Moochie, qui a tué Jill Halliburton? (2023): Season 1, Episode 5 - Episode #1.5 - full transcript
The follow programme
contains strong language.
The prosecution sent
a great message when she said,
"You're never truly going to know
because unless you saw it...
you wouldn't know.
And if you saw it,
well, you'd be a witness,
you wouldn't be a juror.
# BABY HUEY: Hard Times #
# Cold, cold eyes upon me they stare
# People all around me
# And they're all in fear
# They don't see to want me
# But they won't admit
# I must be some kind of creature
# Up here having fits
# Havin' hard times
# In this crazy town
# Havin' hard times
# There's no love to be found. #
WOMAN: Opening statements
are now underway
after a gruesome murder
back in 2014.
WOMAN: Today, a man
suspected of killing a woman
and then making
a daring escape from court,
is back in front of a Judge.
MAN: This time,
for a jury to determine his fate.
On trial
is 27-year-old Dayonte Resiles,
the man accused of killing Su
seven years ago.
The 59-year-old was found
stabbed and bound
in the bathtub of her Davie home
in September of 2014.
Resiles pleaded not guilty
to first degree murder.
MAN: Prosecutor Maria Schneider
in her opening argument
told the jury Resiles' DNA
was found on a belt
used to restrict Mrs Su.
His lawyer says,
"Resiles didn't kill Mrs Su,"
that it was someone her son
invited to her home during a party.
This morning,
the Judge told members of the jury
that he expects this trial
to last the rest of the month,
and it could even last
through the first week of December.
That is the latest,
live in Fort Lauderdale
this morning,
Saira Anwar, Local 10 News.
MARIA SCHNEIDER:
The state would call Justin Su.
Mr Su, approach the witness box,
and when you arrive,
please remain standing.
JUSTIN SU: It's definitely
something with the human brain...
..blocks out that because...
it's all grainy,
but I remember
looking at her face...
(SIGHS) ..lifeless...
..one eye open, one eye closed.
You know, when you find mommy
dead in the bath tub,
you're not a grown man,
you're the little boy.
And, she's using that
emotional connection,
and he appears to be somewhat
aware of the impact of his words
because he knows
the stronger his memory is,
the more clear it is
to the jury that,
no, he's not the one who did this.
No one should be accused of
killing their own mother...
for hours in a...
Completely naked...
..in a spray paint suit, with still
my mother's blood on my skin.
I can still smell it,
the whole time. It was horrible.
You know, having to strip
and be searched,
and being treated as a suspect,
as I guess you should be
because that's...
You know, typically
the crime's always the first...
It's always the husband
or the kid, right?
It's always the people in those...
I get that part of it, but...
it was sad because I can't...
I was empathising really with, like,
what the hell was this kid
going through in this exact moment?
To me,
it was heartbreaking, and, um...
..it was one of the times
that I actually...
I think I had a couple of tears
because I can't even imagine
someone coming home
and finding their parent...
in that condition.
So, I think he went through so much.
MICHAEL ORLANDO:
'I don't doubt his emotions...
but they had lived there
for all those years,
and there'd never been a burglary.
Then all of a sudden,
this one time,
where he's on his own,
you know, he sort of goes wild,
and has all these parties,
and bringing people into the house.
It's not just a coincidence.'
You alerted the guests
to the fact that...
..there were cameras
in the house, correct?
Yes.
Were you aware of
some of these people
that you had over at your house
that were sketchy
and drugged up all the time?
No.
Didn't you have a friend that got
scooped up in some type of DEA bust?
If you recall my memory, maybe.
I can't remember.
I wasn't the only one,
I think a couple of us
entertained the idea
that it could've been
one of Justin's friends,
or, you know,
that might have had...
access to the home.
I mean that's, like,
good theory, right?
I'm with that, someone that knows
that Justin had knives, right?
Someone who's maybe
been to the house.
I'm OK with that theory.
But it fell maybe slightly flat
in the sense that
they didn't pursue it any deeper
than just, kind of,
throwing it out there.
Much of today really focused on
the testimony of the victim's son.
That son having to tell the jurors
about that day.
He is the one who found his mother.
Justin said in court today
that this was just something
that no child
should ever have to experience,
finding his mother in that bath tub.
It was really emotional,
and very heavy in court.
(DIALOGUE MUTED)
MARIA SCHNEIDER: When he asked you
if it was a white male
or a black male,
you didn't have any trouble
understanding that question,
correct?No.
And your only response to that
was that it looked white to you.
Yes, but only trouble there
is that...
..I could not tell
one way or another...
..but I was obligated
to choose one of the two.
And I tried to do my best
to give the information.
And since you originally thought
that it was your son,
and your son's skin is white,
correct?That's correct.
LARRY OSBORNE: Even though
it was a black and white camera,
you can't mistaken me
for a white person
on a black and white camera.
Because white is white, it's
going to come out white, you know?
My colour skin, if anything,
is going to come out grey.
DAVE SINCLAIR: Like he said,
"They kept on pressuring me
and pressuring me to give them,
'Was it black? Was it white?'"
And he just said, "Looks white."
I don't think anybody
really made a big deal
about that testimony,
to be honest with you.
That is testimony.
Like, that is evidence.
Nan-Yao is giving us evidence
and saying that, "At the time,
he looked white to me."
And that's in his interrogation.
So, that is evidence.
We can't decide not to listen to it,
because he said it, it was written,
it was closest to the moment
that he saw in the video.
There was one thing,
when he said about the cameras
that were disconnected,
that he went to work.
I kind of thought that maybe,
at first,
what a coincidence
that he goes to work,
logs on to the computer
and at that time...
someone is messing with the cameras,
or they unplugged it.
It was like...
It's weird, yeah, it's very weird.
It's weird!
But that was it, right?
It was it's weird,
no further examining of that, right?
LARRY: I definitely believe that...
they did not pursue the untruths
with Justin or the father enough.
But... this young man
and this husband
lost a wife and a mother.
So, I as the defence, am I going
to get up there and badger them?
How's that going to appear
to the jury.
What's the perception of that
to the jury?
I understand why they didn't do it.
Does it make it right?
Not necessarily,
but I understand why they didn't.
We want the video to exist...
..because on the video...
he's saying it was a white male.
That's very...
That's, like, one of
the biggest pieces of evidence...
in his favour.
Plus, he's saying he thinks
there's a relationship to his son...
and his son is white.
I'm gonna taking issue
with whether Nan-Yao said
he saw a person who was white.
They asked him, "Was he black?
Was he white?" after he said
he didn't see anything of the person
because they had their face covered.
And he said, "Looked white to me."
And I don't know that that's
a conclusive, concrete answer.
I think that Nan-Yao was surmising,
you know, what it was,
but that doesn't exonerate
the defendant, and it doesn't,
in any way, shape or form,
explain why his DNA is there.
MICHAEL:
'You know, the DNA evidence,
that basically is the evidence
against the client.
So, we're challenging
the programme that they used
to come to their conclusions
in this second round of testing
in 2020.'
ALLAN JAMISON: One of the problems
with the STRmix software
is it's taking any small change
in the analytical process
and treating it
with massive implication.
Therefore,
when you hear a statistic,
you can know whether,
if that sample was run again,
in this laboratory
or a different laboratory,
whether it would be
within the same ballpark.
So, in terms of the statistic,
I don't have any confidence
in the reliability
and in other words,
I don't know that
if we ran this again, we would get
a completely different result.
And let me make clear, the result
could go higher as well as lower.
