CT v. Cooper Ouellette Day 1

Chris Watson (00:00):

Morning, Your Honor.

Chris Pelosi (00:00):

Morning, everybody. Have a seat.

Chris Watson (00:00):

Morning, Your Honor.

David Clifton (00:00):

Morning, Your Honor.

Chris Pelosi (13:32):

All right. Can counsel identify themselves for the record, please?

Chris Watson (13:34):

Morning, Your Honor. Chris Watson for the State.

David Clifton (13:35):

Morning, Your Honor. David Clifton for the State.

Martin Minella (13:37):

Martin Minella for the defendant.

Jon Raad (13:40):

Jon Raad for the defendant.

Chris Pelosi (13:40):

All right.

(13:40)
Good morning, Mr. Ouellette.

(13:42)
All right, have a seat, ladies and gentlemen. Before we begin, I want to remind counsel for both sides of their obligations under Rule 3.6 of the professional conduct and Connecticut Practice Book 42-48 concerning trial publicity. The court's ordering that, according to 42-48, entitled Cautioning Parties and Witnesses, "Whenever appropriate in the light of the issues in the case or its notoriety, the court may direct the parties, their counsel, and the witnesses not to make statements relating to the case or the issues in the case, or dissemination by any means of public communication. Counsel must refrain from making statements outside the courtroom that they know, or reasonably should know, will be publicly disseminated, and will have a substantial likelihood of materiality prejudicing this proceeding. This obligation applies to statements to the press and to other communications, including social media.

(14:35)
"The jury must decide this case solely on the evidence admitted in court and the court's instructions. Counsel should keep that principle firmly in mind when considering any public comment about the case. This is a reminder of your existing professional obligations, including the limited exception in Rule 3.6(b) for responding to certain prejudicial publicity."

(14:56)
With that said, I just want to do some recapping, here. Prior to the jury coming out and its introduction to the jury, the court had asked counsel relative to an instruction, if they want me to, or if counsel wants me to comment that the defendant may or may not testify in this case, an accused person has the option to testify or not testify at the trial. Under no obligation to testify is a constitutional right to testify. You cannot draw any unfavorable inferences from his choice not to testify.

(15:27)
Do you want that instruction, Attorney Minella?

Martin Minella (15:29):

Yes, Your Honor, I do.

Chris Pelosi (15:30):

Okay.

(15:31)
Relative to sequestration, 42-36, I know we've met in chambers about this issue.

(15:37)
Does the State want to put anything on the record relative to that?

Chris Watson (15:40):

As it pertains to the sequestration order, we have addressed that sequestration order with all the witnesses that we intend on calling at trial. And what we've indicated to them is they're not to discuss their testimony with any other witness after they testify, or before they testify, and they are not to watch any of the live stream of this trial before they testify.

Chris Pelosi (15:58):

Appreciate that.

(15:59)
Attorney Minella?

Martin Minella (15:59):

Yes, Your Honor. And I have told the State and the State's attorneys that we have no objection to after the mother testifies... of the decedent, for her to remain in the courtroom.

Chris Pelosi (16:15):

Thank you, Attorney Minella. Appreciate that.

(16:17)
All right. Relative to delivery of alcohol to a minor, Count II, I had supplied or submitted my instruction to counsel last week. I didn't hear anything from counsel. That's what I intend at this point to instruct the jury on.

Martin Minella (16:34):

We have no objection [inaudible 00:16:36].

Chris Pelosi (16:36):

Okay.

(16:37)
Relative to the decedent's family, Sophie's family, when they're put under oath, obviously we should just ask for their initial of their last name.

(16:49)
Does the State want to be heard on that?

Chris Watson (16:51):

No, but I thank you for that.

Chris Pelosi (16:53):

Counsel?

Martin Minella (16:53):

No, Your Honor.

Chris Pelosi (16:54):

All right.

Martin Minella (16:55):

How should we address, for example, the mother? By her last name?

Chris Pelosi (17:00):

No, we're not using her last name. You could say Ms. R. or L.R.

(17:06)
Do you want to agree what you want to call Ms. R?

Chris Watson (17:09):

I don't think she'll have an objection to Defense Counsel calling her Lynn. I think that'll probably be easier.

Chris Pelosi (17:15):

Lynn?

Martin Minella (17:16):

Calling her Lynn?

Chris Pelosi (17:17):

Yeah. That's her name. Okay?

Martin Minella (17:20):

Thank you [inaudible 00:17:20].

Chris Pelosi (17:20):

I appreciate that.

(17:21)
And finally, earlier this week, October 23rd, my clerk... thank you, Attorney Ferriola, sent out an email that the jurors are going to be addressed by number and initials, and the process will be as follows: The clerk is going to provide a juror a number. The number's going to correspond to the order they're selected. The clerk is going to write that number and the juror's initials on paper. For example, Juror Number 1 will be the initials MS. Each juror will get the slip of paper with their number and initial on it. The clerk will inform the jurors before the trial that this is how they're going to be referred to on the record. The jurors' names are going to be sealed for seven days following the end of the trial. Has that been complied with, Attorney Ferriola?

Attorney Ferriola (18:02):

Yes, Your Honor.

Chris Pelosi (18:02):

The State or Defense want to hear anything on that?

Chris Watson (18:05):

No.

