen, the courtroom is the place for justice, not a suitcase.

The reason we have a jury system originally started with the idea that the king, the crown in England, shouldn't be able to go and incarcerate citizens on his whim, so it developed into a system where citizens would have to say, yes, you can take our fellow citizen. But the opposite is also true, a citizen cannot take another citizen's life because he or she feels like it. That, likewise, requires a jury to decide that it was objectively reasonable for a person of ordinary prudence and caution.

Like Mr. Cacciatore argued earlier, battered spouse syndrome is not a license to kill. Past grievances, even being stabbed in the leg, so on and so forth, do not give her the license to kill. There are still laws in place about when and how this can be done in a justifiable manner.

I want to talk about the most important jury instruction in this case that has not been discussed very well -- or thoroughly, excuse me. However, the use of deadly force is not justified if you find that Sarah Boone used force to initially provoke the threatened use of force against herself. And we'll stop at that comma.

The facts of the case that came from her own mouth, if she is to be believed -- and we will explore thoroughly why you should disregard every bit of her testimony from court, to the detectives, to the 911 operator, to the doctors. Her testimony, if it is to be believed, the most favorable light that she has presented of herself is that at the end of a Sunday Funday, where they were drinking, were outside by the dartboard, were doing puzzles, were doing arts and crafts, and there finally comes a point in time where we're going to play hide-and-seek. And he says, Tag, you're it.

Even though she's it, she goes upstairs, hides in the shower. Eventually gets tired of being there, it's cold, so on and so forth, and she comes back downstairs. And as she comes back downstairs, she can see Mr. Torres fiddling to place himself inside the Suitcase to try and hide for this game. And the lid is not closed and it's flapping. And out of jest, out of levity, undisputed according to her testimony, she comes over there and zips it shut. Whether it's 100 percent or enough for two fingers to get out, that is something that you decide as the jury.

But there came a point in time where the fun and games was over, and Mr. Torres told her that. Babe, I can't breathe. Sarah, babe, let me out. This is all on video. We don't have to imagine this. This is all on video; 1062. At that point in time, she is using force against him that is not justified. She is the initial provocator, she is the aggressor under the law. And what level of force is it? I can't breathe. Not let go of my hand, not get your hands off me, I can't breathe.

This is no different than two people -- maybe they're buddies at the bar, similar to an example that was given by Mr. Owens -- who are wrestling and one has another one in a headlock, and there comes a point in time where the person on the receiving end of the headlock says, you know, That's enough, I'm tapping. Jorge Torres was tapping, and she ignored it, and she was kind enough to tell you why, out of anger, which translates to hatred, ill will, spite, just like that in the jury instruction for second degree murder. She told you exactly why, she got angry. Him saying, I can't breathe, babe, was what triggered her, not a fear of imminent harm. Those are her own words. That is the law. These are the two paragraphs that solve this equation without getting up a big whiteboard in college that's 30 feet long, 15 feet high, and a ladder and somebody is scribbling Latin words and Greek letters for months and months to solve this huge complicated equation. The equation is solved in two paragraphs. She is the initial aggressor. He is saying, I can't breathe. It is no different than a naked chokehold that she does not let go of.

And she told you it's because I want him to listen to me. This is my bully pulpit. This is how he made me feel in the past. She doesn't describe it as teaching him a lesson, but that's exactly what she says, I want him to feel like I felt in the past. I want to tell him things. Ladies and gentlemen, we can play semantical games, but that is teaching him a lesson.

Therefore, we have to look at the other two paragraphs. Because right now, plain as day, the use of deadly force is not justified if you find that Sarah Boone used force to initially provoke the threatened use of force against herself. And what force are we talking about? Well, the threat of force that she tells you she was facing was him fighting for survival, him sticking his fingers out of the suitcase, him sticking his hand out. That is the threat of force, coupled with, I'm going to end you. Well, ladies and gentlemen, she is the initial provocator. She is the one using deadly force against him.

If I have somebody in a rear naked chokehold, they are entitled to use deadly force against me to break that chokehold, at least until we're separated. He had every right to say what he said. He had every right to exist and stick his hand out and try and survive to breathe another day.

However, the use of force is not justified if you find that Sarah Boone used the force to initially provoke the threatened use of force against herself unless she does one of two things -- and she did neither, not even close -- the threat of force asserted towards the defendant was so great that she reasonably believed that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

All right. Let's give her absolutely every benefit of the doubt, which you should. This is a criminal prosecution. The State of Florida has alleged she committed murder. You need to do everything you can to look for reasonable doubt, but a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary doubt, a forced doubt, speculative doubt.

