First degree murder trial part for the verdict.

Arnold Botello was stabbed to death on a Thanksgiving night with a turkey carving knife.

Arrested for his murder was Robert Sandoval.

In this program, you will see the American system of justice at work.

This is the actual first degree murder trial of Robert Sandoval, Robert Sandoval, Arnold Botello and others spent Thanksgiving in this house, eating, drinking and fighting.

Near midnight, Sandoval stabbed Botello, Sandoval says it self defense Seemed like they were coming at me and I think they were on the table, there was a knife and I picked up the knife & started towards the door.

Next thing Arnolds on the floor I did stab him because I had the knofe in my hand.

Botellos family does not believe it was self-defense.

I hope that he gets what he deserves.

What do you think he deserves?

It should be whatever the law goes by.

He's been charged.. life imprisonment.

Life in prison.

or death penalty.

If that was possible.

The prosecutor does not believe it was self-defense.

There was a lot of chaos that day and people shot his van He leaves and he goes home after telling them hes going to blow them away.

I think were his words and whether he had a shotgun or not.

We don't know.

But we know he came back with a chainsaw.

And that, to me, is not self-defense.

At that point, he becomes the aggressor and whatever the other people did, it's wrong.

But it doesn't give him an excuse to come back with a chainsaw to do heaven knows what.

And then when the chainsaw doesn't start, he goes and he gets a foot long knife and stabs.

Arnold Botello The defense attorney, believes that it might have been self-defense, and the defense has the advantage that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

I don't think the D.A.

can disprove self-defense.

I think there is enough there that you have to believe self defense might have been the actual case.

And again, I don't have to prove it was self defense They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense.

The prosecution has presented its evidence.

First, The police officer who arrested Sandoval.

I asked him, what are you doing with the chainsaw?

And he said he had planned to cut him up in the apartment, and he said he couldn't get the chainsaw started, so he got mad and threw it outside.

He said he.

He then went into the kitchen and got a knife in the kitchen.

He went back and stabbed the victim.

The defense cross examines.

You testified today that Mr.

Sandoval told you that he went back in the van and got a chainsaw.

Yes, sir.

In the report that you wrote from your notes within an hour after it happened, you didn't mention the chainsaw at all?

No, sir.

And you testify today, that Mr.

Sandoval said he was going to go into that apartment and cut him up with a chainsaw.

Yes, sir.

But again, your report on November 26th done within an hour of the interview.

There's no mention at all in that report about the statement.

I'm going to go in there and cut them up.

No, Sir.

Mr.

Glen Hudgins, eyewitness to the stabbing, described the actions of an angry Sandoval the night of the stabbing.

He drove his van on the sidewalk in front of the house.

Tell us, what do you recall happening after that?

Bobby coming in with a chainsaw trying to start it.

He was yelling at us about.

who shot holes in his van and.

It wouldnt start, he threw it outside.

He went the kitchen and come back.

Arnold was standing up thats when he got stabbed.

The defense cross-examines.

So you're sitting here having a nice evening, having a few beers have had hassles with Mr.

Sandoval all day long.

Mclanes told you that hes going to come back and get you guys hes on the front porch with a chainsaw, and you're just sitting there drinking a beer.

Right.

And the stabbing just kind of happens?

Right.

and you had nothing to do with it.

Nothing.

And as indicated, Mr.

Hudgins, you like to fight at the drop of a hat.

And you're denying under oath, that you threatened to kill Mr.

Sandoval back in the summer.

That's correct.

That's correct.

The defense has presented its case.

Colt, Stuck his head out the door and, you know, I saw his face.

What did you see on his face?

Dude was all swelling up.

He washed some of the blood off but But he just.

He had a black eye, and, you know, his lip was cut.

That's when I realized where I was.

John was looking at me and I was looking at him, and he took a step towards me, and he said, I did that to him.

And.

That's when I turned around & told Arnold I remember telling him get out of the doorway.

And next thing I know I had the knife in my hand.

I dropped it.

And you actually remember picking up the knife?

No.

Do you know where you picked the knife up from?

No I don't.

The prosecutor cross-examines.

You're angry when you left the bar?

Yes, sir.

You're even angrier when you found bullet holes inside of your van.

when shots rang out.

Yes Sir Angrier still when you went inside and they told you they weren't going to do anything about it and wouldn't admit doing it either.

Is that true?

I said Id talked to the the next day, sir.

And angrier yet when you went home & foun your radiator didnt work?

Yes, sir.

So angry that you decided you were going to go back and settle it right then and there?

Isn't that right?

Make sure it make it a point that they understood that my radiator was all full of holes.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

The evidence has been presented, and the jury will soon begin deliberation.

