Mavrick Murder Trial Recap: Closing Arguments (Day 9)

[On-screen text reads “Mav Murder Trial: Closing arguments”. Callie Frye, Daily Moth Reporter, appears on screen.]

Callie Frye: District Attorney Susan Krones approaches the jurors and begins to state her closing argument.

[The courtroom is shown, and District Attorney Susan Krones approaches the jurors. She is standing behind a lectern that has a microphone on it.]

District Attorney Susan Krones (Callie): First, I want to say thank you for your patience while observing this trial. I know that it was a long trial. I appreciate your attentiveness and your prompt attendance with this trial. Your patience with us is really appreciated.

[The courtroom is shown with an ASL interpreter facing Mavrick who is seated next to another interpreter. Mavrick’s defense attorney is also seated at the same table.]

District Attorney Susan Krones (ASL Interpreter): Good afternoon. First, I want to thank all the jurors for your patience and your attention on this case.

District Attorney Susan Krones (Callie): I want to talk about the facts that correspond with the evidence and the law about reasonable doubt. I want to talk about that. The law does not require the district attorney to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. It is impossible. There is no case where the district attorney can prove 100% beyond all reasonable doubt. Our responsibility is to prove what part of law was broken, and that it happened beyond reasonable doubt. Jurors, you need to make your decision with two things - using your common sense and your knowledge of the world and how it would view this case if it were reasonable through the evidence. The defendant, Mavric, did this murder with malice of forethought. He contemplated and planned this out of hatred and revenge. With this situation, we only have the defendant, Mavrick’s statement explaining what had happened that night. Inside the tent, the only two people who were there were Mavrick and Grant. Grant’s head was caved in from the rock that Mavrick used to repeatedly hit him in the head with. Mavrick left with only a cut on his pinky finger. Mavrick told Lee that he got the cut on his pinky finger from working on Grant’s car. Mavrick made that comment to Lee. If Mavrick had lied about that story, why didn’t he say he did not know where the cut came from or that something else caused that cut? He was very specific and detailed with his story. Did he lie and make up that story? Or it was likely that it did happen. Mavrick and Grant had already previously agreed that they would part ways after the camping trip. Unfortunately, Grant was excited to show Mavrick what Northern California looked like and how Humboldt Country had beautiful red trees. That is why Grant invited Mavrick to join him in the car to go on the camping trip. Mavrick stated that he was angry and stewing over how Grant was manipulative, controlling, and always bossy. Mavrick felt that he could not give Grant any input or feedback. Mavrick dwelled on how upset he was, and he decided that ‘now’ was the time to tell Grant how he really felt, and to tell him the truth on that exact day and time. That makes no sense to me. Because Grant had planned to drop off Mavrick at Lee’s as that is what Mavrick wanted, and then Grant would go over to visit Marissa. That was their agreement and that was what was planned before their road trip for the camping trip. After that, they would part ways separately. They would not do business together anymore. Mavrick stated that he told Grant the truth, and then Grant threatened him. That confrontation happened at the river. The defendant, Mavric, stated that when Grant threatened Mavrick, that also meant Grant threatened Mavrick’s family too. Because Mavrick and Grant had watched a movie together, and Mavrick remembered a scene from the movie which was similar to Grant’s threat. Which meant to Mavrick that the threat was towards his family too. I will show a picture on the projector here which is a picture that Grant had sent to Marissa. Grant had explained to Marissa in the message that he had set up the tent and described his surroundings outside. Grant said in the message that, “It’s beautiful here and I’m happy to be here.” I want you to look at the picture where you can also see a table that is next to the tent. This is important because the defendant Mavrick stated that when he was looking for the keys he found the keys in Grant’s sweater crumpled up on the ground outside. But right next to the tent is a table. Let me zoom in closer to the picture for you to see.

[The courtroom is shown. District Attorney Susan Krones is adjusting a picture of the tent and table that is shown on the screen projector.]

District Attorney Susan Krones (ASL Interpreter): That is after the tent is set up. You can see that there are no rocks on the corners of the tent.

