closing arguments

Penalty Phase: The Defense’s Closing Argument

“He will die in custody,” stated defense attorney Scott Sanders during his closing statement in the penalty phase of Daniel Wozniak’s trial. “He deserves the strongest punishment.”

Did I mention that this was the defense?

Here’s the thing: I’m sure Sanders wanted the jury to know they didn’t need to recommend the death penalty. Daniel wasn’t going anywhere and he wouldn’t be a danger to society.

Daniel had no criminal past, and before this he’d never been convicted of a violent crime. Daniel has been a model prisoner during his incarceration. So do these terrible acts represent Daniel as a person, or did he take a horrible detour?

Scott Sanders was very clear. He was not trying to diminish what Daniel did or the suffering he caused to all the people who loved Sam and Julie.

But he did want the jury members to make decisions for themselves and ask “what happened” to Daniel.

Also, Scott Sanders wanted to answer that question: Rachel Buffett happened to Daniel Wozniak.

The Rachel Buffett Question

Is Rachel an integral part of this story? No doubt about it. But is she a reason to commit murder?

When I tell someone about my blog and explain the details of the crime, I end the explanation by saying that, according to the prosecution, all of this happened because Daniel and Rachel were getting married, and he needed to pay for the wedding.

I don’t believe the money motive. You guys know that. But it’s the only one the prosecution gave us. Technically, that means no wedding equals no murders, right?

Furthermore, Rachel wasn’t just Daniel’s unwitting fiancée, asserted Scott Sanders, she was cruel, conniving and crafty. Sanders wanted the jury to view Rachel as the catalyst. He reminded them of the details about Rachel that came out during the trial:

Rachel had a history of causing conflict. She would stir up problems with those around her just for the “thrill of it.”
The police do not believe Daniel’s claim that Rachel had no knowledge of the murders.
Rachel didn’t tell the police about Chris Williams and how he had loaned them money.
Rachel knew there were no “loan sharks,” and that Daniel wasn’t in any danger if he didn’t pay back the money.
When questioned by the police, Rachel claimed to still be in fear of loan sharks.
Rachel lied to the police about seeing a third man with Daniel and Sam on the day Sam was murdered.
Police have testified that they believe Rachel was directly involved in the murders.

Yes, we’d heard all that before, but Scott Sanders did make a couple of new points I found interesting.

The Text Messages Question

First, he talked about those texts sent from Sam’s cell phone to Julie. Sanders scrolled through the texts for the jury and pointed out how their tone and wording changed dramatically as soon as Daniel was home with Rachel. When Daniel was alone, the texts were joking and casual. He suggested that their only purpose was to make it seem as though Sam was still alive. But when Daniel got home to Rachel, suddenly the texts were about asking Julie to come over. They became serious and emotional.

Interesting point. I hadn’t noticed that before. It sounds like Sanders was saying that Rachel came up with the plan to murder Julie.

The Calendar Question

Scott Sanders also talked about a “calendar problem” with Rachel’s account of the crime:

On May 26^th,2010 she lied to the police about seeing a third man with Sam and Daniel on the day Sam was killed. Ostensibly this was to help Daniel with his alibi.
But on May 27^th, Rachel was brought into the police station to hear Daniel’s confession. This was supposedly the first she learned about the murders at all.

Why would she be lying for Daniel if she didn’t yet know Sam was dead?

The Confession Question

Rachel also told the police she was afraid loan sharks, but she knew there were no loan sharks because Chris Williams had told her. During that confession, Rachel hadn’t seemed shocked or upset, even though she was learning that her fiancé had just confessed to double homicide.

Side note: Scott’s impersonation of Rachel during the confession was hilarious. Here was this super-serious attorney guy trying to sound like… umm… a vapid Barbie doll?

Was Daniel Manipulated?

Scott Sanders wanted the jury to get a different image of Daniel Wozniak. He wasn’t the monster described by the prosecution. Daniel was manipulated.