Those deliberations should be based not on the personal bias or morality of the individual jurors, but on the law.

The attorneys from both sides and the judge discussed the instructions which will be given to the jury.

These instructions are an explanation of the law which the jury will use to guide their deliberations.

Somewhere in here needs to talk about a person is not justified using physicla force if he is the initial aggressor .

What I have done is parrot the encyclopedia on self defense.

The definition what they can do with it Did you look at the one about witness credibility?

There are two one including the defendent one without.

I don't think we should single out defendant's testimony Even after what you saw out there?

He was great.

I was pretty impressed.

Stick to manslaughter & get it over with.

After all this work?

Why dont we give them their chance?

Thats what theyre gonna come back with.

Im not gonna guess, but Ill... you can.

It's I think between second and first or 2nd manslaughter Its credibility.

It's it's really.

And you know, I think that's probably where you guys broke down in your plea bargain.

The jury is going to come back.

You have to make that decision.

I was uncomfortable plea bargain homicides for that type of reason.

There's so many different included offenses, especially one like this find 1 you can find him not guilty of.

And then list all them and then you can finally go to one of these & theres 5 lesser.

It's just it's five possible charges.

Their heads are gonna spin I think when they start hearing about all these other offenses and they get into this one instruction.

Theyre just gonna say... what?

So we're getting close.

Yeah.

The jury will just sit there and think.

It took four days pick a jury and only 2 days to present the evidence.

Itll take forever to read these instructions Judge, if it would assist the court, Id waive the recording of the instructions.

Okay.

Okay.

The instructions have been read to the jury.

Now both sides have one last chance to persuade the jury.

Closing arguments are next.

Mr.

Shockley you may address the jury.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

In closing arguments, you will see the two attorneys take the very same set of facts and fit them to opposing theories of the case.

They will emphasize the most important facts to their side.

They will attack the credibility of witnesses for the other side.

The prosecutor will try to engender sympathy for the victim, while the defense attorney will try to engender sympathy for the defendant.

Its our position that when Mr.Sandoval returned the second time, he became the aggressor who provoked the acts.

On the second occasion, at about 1130 that night that resulted in the death of Arnold Botello.

There's no question that some of the people there that day were obnoxious, rowdy The defendant was rightfully outraged that they had shot bullet holes in his van.

And I don't blame him.

The problem in this case is how Mr.

Sandoval dealt with that outrage.

We suggest very strongly that at the time Sandoval returned with his chainsaw.

He was not acting in self-defense.

The threat was gone.

He had left.

He was a mile away.

He had driven away.

He was in the safety of his own vehicle.

He was in the safety of his own home.

There was no reason for him to return, except having armed himself with the chainsaw to return, to get revenge.

Had he gone inside at the moment he found the bullet holes in his van, And if you believe his testimony that at that moment they had a rifle out.

Had he committed the homicidal act, then he might well have been acting in self defense.

He left, And when he pondered, we suggest the what had happened to his van, the fights between himself and Mr.

Hudgens.

He determined he was going to do something about it.

So when he returned, he became the aggressor.

He had the weapons, and he testified the rifle was out of sight after he came back with his chainsaw.

went inside, got a knife, went over and stabbed.

Mr.

Botello.

He testified to events preceding that, and to his belief that his recollection of those events is clear.

He testified to things happening afterwards, conversations with police, and testified that he believes his recollection of that is very clear, but he does not recall exactly how he stabbe Botello or exactly why he stabbed Botello.

He offers no evidence that at that moment he was threatened with deadly force, by that rifle, by any other weapon.

But nonetheless, he did stab Botello and he killed him.

Look at the circumstances of the wound and ask yourselves if that wound is more consistent with an intentional or deliberate act.

Or on the other hand, more consistent with self-defense, taking this knife in order to get out the door.

That's what his intent was, that he would slash at him, get them out of his way, slash out.

But that's not what happened.

That's not the kind of wound that Arnold Batello suffered.

He suffered a 3 or 4 inch deep stab wound almost completely through his abdomen.

It went as deep as the aorta.

Almost severing it.

The wound is consistent with a thrust.

And thrust, I might add.

Right?

Almost right.

Dead center.

Someone's body.

Does that suggest to you that that is an accident?

Does that suggest to you that that is the act of someone who's trying to get people away from him Members of the jury, What that suggests is someone who has a deliberate intent to kill the other person and drives that knife home to do that job.

The defendant was quite angry John Mclane testified that Mr.

Sandoval first came back, found the bullet holes in his van.

He said, I'm going to come back and blow you all away.

Look, it's obvious they shot bullet holes into his van, and he knew that the first time when he came back from the 404 club and saw it.

And he suggests that he had the chainsaw in his van right then too.