District Attorney Susan Krones (Callie): We do not see any rocks on each of the corners of the tent. The temperature on that day of August 19, 2019 was 64 degrees with a wind speed of 13 miles per hour. Throughout the day, the wind speed had reduced to 10 mph then to eight miles per hour. Later that evening, the temperature dropped down to 57 degrees, then to 55 degrees by 10:00 p.m. that night. It was not very cold, but would Grant be walking around outside with just a t-shirt? I doubt it. The defendant had stated that he did not feel good, and he could not sleep because he was scared because he felt that Grant would do something to him. He was restless and could not sleep. He kept opening and closing his eyes. He could not sleep at all because he was concerned about what Grant would do to him. But he was happy to stay inside the tent until Grant came inside to hurt Mavrick? Grant was texting back and forth with Marissa. Grant sent her a picture of the tent, of which I am showing you. Grant had messaged Marissa telling her about how happy he was to be at this beautiful place. Grant told Marissa that he was looking forward to seeing her the next morning. Grant already had a plan for dropping off Mavrick at Lee’s ranch as that is what Mavrick wanted, and then Grant would go straight to Sacramento to collect his things and then drive down to see Marissa that evening on August 20th. Marissa testified that she and Grant had known each other from school and had later reconnected again but they had not met in person or seen each other face-to-face as they were supposed to do that on August 20th. Grant was looking forward to that. Grant was in a good mood, and he was excited to finally see Marissa. Marissa was also looking forward to seeing Grant. Marissa testified that it was around 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. at night that Grant had messaged her, “Hey boo, I’m getting sleepy, and I have to get up at 5:00 a.m. in the morning to drive to Sacramento.” A few minutes later, that was the last time Marissa texted with Grant. Mavrick wants you all to believe that when Grant and Marissa finished texting one another at 10:30 p.m. that night, Grant waited for a few hours by walking around outside before entering the tent. What would Grant have been doing just walking around outside after texting with Marissa? Grant had no reason to do that. Grant said that he was sleepy, so it makes sense that he should go inside the tent as soon he finished texting with Marissa. When Grant finished texting with Marissa, he informed her that he was going to sleep because he had to get up at 5:00 a.m. the next morning. But the defendant had claimed that Grant did not enter the tent until 1:00 a.m. Grant had informed us (through his text message) that his intentions were to go to sleep. At that time, he was in a good mood. He was not grumpy nor in a bad mood. Grant did not say anything about an argument with Mavrick. Grant did not say one word. Grant did not make any comments about him being upset at, or mad at Mavrick. If Grant had a recent fight with Mavrick, why wouldn’t Grant tell Marissa that he had a fight with Mavrick? Grant did not mention anything about it. We all know that Grant’s body was found in a sleeping bag. When the bag was unzipped open, Grant was still dressed in his t-shirt, underwear, and socks. He was not wearing shoes. Why was he dressed like that when he died? Grant was only wearing his t-shirt, underwear, and socks because he was sleeping. Grant’s last text message to Marissa was at 10:30 p.m. that night, not at 1:00 a.m. The defendant contemplated for many hours, he was upset, and he was stewing over about how Grant was manipulative. Looking at the facts, the only facts here that are reasonable and make sense is the explanation that Grant was inside the tent and was asleep in his sleeping bag. The defendant was angry and took a weapon, a rock, and hit Grant with it multiple times and he died while he was sleeping. That coincides with Dr. Omalu’s testimony when he stated that the bodily damage was on the left side of Grant’s head. The right side of Grant’s head was resting on a soft surface, such as a pillow or his sleeping bag. There was no injury on the right side of Grant’s head, only on his left side. The doctor also stated that Grant did not have any defensive wounds on his forearms. There was no evidence of a struggle between Grant and Mavrick. Grant’s injuries were only centered on the left side of his head and nowhere else because he was not