Martin Minella (18:06):

No, Your Honor.

Chris Pelosi (18:07):

All right.

(18:08)
And finally, if there are any jury instructions that the parties want to submit, I encourage you to do that as soon as possible. Not the standard ones, so forth. Any special instructions? The court will be sending out a rough draft, a very rough draft, by the end of the day today.

Martin Minella (18:27):

We will do that by, hopefully, tomorrow, Your Honor.

Chris Pelosi (18:30):

Thank you. All right.

(18:33)
Anything else from the State?

Chris Watson (18:34):

Yes, just briefly. The State has complied with its Giglio obligations. There's no materials that need to be turned over to Defense. We've also complied with the obligation to run a criminal record on any witness that we will be calling. There is nothing to disclose in that manner. Previous to the trial, this past Monday, we met with all of defense counsel in our office. We went over every exhibit that we're going to enter into evidence. We have an agreement on the majority of those exhibits. We're going to have them pre-marked for identification, and by agreement, marked as full so that we don't have to go back and forth to the clerk. So with that being said, I think that's it.

Chris Pelosi (19:13):

I appreciate that, Attorney Watson.

David Clifton (19:15):

[inaudible 00:19:15] full exhibits. We've gone over everything that was provided by the State, and we agree to that.

Chris Pelosi (19:21):

All right. I appreciate that cooperation between the parties.

Chris Watson (19:24):

I will also indicate that, as I normally do, we have given the names of all the witnesses that we intend on calling. We have disclosed to defense counsel the witnesses we will be calling today, and I will let defense counsel know the witnesses we're calling the next several days so that they don't have to prepare additional witnesses other than the ones that we're calling.

Chris Pelosi (19:42):

Thank you again, Attorney Watson.

Martin Minella (19:43):

We will also supply, at the proper time, the list of witnesses [inaudible 00:19:49].

Chris Pelosi (19:50):

All right. And with that said, I'm going to just anticipate and tell the jurors the schedule. We anticipate to end evidence on or about November 10th or November 9th, maybe sooner.

Chris Watson (20:04):

Yes.

Chris Pelosi (20:05):

Okay.

(20:06)
All right. That's what I'll tell them. All right. And jury deliberations are going to be up to them.

Martin Minella (20:09):

Thank you.

Chris Pelosi (20:09):

All right.

(20:09)
Attorney Ferriola?

Chris Watson (20:09):

Yes.

Martin Minella (20:09):

The defense is, Your Honor.

Chris Watson (20:30):

Yes. And I would just remind both defense counsel and co-counsel for myself that, if you wish to have conversations that don't want to be recorded, you need to hit the red button.

Martin Minella (20:40):

I directed Attorney Raad that, Your Honor. Thank you.

Chris Pelosi (20:43):

Attorney Raad has that, right?

Jon Raad (20:45):

Yes, Your Honor.

Martin Minella (20:45):

You got the [inaudible 00:20:47].

Chris Pelosi (20:47):

All right. Thank you.

(20:48)
Let's bring the jury in.

Martin Minella (20:49):

Thank you, Your Honor.

Chris Watson (20:52):

And do we have standing permission to walk through the well?

Chris Pelosi (20:54):

Absolutely.

Chris Watson (20:55):

Thank you.

Chris Pelosi (21:38):

Again, before the jury comes out, I know it's quick. Sophie R. is going to be referred to as "the decedent" or "Sophie R."?

Martin Minella (21:45):

Correct, Your Honor.

Chris Pelosi (21:46):

Okay? We're not going to use the word "victim" at this point.

Martin Minella (21:48):

I understand that, Your Honor. Your Honor, one other housekeeping before they come out. Do you require us, when we are addressing the witness, to always be standing up?

Chris Pelosi (22:05):

I do.

Martin Minella (22:06):

Okay.

Chris Pelosi (22:07):

Unless there's a health issue or physical issue that-

Martin Minella (22:11):

No, Your Honor. I just wanted to make that clear.

Chris Pelosi (22:12):

All right. Unless there's a physical issue or any type of issue that-

Martin Minella (22:16):

Age.

Chris Pelosi (22:17):

Age? You have permission.

Martin Minella (22:19):

Thank you, Your Honor.

Chris Pelosi (22:20):

You're welcome.

Chris Watson (22:44):

Judge, I've had all of the State's exhibits placed on one thumb drive. That thumb drive is in the possession of Inspector Apicella. And once we place an item into evidence and it's a full exhibit, it'll be accessing a thumb drive to digitally display it on the monitors --

Chris Pelosi (22:58):

Thank [inaudible 00:22:58].

Chris Watson (22:58):

-- instead of a physical exhibit.

Chris Pelosi (23:00):

Appreciate that. All right. One, two, three, four, five, five, six. All right. Would the parties stipulate to the presence of the jury?

Martin Minella (23:53):

Yes, Your Honor.

Chris Watson (23:54):

State does.

Chris Pelosi (23:55):

All right.

(23:55)
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Have a seat. Make yourself comfortable. Again, I just want to introduce myself. I'm Chris Pelosi, and I want to thank you again for your service. The first order of business that we're going to do today is that, our clerk, Attorney Ferriola, is going to take the role and have you sworn in. Thank you.