Why then did he not go in at that moment with the chainsaw?

Tell them they'd better pay for his van or right then he was going get even in property cost.

That's if you believe the chainsaw was in the van.

On the other hand, if seeing all that and being quite angry, but not having any weapon.

He needs to leave and go get one.

in any event a passage of time in which it suggests he exercised this judgment.

That is necessary in order for this to be a 1st degree murder case.

It's an hour or a half an hour in which we suggest his first intention was to to get a gun.

because thats what's consistent with saying I'll blow you away, but not finding a gun?

He got the next best thing, the chainsaw coming back with the chainsaw and it not starting.

Then went inside and got the next best thing.

a foot long knife.

Of course, if you determine that he did not come back with the intent to kill, & only formed that intent when he got inside and truly did not have the time or opportunity to reflect on this intent, but nevertheless meant to kill Botell o doing it in an impulsive fashion.

Then that is 2nd degree murder.

Let me look for a moment and talk with you for a moment about the defendant's testimony.

He was going to go back for restitution, but yet he was angry enough he drove up right in front of the house, so angry that when he got out, he left the door open and he took the chainsaw with him.

But yet he testified, members of the jury, that upon the mere invitatio n of John McClane to be cool and come inside and talk about it, he put the chainsaw down.

But where the chainsaw is found isn't consistent with that.

This is part of his livelihood.

So if he's not angry at the moment that he decides to put it down.

Why then did he throw it out onto the grass under his van?

Wouldnt you expect him to just set it on the porch?

Or isn't parking the van, door open, The chainsaw being thrown down outside, more consistent with somebody who was all business when they got there and knew what it is they wanted to do and set about to do it, went inside, grabbed a knife, stabbed Mr.

Botello Now H udgens, McClane testify that that's what happened.

Should you believe that?

One very important reason why is because that is what Mr.

Sandoval told the police happened within 10 or 15 minutes of this.

He tells Officer Gassman he was mad.

they shot holes in his van.

they had stolen $20 off of him.

He brought a chainsaw back to cut the m up.

It wouldn't start.

So we threw it down.

He went inside, got a knife and stabbed him.

That is what the defendant said when this incident was freshest in his mind.

That's why you should believe John Mclane.

And Glen Hudgens.

Because the defendent himself Corroborates that homicide is seldom a rational act.

But it happens.

And it happened in this case.

And human being is dead.

Homicide is often the product of uncontrolled anger.

That uncontrolled emotion was present in this case.

He could have, as he said he had first intended to do, slept on it and come back the next day.

He could have called the police.

He did the one out of those 4 or 5 options that would result in first degree murder.

You can't excuse and you can't condone the actions of the people in 46 Eastport Avenue that day.

But they do not justify murder.

Don't settle property damage to your vehicle.

You don't settle obnoxious comments with chainsaws and knives and killing people.

When you assess the credibility of the defendant and his testimony.

Contrast it with the testimony of two people who are disinterested in this case, one a police officer and the other.

Gail Myers and Gail Myers If anything, is a friend of the defendant.

Gail Myers indicated that the real first trouble that day was in the afternoon between Hudgins and the defendant.

It occurred as a result of the defendant teasing Hudgins, abusive toward Hudgins She said he appeared angry to her at 1030 when he came back and knocked on her apartment.

Most significantly, said Arnold Botello was passive and a nice guy that day and she said that although she rode in the van, she didn't see the chainsaw.

And it's a pretty big item and it's a pretty bright color.

This yellow chainsaw would stand out.

It'd be something that you'd notice.

More significantly.

Let's compare Benton's testimony to that of the police officer that he talked to within 10 or 15 minutes of this event, the statements of the defendant, as recalled by the police officer, indicate the deliberate intent to kill.

Also, significantly, there are things that he did not tell the police officers.

He didn't mention anything about his intentions being to go back there merely for restitution.

Quite to the contrary, he said he went back to the do people harm most significantly.

However, he didn't tell the police anything about self-defense and members of the jury.

If there is every time that you could reasonably expect someone who believes they just had to kill someone.

Wouldn't it be when this whole event is freshest in their mind?

When they're offered the opportunity to explain it to a policeman, and what he says is quite contrary to that?

In a case such as this, there may be a tendency to just react emotionally and think, well, because they're all so wild and crazy.

Just really cant be a 1st degree murder case The law applies equally to all people in all walks of life.

This case certainly puts that principle to the test and the intentional homicidal act, has resulted in the death of a human being.

There is no evidence in this case of self-defense.

Not when Mr.

Sandoval came back the second time.

There is only evidence of revenge.

You are a link in the fair enforcement of the law, and I trust that you will fairly do your duty Thank you.