responsive at that time. When Mavrick repeatedly hit Grant’s head with the rock until his death - Grant was still breathing at that time. Did Mavrick try to get help from other people? No, he did not. Mavrick could have taken Grant’s phone to text Lee for help, but he did not. Mavrick’s first thought was to take the rock and throw it away in the river. He walked towards the river to do that. There were people in other sites around Grant and Mavrick’s campsite and they were closer to Mavrick than the river was, which was much further away. Mavrick left Grant all alone in the tent during those few minutes while Mavrick walked all the way to the river to throw away the rock. Mavrick was not concerned about Grant, and whether he was still breathing, what to do for him. Grant could have still been alive. Mavrick was focused on his rush to leave the place and searching for the keys. Do you think that Grant entered the tent with the intent to kill Mavrick? Why would Grant in his angry state, leave his sweater crumpled up on the ground outside the tent? Why would Grant take off his sweater before entering the tent? The knife that Grant allegedly used to stab Mavrick - the blade of that knife was small. Is that a weapon that you would want to use as you enter a tent in the dark and try to stab someone, with that small blade? The other clue here is that Grant used hearing aids to help him hear. If it were Grant’s intention to kill Mavrick in the tent, why would Grant not be wearing his hearing aids? He could have left them in. There is no reason for him to kill Mavrick. We have seen the witnesses testify and share their statements that Grant was not a violent person. Grant had not physically assaulted anyone. Lee did mention that Grant jabbed his finger on Lee’s chest, but Grant was only trying to make his point. Lee was not hurt. One more thing. What was the reason or motivation for Mavrick to kill Grant? When Mavrick fled to Mexico, he was texting with his mother and his mother had messaged Mavrick asking, “Did Grant hurt you?” Mavrick had responded, “Grant threatened me, and said that Grant knew where my son is.” Mavrick’s mother said, “Yes, you did that out of defense.” Mavrick responded, “Grant knew where my home is, and he would have tried to hurt Emily while she was with Kaden.” However, Emily and Kaden were not there at the campsite. It was just Mavrick and Grant. Emily and Kaden were not in immediate danger. The judge had explained to Mavrick, “By law, you cannot attack or kill someone if you think that something might happen in the future. You can protect someone and prevent violence from happening to them at that time. If you needed to protect yourself or to protect other people at that time, that would be a different story. But you cannot do that if you thought, ‘He will kill my son and my girlfriend, Emily later.’” Mavrick was afraid of that so that is why he killed Grant. That is how Mavrick felt and that is why he did it. Mavrick told his mother that. This is in the text messages and you can look at them. When Mavrick and Grant struggled after Grant had cut Mavrick’s finger, the knife had fallen in the struggle. Grant fell to the ground and as he was trying to get up, Mavrick picked up the rock and repeatedly hit Grant’s head. Grant may have been knocked out unconscious or was dazed, but the threat was gone. Grant was not trying to attack Mavrick anymore at that point. The judge had stated that you cannot continue any further once the threat had dissipated. Grant was not responsive anymore and he was already on the ground. Why continue hitting Grant repeatedly? Mavrick intentionally killed Grant. How we know this is because Mavrick focused his blows with the rock by hitting Grant’s head while Grant was already laying on the ground at that point. Mavrick stated that he did that out of self-defense, but for self-defense it must be reasonable and make sense. You do not use excessive force that is more than necessary. Mavrick did type on the computer back and forth with a detective in Lake County and he told the detective that Grant was weak, and Mavrick was strong. Which means that Grant was not a threat. When Mavrick took the knife, it fell, and it was fast and easy. Grant was thin. He only weighed 125 pounds. Do you see where the blood is in the tent? The blood is located only in that one corner, but not where Grant had fallen. Mavrick said that Grant had fell at the left side - around the middle of the tent during their struggle. But all the blood is in that corner.

