Final Statements Presented in Salamah Pendleton Murder Trial as Jury Contemplates Verdict

GRAND FORKS, ND (trfnews.i234.me) Closing arguments in the murder trial of Salamah Pendleton have wrapped up in Grand Forks. He’s charged with shooting to death Grand Forks Police Officer Cody Holte and his own mother.
* Does not include prosecution rebuttal.
well good morning um i hope everyone can hear me okay court reporter so i i first want to thank everyone for bearing with us through this long trial and i know it’s been a long two weeks over two weeks for this trial and i’m sure you’re you’re all ready to to get back to normalcy in your lives but thank you for for giving a part of your um time to us and your dedication your concentration um for all sides for the state and for the defendant defendant armed with multiple weapons this pile of ammunition prepared himself for the events that played out on may 27 of 2020. a book that was found in the defendant’s living room was evidence of the defendant’s state of mind and his intentions that day if you recall that book that was in his living room opened up was on the page of homicide it had definitions on that page justifiable homicide excusable homicide law enforcement officers that went to the apartment number 303 that day had no idea what the defendant’s intentions and state of mind were when they went there to execute a judge’s order to evict him and remove him from the department that he was evicted from the only person that was prepared on may 27 of 2020 was the defendant [Applause] defendant placed a two by four on his front door ran back to the bedroom locked the door grabbed a loaded ak-74 and positioned himself right in front of that bedroom door waiting waiting for law enforcement to open that door so he could pull the trigger defendant knew it was law enforcement on the other side of that door defendant knew they were there to evict him and remove him defendant knew if he didn’t open that door and come out and leave this property that he was evicted from he was going to go to jail defendant told the deputies when he was on that the other side of that bedroom door that he wasn’t going anywhere and his actions showed his follow-through that he wasn’t going anywhere right before deputy nord reached that bedroom door deputies talked to the defendant for a while as soon as that door was breached if you recall detective madsen’s testimony just point point three six seconds after that door was kicked defendant’s bullet traveled right by deputy nord’s head deputy nord was just standing there with the eviction papers in one hand his hand to his side with his other hand another one of defendant’s bullets then traveled out his bedroom and struck his mom on the right side of her head killing her deputy mclean was only about a foot away from miss moore when she was struck as soon as this happened deputy nord immediately retreated down the hallway he testified that he got about three to four feet down that hallway when he returned fire deputy mclean retreated to the bathroom he testified that he never even fired around the evidence in this case corroborates that neither deputies fired their weapon when they were standing at that bedroom door there was not one piece of evidence that showed any shell casings from the officer’s nine millimeter outside that bedroom door there was one shell casing for the officer’s weapon in the bathroom but as you recall after deputy mclean retreated to the bathroom he saw the defendant’s gun the barrel of his rifle stick out the door that’s when he fired his shot the only other nine millimeter unspent just a bullet that i think it was a nine millimeter was in the defendant’s bedroom was not from the officer’s weapon as you recall agent quam testified that this was intact it no evidence to support the defendant’s claim that when officers reach that door they fired their weapon and shot him in the arm not one piece of evidence supports that now when deputy mclean was in the bathroom this is when they radio for help dispatch goes out shots fired the first two officers that arrive on scene and enter that apartment are corporal torok and officer cody holt when they get in the apartment for the next 14 minutes the officers did everything they could to get the defendant to come out of that bedroom without anyone getting hurt but the defendant had already made up his mind how this day was going to end it wasn’t going to end peacefully corporal torrick testified that he saw the defendant quickly run out of his bedroom firing as he ran behind that kitchen divider wall and for the next 19 seconds rapidly fired aiming at these officers i want to now go through some of the charges in this case and some of the elements for each of these charges the first one that you’ll look at in your verdict forms is the murder of officer cody holte now there are three elements to murder the first one is willfully cause the death of officer holte second one is under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life and the third one the defendant did not act in self-defense now when i go through these elements i’m first going to go through the first two and then later on we’ll talk about defendant’s claim of self-defense willfully i put the definition of wilfy up here because this is important willfully is either intentionally someone an intentional act or it’s an act that you know what you’re doing it’s a knowing act or it’s a reckless act any one of these will prove willfully caused and in this case the state would argue that the defendant did potentially cause the death of officer holty this was not an accident at a minimum defendant recklessly his actions were reckless causing the death of obstacle behold he let’s go through some of the facts with regard to count one this case is is unusual in the fact that we have the murder on the body now there’s there’s no doubt who caused the death of officer volte we have mclean’s body cam showing the defendant firing in officer holt’s direction this body cam video and the trajectory evidence shows that the defendant fired directly at officer holte you see the flash from the bullet hitting the best of officer holty the photographs that you saw in this case shows officer holte’s camera has a bullet defect in it you see officer holty fall to the ground defendant takes the stand he admits he was aiming at officer holte he saw him he testified that he was an easy target defendant fired at an aggressive rate at officer hulte you saw all of those bullet defects in that kitchen table over there approximately 14 bullet defects intentional there is nobody else responsible for officer hoelty’s death in this case we also have the bullet fragments in this case that also support it was defendant who killed officer volte dr capone testified that he retrieved bullet fragments from officer volte in three different locations these bullet fragments were then sent to mr moritz in south dakota for ballistics examination mr moritz told you that these bullet fragments were consistent with 5.45 by 39 millimeter bullets ammunition the defendant was the only person using this type of ammunition mr maritz could testify that conclusively it was not a nine millimeter bullet fragment