Thank you I don't think I'm going to talk for three glasses full.

Ill try to be short Members of the jury, I'm sure after Shockley's closing arguments, youre wondering what I could possibly say to convince you that this is a case of self-defense and Robert Sandovals not Guilty of any form of homicide, I'm sure after you hear my comments, however, you will agree that there is certainly a reasonable doubt as to the people's case.

Nothing to do here, obviously, is going to bring back Arnold Botello.

This case turns on whether you believe Officer Gassman, John McClane and Glenn Hudgens.

Because if you believe them, you got first degree murder.

There's a common theme that runs through their testimony, and that is that Mr.

Sandoval, went in the kitchen got a knife, came back & stabbed Arnold Botello and that if believed certainly is evidence of deliberation, intent to kill first degree murder.

How is it possible that three different people would tell a story that would not be true?

First of all, obviously we're saying that this was a group assault, attack, on Mr.

Sandoval Mr.

Hudgens is one of the more probable parties here.

Certainly after this is all over, he knows that he's in a lot of trouble.

He's even been advised of his rights as a suspect in this case.

And what does it say?

Well, I was just sitting in my living room having a few beers, and this crazy guy walks in, grabs a knife and stabs him.

I have nothing to do with it.

And how does John Mclane come up with the same story?

Mr.

Mclane wasn't even talked to by the police for approximately 19 hours later at his own home.

And I suggest to you that gave him ample opportunity to sit down with his buddy, his friend Glen Hudgins, and talk about what did you tell the police?

Let's get our stories straight.

How about Officer Gassman?

Why should he lie?

He's got a stake in this case.

They get a conviction, he's going to feel.

Hey, I did a real good job.

And his friends are going to say.

Hey.

Way to go, Gassman.

Good case.

He didn't look at you in the eyes members of the jury and tell you what had happened in this case.

Stage fright?

He's testified a lot of times.

Something to hide?

Let's look at this wonderful police report he did.

First of all, he took as he told us, sketchy notes.

He used his memory goes back to the station before he writes up his report.

Hudgens has already made his statement about going into the kitchen and getting a knife.

He overhears these things that are being said.

Maybe he even discusses it with other officers when it comes time to writing his report.

Maybe he thinks that Mr.

Sandoval told him about going in the kitchen.

Gassman doesn't put in his report.

Anything about the chainsaw Anything about this threat to go in there and cut t hem up.

Now, wouldn't you think that a police officer with a homicide case might have mentioned something about a chainsaw?

He might have talked to something about this threat of wanting to cut them up I strongly Suggest to you that this testimony is very, very questionable and you can't base a conviction of first three murder on what he told you.

I think it's very strange that although Mr.

Mclane and Mr.

Hudgens denied profusely that they shot this van, and Mr.

Shockley got up here and admitted to you that they did.

What's he telling you?

Well, they were lying about shooting the van, is so overwhelming that we just got to admit that.

Because we'd be fools if we didn't.

But what else is he saying?

They were lying there.

But hey, everything else is true.

You know, forget this.

Forget this over here because they were bad guys and now they're telling me the truth.

Someone should believe everything they say if they lied about the van.

Don't you think they lied about other things, too?

One exhibit that you haven't seen yet is a call card And you talked about with the call here at 1141, stabbing at the cornerof 4th and Lincoln & the name of the person who made this call, is Donald Wade.

Have heard about Donald Wade before in this case?

When I heard from Mr.

Mclane's testimony was the he called the police.

Mr.

Mclane indicated that he left the premises.

He ran down to the bar and called the police.

And he did a funny thing.

I suggest for a person in that situation, he ran into some friends and hasd a few beers, and he didn't even go back to check on his good buddy Arnold, who had been attacked by this vicious killer over here.

Mr.

Sandoval.

Did he make the phone call?

If he did, he gave a phony name.

Or if he didnt and he had somebody else do it.

We know, from talking to Detective Arco that this gun could very possibly have been wiped down before it was put in the closet.

Somebody's trying to sort of cover up.

Is that the same person who put all those shells in the bedroom underneath the clothes trying to cover up.

Same person that went out on the street and dumped a bunch of bullets right in front of that van.

Maybe get them out of their pocket.

In case they got searched and.

Oh, yeah, we couldn't have shot at his van because the gun was jammed.

Well, I don't think you need to be a firearm expert to unjam a gun like that.

The gun was not jammed.

They lied about it.

They lied about everything else they said.

And this elusive piece of wood that's sitting out in the middle of the room there.

Well, the first thing Mr.

Mclane said when I showed him that diagram, there's no piece of wood there.

If he was worried about that piece of wood.

Oh, yeah.