[District Attorney Susan Krones showing a photo on the screen projector of the inside corner of the tent with the blood pool.]

District Attorney Susan Krones (Callie): Mavrick could have pinned Grant down on the ground, but Mavrick chose to take the rock and repeatedly hit Grant’s head. If it were self-defense, Mavrick could have hit him one or two times, but several times of hitting him? That is not reasonable. The defendant, Mavrick used more than just force - more force than necessary. After the murder there were a lot of cover-ups and lying, even with his trusted and close friends. The evidence was disposed of, like of him throwing away the rock into the river, telling people made-up stories, fleeing to Mexico, and when the information was released on social media, Mavrick fled there. Are all those things typical behaviour for a person who did it out of self-defense? No. Mavrick made Grant out to look like a monster. Thank you for your patience during this trial and we have presented a lot of evidence to you. I am asking you to bring the final vote back here with a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder, a deliberate and premediated murder. If you are hesitant, then I am asking you to vote guilty of second-degree murder, a murder “in the heat of passion.” If you are still hesitant of the first or the second charge, then I am asking you to vote him guilty of voluntary manslaughter. That charge of voluntary manslaughter is beyond reasonable doubt. I am asking you to decide on one of these three charges.

[The courtroom is shown with an ASL interpreter dressed in blue signing to Mavrick who is seated with his defense attorney.

District Attorney Susan Krones (ASL interpreter): We have presented you with a lot of evidence and I am asking you to bring your votes back on either guilty of murder in the first-degree, that is pre-mediated. I am asking that if you don’t vote on the first charge, then I am asking you to decide on the lesser charge of second-degree murder.]

[Advertisement]

Callie Frye: Now, Defense Attorney Tom Feimer will face the jurors. The defense attorney will state his closing argument.

[The courtroom is shown with the Defense Attorney Tom Feimer facing the jurors.]

Defense Attorney Tom Feimer (Callie Frye): This situation occurred because of self-defense and Mavrick has to be taken to court for that? Mavrick is the victim here, as Grant tried to attack him with the knife and then Mavrick killed him. This is an odd situation because we are here for a murder trial. I want to talk about reasonable doubt. Everything that has been presented here must all have reasonable doubt. If one of them does not meet that, then you have to go back and drop it. If you all feel that everything here is beyond reasonable doubt, then in 10 to 15 years later, you should be able to comment that, “Of course, I feel confident that everything was still beyond reasonable doubt.” If everything that the district attorney said seems correct, but if you still feel that something is missing in her statement or have a gut feeling that something is not right with the information provided - that is not how “beyond reasonable doubt” works. Therefore, you all must acquit Mavrick. Now, I want to talk about how you all can approach making your decision regarding this case. It is heavily surrounded with circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence gives you two options, innocent or guilty. But you must pick the option of ‘innocent’ because circumstantial evidence means that the person could still be innocent. You must pick innocent over guilty. We truly do not know what happened. The witnesses and experts explained their decisions based on assumptions. We 100% do not know what happened. There was no video. There was no third person there to directly witness what happened between Grant and Mavrick inside the tent. There is nobody around to tell us exactly what happened. Both Grant and Mavrick’s DNA was on the knife. Out of all the rocks collected, one rock had DNA belonging to Mavrick but it had no