Rachel was Daniel’s entire life and he would do anything for her. Daniel was going to protect Rachel, and Rachel was going to protect Rachel. So Daniel took the blame for everything.

Daniel had asked that Rachel be brought in to hear his confession so she’d know the story she should stick to. Daniel even made himself look as horrible as possible (claiming that hiding the murders was “borderline fun”), so they would focus on him entirely.

Sanders was telling the jury Rachel is smarter than Daniel, because she didn’t get caught, and she made sure the police would have evidence against Daniel.

Rachel just “walks through the rain drops,” Sanders announced to the jury.

Does Daniel Deserve To Die?

It seemed like Scott Sanders was saying that Daniel Wozniak shouldn’t be given the death penalty because there is good inside him. The murders of Sam and Julie are inexcusable, but Daniel could still be a useful member of society (well… ok… prison society).

Scott Sanders doesn’t think Daniel is the worst of the worst. He reminded the jury about Edward Munoz, who in-spite of having a criminal past, was telling the truth about who Daniel is behind bars. “To me,” Munoz had told the jury when he was on the stand, “he is a good person.”

Scott Sanders spoke plainly: Daniel Wozniak “will never make it up to the families, but don’t we want him to do his best now?”

One Last Push From Prosecutor Matt Murphy

By the way, during Scott Sanders’ entire closing, Matt Murphy still didn’t give up on the “one/one” argument. He was determined to get another opportunity to speak after Sanders’ closing. There was discussion that the jury might have problems recalling the details of the prosecution’s closing.

Scott Sanders did not stop fighting to have the judge stick to his decision to end the trial with the defense’s closing. He pointed out that the prosecution’s opening argument was longer than the defense’s entire case.

Judge Conley continued to reluctantly side in favor of Sanders, but before he could give the final jury instructions, he would see council in his chambers one more time. Matt Murphy looked pissed when they came back out, and I knew that one “one/one” fight was done.

Finally! That just got annoying, Matt. I’d admire your tenaciousness, but jeez, it was enough already. Trust me – you talked plenty.

The Jury Deliberates

The judge told the jury they needed to have a unanimous decision in order to give Daniel the death penalty. So, Mike the bailiff escorted them into the deliberation room, and those of us in the courtroom readied ourselves for a long wait.

They were back in less than an hour.

Next…

In the next post, I will tell you what it’s like to watch a jury recommend that your friend be put to death.

Penalty Phase: The Prosecution’s Closing Argument

It was January 7, 2016 and Deputy District Attorney Matt Murphy was soon to begin his closing argument in the penalty phase of Daniel’s trial. Judge Conley’s courtroom was packed. The victims’ family members filled many of the seats. There were also quite a few young lawyer types in suits probably there to observe the battle royal about to take place between Murphy and Daniel’s defense lawyer, Scott Sanders.

One / One / One

The action started even before the jury was brought into the courtroom, when Matt Murphy contested a previous ruling in the case.

Normally, the prosecution gets to have the final word with the jury. The prosecution speaks first and last… a defense attorney sandwich, you might say. This “one/one/one” order is a way for the prosecution to rebut any statements made by the defense.

However, in an earlier hearing, Judge Conley ruled that in the penalty phase of Daniel’s trial, there would be a “one/one” order for the closing arguments, which meant that Scott Sanders would get to have the last words to the jury. It wasn’t exactly clear why Judge Conley had made that decision. It almost seemed like he’d done it in error and Sanders wasn’t going to let him just switch it back without a clear legal reason.

Matt Murphy was not happy about this, and he fought more than once to have the decision reversed. Scott Sanders was not backing down, though, and in the end he “one/one/won” the right to talk last.

This meant Matt Murphy would have to guess what Scott Sanders was going to say in his closing, and he wanted to counter any and all possible arguments Scott Sanders might bring up to defend Daniel’s life.