It was really more about,
like, testing methodology
and it was like, beyond kind of
the scope of the jury in a way.
They were talking about
one one billionth of a parcel
and one one trillionth
and taking a DNA sample.
All the doubt that was brought up
relating back to the lab
was, like, technical jargon.
MICHAEL: And now, how...
Is DNA transfer
something that can easily happen,
or is it impossible?
I think the fact
we've got so many masks on
tells us how easily
DNA is transferred.
The more research we do,
the more difficult
interpretation becomes
in terms of how DNA
got onto something.
In my view, it simply has to be...
The DNA evidence and transfer,
simply has to be consolidated
with the other evidence in the case.
That scientists
should not be saying,
"It definitely got there by touch,
it definitely got there that day,"
or whenever,
without other information.
So, the science alone
can only tell you so much,
and then it should be matched up.
In Scotland,
we call it corroboration,
where the pieces of evidence
must all point
towards a consistent story.
And the science
is just part of that.
He said, very clearly, he said,
"DNA must support other evidence."
And, for us... for some of us,
that was very important
because we felt, "OK, there is DNA."
Like right now,
you're sitting in that chair,
if I move that chair
to some other person's house,
were you in the house?
No, that DNA was in that house.
So when you look at just the DNA...
I said, "Is that enough?"
Yeah, you're right, maybe one DNA.
Again we're seeing this, kind of...
interesting line: back door,
front door, in the house,
One, fine. And that came up
during deliberation.
It was like, "DNA is not enough,
DNA is not enough,"
and it was like, "But how much DNA?"
MARIA: Good morning.
Good morning to you.
So... the smudge from the door,
single source, correct?
Yes.
You have absolutely
no issue with that?No.
You have no issue with either
the wet science,
the development of the DNA itself...
Yeah.
..or with the statistic?
I prefer
the random match probability
but it's going to be (INDISTINCT).
Right, so you like another
way of doing it better,
but you're not saying that
that single source
from the door is incorrect
and it's not the defendant?
That's correct.
And you are not telling
these ladies and gentlemen
of the jury, that he is not included
in the other two samples,
you're just...
having an issue with the numbers?
That's correct.
Thank you, nothing further.
The defendant DNA was there,
and just like you said,
"Why my DNA is not there?"
You know why my DNA is not there?
Because I wasn't there.
Plain and simple, I wasn't there.
I head previously collected
a partially empty Gatorade bottle
from the guest bedroom.
But the residence
was in immaculate condition,
except for the areas
that I previously discussed
about disturbance and ransacking.
And this guest bedroom
was in immaculate condition as well.
And this Gatorade bottle
just looked out of place.
MICHAEL: 'The crime scene people
in the State Attorney's Office
at the time,
they made a big deal about it...
believing that, that had to somehow
be related to the perpetrator.
So, we do have
unidentified DNA on that.
So, they had to concede that.'
So, there's DNA not matching
the defendant, matching male,
So male, but not the defendant.
And then prints.
And did you examine the print
on the jewellery boxes
in the master bedroom?
Yes.
Alright.
And you didn't identify any of
those prints as Mr Resiles did you?
No.
They have fingerprints
on the jewellery box
that were unexplained.
But the people that you brought in
that were at the party,
you never fingerprinted them.
You only swabbed them.
Like if you had unexplained
fingerprints in the house,
and you're trying to define whose
fingerprints they are,
you would want
to fingerprint anybody
that was possibly in that house
so that you can say,
"Hey, I have fingerprints
of someone in the house,
and this is their fingerprints,"
you know.
But I think that because
the prosecution was so bent on,
"This is our guy,
we must focus everything on him,
if we make any other...
..you know, doubts,
that would create doubt."
'The people who were...
into the house,
none of the reports
show that profiles
were ever developed
on any of the swabs.'
So, you know...
So yeah, she's bringing out that
swabs were taken,
but it doesn't list them...
..in any of the reports
as having been...
having had a DNA profile developed
and then compared to anything.
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
MAN: Your honour, Mr Alex Guillaume.
Yes.
Great. Could you raise
your right hand for us?
MARIA: Approximately
how many different people,
did he ask you to provide letters to
trying to get somebody to get him
a cell phone to use in the jail?
A few people, but the only person
that I was in contact with
was Crystal.
Crystal Isaacs?
Yes.OK.
Alright. Did you ever receive
anything of value
for helping the defendant out?
I was always compensated with money.
OK.
Did he provide you
that money directly, or did he have
someone give it to you?
No, he had Crystal give it to me.
I know they kept calling my name...
and it made me very upset. (LAUGHS)
Because I wasn't able to speak,
I had to just sit there and...
..his heart is dirty.
But I'm actually glad I came,
to face that.
I needed to face it.
It's a part of my healing.
It took a lot out of me
to come back here.
MAN: What make you come anyway?
Dayonte, support.
I kept thinking about him
and I think, you know,
I thought it would make him
feel better.
Whether I come back or not,
I think Dayonte knows that...
I'm with him in spirit.
You say you still love him?
Of course, I love him.
MAN: State your full name
for the record.
Jason Hendrick.
Spell your last name for us.
H-E-N-D-R-I-C-K.
Alright, so the first call
we're talking about is call 129.
Have you had
an opportunity to review
the CD that I have of the call?
I have.
Your Honour, we'd like to
(INDISTINCT).You may.
The bribes, you know, trying to...
..create so many alibis
and whatever.
To me, someone that's innocent
doesn't do that.
You will waste your energy,
perhaps proving your innocence,
not trying to create...
..all these stories, so.
At no point in time,
on any of those calls,
did he ever say he was at that home.
That he ever said that
anything of the nature of,
"Oh, this is what happened,
I need to cover up...
this that happened".
Yeah, those phone calls
were questionable,
him trying to get people to lie.
Why?
I don't know,
but that wasn't what was on trial.
How do you give an inmate a phone?
That's my whole two thing.
They trying to frame him.
They knew this shit ain't right.
That ain't got...
That charge that y'all got,
that ain't got
nothing to do with this murder case.
They shouldn't be able
to use that, man.
I have so many questions.
The person who talking
don't even know what they putting
on this-(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
He got 100 cases on him.
He have 100 cases. He ain't say
nothing about killing that lady
on none of them phone calls.
That's some straight bullshit.
They know it.
Why is this even here right now?
Why did the Judge even allow her
to continue with that?
Why were they allowed
to give him a phone and set him up,
and then listen to
all his phone calls.
Why is that allowed? Why is that OK?
I think they're definitely
trying to confuse the jury.
I have no faith in this system here.
None at all. And I feel like
it's a complete set up.
KIA: Some places I'm saying
I'm not going to get out of the car,
you're gonna have to film
from the back seat.
Not necessarily
because you in danger
because I ain't gonna
let nobody harm you.
Anybody with me, I'mma protect them.
But because a lot of people
going to grime
because they think you the police.
WOMAN: You know how some
white people...They get scared.
..they see black folks
and they grab their purse?
Well, see, it's the opposite.
Who you think did it?
That's on camera?
You damn right.
Say what you gotta say.
Say it!
He on Moochie's side.
Who did it?
I know him, I already know his name,
but her son.
OK.
OK.
Thank you.
There never been no evidence
and all that shit.
Like I said, I know our bro.
Shit, I'm from (INDISTINCT),
from the west side.
OK.
Man, come on man,
all that shit, evidence,
everything led back to her son.
That's for Moochie.
MAN: For who?
Moochie.
I don't know if you remember
Well, it's for him,
yeah, you see the other side?