that the officers were using that day the second element is the state has to show that there was an extreme indifference to the value of human life firing multiple rounds towards officer holte with an ak-74 assault rifle in a small apartment proved that the defendant acted under circumstances manifesting his extreme indifference in the value of human life when you point an assault rifle and fire multiple times aiming for that individual there could be nothing less than them having an extreme indifference to the value of human life that’s the ultimate extreme indifference to the value of human life during this rapid fire aggressive fire the wooden table in front of officer holty has struck numerous times causing the defendant’s bullet to tumble and this is what resulted in those devastating injuries on officer holding the amount of bullet holes in this table as well as the amount of bullet holes in this window right behind officer holte shows his extreme indifference to the value of human life agent matson had testified that officer holty never even had a chance to fire his weapon other testimony showed there was no bullets missing from officer holte’s weapon defendant is guilty of count one the murder of officer cody let’s take a look at count two count two is the murder of lola moore the first element again same elements defendant willfully caused the death of lola more under circumstances manifesting his extreme indifference to the value of human life and the defendant did not act in self-defense deputy mclean’s body cam video shows that it was the defendant who caused the death of lola moore agent madsen was able to slow down that video and show right at the time when lola moore was struck on the right side of her head you could see that at the time that low lamar was struck neither deputy nord or deputy mclean was in any position or had their weapon pointed in the direction of miss moore the trajectory analysis supports that it was a defendant who shot his weapon out his bedroom wall went through the wall through her door and struck her in the head killing her and again dr caponen retrieved bullet fragments at a miss moore skull he not only retrieved bullet fragments but he was able to retrieve a partial bullet and he was able to determine that this bullet was a 5.45 by 39 millimeter bullet again consistent with defendant’s ammunition and inconsistent with the deputies ammunition defendant fired his weapon blindly as he testified at least 20 times through the bedroom wall not knowing who was on the other side of that law who was going to be in the path of that bullet at a minimum defendant’s actions were reckless if you find that the defendant recklessly caused the death of lola moore under circumstances manifesting his extreme indifference to the value of human life then you must find him guilty the next slide that i’m showing you is the trajectory analysis that agent kraft had put together agent quam testified that the bullet that struck miss moore originated from the defendant’s bedroom this trajectory did show that it went through his wall and struck her when you are determining whether or not the defendant is guilty of murder of low lamar keep in mind that the state does not have to prove that he intended to kill his mom that’s why we talked about the definition of willfully either intentionally killing someone knowingly killing someone or recklessly killing someone willful conduct includes reckless conduct and at a minimum defendant’s actions on may 27th of 2020 were reckless again manifesting his extreme indifference the value of human life by firing an ak-74 assault rifle blindly at his bedroom knowing that there were people out there knowing that his mom was home knowing that his mom’s bedroom was right next to his bedroom this is an extreme indifference the value of human life i want to go through some of the extreme indifference factors and these are just a few of them i’m sure singly and collectively you can probably come up with a lot more than i came up in this slide extreme indifference you’re showing extreme indifference by the choice of weapon that you choose you show an extreme indifference by the choice of ammunition you choose and there was a lot of testimony on this weapon and this ammunition this was a high velocity rifle full metal jacket bullets that cause extensive damage you saw just how powerful these bullets were not only from the autopsy photos and the damage that injuries that they caused but these bullets going all the way through multiple doors into multiple apartments across the courtyard and into another apartment building and into the bedroom of that apartment building this is powerful that’s an extreme indifference he didn’t grab a pistol rapidly firing outside his bedroom knowing his mom was in the apartment and firing multiple rounds without regard to human life even by defendants own admission firing at least 20 rounds blindly this is an extreme indifference i ask that you find the defendant guilty of count two for causing the death of lola moore under circumstances manifesting his extreme indifference to the value of human life the third charge that you will consider is the attempted murder of corporal pat toro the first two elements are just the date and the defendant may 27 2020 the defendant intentionally engaged in conduct state has to show the defendant engaged in some conduct that’s shown a substantial step a substantial step towards committing the crime of murder and in this case corporal pat turok and again we’ll talk about this little later on he did not act in self-defense criminal attempt it’s kind of just what you think it is it’s some conduct on the part of the defendant that shows what he’s trying to do in this case attempting to commit the crime of murder evidence in this case showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was attempting to kill pat taurag defended from multiple bullets aiming aiming at corporal torah there could be no other intent when you aim and fire an assault rifle at someone you’re attempting to kill them quickly run over to that kitchen divider wall as he ran out firing his weapon he said they made eye contact purple toric saw muzzle flash saw the defendant firing his weapon corporal torek also testified that in hindsight when he recalled the defendant peeking his head out a few times before he ran out he now believes that was when he was scoping out where all the officers were located trying to gauge where they were at before he ran out let’s look at some of the substantial steps that the defendant did this trajectory photo shows just how many substantial steps the defendant took ripple torak was standing right behind that pool table right in front of a lot of these bullet holes in the wall defendant shot towards corporal turak for at least 19 seconds defendant’s testimony that he was only trying to shoot at their legs whatever weight you want to give that he was still aiming at these officers he was aiming pretty high look at how high a lot of these bullet defects are he was shooting to kill this is the pool table right there where corporal torak remember when in the body cam video he was over that table look at all those bullet defects right behind