1.Penalty Phase Preliminary Instructions and Opening Statements
9 linesJune 6, 2019 (Whereupon, the jury came into open court at approximately 9:05 a.m.)
THE COURT: Good morning. Everybody have a nice break? Anybody have any issues going on outside? Anybody try to communicate with you, talk to you, influence you in any way? Everybody still confident they're living up to -- all right. We've got just several days left before the case will be over with. So since the jury box was crowded and the jury room was crowded, I felt comfortable we'd get through with just two alternates, so I excused the four and that's why they're not here. So it's just 14 of us now. I make 15, the Judge and jury -- or jury and Judge. Nobody more important than you. Anyway, we're about to begin the second half, phase two. They'll get an opportunity to speak, to summarize, to present to you what evidence they're going to present regarding aggravating and mitigating. So that's what we'll consider now. I'll give you instructions like I did last. We'll take breaks, same as before. So continue taking your notes. Now, I want to make certain that the notes for the jurors that were excused, if you see them, I want to preserve them and keep them because, like I told y'all, those are your notes. And I want to make certain they get theirs if they want them or don't want them. If they don't want them, that will be fine. If y'all see them in the jury room and can identify they were one of the four -- because y'all know each other. Y'all have been together. So let me know or let the clerk know or the bailiff know and we'll put them in the same box. We got some. So with that, you're still under oath, the same oath you took before, consider the case and the facts. With that, I'm going to step down. Ms. Mayes.
SUZANNE MAYES: Your Honor, may it please the Court?
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
SUZANNE MAYES: Time always reveals the truth, no matter what effort he took to conceal it. Timothy Jones never intended to be here to get caught. His plan was to destroy the bodies of his children and to escape justice. Then he threw them in trash bags and left them far away from everyone and everything that they loved. You've heard so much evidence. You've heard things that no one should ever have to hear. But the most important words are still left unspoken, who the children were, who they could have been. A light they brought to all of those around them. Five of the most beautiful souls. You heard Amber's letter to Merah. You heard her begin this letter, Merah, my sweet daughter. She wasn't able to finish that letter, but you heard the desperation in her words as she spoke to her. If she would have finished, Merah, you are bright, beautiful and smart. You were an answered prayer and I will always, always love you, Mommy. That beautiful girl was strangled to death as she pleaded for her life. She begged him, No, no, no. She looked him in the face and said, Daddy, I love you. He took her life anyway. And he put her in a trash bag, left her far from home for the wild animals. When Merah was found, the animals had taken away her hand. You also heard about Eli. When Eli was found, he was wearing a tee-shirt from the school that he loved, Saxe Gotha Elementary. And that shirt said, Power of One. And you're going to hear more this week about why that is so fitting. Because when those children walked through the doors of that school every morning, they knew they would be loved, cherished and they were safe. You'll hear more about Gabriel and Abigail. They were happy babies. They were adored by their siblings, who would do anything and everything under the sun to make those babies happy. Gabriel and Abigail, called Elaine, just two and one, innocent, just learning to talk. He didn't hesitate when he took that belt and choked the life from them. You heard the reality of Nahtahn's life in that home on South Lake Drive, how he could never seem to please his father. Nahtahn was named after a warrior and Nahtahn was a warrior until the end, but he never stood a chance in that man's world. You heard about those final moments of his life when Amber called. He must have felt hopeless at that point, exhausted by the circumstances of that life. You heard how small he was, 43 inches, that's three feet, seven inches, defenseless. Yet, he kept going. He kept going in that long agonizing fight to the end. Nahtahn never gave up. He took his life anyway. You've heard so much evidence and now you're going to hear more. It's going to involve the character of the Defendant. You'll hear from Nahtahn's teachers, who were his protectors. You'll hear how they tried to intervene. And for all of the children, you'll hear what's called victim impact testimony. And