Excuse me baby. Oh, you got one?
Thank you.
Oh look it there, I ain't seen
(INDISTINCT) in so long.
We trying to get behind that boy.
They tryna give him
the death penalty.
(INDISTINCT)
They trying.
If you look into the story,
I believe you'll come to believe,
as us, that he's innocent.
And he needs the people's support,
or they're going to give him
the death penalty
Let's get that in the bible.
Guess what?
In America, we are slaves,
in America.
Let's get that from the bible.
I believe it was 26:17.
In America a dead black dog
is worth more than
a living breathing black men.
Many black me are accused of murder.
(CONTINUES PREACHING
LOUDLY IN DISTANCE)
You hear him?
I hear him.
See, that's why I wanted
to walk off, because you see that?
You don't know Moochie. You sitting
there, talking about God,
but you judging somebody. That's why
I don't want to go over there,
because I been now
cussed his ass out.
That's why nobody listen to them.
You caught yelling at people,
you not doing God's work,
yelling. God don't yell.
Y'all false prophets going to hell!
Bitch!
There we go.Thank you.
Pass out some for me, please.
We'll pass them out.
So he don't get no death penalty.
I'll pass them out and twerk
when I pass them out.There we go.
Thank you.
(ALL CHEERING)
Say, "Justice for Moochie!"
Hold on, we filming,
one time for me.
Let me let the window down. Wait,
come on Sal, catch them.Get that!
We filming, now say,
"Justice for Moochie!"
(ALL YELLING)
Thank y'all.
(LAUGHS) Who was that?
There's somebody behind us.
There's somebody behind us. (LAUGHS)
WOMAN: Sir, you're going
to walk to our witness box,
and you when arrive,
please remain standing,
until you get sworn in,
thank you, sir.
JUDGE: Good afternoon Mr Faircloth.
RONALD FAIRCLOTH: Good afternoon.
This is our witness stand over here.
Come on up.
MARIA: Alright,
I want to direct your attention
to the phone activity.
This particular day
between 11:29 and 12:27pm,
seven incoming text messages,
not a single response.Correct.
OK, at 12:27,
what did you discover on the phone?
At 12:27 on September 8th,
there was an outgoing message
to a Shenell Campbell
with the abbreviation WYA.
Do you know what the abbreviation
WYA means?
Where you at.
DAVE:
During the crime, this is a person
who texts religiously all day long.
And in the meantime,
it's not because...
There's too many coincidences
where he did not...
..text at all.
But then after
when he finally text...
I forgot the time, I think it was
12:47 or something like that,
the time where he text someone
and says, "Where you at?"
Outgoing?
WOMAN: Outgoing.
I don't know what they're talking
about. Now I'm really wondering
what records you have
because I've never seen any of them.
This is exactly
what we received from this date,
so we are objecting.
I don't know what they're
talking about "outgoing".
You can't see them?
Yeah, I can see
where it says outgoing, honey,
but I can't see from where.
I don't want even read these.
Relax.
But Judge, I've just been accused
of presenting false testimony.
I take that a little personally.
Counsel, listen.
There's no reason to get upset.
Just relax,
don't be calling attorneys honey,
and things like that.
It just doesn't fly, alright?
You've been practising
too long for that.
Let's do this. Counsel, you reduce
whatever you want to writing.
And the State can take a look at it
and they can respond to it
at their leisure, alright?
See everybody back tomorrow
at 9 o'clock.
'So, we have a witness
that's going to testify
about what's in
those T-Mobile records.
You know, the calls during that
11:30 to 12:30.'
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
Can you describe
what outgoing messages
you found from 11.30 to 12:30?
You need me to tell you each one?
Yes. Just for that-
OK.
11:36 outgoing,
there are two of them.
11:47, 11:52, 11:58,
12:02, 12:09pm,
12:22pm, 12:26pm,
That's it till 12:30pm, sir.
Alright, thank you.
Go ahead, counsel.
Sir, where on the records
that you received,
the call detail records,
does it say
what time zone the records are in?
The records themselves,
which is quite unusual,
when I received these because...
..this is not a standard production
from T-Mobile.
So, therefore,
what your office provided me,
were records that I had to take
and basically try to figure out...
..using how T-Mobile operates,
what time zone they were in.
But the bottom line is that,
that's your opinion,
you didn't get that information
from T-Mobile, did you?
No Mam, sure didn't.
OK. In fact, if you google,
"What time zone
are T-Mobile records provided in?"
It says on
the T-Mobile Support Website,
that it is Pacific Time, doesn't it?
No, ma'am.
It doesn't?
I don't know
where you got that from.
I have been in this business
since... I don't care.
You can google anything, OK?
But I'm going to tell you that
if you really wanted to know
what that time zone was,
and we can stop all this bantering
back and forth,
your guys should have pulled
the T-Mobile key.
OK. So, you can't really testify
with absolute accuracy
that those records
are even T-Mobile records.
(LAUGHS)
Do you realise what you're saying?
You're the ones
that gave them to us.
You're the ones that asserted
that these were
true and accurate records,
from your office.
And now you're
contradicting your own records?
I'm so happy that
you think this is funny,
but maybe you can
answer my question.It's not funny,
it's actually ridiculous that
you would even go down this path.
OK, well, you won't answer
my question, sir.
That extraction
that was done by the police,
when did you receive that?
OK, extraction, you talking about
the Cellebrite report?
Correct. Isn't that called
a phone extraction?
I don't know, you tell me,
you're the expert.(SCOFFS)
Listen, Mr Slovenski,
this is getting out of hand.
You just respond to the questions.
I don't want you arguing
with counsel. Counsel, I don't
want you arguing with the witness.
You ask the questions,
you answer them,
that's it Mr Slovenski. Understood?
I understand, Your Honour.
Thank you.
Isn't it true, sir,
that in the extraction,
the phone calls that take place
from 11:27 to 12:30,
that exact sequence of calls
appears in the call veto records
that you received, 3 hours earlier?
I can't comment on that.
OK.
They were trying to show that
the defendant
was answering phone calls,
during the hour of this homicide.
And then in the middle of trial,
they realise that there is
a discrepancy between the time zone,
between the T-Mobile records
and the extraction.
Because the extraction
is in real time.
If you're here,
like I'm here in Florida, right?
The time here in Florida
is on my phone.
So when you extract my phone,
you're going to get the time here
because that's what my phone has.
T Mobile is on the West Coast.
T Mobile provides records
on West Coast Standard time.
So, the discrepancy is because
the records are three hours behind.
'The Davie Police Department,
when they obtained these records,
they're supposed to get,
like, a cover page'
that defines, you know,
whose records these are,
and would probably give information
about how to read them,
and the time and that.
Well, they never got those...
They never obtained
that initial page, or pages.
So, everybody believed,
because there was no reason
to believe otherwise, that
they were Eastern Standard Time.
This witness says
it looks something like it,
but it's not the normal format,
doesn't appear to be
the normal format
that he would get it downloaded.
The objection is sustained.
It's not going in.
'That was hard.
It was certainly
a wrench in the defence.'
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
I'm so sorry, Judge.
JUDGE: (INDISTINCT)
So, I've thought a lot about this.
I had one guy, right?
The other inside the house, bind her
and put her into the tub.
Well the physical evidence,
I suggest, answers that for us.
Mrs Su...
..had a very distinctive injury
on the top of her head.
The injury is consistent
with the tip of the large knife
that we have every reason to believe
was the weapon used to kill her.