him a substantial step the fourth count that you’ll consider is the attempted murder of deputy kelly mclean the elements are the same may 27th of 2020 intentionally engaging in conduct constituting a substantial step towards the commission of the crime of murder and in this case deputy kelly mcclean and he did not act in self-defense let’s look at some of the evidence to support this charge i first want to talk about the substantial steps that the defendant took at the bedroom door when deputy mclean and deputy nord were standing on each side of the defendant’s bedroom door talking to him he could hear their voices he knew the approximate location of where each one of these officers were exhibit 194 see that bullet defect right at the top left hand side of that photo that was the bullet defect that caused the fatal injury of miss moore that was only about a foot away from where deputy mclean was standing and talking to the defendant through that door firing your ak-74 out bedroom toward deputy mclean’s voice is a substantial step look how high that bullet is too right at their head you can also see all those other bullet defects see inside the closet all those substantial steps you also got to see deputy mclean’s body cam video and if you recall right when the fire gunfire broke out deputy mclean drops to the ground and starts crawling back behind that full table look at all the bullet defects down there where he was at crawling agent kraft testified that deputy mclean was in the area of the window of the apartment and that it appeared the shooter was changing aim as he fired at officers as they were kneeling and standing all these facts support and are evidence of defendant taking a substantial step towards a crime of murder regarding deputy mclean and that his actions did manifest his extreme indifference to the value of human life and again ask you to find the defendant guilty better of deputy mclean i want to show you exhibit nine this is the freeze frame video that or the the video of deputy mclean’s body cam and this is right before deputy nord kicks in that bedroom door and i show this photo because it gives you an idea idea just exactly how close deputy mclean was to die that day intentionally aiming and firing at deputy mclean showed his extreme indifference to the value of human life this is the freeze frame exhibit 154 when it is believed that little more was struck you could see deputy mclean’s arm there right at the bottom not only showing again it was not anybody but the small but again showing just how close he was how close that substantial step was of the defendants that day the next count count five is the attempted murder of deputy ron nord same element may 27 2020 the defendant intentionally engaged in conduct taken a substantial step for his killing deputy nord and he did not act in self-defense defendants intentionally aimed and fired at deputy nord while he was at the bedroom door the first substantial step let’s take a look at that freeze frame exhibit number 154 deputy matson is able to freeze frame it right when you see the streak of the bullet you see too when you first see the streak it’s not quite to deputy norah’s head it’s about halfway there there and then the second freeze frame is when it continues on past his head this substantial step again came very very close not just an attempted murder but in fact a deputy lord pointing and firing your ak-74 at the head of someone coming in your bedroom shows an extreme indifference to the value of human life then it loaded his assault rifle positioned himself in front of the door and aimed at out the door knowing that the deputies were out there hold the trigger all substantial steps all intentional acts if deputy nord had been just a little bit over to the right this would have that murder defendant’s actions were a substantial step that fell short of killing deputy nord showing his extreme indifference to the value of human life the next substantial step that i want to talk about with deputy nord stephanie nord’s now moved into the kitchen area and he’s hiding taking cover behind that kitchen counter defendant fires multiple rounds right in the direction of deputy nord the bullet trajectory shows that the shooter was right behind that kitchen divider wall when that shot was fired striking that corner of that kitchen counter and striking deputy nord in his leg as he was crouched down defendant again came very close to killing deputy north when he was in the kitchen defending it was clearly aiming at deputy nord defendant amy at deputy nord and pulling the trigger of his ak-74 was a substantial step for his intentionally or knowingly killing him islam had testified that based upon the positioning of the other officers the only person that could have caused his injury was a defendant agent kraft testified that the bullet originated from the defendant and he would assume based upon his analysis and the shooting reconstruction that aim was involved deputy north also made injuries to his abdomen from the defendant’s gunfire again substantial steps showing the defendant is guilty of the attempted murder of ron nord sixth count is criminal [Music] there are two elements to criminal mischief on may 27 willfully damaging someone else’s property is the first development and the second element is we have to show that he intentionally caused over ten thousand dollars worth of damage the state is shown through the testimony in the exhibits that the defendant intentionally fired his weapon at least 48 times in that apartment we know this because there was 48 shell casings of the defendants found in the apartment so that’s a minimum number he fired andrew horgi testified to the damages to his apartment he testified that he had repaired to have an exhibit that was entered that showed over 40 thousand dollars worth of damage to this apartment you heard the officers testify about the damage when they walked in it looked like a war zone appliances shot out wall shot out door shut out water heaters flooding blood everywhere the damage was more than ten thousand dollars and the state would request that you find him guilty of criminal mischief as well terrorizing there’s two elements to terrorizing the first element is kind of like an alternative on may 27th the defendant either intended to cause terror or he recklessly caused fear and he threatened to commit any crime of violence or acting just to human life you can terrorize someone’s actions it doesn’t have to be words you can point a loaded gun at someone mass terrorizing you don’t have to say i’m going to kill you having a gun at your face loaded is terrorizing steve would submit that we’ve proven both of these even though we only have to show one of them then intend on instilling fear and tear in these officers there was no other reason and at a minimum pointing a rifle his assault rifle directly at them pulling the trigger 48 times was in reckless disregard of causing such fear deputy mclean had testified that he could see the barrel of the defendant’s gun when he was inside the bedroom he testified that he didn’t think he was going to get out of there alive he thought he was going to die this evidence in and of itself supports a guilty