Steven Jones NAU Shooter Hearing Part 1 02/19/16

TL;DR

Defense argues that the state failed to present key evidence to the grand jury that would support self-defense claims and discredit the premeditation theory.

Transcript

for for for for for for for for for for for all for for r ni some audio all right thank you for standing folks please be seated all right good afternoon everyone this is cr2015 00 862 State of Arizona versus Steven Jones Mr Jones is present with Council Mr Macau Mr Davidson good after afternoon to all of you uh the state is represented by Mr jammon... Read More

Key Insights

• 🤩 The defense argues that the state failed to present key evidence to the grand jury that would support the defendant's self-defense claims.
• 🎁 The defense highlights inconsistencies and misrepresentations in witness statements presented to the grand jury.
• 🤮 The defense asserts that the injuries sustained by the defendant were downplayed by the state and that the state omitted crucial information that would support the defendant's case.

Questions & Answers

Q: What evidence did the defense claim the state failed to present to the grand jury?

The defense states that the state neglected to present statements from witnesses that indicated the defendant acted in self-defense, including an alleged assailant running towards the defendant and statements regarding the defendant's injuries.

Q: What is the defense's argument regarding witness statements?

The defense claims that the state misrepresented witness statements to the grand jury, leaving out key information that would support the defendant's claims of self-defense and premeditation.

Q: What is the defense's position on the injuries sustained by the defendant?

The defense argues that the state downplayed the injuries suffered by the defendant, omitting details that would demonstrate the reasonableness of the defendant's actions and fear for his life.

Q: What is the defense's request regarding the case?

The defense requests that the case be remanded back to the grand jury for a new determination based on the presentation of additional evidence that was not presented previously.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• The defense argues that the state did not present clearly exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, including statements from witnesses that supported self-defense claims.

• The defense highlights the discrepancies in witness statements, omitting certain statements that would favor the defense's position.

• The defense asserts that the state downplayed the injuries sustained by the defendant and misrepresented witness statements to the grand jury.

• The defense argues that the grand jury should reconsider their decision based on the new evidence presented.