I think the evidence suggests
that the reason Betty Dutko
heard that key sound
and then it abruptly stops...
..is because he knocked her out.
What is in the tub...
..with Mrs Su?
I want you to look at
this picture here. That's a rug.
It might be hard to pick up,
you know, a woman,
a 140 something pound woman,
and put her over your shoulder,
and carry her. When she's laying
on a rug, it's not.
When he threw her in the tub,
he threw in the rug
that she was wrapped in.
But if you look at the bathroom,
other than some drops of blood,
around the bathroom...
..the only really
significantly bloody area
was right under Mrs Su's head
when she's laying down on the floor.
So, what does that tell you?
That piece of physical
evidence tells you,
she was in the tub
when he stabbed her.
She's sitting there
in that tub, tied up,
watching this guy
stand over her with a knife
and he starts stabbing her.
I urge you to put away feelings,
and base your...
..verdict on the evidence
and come back with a verdict
that speaks the truth.
And that holds Dayonte Resiles...
..responsible...
..for killing Jill Su.
Thank you.
RAFAEL: What role, if any,
did he play
in what took place
in that home in Davie?
Was he there?
Was he the only one there?
Did he hold the knife?
Did he kill this woman?
Does he deserve to be punished
as the one who committed the crime,
or is there someone else out there,
who either deserves
to be punished with him,
or deserves to be
punished instead of him?
Are we putting the right person
on trial, for the right crime?
That's they mystery of the case
of the murder of Jill Su.
The jury has been deliberating
since about 2 o'clock this afternoon
and there aren't any signs
right now, that they'll be wrapping
those deliberations up
any time soon.
There are certainly a lot of people
here, in the hallway,
along with us, waiting to hear
what their decision will be.
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
We know that the jury
listened to read back on testimony
from the victim's
husband and from the victim's son.
So, what this is
telling me right now,
as we're still waiting
for the jury to come back,
is that the defence
did a terrific job.
And they raised the questions
that the jury wants the answer to.
It's probably some...
WOMAN: Inconsistency.
Yeah, some inconsistency
that they're trying to compare,
between the dad and the son.
Well, I'm on the edge.
You know, it's not
a good feeling because...
I'm just praying that
it's going to be good news.
But it was very heavy on my mind,
as to what was going to be
the verdict today.
In fact, I thought it was
going to be yesterday, last night.
But it was pushed over
to today, so...
..it's like a waiting game.
RAFAEL: We're on
the fourth day of deliberations,
we don't know if it's
one whole doubt
who believes the defence,
or if it's a 50/50 split.
There's no way of knowing that
until it's over.
But at the very least,
we know that they are
taking the questions raised by
the defence, very, very seriously.
You can say whatever you want
about any jury, but this one,
you will not be able to say
that they rushed.
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
(DIALOGUE MUTED)
(CAMERA SHUTTERS CLICKING)
(CAMERA SHUTTERS CLICKING)
JUDGE: You ready to proceed?
WOMAN: Yes.
Alright,
let's bring the jury in, please.
Thank you, please be seated.
Let the record reflect
the presence of the defendant,
Mr Resiles,
his counsel, the State Attorney,
and ladies and gentlemen
of the jury.
Ladies and gentlemen,
it's my understanding
you have reached a verdict,
is that correct?
And Ms Fernandez,
you are the foreperson?
Could you pass the verdict form
to our bailiff, please? Thank you.
(CAMERA SHUTTERS CLICK)
Thank you.
Mr Travis,
can you publish the verdict, please?
MR TRAVIS: In the Circuit Court
of the 17th Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County Florida,
Case No: 1412657CF/10A,
State of Florida
vs Dayonte Resiles.
Verdict, we the jury find
this follows as the defendant,
Dayonte Resiles in this case,
the defendant is guilty
of the lesser included crime
of manslaughter.
So, say we all the 7th day
of December, 2021
at Fort Lauderdale
Broward County Florida,
signed by the foreperson,
Ms Fernandez.
Thank you, does either
the State or defence
wish the jury to be polled.
MARIA: Yes, sir.
Could you poll the jury, please?
Ladies and gentlemen,
this means that the clerk, Mr Travis
is going to ask you a question,
each of you individually
whether or not
the verdict that was read
is your verdict.
You should simply answer yes or no,
alright?
No, nothing else is required,
just yes or no,
if this is your individual verdict.
Mr Travis, will you go?
Ms Fernandez, is this your verdict?
MS FERNANDEZ: No.
Thank you, you need
to go back to the jury room,
continue with your deliberations.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
WOMAN: The courtroom confusion
in a high profile murder case.
CBS4's Bobeth Yates has been
standing by outside the courthouse
in Fort Lauderdale,
waiting for the jury's decision.
Well, Elliot and Lauren,
it was definitely a wild day.
As you mentioned,
five days of jury deliberation
and yet again the jury could not
come to a decision.
For just a few minutes tonight,
it seemed like there was
a verdict in this case.
But when that verdict
was read aloud,
the Judge quickly learned that
those jurors were not unanimous.
And without a unanimous decision,
the Judge said deliberations
should keep going.
Here is where we stand,
that jury can come back
and find him guilty of
that 1st degree murder charge,
which can end in life in prison
or even the death penalty.
They can come back and find him
guilty on lesser charges,
they can acquit him all together,
or they can even come back
and tell the Judge that
they just can't reach an agreement.
And in an unexpected twist,
the years long saga is not over.
Now, they will resume
tomorrow morning at 9:00am
to begin deliberations once more.
This is one of
the most unusual nights
for justice in Broward County
that I have ever seen.
God, I ask that you begin
to deal with the prosecutors.
God I ask that you go before Moochie
in any situation, God.
God, you are the head.
God I ask that you shield him.
God, that you give him peace,
that you let him know that you are
in the midst of the situation.
God, that there's
no one like you God.
(INDISTINCT)
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
KIA: 'You either did it,
or you didn't.'
He was charged with murder,
and if y'all said
y'all don't think he killed them,
then I don't understand what's left.
It's either yes or no.
It ain't no in between.
It's just yes or no.
That's just that.
That's the bottom line on that.
(KNOCK ON DOOR)
WOMAN: Jury are entering.
JUDGE: Ladies and gentlemen,
thank you. Please be seated.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I got your jury enquiry form
where basically you indicate
you are unable to reach
a unanimous decision on
any one charge, and its elements.
We the jury, signed by Ms Fernandez.
Is that correct?
You are unable to reach a verdict?
ALL: Yes.
So, what I would be doing then
is just declaring a mistrial...
..and we'll pick up another time
with a different jury.
(KIA CLAPPING)
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
(INDISTINCT SPEECH)
Good, I'm happy, I'm happy.
I hope the next jury
that get picked...
they all agree to not guilty.
Good.
I think I'm going
to have me a drink,
now that my nerves
have calmed down a little bit.
We made it through the battle
but we still got a war.
For the non-believers out there,
I hope you know God is real,
let that part be known.
I think it's premature to be happy,
but if I were in their shoes,
the most optimistic way
to look at this is to say,
this jury was ready
to send him to prison.
For at least 15 years, maybe 30.
This jury was ready to do that.
And instead, we get another chance
to convince the next jury
he's not guilty.
A jury foreman speaking out about
what was going through her mind,
moments before a high-profile
murder case ended in a mistrial.
MAN: The jury foreman,
who chose not to show her face
for her safety,
describing a group of jurors,
some of them bias,
others not following rules.
WOMAN: She said most of the jury
was ready to convict Resiles
of at least 2nd degree murder.