conviction for terrorizing even though the state only charged us out as one count there were more people that were terrorized on that day deputy ron nord immediate gunshots rang out when the bedroom door was breached it was dark but he could see that muzzle flash he was trying to get out of the line of fire and he testified that after the first volume gunfire he didn’t know how it was going to turn out you know how it was going to turn out is he going inferring he didn’t know if he was going to make it out of there alive either corporal pat torock defendant had he testified the defendant had a long gun and he testified that the vest that each one of those officers were wearing would not sustain a rifle bullet he knew when he was there he if he got hit that ballistics vest he had on was not going to protect him he saw the muzzle flash when the defendant was firing directly at him and at him when we think about terrorizing the second volley of gunfire was 19 seconds and you think that isn’t a lot of time but it is a lot of time it’s 19 seconds of someone firing an assault rifle right at you there’s a green box on this particular slide right here and when i when i start moving this green box it’ll start going down when it is completely out of the picture that’s when 19 seconds is gone this is how long those deputies were under fire count eight is the reckless endangerment charge there are three elements to reckless endangerment defendant has to create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another circumstances that manifest is extreme indifference to the value of human life and his actions have to be reckless several witnesses testified to this reckless endangerment charge let’s go through some of those witnesses you heard from officer rebel officer rebel had testified that when he was outside that bearcat right outside that window where all those bullets were coming through that he thought he was being shot at shot at he was being hit in the face with shrapnel and he also found some glass in his hair when he got home defendant firing his weapon with bullets that went all the way out his window was nothing short of reckless acts reckless acts that did create a substantial risk of bodily injury to someone else any bullet traveling out of that window and striking someone would definitely create substantial risk of bodily injury officer younger and officer broughton also testified to this what about fembee muram she was the resident of apartment number 304. remember she testified that she had heard an explosion she was scared they also found a bullet hole in her bathroom in a bullet fragment apartment number 304 is right next to defendants 303 a defendant shot out of his apartment through the wall going into another apartment was reckless behavior that did create a risk of injury to somebody else how about miss van scoy she lived right below the defendant she was scared in shock and officers when they searched her house they also found bullet fragments from the defendant’s ammunition in her apartment there was one larger air conditioner in her living room that bullet going into apartment number 203 defendant’s bullet again and standing alone would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person and show his reckless acts martin smith testified as well martin smith was the tenant of the apartment just straight across from the defendant martin smith’s front door had bullets going through it during that first volley of gunfire if you open the defendant’s bedroom door and look straight down that hallway it’ll go out that front door right into mr smith’s front door we brought in martin smith’s front door as an exhibit you can see all those bullet defects that went through his front door descendants bullets that had mr smith been standing there he would not have been here either substantial risk of causing bodily injury to mr smith the defendant’s actions again were reckless you recall mr smith that testified that just before you heard that gunfire that first volley of gunfire he was standing in front of his door he looked out the people he opened the door he was that close agent qualm also testified to the bullet defect in martin smith’s apartment it was above the tv and he had testified that had somebody been standing in the bedroom in front of that tv they would have been hit by that bullet defendant’s bullet agent craft had also testified about the bullet defects right outside the defendant’s front door of his apartment remember in the body cam evidence where the apartment manager was standing andrew horgie andrew horgy was standing right off to the side where all those bullet defects were if he had been there just a few minutes at different time later he hadn’t moved he would have been struck agent craft also testified to the apartment across the courtyard where the bullet exited through that window and defense department went into the apartment building across the courtyard penetrated that building and went into that tenant’s living room defenseman as well the last count for you to consider is the possession of marijuana with intent to deliver there are three elements to this offense may 27th the defendant willfully possess marijuana with intent to deliver it state submitted states exhibit numbers 127 and 131 agent carter testified to the covenant agent carter had testified when they searched the defendant safe they found all of these bags of marijuana an amount he testified that along with the scales veggies all the money that was with it indicative of someone who sells marijuana but we didn’t have just all this marijuana cash scales state also entered text messages from the defendant’s phone and if you look at those text messages there was dealing selling marijuana as recent as may of 2020. this happened in may of 2020 further corroborating that the defendant was selling marijuana i want to speak a little bit about self-defense now and what is not self-defense self-defense is not justified if that person wants to use self-defense to resist arrest to resist execution of process which is what the deputies were doing in this case or any other performance of duty by a public servant unless those officers are using excessive force there was no evidence in this case that the officers used excessive force defendant said this in motion it was defendants actions the officers who needed to defend themselves from the defendant the evidence in this case showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the deputies were engaged in their official duties when they went to apartment number 303 to execute a judge’s order enter and remove the defendant from this apartment that he had been evicted from the state offered a copy of that judge’s order that judge’s order i believe was signed on may 24th officers still waited three more days before they even went over there to remove them on may 27th defendant was not justified in using self-defense to resist being evicted from that apartment defendants claim that officers fired at him while at the bedroom door is contradicted by all the evidence there’s not any evidence to support the defendant’s claim that either one of these officers kicked that door in and fired at him shot him in