Attorney Ferriola (24:20):

Ladies and gentlemen, when your number and initials are called, please indicate your presence by answering, "Here," then rise and remain standing.

(24:27)
Juror Number 1, MS.

Juror 1 (24:29):

Here.

Attorney Ferriola (24:30):

Juror Number 2, BJ.

Juror 2 (24:32):

Here.

Attorney Ferriola (24:33):

Juror Number 3, PC.

Juror 3 (24:34):

Here.

Attorney Ferriola (24:35):

Juror Number 4, JR.

Juror 4 (24:37):

Here.

Attorney Ferriola (24:38):

Juror Number 5, MG.

Juror 5 (24:40):

Here.

Attorney Ferriola (24:40):

Juror Number 6, CS.

Juror 6 (24:43):

Here.

Attorney Ferriola (24:44):

Please raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that you will, without respect of any persons or favor of any person, decide this case between the State of Connecticut and the defendant, based on the evidence given in court and on the laws of the state, as explained by the judge, that you will not talk to each other about this case until instructed to do so, that you will listen and consider what other jurors have to say in deliberations about this case, that you will not speak to anyone else or allow anyone else to speak to you about this case until you have been discharged by the court, and that, when you have reached a decision, you will not disclose the decision until it is announced in court, so help you God, upon penalty of perjury?

Jurors (25:23):

I do.

Attorney Ferriola (25:25):

Thank you. You may be seated.

(25:28)
Ladies and gentlemen, when your number and initial are called, please indicate your presence by answering, "Here," then rise and remain standing.

(25:35)
Juror Number 7, JF.

Juror 7 (25:37):

Here.

Attorney Ferriola (25:39):

Juror Number 8, PK.

Juror 8 (25:39):

Here.

Attorney Ferriola (25:41):

Juror Number 9, AM.

Juror 9 (25:43):

Here.

Attorney Ferriola (25:43):

Please raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that if you become a member of the jury in this case, you will, without respect of any persons or favor of any person, decide the case between the State of Connecticut and the defendant, based on the evidence given in court and on the laws of the state, as explained by the judge, that you will listen to and consider what the other jurors have to say in deliberations about this case, that you will not speak to anyone else or allow anyone else to speak to you about this case until you have been discharged by the court, and that, when you reach a decision, you will not disclose the decision until it is announced in court, so help you God, or upon penalty of perjury?

Jurors (26:18):

I do.

Attorney Ferriola (26:19):

Thank you. You may be seated.

Chris Pelosi (26:20):

Thank you. Have a seat.

(26:22)
Before I address the jury, I do want to tell everybody, at this point, if you do have a cell phone, to not put it on silent, but to turn it off. Obviously, there's a record being made and it's significant to the parties, the defense, as well as the State, so I appreciate that.

(26:43)
All right, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, my remarks at this time are to generally acquaint you with some of the legal principles that will control your deliberations, and give you an idea how the trial is going to proceed, how long it's expected to take, and what our daily schedule is going to look like. You'll get detailed instructions of law at the end of the trial before you begin your deliberations.

(27:05)
This is a criminal case. The State has brought charges against Mr. Ouellette as follows: Count I, State's Attorney Christian Watson and Senior Assistant State's Attorney David Clifton accuses Cooper Ouellette of manslaughter in the first degree and charges that, on May 20th, 2023, in the town of Burlington, at or near Fieldview Drive, the said, Cooper Ouellette, under circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to human life, recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby caused the death of another person.

(27:40)
To whip, Cooper Ouellette provided alcohol to Sophie and engaged in assaultive behavior towards Sophie, and operated a motor vehicle recklessly with Sophie as an occupant, and unlocked Sophie's passenger-side door while the car was in motion, and Sophie separated from the passenger side of the car, and as a result of that separation, Sophie received crushing injuries, misconducts in violation of 53A-55(a)(3) of the Connecticut general statutes.

(28:10)
Count II, the State's attorneys further charge Cooper Ouellette of delivery of alcohol to a minor, and charges that, on May 20th, 2023, in the village of Terryville at the Schultz Corporation, the said, Cooper Ouellette, delivered alcoholic liquor to a minor, misconduct's in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 30- 86(b)(2).

(28:36)
Again, ladies and gentlemen, the information, what I just read, is not evidence. It's merely the formal means of accusing a person of a crime and bringing him to trial. You must not consider it as any evidence of the guilt of the defendant or draw any inference of the guilt because the defendant has been arrested and formally charged. Each charge against the defendant is set forth in the information as a separate count, and you must consider each count separately in deciding this case. Manslaughter in the first degree, as I stated, is in violation of 53A-55(a)(3). The statute defining this offense reads, in pertinent part, as follows: A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person.

(29:33)
For the defendant to be found guilty of this charge, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Element 1, conduct created a grave risk of death. The first element is that the defendant engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of death.

(29:50)
Element 2, recklessness. The second element is that the defendant acted recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or circumstance when he is aware of, and consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur, or that such circumstances exist.

(30:12)
Element 3, extreme indifference to human life. Third element is that the defendant's conduct demonstrated an extreme indifference to human life. "Indifference" means simply not caring. It means lacking any interest in a matter, one way or the other. "Extreme" means existing in the highest or greatest possible degree. "Extreme indifference" is more than ordinary indifference. It is synonymous with "excessive", and is the greatest departure from the ordinary. What evinces an extreme indifference to human life is a question of fact.