But three refused
because the defendant is black.
WOMAN:
They'd said, "I don't want to send
a young black male to jail
for the rest of their life.
WOMAN: They compromised
on manslaughter but she said
she had a pit in her stomach,
and she changed her mind.
I took a deep breathe, I'm staring
at the judge and the clerk,
and they're just waiting for
my verdict of either yes or no.
And, I just couldn't
and that's why I said no.
MAN: While not the reason
for her change of heart she said,
she did notice
the defence celebrating
when that manslaughter verdict
was read.
And that was unsettling to me,
you know,
because I knew that
it was pre-meditated.
Returning to the jury room, she said
she was cursed out, even threatened.
I was threatened
to get smacked in my mouth
because I said, "I don't see colour,
all I see is a person."
I asked if the outcome
would be different,
if the defendant were white Anglo,
or a white Hispanic.
We would have been done by Friday.
We would've had a verdict on Friday.
How could I agree to manslaughter
and say that I'm not going to put
a man in jail?
That is actually putting
the man in jail
if you agree to a person
committing manslaughter.
You don't get to walk free
if you get manslaughter,
you say, "You can go home today."
No, that isn't what that does.
I know that all the other jurors
that I've been in touch with...
we all feel that
that was not a representation of...
an accurate representation
of what happened.
If you were to look back,
I thought we were being a very...
proficient jury. You know,
I think we were being sensitive,
we were taking our time. We were
letting everyone get to speak.
That doesn't scream of
an incoherent, racist,
ranting and raving,
lunatic room, you know?
WANDA: Some of the jurors
needed more evidence.
They needed more and...
..they weren't just convinced
with the DNA.
There was too much DNA,
and the fingerprints
that didn't match the defendant,
that we all felt that
there were somebody else.
The question whether
the other person did it or not,
and what was their motive,
I don't know,
but that's why manslaughter became
the lowest common denominator.
(SIGHS) I don't know man.
I just did not want that guy
to go home that same day.
I didn't want him to get in his car,
while I'm getting in my car
and go home
and leave that courthouse.
You know what I mean? So.
When the deputy comes in...
we're like, "Yeah, we're ready."
(LAUGHS) But I had my doubts
that it was gonna carry through,
and the moment I heard,
"We're gonna poll the jury..."
I was holding my breath.
Definitely a weird moment
because it was so, like, "No."
I still, "No!"
Holy fuck, now what?
That's what I was like. I was like,
"Holy fuck, now what?
What are they gonna do with us?"
We were done and then a couple of us
were like, "Let's just give it
one more chance at the apple,
let's try one more time,
and if we can do something, great,
if we can't do something, fuck it."
And I thought we got over a hump,
and then of course,
the same bullshit happened.
LARRY: She was like,
"All young black men are the same."
You know,
"They all behave this way."
And you know, like,
I have three sons
and so, you know, like,
my head exploded.
And, I said some things.
I think he actually offered
to slap her or something
and, you know,
so it really got ugly.
Like I instantly apologised
because then I knew
that I was dead wrong,
I was dead wrong for allowing it
to get to that point.
It's hard to get 12 people...
to believe in the same.
Because remember,
when you get the evidence...
..you have choices.
You can weigh it high...
..you can weigh it low,
or you can ignore it all together.
Even with witnesses,
you know what I mean?
You can just pick
and choose what you want.
And, it's going to be hard
for 12 people, in any case...
..to decide on anything.
The three of us walked away from it
feeling like...
Well, I should just
speak for myself.
I walked away from the first trial
feeling like...
..a not guilty was possible,
but that...
we needed to make some changes
in order to make that happen.
And...
..presenting the evidence
of Nan-Yao and Justin's involvement
in a more aggressive way,
was our best shot in doing that.
contains strong language.
The prosecution sent
a great message when she said,
"You're never truly going to know
because unless you saw it...
you wouldn't know.
And if you saw it,
well, you'd be a witness,
you wouldn't be a juror.
# BABY HUEY: Hard Times #
# Cold, cold eyes upon me they stare
# People all around me
# And they're all in fear
# They don't see to want me
# But they won't admit
# I must be some kind of creature
# Up here having fits
# Havin' hard times
# In this crazy town
# Havin' hard times
# There's no love to be found. #
WOMAN: Opening statements
are now underway
after a gruesome murder
back in 2014.
WOMAN: Today, a man
suspected of killing a woman
and then making
a daring escape from court,
is back in front of a Judge.
MAN: This time,
for a jury to determine his fate.
On trial
is 27-year-old Dayonte Resiles,
the man accused of killing Su
seven years ago.
The 59-year-old was found
stabbed and bound
in the bathtub of her Davie home
in September of 2014.
Resiles pleaded not guilty
to first degree murder.
MAN: Prosecutor Maria Schneider
in her opening argument
told the jury Resiles' DNA
was found on a belt
used to restrict Mrs Su.
His lawyer says,
"Resiles didn't kill Mrs Su,"
that it was someone her son
invited to her home during a party.
This morning,
the Judge told members of the jury
that he expects this trial
to last the rest of the month,
and it could even last
through the first week of December.
That is the latest,
live in Fort Lauderdale
this morning,
Saira Anwar, Local 10 News.
MARIA SCHNEIDER:
The state would call Justin Su.
Mr Su, approach the witness box,
and when you arrive,
please remain standing.
JUSTIN SU: It's definitely
something with the human brain...
..blocks out that because...
it's all grainy,
but I remember
looking at her face...
(SIGHS) ..lifeless...
..one eye open, one eye closed.
You know, when you find mommy
dead in the bath tub,
you're not a grown man,
you're the little boy.
And, she's using that
emotional connection,
and he appears to be somewhat
aware of the impact of his words
because he knows
the stronger his memory is,
the more clear it is
to the jury that,
no, he's not the one who did this.
No one should be accused of
killing their own mother...
for hours in a...
Completely naked...
..in a spray paint suit, with still
my mother's blood on my skin.
I can still smell it,
the whole time. It was horrible.
You know, having to strip
and be searched,
and being treated as a suspect,
as I guess you should be
because that's...
You know, typically
the crime's always the first...
It's always the husband
or the kid, right?
It's always the people in those...
I get that part of it, but...
it was sad because I can't...
I was empathising really with, like,
what the hell was this kid
going through in this exact moment?
To me,
it was heartbreaking, and, um...
..it was one of the times
that I actually...
I think I had a couple of tears
because I can't even imagine
someone coming home
and finding their parent...
in that condition.
So, I think he went through so much.
MICHAEL ORLANDO:
'I don't doubt his emotions...
but they had lived there
for all those years,
and there'd never been a burglary.
Then all of a sudden,
this one time,
where he's on his own,
you know, he sort of goes wild,
and has all these parties,
and bringing people into the house.
It's not just a coincidence.'
You alerted the guests
to the fact that...
..there were cameras
in the house, correct?
Yes.
Were you aware of
some of these people
that you had over at your house
that were sketchy
and drugged up all the time?
No.
Didn't you have a friend that got
scooped up in some type of DEA bust?
If you recall my memory, maybe.
I can't remember.
I wasn't the only one,
I think a couple of us
entertained the idea
that it could've been
one of Justin's friends,
or, you know,
that might have had...
access to the home.
I mean that's, like,
good theory, right?
I'm with that, someone that knows
that Justin had knives, right?
Someone who's maybe
been to the house.
I'm OK with that theory.
But it fell maybe slightly flat
in the sense that
they didn't pursue it any deeper
than just, kind of,
throwing it out there.