So accepting, accepting that all of their past history, accepting the doctors' testimony and the limitations on what they reviewed compared to what we reviewed, we did a much more thorough review of the relationship than any of the doctors did in this case. So let's give her that first clause, because of their past relationship with Jorge now fighting for his right to exist and saying that he will end her if he gets out, we'll give her that. But just like Mr. Cacciatore mentioned earlier, lawyers' words mean things to us. And they mean things to everybody, but, really, to us, "or" and "and". There's an "and". Had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on Jorge Torres.

She did not use every reasonable means to escape the danger that now, after provoking him, that he was presented to her, according to her. She didn't pick up her cell phone and start walking, call 911. She didn't do anything, other than -- if you believe that is why she called Brian Boone -- made a phone call to Brian Boone and, unfortunately because of past history, he just ignored her drunken phone call. She did not exhaust every reasonable means to escape this danger that she created. She started it. She created this. Other than using the deadly force on Jorge Torres.

Now, this is a weird situation. This is not a rear naked chokehold. This is a suitcase or, as Mr. Cacciatore said, a box; or, actually, more aptly described it as a coffin. And when you secure somebody into a box or a coffin, you can still exert that deadly force on them from a distance. I'll give you a quick example from a couple of movies that I love. In 1977 in May, a movie came out, it was called Star Wars. They eventually called it Episode IV. In the first scene, there is this large imposing figure that wears black armor. He is a government agent and he is looking for some stolen classified documents. He picks a man up who he believes is responsible for this treachery and breaks his neck and chokes him to death when he doesn't tell him where the plans are. We all understand that. That is direct force we all understand. But what we need to understand is the force she's exerting from the couch, and then when she goes up to bed, she is still exerting that force on him. She set these implementations into motion and did not stop.

So later in this movie that came out in 1977, another co-employee of this dark imposing figure, Vader, insults his religion. He does not go to HR, he takes matters into his own hands, and chokes this person from a distance. Ironically, while we're talking about force, it's the force. And then in the subsequent movie, he's, like, doing it from his office. He's killing his incompetent employees on different ships.

Force, deadly force can be exerted from a distance in this situation. So whether she's on the couch or whether she turns in for bed, she is still using that deadly force on him. She has not exhausted every reasonable means to escape this danger. Do something. You started this, you put him in the position where he cannot breathe. She's required by law to do something about it; not something, everything. There was no efforts in this case. None.

Or, in good faith, Sarah Boone withdrew from physical contact with Jorge Torres and clearly indicated to Jorge Torres that she wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but Jorge -- it just reads as Jorge -- Jorge Torres continued or resumed the threatened use of force. That did not happen. She never withdrew from physical contact. She is still, like Vader, choking him from the couch, choking him from bed. She never withdrew that force.

Physical contact includes any restraint on Jorge Torres' movements. She never indicated that she wanted to withdraw. Sarah, babe, I can't breathe. All right, if I let you out, are you gonna come out peacefully since I started this? I'm the one that made you not be able to breathe. That didn't happen.

So, ladies and gentlemen, this entire analysis about deadly force starts and ends there. She was the provocator. These are her obligations when she starts it. She put him in fear of death. He is literally telling her, I cannot breathe.

A couple other things about the law. Second degree murder does not require a proof of intent to kill. Argument was made repeatedly that she didn't intend to kill him. That has never been the State's suggestion, because why would we suggest we've proved something that we don't have to?

It's not her subjective belief. Well, Sarah Boone doesn't believe that this suitcase can kill him even though he's repeatedly said I can't breathe. It's a person of ordinary judgment who would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another. A person of ordinary judgment who hears, I can't breathe, babe, Sarah, and his voice gets weaker nine minutes later, you're on notice. This is statutory notice.

Done from ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent. Her words speak for herself. This was not out of fear. This was out of hatred and anger borne out of all those horrible things that has been done to her and done to him, understand, and we're not going to belabor the past.

Is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life. I don't care that you're saying you can't breathe. Fuck you. That's my name, don't wear it out. Fuck you. It's second degree murder. We do not have to prove the intent to kill.