(30:47)
Element 4, cause death. The fourth element is that the defendant caused the death of Sophie R. This means that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the decedent's death. You must find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Sophie R. died as a result of the actions of the defendant.

(31:06)
In conclusion, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, one, the defendant engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of death; two, the defendant acted recklessly; three, he acted under circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to human life; and four, the defendant caused the death of Sophie R. If you unanimously find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall find the defendant not guilty.

(31:51)
Count II, delivery of alcohol to a minor. The defendant is charged in Count II with delivery of alcohol to a minor. The statute defining this offense reads, in pertinent part, as follows: A person is guilty of delivery of alcohol to a minor when such person gives alcoholic liquor to a minor by any means. For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Element 1, gives alcoholic liquor. First element is that the defendant willfully gave alcoholic liquor to Sophie R., who was a minor. The term "give" has its ordinary meaning. "Willfully" means intentionally or deliberately. Element 2, alcoholic liquor. Second element is that the defendant delivered or gave alcoholic liquor to Sophie R. "Alcoholic liquor" is defined by statute, and includes alcohol, spirits, beer and wine and every liquid or solid, patented or not, containing alcohol, spirits, beer and wine incapable of being consumed by a human being for beverage purposes. The definition does not apply to any liquid or solid containing less than one-half percent of alcohol by volume. Element 3, provided to a minor. Third element is, at the time of the defendant's conduct, Sophie R. was under the age of 21 years of age. That means Sophie R. had not had her 21st birthday when the alleged conduct took place.

(33:14)
So in conclusion, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, one, the defendant gave alcoholic liquor to a minor, and that the minor was under the age of 21. If you unanimously find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of delivery of alcoholic liquor to a minor, you should find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall find the defendant not guilty.

(33:51)
Every defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent, and this presumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial, unless and until he is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is on the State...

Chris Pelosi (34:00):

Proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is on the state to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof never shifts throughout the trial. Unless you find at the conclusion of all the evidence that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed every element of an offense, you must find him not guilty of that offense. On the other hand, if you're satisfied that the evidence establishes the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, you should not hesitate to find him guilty. The defendant may or may not testify in this case. An accused person has the option to testify or not to testify at the trial. He is under no obligation to testify. He has a constitutional right not to testify. You must draw no unfavorable inferences from the defendant's choice not to testify.

(34:50)
The procedure of the trial is as follows. After I finish this instruction, the state's going to present evidence. Then the defendant may present evidence. The defendant has no legal obligation to present evidence. The law does not require a defendant to prove his innocence or to produce any evidence. If the defendant does present evidence, the state may then present rebuttal evidence if it so chooses. When all the evidence has been presented to you, the lawyers will make their final arguments to you. Please bear in mind that argument is not evidence. You may consider argument of counsel during your deliberation, but it's not evidence. Under all rules, the state argues first, then the defendant through counsel argues and the state argues a second time, but the defendant does not argue a second time. Each counsel is given the same amount of time for argument. It's only the state that breaks the argument into two parts.

(35:45)
When arguments are completed, I will then instruct you as to the law that you must apply in this case. At the conclusion of the instructions, I will send you to the jury room to begin your deliberations. That is the first time you will discuss this case with anyone. Up until that time, you will not discuss this case with anyone, not even each other. Once deliberations start, deliberations must be conducted in the jury room only when all the jurors are present. When you deliberate, you apply the facts that you find to the law as I instruct you to reach in your verdict. Your verdict must be unanimous. My responsibility as judge is to conduct the trial of this case in an orderly, fair, and efficient manner, to rule on questions of law arising during the trial and to instruct you as to the law that applies to this case.

(36:35)
It is your duty to accept the law as I stated to you, whether you agree with it or not. My actions during the trial in ruling on claims or objections by counsel and comments to counsel and questions to witnesses or in setting forth the law and instructions to you are not to be taken by you as any indication of my opinion as to how you should determine the issues of fact. If you come to believe during the trial that I have expressed any opinion as to the facts, you should disregard it. As I've told you, my job as a judge is to ensure that there is a fair trial so that you can decide the case. During the course of the trial, I may occasionally ask a question of a witness. Please don't assume that I hold any opinion on the matter to which my questions may relate.

(37:22)
Remember at all times that you as jurors are at liberty to disregard all comments or questions of the court and the witness's responses to those questions in arriving at your own findings as to the facts. You must not take anything I say or do during the trial as indicating what I think of the evidence or what your verdict should be. Your function as the jury is to determine the facts. You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts and you alone determine the weight, the effect and the value of the evidence as well as the credibility of the witnesses. You must consider and weigh the testimony of all the witnesses who appear before you and you alone and to determine whether to believe any witness and to the extent to which any witness should be believed. It is your responsibility to resolve any conflicts and testimony that may arise during the course of the trial and to determine where the truth lies.