Much of today really focused on
the testimony of the victim's son.
That son having to tell the jurors
about that day.
He is the one who found his mother.
Justin said in court today
that this was just something
that no child
should ever have to experience,
finding his mother in that bath tub.
It was really emotional,
and very heavy in court.
(DIALOGUE MUTED)
MARIA SCHNEIDER: When he asked you
if it was a white male
or a black male,
you didn't have any trouble
understanding that question,
correct?No.
And your only response to that
was that it looked white to you.
Yes, but only trouble there
is that...
..I could not tell
one way or another...
..but I was obligated
to choose one of the two.
And I tried to do my best
to give the information.
And since you originally thought
that it was your son,
and your son's skin is white,
correct?That's correct.
LARRY OSBORNE: Even though
it was a black and white camera,
you can't mistaken me
for a white person
on a black and white camera.
Because white is white, it's
going to come out white, you know?
My colour skin, if anything,
is going to come out grey.
DAVE SINCLAIR: Like he said,
"They kept on pressuring me
and pressuring me to give them,
'Was it black? Was it white?'"
And he just said, "Looks white."
I don't think anybody
really made a big deal
about that testimony,
to be honest with you.
That is testimony.
Like, that is evidence.
Nan-Yao is giving us evidence
and saying that, "At the time,
he looked white to me."
And that's in his interrogation.
So, that is evidence.
We can't decide not to listen to it,
because he said it, it was written,
it was closest to the moment
that he saw in the video.
There was one thing,
when he said about the cameras
that were disconnected,
that he went to work.
I kind of thought that maybe,
at first,
what a coincidence
that he goes to work,
logs on to the computer
and at that time...
someone is messing with the cameras,
or they unplugged it.
It was like...
It's weird, yeah, it's very weird.
It's weird!
But that was it, right?
It was it's weird,
no further examining of that, right?
LARRY: I definitely believe that...
they did not pursue the untruths
with Justin or the father enough.
But... this young man
and this husband
lost a wife and a mother.
So, I as the defence, am I going
to get up there and badger them?
How's that going to appear
to the jury.
What's the perception of that
to the jury?
I understand why they didn't do it.
Does it make it right?
Not necessarily,
but I understand why they didn't.
We want the video to exist...
..because on the video...
he's saying it was a white male.
That's very...
That's, like, one of
the biggest pieces of evidence...
in his favour.
Plus, he's saying he thinks
there's a relationship to his son...
and his son is white.
I'm gonna taking issue
with whether Nan-Yao said
he saw a person who was white.
They asked him, "Was he black?
Was he white?" after he said
he didn't see anything of the person
because they had their face covered.
And he said, "Looked white to me."
And I don't know that that's
a conclusive, concrete answer.
I think that Nan-Yao was surmising,
you know, what it was,
but that doesn't exonerate
the defendant, and it doesn't,
in any way, shape or form,
explain why his DNA is there.
MICHAEL:
'You know, the DNA evidence,
that basically is the evidence
against the client.
So, we're challenging
the programme that they used
to come to their conclusions
in this second round of testing
in 2020.'
ALLAN JAMISON: One of the problems
with the STRmix software
is it's taking any small change
in the analytical process
and treating it
with massive implication.
Therefore,
when you hear a statistic,
you can know whether,
if that sample was run again,
in this laboratory
or a different laboratory,
whether it would be
within the same ballpark.
So, in terms of the statistic,
I don't have any confidence
in the reliability
and in other words,
I don't know that
if we ran this again, we would get
a completely different result.
And let me make clear, the result
could go higher as well as lower.
It was really more about,
like, testing methodology
and it was like, beyond kind of
the scope of the jury in a way.
They were talking about
one one billionth of a parcel
and one one trillionth
and taking a DNA sample.
All the doubt that was brought up
relating back to the lab
was, like, technical jargon.
MICHAEL: And now, how...
Is DNA transfer
something that can easily happen,
or is it impossible?
I think the fact
we've got so many masks on
tells us how easily
DNA is transferred.
The more research we do,
the more difficult
interpretation becomes
in terms of how DNA
got onto something.
In my view, it simply has to be...
The DNA evidence and transfer,
simply has to be consolidated
with the other evidence in the case.
That scientists
should not be saying,
"It definitely got there by touch,
it definitely got there that day,"
or whenever,
without other information.
So, the science alone
can only tell you so much,
and then it should be matched up.
In Scotland,
we call it corroboration,
where the pieces of evidence
must all point
towards a consistent story.
And the science
is just part of that.
He said, very clearly, he said,
"DNA must support other evidence."
And, for us... for some of us,
that was very important
because we felt, "OK, there is DNA."
Like right now,
you're sitting in that chair,
if I move that chair
to some other person's house,
were you in the house?
No, that DNA was in that house.
So when you look at just the DNA...
I said, "Is that enough?"
Yeah, you're right, maybe one DNA.
Again we're seeing this, kind of...
interesting line: back door,
front door, in the house,
One, fine. And that came up
during deliberation.
It was like, "DNA is not enough,
DNA is not enough,"
and it was like, "But how much DNA?"
MARIA: Good morning.
Good morning to you.
So... the smudge from the door,
single source, correct?
Yes.
You have absolutely
no issue with that?No.
You have no issue with either
the wet science,
the development of the DNA itself...
Yeah.
..or with the statistic?
I prefer
the random match probability
but it's going to be (INDISTINCT).
Right, so you like another
way of doing it better,
but you're not saying that
that single source
from the door is incorrect
and it's not the defendant?
That's correct.
And you are not telling
these ladies and gentlemen
of the jury, that he is not included
in the other two samples,
you're just...
having an issue with the numbers?
That's correct.
Thank you, nothing further.
The defendant DNA was there,
and just like you said,
"Why my DNA is not there?"
You know why my DNA is not there?
Because I wasn't there.
Plain and simple, I wasn't there.
I head previously collected
a partially empty Gatorade bottle
from the guest bedroom.
But the residence
was in immaculate condition,
except for the areas
that I previously discussed
about disturbance and ransacking.
And this guest bedroom
was in immaculate condition as well.
And this Gatorade bottle
just looked out of place.
MICHAEL: 'The crime scene people
in the State Attorney's Office
at the time,
they made a big deal about it...
believing that, that had to somehow
be related to the perpetrator.
So, we do have
unidentified DNA on that.
So, they had to concede that.'
So, there's DNA not matching
the defendant, matching male,
So male, but not the defendant.
And then prints.
And did you examine the print
on the jewellery boxes
in the master bedroom?
Yes.
Alright.
And you didn't identify any of
those prints as Mr Resiles did you?
No.
They have fingerprints
on the jewellery box
that were unexplained.
But the people that you brought in
that were at the party,
you never fingerprinted them.
You only swabbed them.
Like if you had unexplained
fingerprints in the house,
and you're trying to define whose
fingerprints they are,
you would want
to fingerprint anybody
that was possibly in that house
so that you can say,
"Hey, I have fingerprints
of someone in the house,
and this is their fingerprints,"
you know.
But I think that because
the prosecution was so bent on,
"This is our guy,
we must focus everything on him,
if we make any other...
..you know, doubts,
that would create doubt."
'The people who were...
into the house,
none of the reports
show that profiles
were ever developed
on any of the swabs.'
So, you know...
So yeah, she's bringing out that
swabs were taken,
but it doesn't list them...
..in any of the reports
as having been...
having had a DNA profile developed
and then compared to anything.