We have to -- she intended the act. She intended the act of zipping him shut. She continued to intend that act when he said I can't breathe. That act resulted in his death. That's a manslaughter, but then when you add in the hatred, ill will, spite, and the depraved mind, that's what makes it second degree murder. And that two-minute video is the textbook definition of depraved mind as we define it here in Florida. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense. You cannot feel sorry for her because they had two 1.5 liter bottles of wine and then some from the leftovers from the day before. And, quite frankly, she's blackout drunk. She's blackout drunk. She doesn't remember making the videos. She turns her phone over right to the deputy the next day because she doesn't know what's on it. She doesn't remember doing it.

Another thing that we just haven't talked about much is her story. She can't be up in the shower hiding and taking a picture at 11:03 p.m., nine minutes before the video. That portion of her story just doesn't add up. And what it shows is it's more like 20 minutes instead of 11 or 12 minutes that we know he's trapped in what turns out to be his coffin.

Let's talk about her testimony at trial, and we'll talk about all the problems. A lot of her issues predated her relationship with Mr. Torres, so it's not attributable to the trauma from Mr. Torres with all the luggage that she brought into the relationship.

And listen to the way she talks. It's not splitting the bills, it's helping without argument. It's not cleaning up and doing Sunday chores, it's cleaning up so we can relax, it's a reward. She talks about him like he's a child. I need to lead him to the next activity from one to the other. And then you saw all the videos, and I'm not going to belabor it, that was shown in rebuttal, but the relationship and the power dynamics speak for itself.

He was treated like the third dog. And he might very well have been a dog that bit and was violent, but he was treated like a dog. Why are you leaning against my door? Get out of here. Go downstairs. You're worthless. You're garbage. They showed the part of the video where he slaps the phone, but that's after five or six minutes of being berated and dehumanized in a way that nobody should be treated. He just wanted to get in bed and lay down next to his fiancee. Instead, Get away from the side of my door, you useless dog.

I thought it might be a good point in time to listen to the music. You know, when does -- when does Mr. Torres get to decide what to do? I mean, she paints this picture that he goes off and does all these things on his own, goes and buys wine when he's not supposed to do, does all these things when he's not supposed to, but when does he get to do what he wants?

Suitcase downstairs for a week so they can donate it. What was in their lives that was preventing them from getting that suitcase to Goodwill or whatever? Neither one of them worked. What's going on? Lucas is over there on Mondays and Tuesdays. The story about the suitcase having already been down there is quite suspect, and we will get into that more, but, again, it's not, we went on a trip together, we had a great time, it's, quote-unquote, I recently took him ona trip.

Then it comes down to the moment of truth, which we've already gone over, and it's just, quite frankly, inconsistent because there's no explanation for the picture. Her explanation at trial when I brought it up to her was, I just don't remember. I don't remember this period in time from the picture at 11:03 to when I was supposed to be coming down the stairs. There's a major glitch in her matrix.

She shakes the suitcase, Please stop doing this to me, and then his hand gets out. Now she's at the point in time when she gets angry and doesn't do what the law requires after basically choking him with his coffin. Beats him into submission with the bat and turns it back over.

For the first time ever at trial, she says, I'm going to fucking end you is what he said. She never told that to even her doctors. We've heard the arguments of why she didn't tell the truth to the police and all that, and there's a lot of truth into the argument that was made. There's a lot of truth. When the argument is made that she didn't understand self-defense, what that means, what it comes across as, she makes this story change as she learns about it. When we apply the jury instructions to her statement, all six of them apply against her. I won't belabor this since it was discussed earlier, but did the witness have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified? Even at trial, she admitted that she was intoxicated for the first time. She went back and forth with the police about whether or not she was intoxicated and her standard of drunkenness and whatnot, but she was so intoxicated that she still felt the effects of it at 1:00 in the afternoon the following day.

The medical examiner told you that alcohol dissipates in the average person -- everybody is different, tolerance, all sorts of things come into play, but on average, .015 grams per deciliter will dissipate every hour. So you can do the math. .015 times 14 puts her at two and a half times the legal limit. For those reasons alone, you should not believe anything she told you. You should not believe anything she told the police. You should not believe anything she told the doctors. She was at two and a half times the legal limit. She has a gap in her memory that's unexplained when I brought up the photograph at 11:03. You can't have it both ways, I don't remember 11:03 to 11:12, but I was upstairs in the shower hiding.

Does the witness seem to have an accurate memory? Well, this ties into what we're talking about, but, again, there's a glitch in the matrix 11:03 to 11:12. Her memory is not accurate. By her own admission, I don't remember. She tells the police, when they show her the video, I don't remember that happening.

Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys' questions? I submit when we got off script -- and by "we," I mean both -- with both attorneys -- she wasn't as honest and straightforward as when it was a very directed and smooth examination.