the arm defenders claimed that as soon as he walked out of the bedroom when he claimed he was going to surrender and he said i didn’t even hardly get past the threshold of my bedroom before they started firing i didn’t even make it to the kitchen divider wall again is contradicted by all the evidence in this case defendant’s story that he only fired after he saw his mom laying on the ground and that scared and traumatized him is contradicted by all the evidence body cam evidence shows defendant fired his weapon before his mom was struck one of the jury instructions that you’ll be given when you go back to deliberate this case is the weight and credibility instruction this instruction allows you to put whatever weight you want to whatever piece of evidence whatever testimony that’s up to you you can believe who you want you cannot believe and it also tells you when you’re deciding this one of the factors you should decide or you should take into consideration that person’s possible interest in the outcome of the trial there’s not one person in here that one person that took that stand that has a greater interest in the outcome of this trial than the defendant and you can consider that when you put whatever weight that you want to give to the defendant’s testimony you also should consider whether or not that person’s testimony is reasonable or unreasonable and i submit to you that defendant’s testimony on the stand was not only unreasonable but it contradicted all the physical evidence all the body cam evidence all the trajectory evidence everybody else’s testimony other jury instruction is proof of fact by a single witness and i point this point out to you because this jury instruction specifically says that a fact can be proved by one witness but before finding it solely on the testimony of one witness we should carefully consider all of that witnessed testimony upon which proof of the fact depends defendant in this case was not justified in using deadly force defendant used deadly force to resist eviction or resist arrest when the officer said he would go to jail not justified in using self-defense against a law enforcement officer to prevent being evicted from the apartment to prevent being arrested defendants claim about coming out of that bedroom officers firing immediately upon him doesn’t even match with the audio evidence in this case when you listen to the officers right before that second volley starts you can hear how surprised how caught off guard they are you can see on the body cam how they try to jump out of the way they are taken by surprise all right uh all right we can work out everything else afterwards we’re in jury selection when ms neufeld showed a picture of mount rushmore beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond all doubt you can still put the pieces together and have a firm and abiding conviction that the defendant is guilty if you could still tell that this is mount rushmore even though one of the faces is missing you should find the defendant guilty one last thing that i want to talk about is the verdict forms count one and count two are probably the longest so i just wanted to explain them a little bit state church is out as murder extreme indifference that’s the first page on count one when you go back to the jury deliberation room i ask that you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant hopefully cause the death of both officer holty and lola moore that you check the guilty box right on this first page once you check that guilty box all this doesn’t matter everything behind this first page are all the lesser included lesser included if you find that the defendant had a reasonable excuse for doing it a justification for doing it if you find first all of you have to find unanimously not guilty of murder you all have to say not guilty of murder before you can even flip this page i submit to you that the state has proved that the defendant willfully cause of death of lola moore officer holte the attempted murders of all three of those deputies reckless endangerment criminal initiative imposition of marijuana with intent to deliver and i ask when you go back to that jury room and you pick a four person that you aren’t guilty on these tell the defendant that you are not finding that he had a reasonable excuse for the fatal actions that he took on may 27th thank you thank you miss matson you prepared to do your closing argument ma’am you do so morning we’ve been at this for a while and i suspect that you’re going to be at it for a while as well one of the things that’s so difficult putting together a closing argument a is that although we can anticipate the state is going to argue points they’re going to make and the facts that they’re going to ask you to consider we really don’t know what sequence it’s going to be given to you in and we are kind of putting them in a position that we have to be able to react or explain some of the points raised in the states before getting into what i thought i was going to talk to you about i want to uh if i could take a couple minutes and just go over some random thoughts that i wrote down during the state’s presentation before i get there i would like you to know that the first things i sometimes do when i pick up a case like this is figure out who the prosecutor is going to be perhaps is going to be on the prosecution team and sometimes i make some calls to other defense attorneys to find out how that particular prosecutor approaches cases like this sometimes i rely on my past experience with the prosecutors involved i have uh worked with both ms madison and ms neufeld before as i said i made a couple calls i expected them to be good they were that was a very compelling closing argument but if you’ve already decided what you’re going to do based on that argument we might as well pack up all our things and go home right now because the rest of this is going to be a monumental waste of everybody’s time looking at you i get the sense that you don’t want to go home just yet you realize that there is more to this simply a recitation of facts from the state’s perspective if you remember during jury selection we talked a lot about perspective how two people can view the same incident and honestly have a different perspective on what they saw in our opening statement we talked about perspective and sequence why they might be important before i get into that i just want to go over some random notes that i made during state’s closing argument first of all in regard to body camera footage and body camera audio but they really show us i’m gonna i want you to when you get into that jury room take a look at that body camera footage listen to the audio that goes with it what do the stills pulled from the body camera footage really show us um a lot of that stuff is open to interpretation a lot of it can be looked at from several different directions there was some talk about an aggressive rate of a fire of shots fired i think and again rely on your common recollection of this not on mine we attorneys sometimes get so wrapped up in all this that the uh you our own viewpoint your own idea of what did or didn’t happen but rely on your own recollection seem to me an argument