under the law, that's testimony that allows you to hear about their own unique characteristics, those special qualities they had that made them absolutely irreplaceable to those who loved him. Remember these five children. It's taken much time to arrive at this moment in this courtroom on this day. For justice, it's not too late. It's never too late. Another aspect of this phase that we call the sentencing phase is what's called evidence in aggravation. And that's evidence when there are certain circumstances that make it a case where the State finds it fitting and appropriate to seek the death penalty. In this case, there are two aggravating circumstances which apply: The murder of a child under eleven, and we know that's occurred because we know that each of these children are under eleven, not just one, but five. The second aggravating circumstance under our law is what's called the murder of two or more persons during one ongoing course of conduct. And in this case, again, we know from evidence in the guilt phase that that occurred. All of these children were killed on the same night in the same place pursuant to one ongoing course of conduct at his hands. These murders were all interconnected and I submit those aggravating circumstances have already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Just as the State will present aggravating circumstances, the Defendant will also present evidence in mitigation, known as mitigating factors or mitigating circumstances. And I echo what my colleague, Mr. Graham, said to you earlier at the very outset of this trial, as
SUZANNE MAYES: you listen to that evidence, ask yourselves whether that evidence is meant as an explanation or is it an excuse? When we talk about the character of the Defendant, which is a certain aspect of this phase that we can only offer now or would not have been able to offer in full in the guilt phase, it's going to involve several things. It's going to involve evidence about the crimes, the condition in which he left those bodies, the bodies of his children. You're going to hear more about that. But also when we talk about the character of the Defendant, keep these things in mind, some evidence that you've already heard. We know that his anger and malice towards Nahtahn extended even into death. We know he took that saw and cut him to the bone because he blamed that child for the murder of his siblings. That innocent child, he blamed. That was the real Timothy Jones when you talk about character of the Defendant. You heard how when Nahtahn stopped breathing, he refused to call 911. All so he could save himself. That's evidence of the character of the Defendant and that's the real Timothy Jones. Throughout that night, he made choice after choice after choice after choice, four more times, to murder his children. We know from his statement to law enforcement that Nahtahn was killed and that Merah and Eli was both witnesses to that. He talked about that. He spoke about that in that statement that you heard. Merah and Eli knew exactly what happened in that house. And Christina Ehlke lived just next door, a stone's throw away. He wasn't going to leave any witnesses alive. So think about that when you consider the character of the Defendant. That's the real Timothy Jones. It was all about buying him more time. It was all about him escaping justice. It was him over those precious children. As a jury, everyone in this room is aware of the sacrifice and duty that you've been called to bear. It's more than any county could ever ask of its citizens. Each of you were qualified to serve because during those initial qualifications, each of you testified that you would consider aggravating circumstances and mitigating and that in the appropriate case that each of you could render a death verdict. So when we talk about that, about why the State is seeking the death penalty, I ask you to keep in mind it's not about vengeance. It's about a punishment that truly fits this crime. An age-old definition of justice is to render every man his due. And now the question for you is what is his due? What is Timothy Jones' due? Throughout this trial, you have heard evidence that is so brutal, so callous and so vicious, it can only be described as evil, a clear and unmistakable evil. He bears sole responsibility for the murders of his children. He alone is responsible for the murders of Merah, Eli, Nahtahn, Gabriel and Abigail. He bears responsibility for the suffering that's been inflicted for the rest of the lives of everyone who loved them so dearly. These wounds that he left, these wounds won't heal. So now you will hear evidence as to why in this case, the appropriate sentence is death. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Young.