(38:18)
You are entitled in the course of evaluating the evidence to draw any and all inferences that you find reasonable and logical from the evidence you hear. You will decide what the facts are from the evidence that's going to be presented in this courtroom. That evidence will consist of the testimony of witnesses, documents, and other material admitted into evidence as exhibits, and any facts on which the lawyers agree or that I instruct you to accept. The following are not evidence. You must not consider them as evidence in deciding the facts of this case. Statements and arguments by the lawyers, questions and objections of the attorneys, testimony that I instruct you to disregard. There's two kinds of evidence, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. That is, it's evidence from which you can infer another fact. By way of example, you wake up at the morning and see that the sidewalk is wet, you may infer that it rained during the night.

(39:22)
The wet sidewalk is circumstantial evidence that it rained. However, other evidence may provide another explanation for the water on the sidewalk such as a garden hose that was left on overnight. So before you decide that the fact has been proved by circumstantial evidence, you must consider all the evidence in light of reason, experience, and common sense. In deciding this case, you can consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. The law permits you to give equal weight to both, but it's up to you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence. Some evidence may be admitted for a limited purpose only. When I instruct you that a piece of evidence has been admitted for a limited purpose, you can consider it only for that purpose and for no other.

(40:08)
In deciding the facts of this case, you are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses. You will have to decide which witnesses to believe and which witnesses not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says or only part of it or none of it. Every witness starts on an equal basis. You are to listen to all of them with an open mind and judge them by all the same standards. Police officials will be testifying in this case. Again, you must determine the credibility of a police official in the same way and by the same standards as you would evaluate the testimony of any other witness. The testimony of a police official is entitled to no special or exclusive weight merely because it comes from a police official. You should recall their demeanor on the stand and manner of testifying and weigh and balance it just as carefully as you would the testimony of any other witness.

(40:54)
You should neither believe nor disbelieve the testimony of a police official just because they are a police official. During the course of the trial, counsel for either party may object to a question asked by the other lawyer. It's the responsibility of counsel to object to evidence which he believes is not properly admissible and you should not be prejudiced in any way against a lawyer who makes these objections. When that happens, I will rule on that objection. If I sustain the objection, you will not hear the answer to the question and you should not wonder why it was asked or speculate as to what an answer might be. If I overrule an objection, you will hear the answer to the question and you can give it whatever consideration you feel it is entitled to. There may be times when counsel or the court may ask you to be excused when arguments or objections are made. Those arguments often include matters of evidence that the court may eventually exclude.

(41:51)
The reason that I ask you to step out is to assure that you will not hear evidence that is not properly admissible and not to keep from you evidence that you should hear. A few moments ago, you took an oath that's going to govern your conduct as jurors between the time you took that oath and the time that you were discharged by me after you rendered a verdict in this case. That oath and the rules of court obligate you to do certain things and to avoid other things, and I want to go over those obligations with you now. First, you must decide this case based only on the evidence presented here in court and on the law as I explained it to you. Second, do not make up your minds about what your verdict will be until after you've heard all the evidence, heard the closing arguments of the attorneys, my instructions in the law, and after that, you and your fellow jurors have discussed the evidence. Keep an open mind until that time.

(42:49)
Some rules flow from those obligations that I want to go over now. You can't perform any investigation or research or experiment of any kind on your own, either individually or as a group. Don't go to dictionaries for the meaning of words or encyclopedias for general information on the subjects of this trial. Don't look up anything on the internet concerning information about the case or any of the people involved, including the defendant, the witnesses, the lawyers, or the judge. Do not get copies of any statutes that may be referred to in court today. Do not go to the scenes or any of the events that are the subject of this trial took place or use internet maps or Google Earth or any other program or device to search for or view any place discussed during this case. And why is that? Because the parties have a right to have the case decided only on evidence they know about and that has been introduced here in court.

(43:47)
If you do some research or investigation or experiment that we don't know about, your verdict may be influenced by information that has not been tested by the oath to tell the truth and by cross-examination. Same thing is true of any media reports you may come across about the case or anybody connected to this case. If you do come across any reports in the newspaper, TV, internet, you cannot read or watch them because they may refer to information not introduced here in court or they may contain inaccurate information. If you are accidentally exposed to such information, do not discuss it with your fellow jurors and notify the clerk in writing.

(44:29)
You may not discuss the case with anyone else, including anyone involved with this case until the trial is over and they've been discharged as jurors. Anyone else includes members of your family, your friends, coworkers. If you wish, you can tell them you're serving as a juror, but you may not tell them anything else about the case until it's over. You may not talk to any of the court personnel such as marshals and clerks about the case. You may not ask friends you have who are lawyers or law enforcement personnel for advice or information about any matters related to this case. Again, why is that? Because they haven't heard the evidence you've heard and in discussing the case with them, you may be influenced in your verdict by their opinions and that would be not fair to the parties and it may result in a verdict that is not based on evidence and the law.

(45:18)
You may not communicate to anyone any information about the case by any means, including but not limited to texting, emailing, internet, and social media. Both the defendant and the state are entitled to a fair trial rendered by an impartial jury and you must conduct yourself so as to maintain the integrity of the trial process. When you've rendered a verdict and have been dismissed by the court, you're free to discuss the case with anyone you wish, though remember you're not required to. Until then, you must be focused solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom and your obligations to the fairness of the proceeding. In addition, you may not talk to each other about the case until I tell you to do so, and that will not be until you've heard all the evidence, you've heard closing arguments, and you've heard my instructions on the law that you are to apply to this case.