can be made that everybody fired aggressive right here 78 total shots two separate volleys just heard the audio it wasn’t just one person firing at an aggressive rate remember during opening statements when we talked about the idea that to be believable you have to believe you have to tell the truth or at least acknowledge the truth even when it hurts well we want to admit it or not whether mr pendleton is at a point in his life where he can admit it or not and he’s got his own perspective on what happened and he’s entitled to that there’s no dispute as to who killed officer holty he admitted that he fired at it mystics are clear copper jacketed bullet not disputing that it’s also apparent that he was responsible for the death of his mother and we’ve got a copper jacketed bullet the officers involved had copper jacketed bullets can’t really dispute those facts again i think in order for you to appropriately analyze this case you have to consider again perspective and sequence getting back to some votes i made during the state’s opening um i’m going to see reckless conduct the instructions several times there’s going to be a definition it’s going to be considered in the murder instruction also in the manslaughter instruction however only time reckless conduct can be considered in that murder instruction is if you find the active extra difference to the value of human life that’s kind of a speculative concept it’s going to be your job to make that [Music] determination what does the choice of weapons have to do with this other than it was a choice of weapon think about that it’s an assault rifle inherently any worse than any other weapon regard to the death of lol amor did he fire into his mother’s bedroom submit to you that the evidence does not necessarily indicate that exhibit 194 you took a look at that’s the purported more bullet trajectory does that prove or is it inconclusive again we’re not suggesting that that was she was not killed as a result of a bullet fired from his weapon i think you need to take a look at that exhibit and maybe it plays into all this how does intent go into the analysis of tempt take a look at instructions a lot of talk about things that could have happened didn’t why is that important you’re going to have to decide they’d reference the fact that the officers were under fire for some 19 seconds wasn’t the defendant under fire during that time period as well clearly there was no intent for somebody in another building reckless endangerment what’s that finally we talk about the safe they talked about the safe we’ll talk more about that later what’s the significance of the cash what’s the significance of the cash in the safe i don’t know where else would somebody keep cash i’m gonna have to decide that don’t they’re just some random thoughts i wrote down during argument i’ve already talked a little bit about perspective and sequence i suggested to you earlier in the trial that those would be important concepts for you to consider during your final deliberations today i’m asking you to keep that in mind rounds like this are hard really hard really draining everybody involved prosecution defendant families and for juries this isn’t easy stuff jury service is never easy growls like this are probably more difficult than others but they are what they are some say time is like a river this cannot go back and touch the same water twice as the flow that has passed never pass again it’s gone can’t go back and undo anything that happened on the 27th may as much as we would like to i would submit to you that one thing is abundantly clear nobody i got nobody involved in this thing when they got up on the morning of the 27th had any idea that it was going to end this way nobody we’ve talked about if we’re going to be believed we must be believable be believable we must at least acknowledge the truth even when it hurts our case what is the truth truth is really nothing more than perspective your own perspective you can look at an end result it’s how we got to that end result that’s really important you know at times like this wish i was a better lawyer i’ve been doing this for a long time a lot of juries just like you a lot of different kind of cases every point every time we get to this point in the trial i get scared get that funny feeling in the pit of my stomach talking always afraid afraid that i should have done something different should have done something better afraid that i’m going to disappoint my client i’m afraid that i’m disappoint you i think after doing this for 40 years i’d get over it but i you don’t what maybe when i don’t feel that way anymore it’s going to be time to bet been doing this for a long time not ready to quit now not going to quit on my client because i think there are some facts and circumstances in regard to this case that you really need to think about really do the state doesn’t get to pick their cases represent the people of this county you got a job to do as i indicated to you a little earlier they’re pretty good at i’ve got a job to do too it’s my honor and my duty and my privilege to stand up here as an advocate for my client salama pendleton my mind what it’s worth there’s no higher calling for any lawyer than to do that job as you as a jury are the last thing stands between folks at that table salama pendleton last thing that stands between them some years ago a friend of mine asked me why i did what i do why i represent criminal defendants i said why are you always on the wrong side thought about it for a minute and i looked at him and said i’m not on the wrong side i’m on the right side on his side by being on his side by definition i’m on your side as well why why you might ask because he is one of us he is one of us he’s one of you he’s a part of this community because of that because of the protections given to him by the constitution of the united states and state of north dakota is entitled same constitutional protections all of you are in this case you are the mutual deciders of fact but it is true what is not more importantly what can be proven and what cannot burden a proof is theirs not ours come into all of this after promising all of us that would play any preconceived notions that you might have we hold you to that promise hold yourself to that promise get into the jury room you look at the person on your right look at the person on your left person behind you person in front of you make sure you hold them to that promise as well because that’s the only way that this thing works it’s the only way that this thinks got to keep an open mind not to keep an open mind a little bit i’m going to talk about the evidence that you’re being asked to consider i remember in our opening statement we talked about my old antique dining room table important decisions that were made around that table shortly your time to sit around that same kind of table is going to come i want you to think back to the discussions that took place around that table making those important decisions that we talked about the different family members have different perspectives on every single decision that was made they see did they not see things from their own individual point of view the final decision they made