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
MAN: Your honour, Mr Alex Guillaume.
Yes.
Great. Could you raise
your right hand for us?
MARIA: Approximately
how many different people,
did he ask you to provide letters to
trying to get somebody to get him
a cell phone to use in the jail?
A few people, but the only person
that I was in contact with
was Crystal.
Crystal Isaacs?
Yes.OK.
Alright. Did you ever receive
anything of value
for helping the defendant out?
I was always compensated with money.
OK.
Did he provide you
that money directly, or did he have
someone give it to you?
No, he had Crystal give it to me.
I know they kept calling my name...
and it made me very upset. (LAUGHS)
Because I wasn't able to speak,
I had to just sit there and...
..his heart is dirty.
But I'm actually glad I came,
to face that.
I needed to face it.
It's a part of my healing.
It took a lot out of me
to come back here.
MAN: What make you come anyway?
Dayonte, support.
I kept thinking about him
and I think, you know,
I thought it would make him
feel better.
Whether I come back or not,
I think Dayonte knows that...
I'm with him in spirit.
You say you still love him?
Of course, I love him.
MAN: State your full name
for the record.
Jason Hendrick.
Spell your last name for us.
H-E-N-D-R-I-C-K.
Alright, so the first call
we're talking about is call 129.
Have you had
an opportunity to review
the CD that I have of the call?
I have.
Your Honour, we'd like to
(INDISTINCT).You may.
The bribes, you know, trying to...
..create so many alibis
and whatever.
To me, someone that's innocent
doesn't do that.
You will waste your energy,
perhaps proving your innocence,
not trying to create...
..all these stories, so.
At no point in time,
on any of those calls,
did he ever say he was at that home.
That he ever said that
anything of the nature of,
"Oh, this is what happened,
I need to cover up...
this that happened".
Yeah, those phone calls
were questionable,
him trying to get people to lie.
Why?
I don't know,
but that wasn't what was on trial.
How do you give an inmate a phone?
That's my whole two thing.
They trying to frame him.
They knew this shit ain't right.
That ain't got...
That charge that y'all got,
that ain't got
nothing to do with this murder case.
They shouldn't be able
to use that, man.
I have so many questions.
The person who talking
don't even know what they putting
on this-(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
He got 100 cases on him.
He have 100 cases. He ain't say
nothing about killing that lady
on none of them phone calls.
That's some straight bullshit.
They know it.
Why is this even here right now?
Why did the Judge even allow her
to continue with that?
Why were they allowed
to give him a phone and set him up,
and then listen to
all his phone calls.
Why is that allowed? Why is that OK?
I think they're definitely
trying to confuse the jury.
I have no faith in this system here.
None at all. And I feel like
it's a complete set up.
KIA: Some places I'm saying
I'm not going to get out of the car,
you're gonna have to film
from the back seat.
Not necessarily
because you in danger
because I ain't gonna
let nobody harm you.
Anybody with me, I'mma protect them.
But because a lot of people
going to grime
because they think you the police.
WOMAN: You know how some
white people...They get scared.
..they see black folks
and they grab their purse?
Well, see, it's the opposite.
Who you think did it?
That's on camera?
You damn right.
Say what you gotta say.
Say it!
He on Moochie's side.
Who did it?
I know him, I already know his name,
but her son.
OK.
OK.
Thank you.
There never been no evidence
and all that shit.
Like I said, I know our bro.
Shit, I'm from (INDISTINCT),
from the west side.
OK.
Man, come on man,
all that shit, evidence,
everything led back to her son.
That's for Moochie.
MAN: For who?
Moochie.
I don't know if you remember
Well, it's for him,
yeah, you see the other side?
Excuse me baby. Oh, you got one?
Thank you.
Oh look it there, I ain't seen
(INDISTINCT) in so long.
We trying to get behind that boy.
They tryna give him
the death penalty.
(INDISTINCT)
They trying.
If you look into the story,
I believe you'll come to believe,
as us, that he's innocent.
And he needs the people's support,
or they're going to give him
the death penalty
Let's get that in the bible.
Guess what?
In America, we are slaves,
in America.
Let's get that from the bible.
I believe it was 26:17.
In America a dead black dog
is worth more than
a living breathing black men.
Many black me are accused of murder.
(CONTINUES PREACHING
LOUDLY IN DISTANCE)
You hear him?
I hear him.
See, that's why I wanted
to walk off, because you see that?
You don't know Moochie. You sitting
there, talking about God,
but you judging somebody. That's why
I don't want to go over there,
because I been now
cussed his ass out.
That's why nobody listen to them.
You caught yelling at people,
you not doing God's work,
yelling. God don't yell.
Y'all false prophets going to hell!
Bitch!
There we go.Thank you.
Pass out some for me, please.
We'll pass them out.
So he don't get no death penalty.
I'll pass them out and twerk
when I pass them out.There we go.
Thank you.
(ALL CHEERING)
Say, "Justice for Moochie!"
Hold on, we filming,
one time for me.
Let me let the window down. Wait,
come on Sal, catch them.Get that!
We filming, now say,
"Justice for Moochie!"
(ALL YELLING)
Thank y'all.
(LAUGHS) Who was that?
There's somebody behind us.
There's somebody behind us. (LAUGHS)
WOMAN: Sir, you're going
to walk to our witness box,
and you when arrive,
please remain standing,
until you get sworn in,
thank you, sir.
JUDGE: Good afternoon Mr Faircloth.
RONALD FAIRCLOTH: Good afternoon.
This is our witness stand over here.
Come on up.
MARIA: Alright,
I want to direct your attention
to the phone activity.
This particular day
between 11:29 and 12:27pm,
seven incoming text messages,
not a single response.Correct.
OK, at 12:27,
what did you discover on the phone?
At 12:27 on September 8th,
there was an outgoing message
to a Shenell Campbell
with the abbreviation WYA.
Do you know what the abbreviation
WYA means?
Where you at.
DAVE:
During the crime, this is a person
who texts religiously all day long.
And in the meantime,
it's not because...
There's too many coincidences
where he did not...
..text at all.
But then after
when he finally text...
I forgot the time, I think it was
12:47 or something like that,
the time where he text someone
and says, "Where you at?"
Outgoing?
WOMAN: Outgoing.
I don't know what they're talking
about. Now I'm really wondering
what records you have
because I've never seen any of them.
This is exactly
what we received from this date,
so we are objecting.
I don't know what they're
talking about "outgoing".
You can't see them?
Yeah, I can see
where it says outgoing, honey,
but I can't see from where.
I don't want even read these.
Relax.
But Judge, I've just been accused
of presenting false testimony.
I take that a little personally.
Counsel, listen.
There's no reason to get upset.
Just relax,
don't be calling attorneys honey,
and things like that.
It just doesn't fly, alright?
You've been practising
too long for that.
Let's do this. Counsel, you reduce
whatever you want to writing.
And the State can take a look at it
and they can respond to it
at their leisure, alright?
See everybody back tomorrow
at 9 o'clock.
'So, we have a witness
that's going to testify
about what's in
those T-Mobile records.
You know, the calls during that
11:30 to 12:30.'
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
Can you describe
what outgoing messages
you found from 11.30 to 12:30?
You need me to tell you each one?
Yes. Just for that-
OK.
11:36 outgoing,
there are two of them.
11:47, 11:52, 11:58,
12:02, 12:09pm,
12:22pm, 12:26pm,
That's it till 12:30pm, sir.
Alright, thank you.
Go ahead, counsel.
