KY v. Brett Hankison Trial Day 6 - Prosecution Closing Argument by Barbara Whaley

TL;DR

Attorney argues that the defendant, Brett Hankerson, acted wantonly and endangered the lives of individuals in an apartment complex.

Transcript

anything to report from the break ladies and gentlemen all right at this time we will hear from the commonwealth and miss whaling members of the jury thank you for serving on this jury thank you for being willing to sit here for all these days thank you for the attention you've given to this evidence i say thank you but i also say that being a juro... Read More

Key Insights

• 👨‍⚖️ Being a juror in the American justice system is considered a privilege.
• 🗯️ This case is solely focused on determining if the defendant is guilty of wanton endangerment, not on civil rights violations or the actions of other officers.
• 🤪 The evidence presented includes bullets that went through walls and sliding glass doors, endangering the lives of individuals inside the apartment.
• 👮 The defendant's actions, as a trained police officer, demonstrate a conscious disregard for the risks of shooting blindly into the building.
• 🧑‍🏭 The motive of the defendant is not a factor in determining his guilt.
• ❤️‍🔥 There is no evidence to suggest that an AR was fired or that there were bullet defects in the apartment.
• ❓ The attorney argues that the defendant's wanton conduct could have caused the deaths of individuals in the apartment, but by grace, they are still alive.

Questions & Answers

Q: What is the attorney's main argument in this court summation?

The attorney's main argument is that the defendant acted wantonly and endangered the lives of individuals in the apartment complex.

Q: Did the defendant have a motive for his actions?

The instructions do not require the jury to consider the motive of the defendant. It is not necessary to determine why he acted in order to find him guilty of wanton endangerment.

Q: Were there any bullet defects or evidence of an AR being fired?

No, there were no bullet defects or evidence of an AR being fired in the apartment. The bullets that were fired went through walls and sliding glass doors, endangering the lives of individuals inside the apartment.

Q: Did the defendant know the risks of shooting blindly into the building?

Yes, the defendant, being a trained police officer with 20 years of experience, was aware of the risks of shooting blindly. He consciously disregarded those risks and fired wildly in the wrong direction.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• The attorney emphasizes that being a juror is a privilege and that the jury must render a verdict based on the law.

• The attorney clarifies that this case does not involve civil rights violations or the actions of other officers.

• The attorney highlights the evidence of wanton endangerment, including bullets that went through walls and endangered the lives of individuals inside the apartment.