to sell a crop or part of a crop to sell some livestock or to buy a new tractor made in a vacuum one person probably didn’t get to make that decision decisions like that were made by the family decisions in this case are going to be made by you made those decisions things they considered might be dependent on one thing might be dependent on something else ultimately be decided by sequence of events as they believe them to be whereas they believe them perspective and sequence perspective and sequence is what this is about nine separate charges you’re being asked to consider i would submit to you that there’s nothing instructions requires you to consider count one i will refer to as the officer holy charge count two that i will refer to as the low lamar charge that particular order i think it’s important that you reverse that order because that will put the case in its proper sequence because what did or didn’t happen to mrs moore is more ultimately our perspective led to what happened to officer holty so let’s start with the charge the officers deputies purple lord and sergeant mclean were there to serve legal process the exhibits you’re going to take into the room there’s a copy of that ritter restitution bring them to take possession of the premises that’s to my recollection of the legal documents that led up to that bit of restitution are in the exhibit so you’re going to get a chance to look you might ask me why is that important what did mr pendleton tell you he had no knowledge he’s going to be evicted he said they had fiction papers took him by surprise i recall him talking about the fact that he’s worried about being evicted middle of a coveted crisis he had nowhere to go talk to about he talked to us about how came up here a couple of years ago under the new start it’s kind of her caretaker took care of her that she was on some medication reasonable is it reasonable to believe that somebody is in charge of and responsible for the care of somebody else had nowhere else to go being evicted don’t you think that that would bother don’t you think that that would cause them some stress submit to you that it would in each of the two murder charges a defense instruction extreme emotional disturbance i would submit to you being rooted out of your apartment a place to go in the middle of a pandemic to cause somebody to be a lot of emotional stress it’s probably going to argue to you in their rebuttal that during their closing you can’t get that far they have to find him guilty of his mother because of the circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value life part of that instruction let’s talk about that for a minute if we could he wants to admit it or not he fired that shot sorry there’s no other way that he explained didn’t know where she was simply because she was in the same apartment does that necessarily mean that they’ve shown that he acted under an extreme indifference the value of human life in regard to the shot that killed his mother i would submit to you that it doesn’t wasn’t his intent again it’s under an awful lot of stress taken by a surprise by this whole set of this whole sequence of events you can skip the uh extreme emotional disturbance structure if you want to go right down to manslaughter i think at this point you need to be aware of the fact you heard the instructions one of the key words in destruction directness elements get down to manslaughter also a key element and before you can convict it in a murder charge you have to find regard to the death of his mother acted in a cream indifference the value of her life that’s extreme indifference human difference might mean firing into a crowded theater firing into a crowd of people again at that point person who did that don’t perceive the possibility you don’t know somebody’s there when you don’t know where they’re at you don’t fire into their room reckless conduct reckless conduct best at a manslaughter case against pendleton in regard a little more wasn’t his intent to tell you the intent doesn’t matter and it probably doesn’t her death was certainly not anticipated by him let’s talk a little bit about mr hulte before i forget there’s specific instruction sympathy air treatment under the law sympathy can play no part in your donations i think everybody in this room is sorry that things happen get into that jury room sympathy can play no part in your generations but taking a look at the officer multi charge at the time officer holte came to the apartment any stream of emotional disturbance it’s pendleton was suffering had been exacerbated by the fact that he knew his mother was down she was dying how do we know that listen to the somebody help my mother get her some help clearly he is distraught at that point does he perceive that he responsible for her death no he knew she was down so state of mind it’s altered it’s already under stress because he had nowhere to go he was afraid now his mother’s dead that is an extreme emotional disturbance i don’t know what is again what i don’t know doesn’t matter you’re the ones that are going to have to decide that and it’s an included offense it’s not like if you find him guilty of that all this is going to go away let’s talk about a couple other things in regard to the ostrich cruelty charge instructions are clear you can’t use self-defense as an argument if you’re resisting the lawful service of process can’t really use self-defense if somebody law enforcement’s trying to arrest you you can use self-defense the force law enforcement uses in that particular situation to accomplish what they believe they need to accomplish is excessive all of this took place relatively short period of time get into that jury room you need to look at all those videos they’re all time stamped if you saw that when they played or not take a look in the upper part of their time stamp i’m going to be dealing with two separate altercations here the initial and the second sentence so he comes out of that room after begging somebody to help his mother and they said no we’re not going to do that you’ve gotta come out so he comes out and from his perspective he gets fired on their perspective he fired first witnesses are presumed to tell the truth so in order to put this thing together you’re going to have to look at those videos and see what those videos actually show and for what it’s worth i would submit to you they don’t disprove one version as opposed to the other they don’t disprove one perspective as opposed to the other perspective and if he comes out of that room at that point he’s getting fired on what real choice does he have other than to stand there and take it if the force they used was excessive i would submit to you that the instructions allow you to decide that it was appropriate for him to fire back again you have to take that into con context along with his state of mind as it goes back to that extreme emotional disturbance that we talked about was a mess doesn’t entirely excuse his conduct but it certainly goes a long long way to explaining it doesn’t it what else did he tell us told us that he didn’t intend to kill anybody that he was shooting low he got bullet holes all over that place i think one of the officers that testified