DNA belonging to Grant. Which brings me back to the knife, the DNA on it belonged to Grant was because Grant used the knife to stab Mavrick with it. Jurors, we do not expect you all to do your research or be geniuses on such topics, which is why we called upon the experts to come and explain to you all, to help you understand whenever the information was too complicated or unclear. If I showed you pictures of Grant’s dead body, you all would make assumptions of what happened based on just looking at the pictures. But obviously, none of you have a background in forensics pathology, or the anatomy of the body. None of you have done an autopsy on a dead body before. Perhaps you cannot figure that out on your own. That is why we called on expert doctors. However, both doctors have their own opinions. Jurors, you all must accept their opinions as truth - you have to. Dr. Omalu explained to you that he made many determinations based on his observation of Grant’s body and Dr. Raven shared his too. But Dr. Raven also said that he could not be 100% certain with his determinations based on his observations of Grant’s body. He said that it depended on what they were looking at. Really, the point is that both doctors gave their opinions, but opinions are not facts. It is not exact knowledge. Their opinions are based on their best assumptions and some knowledge from their specializations. Their opinions are just their opinions. Both the doctors were not there inside the tent with Grant and Mavrick. They did not witness what happened. Dr. Omalu stated that his decision was based on his assumption – one of many assumptions. You should look carefully at the details of the information between Dr. Omalu and Dr. Raven. You should look at them and compare them. I saw that you asked them a lot of questions. As a lawyer, I do like to see many questions coming from the jurors as that means that you all are involved and are taking this job seriously. One of you asked about if the DNA was extracted from underneath Grant’s fingernails for testing and Dr. Omalu dismissed that question. Dr. Omalu said doing that specifically does not suit this type of case, but Dr. Raven said, “We cannot make decisions on what to choose to test and what not to test because we follow a standard procedure and follow the same tests for all bodies.” Which brings me to another point, Dr. Omalu stated his opinion that he was sure that Grant was first hit while he was laying down. Dr. Omalu clearly attested to that. But Dr. Raven said, “We do not know when the first blow happened and that we do not know how strong the first blow was. How or where it happened, we do not know.” He also stated that it cannot be discovered just by looking at the body. But Dr. Omalu said he felt strongly that it happened while Grant was laying down. He said that was no fracture on Grant’s right side of head which meant that he was laying down on some kind of cushion. Dr. Raven had said that he was not familiar with those terms. Jurors, you should be puzzled by that. You should be asking, “What?” Dr. Raven did not have any specific perspectives about Grant having no injuries on his body meaning he was laying down. Mavrick had interviews with the police two times, one in San Diego through an ASL interpreter, and the other one at Lake Port through typing out messages on the computer back and forth. There were a few slight differences, but overall Mavrick stuck with his story during both interviews. Now you, the jurors must be careful because in San Diego, the interview was done through an ASL interpreter and there was no video recording. Remember that ASL is a visual language. We cannot show you what Mavrick said. We cannot get someone to come here and interpret what Mavrick actually said back then. The audio from the interview was recorded but Mavrick’s responses to the police were through the ASL interpreter. Now, look at the picture of Mavrick’s cut on his pinky finger. You can see Mavrick’s expression of looking sad and he is holding up his finger in the picture. Look at the cut.