We were shooting at this log in here by the front door, and we just walked over up and around it, and we had to go out the door.

They're worried about that piece of wood.

Mr.

Shockley in opening statemen told you that Arnold Botello had that piece of wood in his hand and stumbled across the room and dropped it as he went out the door.

Yeah.

The witnesses both say that Mr.

Battello had no piece of wood in his hand.

So again, is the prosecutor telling you no to believe them on that point.

But you can believe on everything else.

With the credibility of these key witnesses in question, there are some serious doubts here, to whether or not the prosecution can establish an intentional or even knowing or even a reckless homicide.

The issue, then, is whether or not the prosecution has disproven self-defense.

Remember, there's no burden on us to prove self-defense.

Whos testimony do we have to go on this?

Robert Sandoval, nobody else was there to stand up for him.

It was a three on one situation.

One of them is dead.

One of them has run away, and one of them testified contrary to him.

I suggest to you that Mr.

Sandoval was a very credible witness when he testified If the evidence is as they would have us believe, that Mr.

Sandoval was so upset when he went in there, he was going to get the person who was causing him all this wrong.

Doesn't it make sense to think that he would have gone after Mr.

Hudgins and not Mr.

Botello?

As we know, Mr.

Botello was sort of the passive nice guy that evening.

And if you really want to kill somebody, why do you stick him once and sit down?

Isnt it more reasonable to think that if you really wanted to kill Glen Hudgins, that it would have been a brutal attack and he would have run away, and Mr.

Shockley makes it sound like, well, I guess if its self-defense.

And after he stabbed Arnold, he should have gone around and stabbed everybody else.

But isn't it also logical that given the circumstances, everybody being mad and everybody else everything out of control, that when they realize what's happened and you see somebody stabbed, it's an oh my God, as it come to this, every one just freezes.

Mr.

Sandoval sat down Mr.

Hudgins just stood there and they waited for the police.

The chainsaw we're talking about over here.

Mr.

Shockley seems to think that, if I would have gotten into a big van I would have seen this sitting in the back.

And since I rode in the truck that day and I didn't see this, it means it wasn't there.

And Mr.

Sandoval had to go somewhere else and pick it up.

because he intended to kill somebody with that chainsaw.

We got some photographs of what the van looked like back of this vans a mess.

and to think that because it isn't nice and neat in the current case it means he Committed first degree murder.

That's a ridiculous assumption.

Mr.

Sandoval told you that he felt cornered in that room, and again, the prosecutor says, well, he didn't tell Officer Gassman that.

The police arrest somebody And they say you have a right to remain silent.

Mr.

Sandoval told you that he made some statements and he denied that.

Officer Gassman said that.

He said.

And then he said, I think I'm in trouble.

I better shut up.

And so Mr.

Shockley now thinks that he can come in here and argue to you.

Why?

Why didn't he say that it was self-defense?

Well, the officer was told him to keep his mouth shut, because anything he said would be used in court.

Is that proof beyyond a reasonable doubt that he's a killer?

I suggest to you that that's dirty pool.

What other evidence do we have to verify that Mr.

Sandoval felt he was cornered, besides his testimony, We gotthe photograph of the living room that shows to you.

There's not much room here between the couches.

It's a small, confined area.

We don't know if the dishes had all been taken in the kitche We don't know if the knife had been taken into the kitchen with those dishes.

That's what the prosecution would like you to believe.

But you've got some other photographs that show that the dishes laying around.

And in fact, the witnesses testified that the house was in disarray.

Are you willing to convict the first degree murder because you believe the knife was in the kitchen?

The evidence doesn't support it, and there's no burden on us to convince you and prove to you that that knife was not in the kitchen.

Mr.

Shockley's made a big deal out of the wound itself.

The knife did not touch the vertebra.

It did not cut that far.

The knife was.

You've seen it.

It's 7 or 8in long.

The blade and went in 3 or 4 inches If this was a lunge if this was a thrust as demonstrated, wouldn't you think that that vertabra would have been stuck, & the knife would have maybe gone all the way through him?

Or is it just as likely that it was a motion It could have even been a swipe, a menacing swipe to ward off Mr.

Botello, as he indicated, the knife come in on an angle.

It wasn't straight in It was on an angle.

Is that consistent with this kind of thing?

Like get out of my way, or is it consistent with a deep thrust?

As the prosecutor said to you.

Sandoval has told you that he felt locked into that area.

That Arnold Botello was by the front door and that he couldn't get out.

But the prosecutor would have you believe that Botello was stabbed by the fireplace.

and maybe you wonder why We asked so many questions about loss of blood.

Well, you've got photographs that show a lot of blood on the porch.

one shows blood almost all the way up blade of the knife.