referred to it as a war zone looked like a war zone never seen anything like again everybody was firing other than oscar holty before i forget you recall ever telling you officer holty never had a chance to fire anybody hear that by my recollection you didn’t that’s something that came out in the states uh argument no he didn’t fire to speculate that he didn’t fire because he never had a chance to fire is nothing more than pure speculation and it’s not supported by the evidence and he was hit not denying mr pendleton was responsible for that shot it’s the only logical explanation mr pendleton was taking fire he was firing back because from his perspective force that was being used against it was excessive i’m gonna have to through all this make some pretty tough decisions i submit to you that anything this gentleman’s guilty of manslaughter part of the death of officer holty why would i make that concession because by mr pendleton’s own admission he was shooting at the officer’s legs shooting low well we know from the body camera footage a table shots that hit officer hold he were relatively low shots and aiming at his head states made much of the uh plethora of gunshot defects high in the window again think about sequence we don’t know if they got there well they got there during that 19 second sequence of shots i don’t know what he was shooting at let’s know that he was shooting half a second 30 shots half a second apart bang bang bang bang bang bang bang here’s your common sense it’s being fired that quickly nobody is aiming at anything specifically so once again what do we have reckless conduct yes we’ve got reckless conduct moving on to some of the other charges attempted murder gentleman testified he wasn’t attempting to kill anybody this perspective he was not attempting to kill anybody substantial step well he fired his weapon that enough let’s submit to you that it isn’t but suggests to you state’s case in regard to attempted murder during the first sequence of gunshots a little bit stronger attempted murder second sequence of gunshots there you’re going to have to decide whether or not he was simply trying to save his own life responding to what he perceived the excessive force used by the officers were in the room at the time that being officer holtie officer tork purple norden sergeant plane please get into that jury room take a look it’s not as dispositive as they want it they can suggest that it is simply as not as dispositive as it seems early on i recall there being some testimony that you couldn’t really tell which sound from which rifle didn’t really tell who was doing the firing at the time it was loud it was dusty dirty confusing maybe we should just leave it at that he said he didn’t intend to kill anybody have to decide whether or not his perspective on what happened is reasonable or whether it’s not look at that self-defense instruction in regard to the multi-charge it’s particularly significant reckless endangerment in pendleton was justified in returning fire to save his own life how can he be found responsible recklessly endangering someone else his own conduct was arguably justified it didn’t work this doesn’t work terrorizing take a look at the essential elements imposing state reference the fact that they believe sergeant plane oscar torrick others terrorized by the actions of mr pendleton seem to be an argument can be made that that’s pure speculation on their part let’s take a look at those essential elements they’re not even specifically identified it’s throwing stuff up against the wall and hoping that it sticks terrorizing and the reckless endangerment charges are something you’re going to have to consider criminal mischief who was responsible for what damage i have to sort through that because again you decide law enforcement used excessive force and he was entitled to defend himself to act in self-defense they are just as responsible for that damage as he is just the way that it works marijuana it is what it is people who are trying to use marijuana are going to have marijuana psychology reports on william or indicate that there was cannabis in her system i was with you i suspected if he would have been tested there probably would have been cannabis in his system as well he had it just because he had supposedly delivered marijuana in the past do we know whether or not it was his intention to deliver this again you’re asked being asked to speculate they simply can’t prove it not beyond a reasonable doubt a lot of this they can hint at they can guess that the issue is whether or not they can prove to talk about some of these things for a long long time sometimes this is better than a lot a lot of times less is better get into that jury room i have to work hard already been working i have to work hard to consider the evidence and have to work hard and go through that evidence do anything less for returning a verdict it’s going to be an abrogation of your oath to do your best to be fair follow the instructions i have to remember not to get too big for your brushes remember that the person sitting next to you as an opinion as a perspective it’s just just as important as yours and lastly never forget a friend mr pendleton might not be your friend none of you have ever met her one thing we do know that he is one of us he’s part of this community and to somehow pass judgment on him as it relates to these crimes based on something other than a thorough review of the evidence be wrong your burden of proof is not lessened as grand forks police officer was killed grand forks police officers in their estimation were terrorized and put through a terrible situation that ladies and gentlemen can never be part of your discussion fair treatment under the law i’ve probably gone on far too long my work here is about done i indicated it’s been hard work yours is about to begin all i can ask of you at this point is to do it well best of your ability why because he’s entitled we’re all entitled there are no do-overs in this business reach a verdict at some point wherever you decide it’s going to disappoint somebody goes with the territory none of us want to have happen it’s for you to wake up morning after the verdict comes in a month after the verdict comes in start asking yourself you know i’m not sure that i really did the right thing maybe we should have thought about this can’t let that happen because there aren’t any overs and that’s why your work is so important so critical this process i appreciate your attention this morning as indicated during your argument folks have already been working hard notice juries are paying attention at juries that didn’t pay attention can’t say that about you disappointed me so far no matter what your verdict is i won’t be disciplined i’m convinced follow our instructions get the very best but submit to you mr panel murder hard to count one not guilty of murder two depending on how you view the case they find him guilty causing the other person due to the extreme emotional disturbance aspect of this might find him guilty of manslaughter or something less each one of these charges is important each one of them have to be decided independently do the best you can thank you thank you mr monica