Murphy started his closing with the goal of making a personal connection with the jury. He said he felt he knew each of them from reading their questionnaires, and they would know in their own hearts what they should do. But, a moment later, he called upon the jury members to “put (their) feelings aside” and recommend death for Daniel.

Which is it? Use their hearts or put their feelings aside? These seem like mixed messages.

Matt Murphy was going to say whatever it took to convince the jury that my friend Daniel Wozniak is irredeemable and deserves to die. Murphy suggested that there could be some situations where society might understand why a person committed murder. The example Matt Murphy used was a revenge killing of a child molester. That’s the kind of situation where “well, maybe we would kill that guy.”(The child molester.)

But Daniel’s motivation, according to the prosecution, was money. If Scott Sanders was planning to suggest anything else, Murphy wanted to knock out that idea before it could even be brought up.

Knocking Down The Defense Witnesses

Continuing with his closing, Murphy began to demean some defense witnesses. He claimed Krystin Bergamasco’s testimony was insignificant, and what she had to say reminded him of when “he watched Glee” because of how much it sounded like high school drama. Kyle Ruebel‘s testimony wasn’t to be taken seriously, either. Murphy acquiesced that Kyle is a nice guy, but he didn’t understand how he “got all the ladies.”

Dealing With Rachel Buffett

Next up, Murphy dealt with the Rachel card. He knew Scott Sanders would talk about Rachel during his closing, but what would he say? Murphy started listing possible topics Sanders might use in an attempt to throw some blame Rachel’s way:

The defense needs a villain to blame.
People don’t like Rachel.
Rachel was living with Daniel.
Rachel would also benefit from any financial gain.
Rachel was near Daniel while the texting to Julie was happening.
Rachel cried on-stage for the first time on the night Sam was murdered.
Rachel lied to the police about seeing a third man with Daniel and Sam on the day Sam was murdered.
She didn’t tell the police about Chris Williams.
She “echoed” Daniel’s lies about Sam having family problems.
Everett said that Rachel should also be on trial for murder.

Murphy didn’t argue against any of the Rachel accusations. In fact, he admitted that he “would love to bring (Rachel) to trial for murder,” but he didn’t have the evidence to do it. Murphy told the jury that he believes Daniel lied over and over when he said Rachel wasn’t involved, but Daniel wouldn’t “sell her down the river.” So, Matt Murphy decided to make it simple for the jury: “If you think she may have done it, just assume she did, but that doesn’t negate what Daniel did.”

That is a valid point. But it makes me wonder. How can the prosecution sell the jury on Daniel’s confession when they don’t believe it?

Murphy then proceeded to insult defense witness Daniel Munoz, calling Munoz an “idiot” and a liar, and claiming he was surprised “that guy didn’t get arrested on his way out of the court.”

I don’t believe it was necessary to be that rude. I think Murphy could have discredited Munoz’s testimony without it being such a personal attack on the guy.

A Reminder Of Motive

Then Murphy’s closing jumped back to the aggravating circumstances that make this a death penalty case: financial gain and multiple murders. He referred to this not being the olden days of Charles Dickens and A Christmas Carol, and how it was disgusting to have wanted money for a “silly wedding.” He wondered why Daniel’s computer didn’t contain Google searches on ways to make money such as selling a kidney or becoming a male prostitute.

Uh…? Charles Dickens? Male prostitute? What?

Obviously, he was trying to make the point that stealing money to pay for a wedding is a sickening motive for murder, but his analogies were a bit peculiar to say the least.

Also, if Scott Sanders was planning to suggest that Daniel might have a more emotion-based reason for committing murder, Murphy was going to cross that bridge before Scott could come to it. The prosecution wasn’t going to get a rebuttal and had to make sure Daniel was painted as evil, not insane or intoxicated. After all, Daniel hadn’t done any Google searches about “hearing voices,” and no drug evidence was found.