(46:05)
And why is that? It may only seem natural that you would talk about the case as it's going on. The problem with that is when people start discussing things, they take positions on them and express opinions which are often hard for them to change later on. So if you're permitted to discuss the case while it's going on, you might reach conclusions or express opinions before you've heard all the evidence or heard the final arguments or heard the law that you must apply in the case. Your verdicts in this case might then be improperly influenced by the conclusions or opinions you or your fellow jurors have reached before you knew about all the evidence or the law that will help you put the evidence in proper context for your deliberations and verdicts. So what happens if these rules are violated by a juror? In some cases, violation of the rules of juror conduct have resulted in hearings after trial at which jurors have to testify about their conduct. In some cases, the verdict of the jury has been set aside and a new jury or new trial has been ordered because of jury misconduct. So it's really important you abide by these rules. If someone should attempt to talk to you, please report it to the clerk immediately. If you see or hear anything of a prejudicial nature or that you think might compromise the proper conduct of this trial, please report it to the clerk immediately. These communications have to be in writing. Do not discuss any matters with your fellow jurors.

(47:33)
In deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, you should not concern yourselves with the punishment or potential consequence in the event of a conviction. This is a matter exclusively within the function under the limitations and restrictions imposed by statute. You are to find the defendant guilty or not guilty, uninfluenced by the possible punishment or consequence that may follow conviction. You should not be influenced by any sympathy for the defendant, the defendant's family, the decedent, the decedent's family, or for any other person who might in any way be affected by your decision. As I indicated earlier, your verdict has to be based on evidence introduced in court and my instructions on the law. Our system of justice depends on judges like me and jurors like yourself making careful, unbiased, and fair decisions. During our interactions with other people, it's not unusual for us to group or categorize people.

(48:27)
Sometimes this involves negative or positive biases or prejudices, which may be conscious or unconscious. Such preferences or biases, whether they are conscious or unconscious, have no place in the courtroom or your deliberations where our goal is to treat all parties equally and to arrive at a just, fair, and unbiased verdict. All people deserve fair treatment in our system of justice, regardless of their race, national origin, religion, age, disability, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, education, income level, or any other personal characteristic. Techniques that you can use as jurors to check whether any unconscious biases are influencing you include slowing down and examining your thought processes thoroughly to identify where you may be relying on reflexive gut reactions and to consider whether you're making assumptions that have no basis in the evidence. Ask yourself whether you would view the evidence differently if the parties or attorneys had different personal characteristics. In sum, your task is to render a verdict based on facts drawn only from the evidence introduced in the courtroom and my instructions on the law and not based on prejudice or bias for or against any person or party involved in the trial. You may, if you wish, take notes during the course of the trial. You're not required to take notes, even if all of your fellow jurors do. I got to emphasize a few ground rules for note-taking. Notes are a sound tool to help you refresh your recollection during your deliberation. However, notes by themselves are not foolproof.

(50:14)
If there's a conflict between your notes and your recollection, it is your recollection that must prevail. Also, if there's a conflict between your recollection and the notes of a fellow juror, it is your recollection that prevails. Your notes are not evidence. You recall my earlier definition of what constitutes evidence. Your verdict must be based exclusively on evidence presented at trial and the principles of law given to you in my final instructions. The note-taking process should not distract you from focusing on the witnesses because the credibility you ascribe to a witness is crucial.

(50:49)
It is essential that you do not allow note-taking to interfere with or to impede your ability to view the witness, to listen to him or her, and to size him or her up, and that is to properly evaluate the witness. You should not be so preoccupied with taking notes that you overlook what the witness is saying and how the witness is saying it. You may find that note-taking may distract you from giving full attention to a witness. You will need to observe the demeanor of a witness while he or she is testifying. You are able to get testimony played back to you during your deliberations so you don't need to make your own record of exactly what is said. There's no need to try to take a lot of notes or to take down the testimony word for word. You may not make or modify any notes outside this courtroom.

(51:35)
At the end of the day, the pads are going to be collected and kept by a court-martial. No one's going to look at them. Whatever notes you take are confidential. You are not to exchange or discuss your notes with your fellow jurors during the trial itself. You may discuss your notes if you choose during the deliberation phase. Just as you cannot discuss or deliberate this case among yourselves until the case has been completed, so too, you cannot exchange or discuss your notes until the trial has been completed. There's no requirement, of course, that you take notes. That's an option to be exercised by each of you individually. Those of you who elect not to take notes will be no less conscientious than the jurors who do take notes.

(52:19)
The juror who takes few or no notes should not permit his or her individual recollection to be influenced by a juror whose notes may differ from that recollection. Notes are only a tool and not always accurate. Don't assume a voluminous note taker is taking notes that are necessarily more accurate. I take notes because I may be asked to rule on issues during the course of the evidence. Your decision whether to take notes at any point should not be influenced by my note-taking. Finally, notwithstanding note-taking by you and your fellow jurors, do not hesitate to seek a reading of any portion of the testimony if you deem it essential during your deliberations. All right, so I think we went over this during jury selections. The lawyers have informed me that the evidentiary portion should be concluded maybe by November 6th, maybe earlier. Okay? And that's only an estimate, may go longer, may go shorter. I'm going to definitely keep my best to keep you up to date of any trial adjustments, all right? Once the evidence is presented and the case is presented to you for deliberations, again, deliberations is up to you. We're going to begin 10:00 sharp every day. There's an hour lunch and a morning recess of 15 minutes and an afternoon recess of 15 minutes to get a stretch, okay? During the trial, any communication you wish to make with me has to be in the form of a note. It's going to be read to the lawyers and the parties and made part of the record.