And you've got one that shows blood on the front door.

And you know, from what you've heard, that Mr.

Sandoval had blood on his shirt and on his hands and only got within a foot of Mr.

BOtello.

He was in critical condition when the police got there.

He had a major artery in his body severed.

Isn't it logical to think that, given the amount of blood that we know about, Had he been by the fireplace, thered be evidence of blood on the floor.

Other places is on the way to the door, if that's how it happened?

The knife is found by the front door as well.

And all the evidence seem to suggest that Mr.

Sandoval dropped the knife as soon as the stabbing occurre Nobody has said otherwise.

How about this piece of wood that we were talking about?

That piece of wood was probably, as the prosecutor said, in Mr.

Botellos hand And when you're standing in front of somebody and blocking their way and got a piece of wood in your hand.

What does that suggest to you?

Now, was Botello, the kind of a guy who would get involved in a rucus like this?

We do know he was very drunk.

We know he was an alcoholic.

And I think he can draw some inferences from the doctor's description of his body.

All the old scarring had on him and the new wounds that he had on him, that the doctor said, for the most part, were offensive wounds and not defensive wounds.

And if this has been a good night of ribbing Mr.

Sandoval.

Ha, ha!

Let's have fun with him and pimp him around at the bar, and push him around at the house and shoot at his van, and isnt likely to think that being drunk, he just figured, hey, I can get involved in this too.

And I also think that Mr.

Bortello was in on what was happening at the bar.

And the reason I suggest that to you is, ladies and gentlemen, that exhibit number seven that we talk about, that we got from the hospital records custodian And it shows that after Mr.

Botello died.

They gave his personal items to one of the ER aids, including his wallet, and it had a $20 bill in it I think it's kind of curious that's all he had in his wallet it doesn't say five and a couple of one or a ten.

He had a $20 bill, and that was what this thing was all about at the bar, a $20 bill.

I think Arnold knew what was going on.

I want to talk about the time lapse now, because I think that's a very, very critical issue here.

Mr.

Shockley would have you believe that it's a long period of time between when the shots in the van occurred and the stabbing occurred.

If you believe that he had that much time to drive around, and I guess he did have plenty of time to think about what he was going to do.

But what if that time period is due to other factors?

What if John McClane didn't make that call as quickly as he said he did?

Then you've got Mr.

Sandoval not driving around for a long time thinking about this.

You've got him driving around for a short period of time, getting upset, coming back.

I talked before about the credibility of John McClane, and this is where it fits in here.

He goes to the bar, and I suggest to you that he knows that he was one of the people who was assaulting Mr.

Sandoval when this happened, and he knows he's in trouble.

So what does he do?

He goes to the bar and has a few drinks to calm himself.

Thinks about it for a while, and either he has somebody else call or he calls with a phony name, and then he stays at the bar because he's afraid to go back and get involved in this.

It's just as likely that that's how it happened, and that the period of time we're talking about was spent standing around waiting for the police and not thinking about how you would commit this murder Before you can talk about self-defense.

We have to address this issue of who was the initial aggressor prosecutor.

would you believe that By going back there with the chainsaw.

Mr.

Sandoval is the initial aggressor, so he doesn't even get the right of self-defense.

Once Mr.

We've got provocation going on all day long, back and forth.

And when we finally get down to this last confrontation, they're on equal footing.

There's no chainsaw.

It's one on three.

There's no initial aggressor situation here to talk about We've got to look at this as it was happening, as the situation appeared to him at the time, and Mr.

Shockley, would have you believe that since Mr.

Sandoval said, I can't remember what happened with the knife, that he's lying about it.

But for those of you who have been in that kind of a situation an impulsive, a reflexive quick situation, we know that there is no memory of what happened, that its so fast, you cannot remember.

Mr.

Sandoval has told you that it happened in the blink of an eye and all self defense cases, I'm sure are that way.

You have to react and make a judgment based on the way things look to you.

And if you're wrong.

So maybe you're sitting here in a courtroom, and if you sit there and take the time to think about what's going to happen, maybe you're dead.

And Im not saying Mr.

Sandoval, did the right thing.

It was crazy.

It was stupid.

It was ridiculous.

And look where he is.

He knows what a mistake it was.

And I'm sure all of us would say he made the world's biggest mistake in going back into the house with the chainsaw.

But again, don't judge him from how you would have done it.

Is it so hard to believe that Mr.

Sandoval, who is now trying to make it on his own with his own business and his very livelihood, has been ripped out from under him, and it's so unreasonable to think if hed want to go back and get it squared away?

just because you or I might sue with a lawyer if somebody did damage to our company, that doesn't mean Mr.