I wasn’t sure if that meant there was no drug evidence found in any of the locations related to the case, or just in Daniel and Rachel’s apartment. Either way, it surprised me. Early on in our correspondence, I got the impression that Daniel had been abusing drugs at the time of the murders. I don’t think that I misinterpreted this, but I did expect there to be signs of drug use in Daniel’s apartment. That is something I’ll want to ask him about. Hmmm…

I’ll finish with the prosecution’s closing argument in my next post. We’ll start with why Scott Sanders called a sidebar in the midst of it..!

When closing arguments in Daniel’s trial started on December 16, 2015, I was feeling… I guess the best word is anticipatory. The defense had rested the day before after barely questioning the prosecution’s witnesses and calling none of their own. So far Scott Sanders and his team hadn’t put forth much of a defense (at least not in front of the jury), but I figured we were all about to see some fancy-schmancy lawyering now that we were in the closing stretch of the guilt phase.

A Secondary Verdict?

Before the jury was brought back into the courtroom, there was some discussion about the possibility of a secondary verdict. There was an option to find Daniel guilty of second-degree murder instead of first-degree. Like anyone thought that was going to happen.

Then, Scott Sanders brought up something I never would have considered. Some of the camera footage taken during the first days of trial showed Daniel being escorted by deputies into the courtroom, and it was easy to see that he was handcuffed.

If you remember, the jury wasn’t supposed to ever see Daniel in cuffs. Jury members are told to avoid media coverage of the trial, but stuff happens. It wouldn’t be impossible for one of them to accidentally catch a glimpse of that footage on the nightly news.

Judge Conley asked the camera operators to wait until Daniel was seated and no longer handcuffed before they filmed him from now on.

But, HEY JURY MEMBERS! Now that the trial is over, I would LOVE to talk to you. I have a few thousand questions I’d like to ask you. Let’s start with: Did you know that Daniel was incarcerated during the trial?

Matt Murphy’s Closing Argument

When the jury was brought in, the judge explained that the “party with the burden of proof” gets to speak first and last. This meant that Matt Murphy would get a rebuttal after the defense finished its closing argument – like a Scott Sanders sandwich.

Matt started off by telling the jury that during this, the guilt phase of the trial, they are only responsible for deciding if Daniel Wozniak broke the law. Did he commit murder and was it a calculated decision to kill? This was a time for a sterile examination of the facts. This was not the time to consider punishment. Was he guilty of first degree murder?

Murphy then went on to remind the jury of the “cornucopia of evidence” in this case (Thanksgiving of murder?). He said that the amount of evidence was so overwhelming, he wished he “could borrow” some of it for his other cases.

(“Oh, Matt. You jokester.” Slaps own knee.)

I’ll tell you something, if someone hurt me or one of my loved ones, I would want Matt Murphy to prosecute them. You know what I’m sayin?

That black backpack alone easily connected Daniel to Sam’s murder. Daniel’s DNA and Sam’s blood were all over Sam’s personal items found in the bag.

Matt talked about how the evidence didn’t need to eliminate all possible doubt, though, because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

Murphy didn’t have to prove who made the implicating Google searches found on the computer in Daniel and Rachel’s apartment. The searches themselves were “very powerful evidence.”

Unanswered Questions

He admitted that there were still some unanswered questions. Like: how did Daniel get Sam’s PIN number? The prosecution didn’t know, but Murphy said it was okay for the jury to just “guess” a way that Daniel could have acquired it. He suggested that Daniel had glanced over Sam’s shoulder at some point when Sam was taking out money.

My guess… I think Sam willingly gave his PIN to someone he trusted.

Murphy told the jury that Daniel had started working on his murderous “plan” months before the killings took place. That was why Daniel reconnected with Wesley (ATM kid). But during Wesley’s testimony, questions came up about when this all took place. Not all of the answers Wesley gave worked with the prosecution’s timeline. So during his closing, Murphy suggested that the teen was probably just confused.