I came out of the gate with something that was off script. Tell me about Pamela Erickson. Tell me about Christine. Tell me about Crystal, because she's the one that said cheating to her meant pornography. Well, ladies and gentlemen, you know she knew exactly who those people were and she believed that he was cheating on them [sic] with her [sic], and apparently she is too with some guy named Ben.

When I describe this as a violent nonsensical relationship, that's exactly what it is. It's not to downplay the violence. She got stabbed. She had minor surgery. It got infected. She -- those injuries are real, but they just don't apply in this case. They just don't apply when you use that self-defense instruction when she's the aggressor, if it's to be believed.

MR. JAY: Let me say it loud and clear, battered spouse syndrome does not have any effect on this case. It has no relationship to this case because she is the aggressor. She zipped him shut in the suitcase. After he said, I couldn't breathe, she wouldn't let him out, therefore, all of the instructions above that paragraph of "however" do not apply. They do not apply.

Now, turning back to what I was saying. Did the witness have some interest in how the case would be decided? Well, of course. Three out of four panels that you-all came from indicated to the judge that fear of punishment was more important than the fear of public speaking. It speaks for itself, she has an interest in the outcome of the case.

Now let's talk about, does her testimony agree with the other evidence in the case? You do not have to accept this story. Let's pretend, as you should, because all six of these things -- because we haven't gotten to the inconsistent statements. Let's pretend her testimony doesn't exist and you just have to look at the circumstances. The testimony from the defendant is Jorge Torres' head is here -- and you can stand if you need, and you've been sitting a long time too.

His head is here. His butt is kind of down here. His feet are here. And his hands and his knees are up here. He's in the fetal position, if we remember right. The hematoma on his head is on the left side. The bruises, the deep bruises on his back, are on his left side. That's -- you hear that? That's solid.

MR. JAY: You don't have to accept that she put those marks on him while he was in there. The evidence doesn't support it. You can conclude she used this bat when he was outside of the suitcase. You don't have to believe her when she said they were playing hide-and-seek. You don't have to believe her because she doesn't know the rules. She came downstairs, saw what she had done, and had all the opportunity in the world to clean up whatever mess may have been at the bottom of the stairs, but, ladies and gentlemen, physics doesn't lie.

She can't expect you to believe her testimony about the loud boom being the day before compared to her two neighbors, who weren't drinking, who have no interest in the outcome of the case, who suffer from none of the infirmities of her testimony. She suffers from all six infirmities.

When her neighbors say there was a loud boom that night, there was a loud boom that night. Did it shake the wall they shared in common? It shook the wall that they shared in common.

Did she have any injuries consistent with being dragged up and down the stairs the night before? No. You saw the pictures the CSI took. You don't have to accept her story about hide-and-seek.

Something made that loud boom. It takes energy to make a loud boom, energy that could very well be in the form of somebody going down some of the stairs, all of the stairs, in the suitcase, out of the suitcase. But that's what the evidence supports, is there was a loud boom that shook the walls and interrupted a FaceTime conversation that was so loud that the girlfriend on the other end heard it. Something loud happened and then there was silence, according to the witnesses.

And they can argue that Juan Torres' testimony was great for them. It's great for the State. She was screaming at him already at 7:30 p.m. She was already on her bully pulpit. And we know she doesn't need to put him into the coffin to get on her bully pulpit. There's video after video of her on her bully pulpit, telling him how it's going to be, how you're going to live your life; go take a walk, do this, do that.

You don't have to accept anything she said. It's inconsistent that he received the hematoma to his head. His bloody mouth. How is his mouth getting bloodied inside the suitcase? That's protected from her and her bat, but that suitcase -- a 100-pound drunk woman is not beating through the wood of that suitcase or whatever it is that's making that noise when it's thumped. Ladies and gentlemen, those injuries happened outside of the suitcase. Ladies and gentlemen, somebody or something went down those stairs. She has no injuries consistent with going down the stairs. He does. He has blunt force trauma all over him. You don't have to buy her story, and you shouldn't.

The inconsistencies? I'm not going to belabor it. Your dinner is waiting in back.

Let's just briefly talk about the experts and we'll move on to the end. Dr. Brannon was absolutely fantastic. He explained everything that you-all needed to know about battered spouse syndrome. And this isn't about whether one of them or both of them had battered spouse, because at the end of the day, she's the initial aggressor and she had the duty to do the things that the law requires, but it does call into question the credibility of the past power dynamics of their relationship. Those videos speak for themselves.