Sandoval should be convicted of first degree murder because he decided to go back and threaten them with the chainsaw, and you don't convict the guy of 1st degree murder because that's the lifestyle.

Because that's the way they are.

If you find that there was self-defense here.

And I suggest to you that that's all this case is.

It's a not guilty.

But if you find that there's self-defense here, that you think that Mr.

Sandoval overreacted then you've got two other decisions to make, you're thinking well Mr.

Sandoval, I think youre right acting in self-defense, but I think you went a little too far.

We agree with you.

You have the right to do that.

But you shoudnt have stabbed him.

Then you got to decide if it's manslaughter or if it's negligence.

Negligence is the thing that fits.. My job is finished now, and I'm thankful for that because I'm very tired.

And now it's your turn to do a very, very difficult job.

Its over with this case is done as far as you're concerned, it's done as far as I'm concerned.

I go on to other cases and so does a judge.

Obviously this case impacts Robert Sandoval a great deal.

This is a difficult case, but I trust given your common sense and collective reasoning that you're going to view this case as what it was, situation of self-defense and find Mr.

Sandoval not guilty.

You may adress the jury.

This is a rebuttal argument.

My opportunity to briefly respond to some of the points that Mr.

Eisner has argued to you, murder trials or homicide trials are different from the other kinds of things that we deal with here.

If youre a victim of the theft, well, you can earn some more money & replace what you've lost and insurance company may compensate you.

If you're the victim of an assault and you're just injured.

Your wounds may well heal.

But homicide resulting in death has a great deal of finality to it.

This is Sandoval's day in court.

And in a sense, this is Mr.

Botellos day in court too.

And the decision here affects them both with finality.

And nothing can repair or make amends.

Make things whole and make things like they used to be.

Mr.

Eisner, has asked you to find From the evidence that Officer Gassman is a liar.

Mr.

Eisner would have you believe that the police officer has a lot to gain from this.

Its obvious Mr.

Sandoval has a lot to gain from this you know, he shows up here in his uniform.

He did make homicide detective as a result of is.

And isn't it a coincidence that what officer Gassman says Sandoval told him is what McClain and Hudgins told other police officers?

And if these other witnesses or if they're so prone to lie, to willfully lie, and there's a point to conceal evidence, why do they leave the shell casings laying around why did they leave the rifle in the closet?

Why leave live cartridges out on the street?

But all that suggests, again, members of the jury is essentially what the evidence has revealed a more or less chaotic day.

Gun shots being fired in the house.

Bullets all over.

Blood and weapons all over.

Mr.

Eisener argued that Why did Mr.

McClain stay at the bar?

If he had nothing to hide, consider the fact that he had just seen a friend, someone he'd been with all that day, stabbed in the abdomen and fall unconscious, bleeding on the porch.

Wouldn't you members of the jury be a little reluctant to go back there?

Until at least you were certain that it was safe?

Mr.

Eisner makes a big deal about who shot the van.

And if he knew who shot the van, would that justify murder?

The essence of Mr.

Sandoval's case is that he was surrounded.

He was so in fear for his life, or for the infliction of great bodily harm, that he had to strike out with a knife.

If that's true, isn't it incredible members of the jury that he.

Then Mr.

Sandoval, after stabbing Mr.

Botello, stays there, stays there in the presence of these people who he would have you believe threatened his life to the point where he had to take another person's life.

And isn't the more reasonable thing to do to to run out the door?

Get you van, drive off, call the police.

Go practically anywhere.

Anywhere at all.

But the place that you contend is so menacing and threatening that you have to use deadly force to get out of it.

For all he knew Glen Hudgens could have gone and gotten the rifle and done him in.

Isn't it more consistent that Mr.

Sandoval did, in fact go in stab Mr.

Bortello And then his anger dissipated.

And then he waited.

A photo members of the jury which is F6, which shows the living room, which is where Mr.

Sandoval said it must be inferred from his testimony, is where he got the knife.

as he can't clearly tell us where he did get the knife and how it came to be in his hand.

But look at this closely.

The two reasons.

Look at the size & dimension of the log number 1 But more importantly, do you see anything in there that's left over from Thanksgiving dinner?

You see any turkey carcass?

you see any carving fork, that goes with a carving knife?

Do you see anything at all that suggests that, that carving knife would have been left out there in the living room area, handy for Mr.

Sandoval to just pick up?

Mr.

Eisner talked to you about the wound, that it's just as consistent with a swipe.

Well, it's not just as consistent with the swipe.

You saw the coroner take a moment to measure the blade.

After he had testified that the wound was three quarters of an inch long.

Out here, the exterior part youd see.

And in 3 or 4in into the body, three quarters of an inch.

The incision.

that you see in the pictures in Mr.