(53:51)
If you have a question, write it down, give it to the marshal, and they'll bring it to me or Attorney Ferriola. Now, it's inevitable that there's going to be some delays during the trial. Unanticipated things always happen. When there's an unavoidable delay, I'm going to report it to you that we've been delayed. However, I'm going to keep things moving as best as I can at a steady pace. When you take breaks, the marshals, the clerk, Attorney Ferriola will assist you in addressing any needs that you have. I hope you have an idea what to expect and what our daily schedule looks like. With that said, we're going to hand out notebooks. Stephanie will tell you where to put your name or initials. Are we all set with the notebooks, ladies and gentlemen? All right. All affirmed yes. So ladies and gentlemen, with those comments, please attend to the evidence. State, you can call your first witness.

Attorney Watson (55:44):

State will be calling Lynn R.

Chris Pelosi (56:53):

Okay, I got it. Come on up here, Miss. Sorry. Good morning. We're going to refer to you as Lynn R. Okay?

Lynn R. (56:54):

Okay.

Chris Pelosi (56:54):

We're just going to have you raise your right hand.

Speaker 1 (56:56):

Do you solemnly swear, solemnly, sincerely affirm as the case may be that the evidence you shall give concerning the case and our questions will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God, under penalty of perjury?

Lynn R. (57:04):

I do.

Speaker 1 (57:06):

And please state your first name and only initial of your last name.

Lynn R. (57:08):

Lynn R.

Speaker 1 (57:09):

And just please state your town of residence.

Lynn R. (57:11):

Arlington.

Speaker 1 (57:12):

Thank you.

Chris Pelosi (57:12):

Thank you, Lynn R. Have a seat. Make yourself comfortable. It's a really, really big courtroom, so I apologize. I could tell you may be soft-spoken, so if you could speak into a microphone a little louder because there's a record being made, so I would appreciate that. Thank you. State?

Attorney Watson (57:30):

Thank you. Good morning.

Lynn R. (57:31):

Morning.

Attorney Watson (57:32):

Can you please tell us about your educational background?

Lynn R. (57:35):

I got my BS in education from Central Connecticut State University, 27 years.

Attorney Watson (57:43):

Okay. And I'm going to show you what has been marked as State's Exhibit Two. It's a full exhibit, and it should populate on your screen. And can you see that on your screen?

Lynn R. (58:33):

I can.

Attorney Watson (58:38):

And in looking at that photograph, can you please use the mouse that I'm going to give you and describe or point to where you live on Fieldview Drive? Thank you, sir. And may the record reflect, Your Honor, the witness is using the mouse, and the mouse pointer is at the bottom of Fieldview Drive near the left. There's a long driveway to our house is.

Chris Pelosi (59:07):

Record so reflect.

Attorney Watson (59:10):

And do you have a long driveway that leads to your house off of Fieldview Drive?

Lynn R. (59:12):

I do.

Attorney Watson (59:15):

And can you please use the mouse and show us where Johnnycake Mountain Road is?

Lynn R. (59:20):

Right here.

Attorney Watson (59:21):

May the record reflect-

Chris Pelosi (59:22):

I'll let you do the reflecting.

Attorney Watson (59:24):

Thank you. May the record reflect the witness is pointing to what is indicated on the exhibit as Johnnycake Mountain Road.

Chris Pelosi (59:31):

Top portion middle, yes.

Attorney Watson (59:33):

Thank you.

Chris Pelosi (59:33):

Record will reflect that.

Attorney Watson (59:35):

Now, from Johnnycake Mountain Road, what road do you have to turn onto in order to get onto Fieldview Drive?

Lynn R. (59:40):

Holly Dan.

Attorney Watson (59:41):

Polly Dan? And may the record reflect she's pointing at Polly Dan Road?

Chris Pelosi (59:45):

Record will reflect.

Attorney Watson (59:53):

Now, can you please use the mouse and indicate where you would turn from Polly Dan in order to get to Fieldview Drive?

Lynn R. (01:00:01):

Right here.

Attorney Watson (01:00:03):

Okay. Thank you. May the record reflect she's gone all the way down Polly Dan Road on the exhibit, starting in the middle right-hand corner, going down to the upper left-hand corner to where it intersects with Fieldview Drive.

Chris Pelosi (01:00:14):

Record will reflect that.

Attorney Watson (01:00:17):

I would take it you have traveled Polly Dan Road numerous times in order to get to your house?

Lynn R. (01:00:21):

I have.

Attorney Watson (01:00:22):

Okay. And is there a dip in the roadway on Polly Dan Road as you are traveling on it towards your house?

Lynn R. (01:00:27):

There is.

Attorney Watson (01:00:28):

Okay. And can you please show us where the dip in the roadway is?

Lynn R. (01:00:30):

Right here.

Attorney Watson (01:00:32):

And may the record reflect she is basically in the middle of Polly Dan Road from where you turn off of Johnny Cake Mountain Road, and on the exhibit, there is an indication that there is a dip in the roadway there and she's pointing at it.