Money The Real Motive?

Even though the prosecution is not obligated to provide a motive, Matt Murphy knew exactly what the motive was in this case: money.

Daniel was in debt. On the PowerPoint, Murphy showed two overdrawn bank accounts. The thing is, the total was under a $1000. Yup, that’s not a typo. I didn’t forget a zero. And because Daniel was estranged from his family, he had no one to help him with the $1000. Also, he’d recently gotten a DUI (incurring more debt).

And the most crucial need for money: Daniel and Rachel’s impending wedding / honeymoon.

Side note – On Dateline, Rachel said her parents were traditional and they were planning to pay for the wedding. So that expense was actually covered.

Matt Murphy wondered, if Daniel needed money so desperately, why didn’t he just stick to “good old identity theft?” That is a good question, MM!

Hey, I just realized that Matt Murphy and Murder Musings have the same initials.

Here’s why I don’t believe the “murder for financial gain” motive:

First, Daniel had to know that it would take some time to clean out Sam’s bank account, especially if he was planning to do it by maxing out an ATM every day. I would think that Daniel would want as much time as possible, so as to collect as much money as possible. But Daniel didn’t have any time, because the police started looking for Sam right away.

Why did they start looking for Sam? It wasn’t because his father was worried about him. The police wanted to find Sam because Julie’s body was in his apartment. That brought them into this case immediately. And that didn’t help Daniel’s plan.

Also, Daniel had Sam’s checkbook and credit cards. Why weren’t they used? Why didn’t he just forge a check to himself and get a much larger sum than the $400 ATM limit?

And seriously, that amount of debt was so paltry. It’s certainly not insurmountable. Get a job. Come up with a creative sign and panhandle on the offramp. Hell, you could probably make $1000 selling plasma and semen.

But, in his confession, Daniel said he did it for the money. So that must be the motive, right?

Matt Murphy finished up his closing with a PowerPoint list and a restating of the evidence against Daniel. Then it was all wrapped up in Daniel’s confession. The one where he finally stopped lying and told the true story… right?

Hey blog-reading juror: how important was that confession to you guys? Would you still have found him guilty without it?

The Defense’s Closing Argument

The prosecution finished and I got myself ready to watch Scott Sanders jump into action. What was he going to say? Was there any possible defense? Would there be a Perry Mason moment?

Spoiler alert – there wasn’t.

That is when Daniel’s other lawyer, assistant defense attorney Tracy LeSage, stood up to address the jury. Well, I did not see that one coming. Why wasn’t the man Daniel calls “Fearless Leader” taking the lead here?

I started coming up with theories in my head. Maybe the defense team thought Tracy would be more likable than Scott. Perhaps Scott was saving his energy for the penalty phase. Did he have a sore throat and no one offered him a Ricola? I don’t know.

The soft-spoken LeSage put forth a very simple request to the jury: Try to see the whole picture. She wanted them to really study the facts. Tracy said that nothing in life is black and white. She just wanted them to keep an open mind. That was the gist of it, and she was done.

Matt Murphy made one last comment. It was some kind of analogy about Daniel driving a car. Sorry, my notes are sketchy on this part. I was getting hungry.

Lunch break!

Final Instructions

Judge Conley gave the jury final instructions before they started their deliberations. One point he made was that they were to ignore that Daniel did not testify. They shouldn’t guess or assume any reasons for this.

Unfortunately, I think most of us believe that if a person doesn’t testify, he’s guilty? I’m sure that Daniel and the defense team are well aware of that.

Then, the jury was ushered into the deliberation room by Deputy Mike (who is a really nice guy by the way). I think everyone knew that a guilty verdict wouldn’t be long in coming.

And I think that EVERYONE in the room agreed that Daniel was guilty of something.

I’ll be digging into the penalty phase of the trial next. I’m also planning a post of my thoughts and reactions to that Dateline episode.