Botello The same size as the knife,if that knife was swiped why isn't the cut that you can see on the outside of his body bigger than the knife itself?

Isn't that what a slashing or swiping motion would cause?

What that wound is consistent with is the thrust in and back right back out again.

There's no defensive marks on Mr.

Botellos hands like he's trying to ward off swipes with a knife.

And if he had the log in his hands, you can see it's too big to hold in one hand and have to have that log in both hands.

That's a pretty good thing with which to defend yourself if you're expecting to get stabbed.

On the other hand, you don't see it coming, or if you don't expect it coming.

Well, practically nothing is going to going to protect you in that instance.

And that's consistent with what we see in the case.

One single deep thrust, stab wound.

The evidence is clear that throughout the day, Arnold was not acting aggressive.

And yet, Mr.

Eisner suggests that at this last moment, immediately before his death, Arnold decided to get in on it.

And isn't it curious that only when Mr.

Sandoval comes back with a chainsaw and then later holding a foot long knife, Mr.

Botello would say, well, now that is the time to get into it.

Somebody comes out of the kitchen, holding a foot long knife, and you're going to try and keep him from going out the door?

And you yourself really haven't had any been into it with him in any of that day.

Mr.

Eisner argues that the defendant testified that he did not recall how long the police took to get there.

My recollection is that the defendant testified that they came very quickly after the stabbing.

Of course, the longer you determine that he waited The longer you determine it took the police and the ambulance to get there.

We suggest all the more unreasonable.

That is because, again, he is in the presence of people he would have you believe had just threatened his life to the extent that he had to kill the initial aggressive aggressor theory.

Pertaining to Sandoval does not dissipate in this case because he threw down the chainsaw.

If you find from the evidence that, as the defendant told Officer Gassman that night, after throwing down the chainsaw, he went in, got the knife, came back out, hesitated for a moment, and then stabbed Botello.

You can't excuse yourself merely by throwing down the chainsaw.

If your intent continues to manifest itself by you going and getting another weapon.

We have argued a long time we know that we can expect from you.

A fair verdict Thank you.

A fair verdict.

The jury must make a decision.

Must try to find the truth to do justice.

This case is typical with its questions of credibility, of witnesses with conflicting perceptions and statements about what happened with the gray areas of ambiguous evidence.

The jury will have to decide whom to believe.

What really happened that Thanksgiving night, and what was in Robert Sandoval's mind when he killed Arnold Botello.

Ill read the last instruction.

Now for the rest of the members of the jury.

The bailiff will now escort you to the jury room.

And you are to select one of your members to be the four person of the jury.

Been a pleasure.

A pleasure.

Very good job, gentlemen Thank you.

Thank you.

Hope you enjoyed it.

A day passes.

Sandoval waits for the verdict.

What goes through your mind When you know that there are 12 people who are in there talking about how you going to spend the next 20 years of your life?

This is what I asked for.

a fair trial.

Theyll come back with what they think is right It's up to them.

Yesterday afternoon, during the rebuttal arguments of the district attorney, your attorney turned to you and said, you know, they could convict your first degree murder.

Yes.

I feel If I hadn't reacted that way, I'd be, you know, dead, and we'd be prosecuting the three of them.

Its a lot of time.

Another day passes.

Then the jury lets the judge know that it has reached a verdict.

The attorneys and the defendant are called to the courtroom.

Then something unusual happens So the jury had a verdict.

And now they say, your honor, we have a juror who voted yes and is now having problems with your decision.

I see you're just sending a little more than just saying this is the unanimous.

Definitely interferes with abili to put your money on new projects and move that along and just jump right in.

usually comes up when they sit down in the jury box and give you a verdict.

And the judge asked if anybody wants to have juries polled and usually ask, is this verdict?

99 times out of 100, thet say yes, but in one case a jurror said, oh, I dont know.

Everyone goes oh no half an hour after the jury deliberated, retired judges was hearing the case, and he told one of the really old retired bailiffs dont know where they got him, either go in the room & the chairs out they been in there too long.

You cant do that Judge.

We wouldn't let him do it.

He was upset Oh do they have one now?

This is really it?

I think it's really it.

Dont want to wait too long in there and asking directly Lets get it over with.

Theyre coming back now.

This is it.

For real.

For real.

Mr.

Malone, I understand the jury has reached a verdict.

Is that correct?

The state of Colorado versus Robert Sandoval.

We, the jury, find the defendant, Robert Sandoval, guilty of manslaughter.

The jury's decision was appealed, and the case was eventually heard by the Supreme Court of Colorado.

The conviction was upheld, and Sandoval went to prison.

His sentence was three and a half years.

He could be out on parole iafter serving about 1 year.

o