[The courtroom is shown with the defense attorney showing the picture of Mavrick’s face, his expression is of him frowning and sticking out his lower lip. He is holding up his pinky finger in the photo.]

Defense Attorney Tom Feimer (Callie): Mavrick testified that the cut on his pinky is from Grant stabbing him with a knife. When Mavrick showed up at Lee’s, he had the cut on his pinky finger. Despite all the talk that is circulating about it and whether the cut was a big deal or not, it is a pretty severe cut. It is a wide and deep cut across his pinky finger. It was not a stab causing a small nick. Mavrick did message Lee and he did say that the cut was from a fan belt. The district attorney did state that perhaps that story was most likely true and that the cut occurred from the fan belt. I disagree. I believe that people can make up stories with specific details and information. Like at spy school and how they explain that. I want you to consider that if Grant stabbed Mavrick to try to kill him, and Mavrick believed that he would die. That meant Grant was trying to take away Mavrick’s right to live. Grant did a horrible, horrible thing. When all of that was done, Mavrick did not feel sorry for Grant. You think that Mavrick should feel bad for what he did to Grant but remember - Grant tried to kill Mavrick. Mavrick did not ask for that.

[The courtroom is shown with the defense attorney speaking,

Defense Attorney Tom Feimer (Callie): I want to talk about Mavrick fleeing to Mexico. Yes, Mavrick decided to flee there. But does the act of fleeing make him guilty? There are many reasons why people do flee. If you were in a situation where you had to kill someone and there was nobody else to see what happened. In theory, you would approach someone or call the police to explain what happened as it is better to come clean and tell the truth. Also, the future of your fate would be in the hands of strangers. Right now, Mavrick’s life is in your hands - the hands of 12 jurors here. You all are total strangers and Mavrick is not from here. Grant knows this area but Mavrick is a complete stranger to this area. He does not know anyone here. Mavrick is really young - he is only 21 years old. Would anyone have believed Mavrick with Grant dead and Mavrick still alive? He thought, “Would they believe me?” So that is why he fled which was not a smart thing, I know. But I understand. Mavrick went straight to Lee’s property and parked the car there with Grant’s body inside the car. He could have disposed of the car anywhere and disposed of the body and then escaped to Mexico just like that. He could. But Mavrick wasn’t sure what to do. I want to talk about character. We talked a lot about character regarding to your juror instructions about non-violence. We saw Lee’s statement that he felt comfortable with Mavrick. Mr. Fucci also stated that he felt safe around Mavrick. You may be thinking that the reason Mavrick killed Grant was because of an argument they had, and then Grant said something threatening towards Mavrick’s girlfriend and his child, which would understandably make Mavrick upset. But would Mavrick just grab a rock and hit Grant in the head repeatedly in cold blood? Is that sufficient reason to kill Grant with a rock? That is hard to accept. What purpose would Mavrick have to kill Grant then go to Lee’s ranch? What did Mavrick get out of it? What did he benefit from killing Grant with no reason behind it? Tell me, what good reason would he have to do that? Now, let us talk about Grant. The district attorney stated that Grant pushed Lee with his finger which was brief and quick and then it was over with. But do you remember what Lee said? That someone had to step in between Grant and Lee to separate them both. So, look at that information. I don’t think it was a brief dissolution or a small disagreement. Lee had asked Grant to leave - twice. Lee told Grant to never return to his property ever again. You can look at the text messages that are filed in evidence. Mr. Fucci is a tall man and yet he did not feel comfortable with Grant. In your list of juror instructions that were given to you by the judge, it says that you do not only listen to the testimonies or only to the witnesses and other people that take the stand. You also have to observe their actions while testifying. You saw how Ms. Williams - Kristin, got very upset when she was talking about Grant during that time at Lee’s ranch. You saw that. Jurors, you all are smart enough not to vote all of the evidence as beyond reasonable doubt or not. Every little detail must be beyond reasonable doubt. For the charge of murder and the charge of voluntary manslaughter, it means that the defendant did premediate with the intent to kill. It means he had no regard for the human body and no regard for his life. If one of those are not beyond reasonable doubt, then you must vote not guilty for murder and not guilty for voluntary manslaughter. Mavrick thought that his life was in danger when Grant stabbed him with the knife and cut his pinky finger in the process, and they were in the dark while inside a tent. Mavrick reacted out of self-defense. That is reasonable with the self-defense claim. I ask you all to acquit Mavrick from all charges.

[The courtroom is shown. Defense Attorney Tom Feimer via the ASL interpreter, “…Vote my client not guilty. Thank you.” The defense attorney leaves the lectern and returns to the table where Mavrick is seated.]

District Attorney Susan Krones approaches the jurors for her rebuttal.

[The courtroom is shown, the district attorney faces the jurors for her rebuttal.]

District Attorney Susan Krones (Callie): Self-defense requires you to stop once there is no more danger to you. You must stop when that happens, you must stop. The defendant did not stop. I get that the inside of the tent was dark, but the defendant said that he saw Grant laying on the ground. Once Grant was laying on the ground, it meant that the threat was gone. The law states that the defendant should have stopped at that moment. We, the district attorney, have proven that beyond reasonable doubt, Mavrick continued hitting Grant in the head several times which Is not reasonable. It was not necessary to have continued the blows to Grant’s head. In your juror instructions, it says that if the defendant, Mavrick gave false statements when he testified, or tried to hide evidence - like when he hid Grant’s body, or when fleeing after criminal activity - Mavrick fled to Lee’s property from Richardson Grove, and then later Mavrick fled again to Mexico. Those three actions mean that Mavrick was aware of his guilt, and he was scrambling while trying to figure out what he should do. You all should consider that. An important point is that the defendant, Mavrick, said that he put up with going with Grant in his car to go on the camping trip because he did not want Grant to become angry. But Mavrick was at Mr. Fucci’s house. Mavrick was at a safe place there. Grant could have driven away himself.

[Court is adjourned, and everyone is getting up from their chairs. The Daily Moth’s logo appears on the screen.]