The officer in the last video asks him, Dude, you're a guy, why don't you -- why don't you do something about this woman, your wifey, who you don't want to rat on for beating you? He's like, Man, I'm not a beefcake, I'm not going to rat her out.

There's countless examples, if you apply Dr. Brannon's testimony to Juan [sic] Torres, that really shows you the power dynamics of the relationship. He was her violent pet. Dr. Harper, I don't find much quarrel with what she says about battered spouse syndrome, and nobody should. I mean, she's the expert, but she's not Ms. Boone's treating physician. She's not her treating psychologist. The way it was described in argument, and I believe from Dr. Brannon's testimony, was she's supposed to be a forensic detective. Get to the bottom of this. She's gonna come in here at trial and tell you her opinion you should rely upon. With nine visits, she never asked the defendant what it is the victim said that put you in imminent fear of death or great bodily harm. That's the crux of the matter, Doc. You're never going to ask her what it is he said or did for this grand jury instruction about threat of force or use of force? It's remarkable. And, you know, she didn't review everything that was presented to you. At the end of the day, it's your opinion that matters about this relationship.

And, again, we agree with Dr. Werner. It doesn't matter, she had the duty to retreat. She had the duty to take the chokehold off. And if it was too dangerous for her to directly take the chokehold off, she had the duty to do something else, everything in her power, to stop him from dying because she started it. She set it in motion. She used the force grip on him from a distance, the couch and from bed. It was her obligation to stop, and she didn't.

But Dr. Werner, she was called by the State of Florida, after having evaluated and listened to the defendant give a similar story, and concluded battered spouse doesn't apply, so she was never asked to delve any deeper into it. Given the information that she did have, the limited information, she agrees, yes, Ms. Boone has battered spouse syndrome, but it doesn't apply to the case because she was the aggressor and she did not fulfill her obligations.

And, really, just your gut common sense. Go back to jury selection. In jury selection, there was examples about bullies day after day doing something to somebody, and somebody raised their hand and said, Don't they have to do something that day, don't they have to do something that day? And he didn't. After he was put in fear of death and told her he can't breathe, the imminent threat of great bodily harm and death she is describing to you is him fighting for his life to escape. She did not fulfill her obligations.

There's details that matter. And, again, not to belabor it. I mean, the evidence in the body-worn camera and the 911 calls, it's not offered to prove the truth of the matter of who stated what. Who knows what happened between these two. You see them with the police. You can't believe anything they're saying. It's not offered to prove that she's a bad person. It's not offered to prove that Mr. Torres is a bad person. It's simply offered to call in question the reliability and credibility of what she said about the past. That's all that it's there for, but there are some nuggets and some Easter eggs.

There was an argument made during closings that Mr. Torres knows not to do anything when being videotaped. Bizarrely, shortly thereafter, they showed a very edited clip of him attacking her and slapping the phone out of her hand. He knows he was being videotaped. And there was another video like it too. So to make the argument that he doesn't do anything, he's a good boy when he's being videotaped, it's belied by their own argument. They showed one of the videos.

Learned helplessness. She seemed to control everything. I mean, his birth certificate, it gets torn up when he doesn't comply with her wishes. And you'll see the rest of the text messages, if you choose to delve into them, but I would suggest you don't have to given the jury instruction about aggressor.

Ladies and gentlemen, this has been a long two weeks and you are making a very, very important decision for Ms. Boone and a very, very important decision for Mr. Torres and the State of Florida and his family. He's dead. She killed him. She's admitting she killed him to have this affirmative defense of I was justified. It was not justified under our law. She does not get to decide that she has a license to kill because of her past grievances. The law requires her to stop using the force that she started applying to him, and she didn't. She didn't withdraw. She didn't tell him she was withdrawing. She didn't use every means available to try and stop this from happening. She didn't. And you know what was in her heart. She tells you. It's hatred, ill will, spite, and venom.

This is not a self-defense case under the law. Go back and follow the law. You cannot feel sorry for her. You cannot feel sorry for him. You cannot feel angry at her. You cannot feel angry at him.

It's maddening to see their relationship. It is maddening. Nobody would want this life for yourselves or your children. It is violent nonsense, but it does not affect what she did and what her duties were under the law that night. She wanted to punish him, she did, and then she left him there. And she had an obligation -- if you even believe her story about the imminent threat for him fighting for his life, she had an obligation to do something about it and not just go upstairs and let him suffocate.

Thank you.