BOYD YOUNG: You don't have to kill Tim Jones. You don't kill people who are sick. We respect your verdict. You took time. You were thoughtful. You were careful in your deliberations and we appreciate that. By your verdict, you have guaranteed that Tim Jones will never walk free again, that one day he will die in a prison cell much like that one. Each of you agree during voir dire that in order to determine whether or not a person lived or died that you would need to determine the value of the life and that you would need to examine the whole life in order to determine its value. That's what this phase of the case is about. Each of you told us that you believed that life with the possibility of parole was an appropriate sentence for somebody who had been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of five children. You understood that any argument that says just because he's been found guilty of the murder of five children, he, therefore, deserves the death penalty is an illegal argument. Law is always satisfied with life. In this case, in any case, in the worst case you can imagine, the law is always satisfied with life. Life means life without the possibility of parole. It means that he will die in prison. The way that this decision is made is through what's called mitigation. Mitigation is any reason that any one of your chooses to vote for a life penalty. Mitigation is not an excuse or a justification. No one can excuse or justify what happened and nobody is asking you to excuse it, but it is up to each one of you to decide whether or not there are mitigating factors and what value you place on them. They can come from anywhere. Mitigation doesn't have to be related to the murders. They can be from his life, his family, his individual human frailty. It can be anyone's reason to vote for life. You, through your verdict, have already found the existence of two aggravating circumstances. And you did it as a group and you did it unanimously and you did it beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitigation is different. Mitigation is individual. Mitigation does not have a burden of proof. Not every one of you has to agree on whether or not something is mitigating. You have the power to find mitigation for yourself. It could be something that the defense presents. It can be something that the State presents. It can be something that is important to you in deciding whether or not Tim lives or dies. You decide for yourself what is or is not mitigating. Remember that whole exercise we went through with each of you where one Juror could say I believe that maybe he's mentally ill, maybe he has brain damage. While it didn't rise to the level of a defense, it's still a reason for me to vote for life. And another Juror could say, I disagree, I -- but I think that Tim's family has seen enough death and for me, that is reason to choose life. That's okay. One Juror could say I think that he confessed and he took the police to the children's bodies and to me, that is mitigating. And another Juror could say I disagree, but I think that he can be safely housed in the Department of Corrections for the rest of his life and for that reason, I choose to vote for life. That's okay. Each of you don't have to agree. You're allowed to give whatever value you want to any mitigation that you find. You also understood in voir dire that you don't have to have a reason. Each of you said that you could respect the right of a Juror who's told you I don't have a reason, I can't put it into words, but I feel that life is appropriate for me. You said you would respect each other's right to do that. You can also give life based on your concept of mercy alone. Most of you agree that mercy is not something that somebody earns. It's something that's freely bestowed on another. It's grace. And the law says that if you in your person, your own personal moral choice decides to extend mercy, the law is satisfied with a life vote for that reason. This decision about whether or not a person lives or dies is an individual moral judgment. It's an extremely personal choice that each of you have to make. You all agreed to respect each other's individual moral judgment even if you disagreed with it. You all told us that if you saw somebody being bullied or intimidated out of what they had arrived at as their individual moral judgment or belittled for their moral choice that you would put a stop to it. And if necessary, you would send a note to the Judge. The law
BOYD YOUNG: anticipates that when 12 people are making an individual moral judgment about whether or not a person lives or dies, disagreement is okay. It's expected. Only if 12 people all arrive at the same individual moral judgment for death will Tim be killed. Whatever your 12 individual moral judgments are, the law will be satisfied and the case will be over. Your oath is to meaningfully consider the evidence, arrive at your own individual moral judgment and have that individual moral judgment returned in court. The State is going to present to you some truly horrific images. They're going to show you images of the children in the condition in which they were recovered by the police. This loss and horror doesn't belong to the Solicitor. These children were the great-grandchildren of Roberta and the grandchildren of Tim and Julie, their the nieces and nephews of Travis, Tyler and Jackie. They deal with that loss and that horror every day. But if you can see past that horror, if you cannot be pushed to death by that horror, you can hear past it, you will hear lots of reasons why Tim should get life. You will hear about things that happened to Tim that weren't his fault. You will hear about struggles and opportunities that Tim took to overcome obstacles in his life. You will hear that even in prison, his life has value and meaning to his family. God can use people in dark places. Thank you.