Chris Pelosi (01:00:46):

Record so will reflect that.

Attorney Watson (01:00:49):

And that dip in the roadway, are there houses in that area?

Lynn R. (01:00:53):

No.

Attorney Watson (01:00:55):

Now, once you turn out to Polly Dan, what is the quickest way to get to your house on Fieldview Drive?

Lynn R. (01:01:00):

Take a left.

Attorney Watson (01:01:01):

Onto Fieldview Drive?

Lynn R. (01:01:02):

Onto Fieldview Drive.

Attorney Watson (01:01:05):

And in looking at that map that's depicted there in front of you, can you please tell us if it takes longer to get to your house on Fieldview Drive, if you just keep going down Polly Dan and loop all the way around?

Lynn R. (01:01:16):

It takes longer, yes.

Attorney Watson (01:01:21):

Now, in looking at that map, I'm going to point to an area and I'll reflect where I'm pointing. I am at the end of Polly Dan Road where it is indicated at the top of the exhibit in the upper left-hand corner. In this area that I'm pointing to, Lynn, is this area of the roadway, are there houses in this area of the roadway?

Lynn R. (01:01:43):

No.

Attorney Watson (01:01:45):

Now, are you married?

Lynn R. (01:01:46):

Yes.

Attorney Watson (01:01:47):

And when I ask you questions about your family, if you just remember that we're not going to indicate your last name on the record, okay?

Lynn R. (01:01:52):

Okay.

Attorney Watson (01:01:54):

And who are you married to?

Lynn R. (01:01:56):

Scott.

Attorney Watson (01:01:57):

Okay. And how long have you and Scott been married?

Lynn R. (01:02:00):

27 years.

Attorney Watson (01:02:01):

And what does Scott do for a living?

Lynn R. (01:02:03):

He owns his own construction company.

Attorney Watson (01:02:05):

And what does that company do?

Lynn R. (01:02:08):

Property preservations for different banks, cleaning out foreclosed houses.

Attorney Watson (01:02:13):

And do you and Scott have children?

Lynn R. (01:02:16):

Yes.

Attorney Watson (01:02:17):

And how many children did you have together?

Lynn R. (01:02:19):

Three.

Attorney Watson (01:02:20):

And what are the names of your children in the order of their ages?

Lynn R. (01:02:23):

Jackson, Tyler, and Sophie.

Attorney Watson (01:02:25):

And in May of 2023, how old were each of your children?

Lynn R. (01:02:30):

Jackson was 22, Tyler was 20, and Sophie was 17.

Attorney Watson (01:02:37):

And did all of your children live with you and Scott in Burlington on Fieldview Drive in May of 2023?

Lynn R. (01:02:43):

Yes. Oh, no. Tyler was in Wyoming.

Attorney Watson (01:02:46):

Okay. Which children lived with you then?

Lynn R. (01:02:50):

Jackson and Sophie.

Attorney Watson (01:02:51):

Okay. And Tyler lived where?

Lynn R. (01:02:53):

In Wyoming.

Attorney Watson (01:02:55):

Now, I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit One. I want you to take a look at the name that is on that piece of paper and see if you recognize it along with the date of birth.

Lynn R. (01:03:03):

Yes.

Attorney Watson (01:03:04):

And is that the complete name of your daughter?

Lynn R. (01:03:07):

Yes.

Attorney Watson (01:03:08):

And is that her date of birth?

Lynn R. (01:03:09):

Yes.

Attorney Watson (01:03:10):

And that has already been marked as a full exhibit as well. With your permission, I pass to publish that to the jury, Your Honor.

Chris Pelosi (01:03:14):

You may.

Attorney Minnello (01:03:15):

Just to make the record clear, Your Honor, these exhibits have been pre-marked. Defense has no objection to them going in as a full exhibit.

Chris Pelosi (01:03:24):

Thank you, Attorney Minnello.

Attorney Watson (01:03:26):

And I have showed them all to counsel before today's proceedings. Now, so for the rest of your testimony, we're going to refer to your daughter as Sophie, okay? In May of 2023, what grade was Sophie in?

Lynn R. (01:03:49):

She was a junior.

Attorney Watson (01:03:50):

Okay. And what school did Sophie go to in May of 2023?

Lynn R. (01:03:53):

Lewis Mills High School.

Attorney Watson (01:03:55):

And besides going to school, did Sophie work?

Lynn R. (01:03:57):

She did.

Attorney Watson (01:03:58):

And where did she work?

Lynn R. (01:04:00):

She was a hostess for Butchers and Bakers in Farmington, Connecticut, and she worked for my husband on the weekends.

Attorney Watson (01:04:08):

And when she worked with your husband on the weekends, what did she do?

Lynn R. (01:04:12):

Cleaned out foreclosed houses, mowed lawns, snow removal, depending on the season.

Attorney Watson (01:04:18):

And would she work with him often?

Lynn R. (01:04:20):

Whenever he had work.

Attorney Watson (01:04:22):

And did your daughter, Sophie, have a cell phone?

Lynn R. (01:04:25):

Yes.

Attorney Watson (01:04:26):

And did you and your husband pay for that cell phone?

Lynn R. (01:04:28):

Yes.

Attorney Watson (01:04:29):

‍