Sir, where on the records
that you received,
the call detail records,
does it say
what time zone the records are in?
The records themselves,
which is quite unusual,
when I received these because...
..this is not a standard production
from T-Mobile.
So, therefore,
what your office provided me,
were records that I had to take
and basically try to figure out...
..using how T-Mobile operates,
what time zone they were in.
But the bottom line is that,
that's your opinion,
you didn't get that information
from T-Mobile, did you?
No Mam, sure didn't.
OK. In fact, if you google,
"What time zone
are T-Mobile records provided in?"
It says on
the T-Mobile Support Website,
that it is Pacific Time, doesn't it?
No, ma'am.
It doesn't?
I don't know
where you got that from.
I have been in this business
since... I don't care.
You can google anything, OK?
But I'm going to tell you that
if you really wanted to know
what that time zone was,
and we can stop all this bantering
back and forth,
your guys should have pulled
the T-Mobile key.
OK. So, you can't really testify
with absolute accuracy
that those records
are even T-Mobile records.
(LAUGHS)
Do you realise what you're saying?
You're the ones
that gave them to us.
You're the ones that asserted
that these were
true and accurate records,
from your office.
And now you're
contradicting your own records?
I'm so happy that
you think this is funny,
but maybe you can
answer my question.It's not funny,
it's actually ridiculous that
you would even go down this path.
OK, well, you won't answer
my question, sir.
That extraction
that was done by the police,
when did you receive that?
OK, extraction, you talking about
the Cellebrite report?
Correct. Isn't that called
a phone extraction?
I don't know, you tell me,
you're the expert.(SCOFFS)
Listen, Mr Slovenski,
this is getting out of hand.
You just respond to the questions.
I don't want you arguing
with counsel. Counsel, I don't
want you arguing with the witness.
You ask the questions,
you answer them,
that's it Mr Slovenski. Understood?
I understand, Your Honour.
Thank you.
Isn't it true, sir,
that in the extraction,
the phone calls that take place
from 11:27 to 12:30,
that exact sequence of calls
appears in the call veto records
that you received, 3 hours earlier?
I can't comment on that.
OK.
They were trying to show that
the defendant
was answering phone calls,
during the hour of this homicide.
And then in the middle of trial,
they realise that there is
a discrepancy between the time zone,
between the T-Mobile records
and the extraction.
Because the extraction
is in real time.
If you're here,
like I'm here in Florida, right?
The time here in Florida
is on my phone.
So when you extract my phone,
you're going to get the time here
because that's what my phone has.
T Mobile is on the West Coast.
T Mobile provides records
on West Coast Standard time.
So, the discrepancy is because
the records are three hours behind.
'The Davie Police Department,
when they obtained these records,
they're supposed to get,
like, a cover page'
that defines, you know,
whose records these are,
and would probably give information
about how to read them,
and the time and that.
Well, they never got those...
They never obtained
that initial page, or pages.
So, everybody believed,
because there was no reason
to believe otherwise, that
they were Eastern Standard Time.
This witness says
it looks something like it,
but it's not the normal format,
doesn't appear to be
the normal format
that he would get it downloaded.
The objection is sustained.
It's not going in.
'That was hard.
It was certainly
a wrench in the defence.'
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
I'm so sorry, Judge.
JUDGE: (INDISTINCT)
So, I've thought a lot about this.
I had one guy, right?
The other inside the house, bind her
and put her into the tub.
Well the physical evidence,
I suggest, answers that for us.
Mrs Su...
..had a very distinctive injury
on the top of her head.
The injury is consistent
with the tip of the large knife
that we have every reason to believe
was the weapon used to kill her.
I think the evidence suggests
that the reason Betty Dutko
heard that key sound
and then it abruptly stops...
..is because he knocked her out.
What is in the tub...
..with Mrs Su?
I want you to look at
this picture here. That's a rug.
It might be hard to pick up,
you know, a woman,
a 140 something pound woman,
and put her over your shoulder,
and carry her. When she's laying
on a rug, it's not.
When he threw her in the tub,
he threw in the rug
that she was wrapped in.
But if you look at the bathroom,
other than some drops of blood,
around the bathroom...
..the only really
significantly bloody area
was right under Mrs Su's head
when she's laying down on the floor.
So, what does that tell you?
That piece of physical
evidence tells you,
she was in the tub
when he stabbed her.
She's sitting there
in that tub, tied up,
watching this guy
stand over her with a knife
and he starts stabbing her.
I urge you to put away feelings,
and base your...
..verdict on the evidence
and come back with a verdict
that speaks the truth.
And that holds Dayonte Resiles...
..responsible...
..for killing Jill Su.
Thank you.
RAFAEL: What role, if any,
did he play
in what took place
in that home in Davie?
Was he there?
Was he the only one there?
Did he hold the knife?
Did he kill this woman?
Does he deserve to be punished
as the one who committed the crime,
or is there someone else out there,
who either deserves
to be punished with him,
or deserves to be
punished instead of him?
Are we putting the right person
on trial, for the right crime?
That's they mystery of the case
of the murder of Jill Su.
The jury has been deliberating
since about 2 o'clock this afternoon
and there aren't any signs
right now, that they'll be wrapping
those deliberations up
any time soon.
There are certainly a lot of people
here, in the hallway,
along with us, waiting to hear
what their decision will be.
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
We know that the jury
listened to read back on testimony
from the victim's
husband and from the victim's son.
So, what this is
telling me right now,
as we're still waiting
for the jury to come back,
is that the defence
did a terrific job.
And they raised the questions
that the jury wants the answer to.
It's probably some...
WOMAN: Inconsistency.
Yeah, some inconsistency
that they're trying to compare,
between the dad and the son.
Well, I'm on the edge.
You know, it's not
a good feeling because...
I'm just praying that
it's going to be good news.
But it was very heavy on my mind,
as to what was going to be
the verdict today.
In fact, I thought it was
going to be yesterday, last night.
But it was pushed over
to today, so...
..it's like a waiting game.
RAFAEL: We're on
the fourth day of deliberations,
we don't know if it's
one whole doubt
who believes the defence,
or if it's a 50/50 split.
There's no way of knowing that
until it's over.
But at the very least,
we know that they are
taking the questions raised by
the defence, very, very seriously.
You can say whatever you want
about any jury, but this one,
you will not be able to say
that they rushed.
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
(DIALOGUE MUTED)
(CAMERA SHUTTERS CLICKING)
(CAMERA SHUTTERS CLICKING)
JUDGE: You ready to proceed?
WOMAN: Yes.
Alright,
let's bring the jury in, please.
Thank you, please be seated.
Let the record reflect
the presence of the defendant,
Mr Resiles,
his counsel, the State Attorney,
and ladies and gentlemen
of the jury.
Ladies and gentlemen,
it's my understanding
you have reached a verdict,
is that correct?
And Ms Fernandez,
you are the foreperson?
Could you pass the verdict form
to our bailiff, please? Thank you.
(CAMERA SHUTTERS CLICK)
Thank you.
Mr Travis,
can you publish the verdict, please?
MR TRAVIS: In the Circuit Court
of the 17th Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County Florida,
Case No: 1412657CF/10A,
State of Florida
vs Dayonte Resiles.
Verdict, we the jury find
this follows as the defendant,
Dayonte Resiles in this case,
the defendant is guilty
of the lesser included crime
of manslaughter.
So, say we all the 7th day
of December, 2021
at Fort Lauderdale
Broward County Florida,
signed by the foreperson,
Ms Fernandez.
Thank you, does either
the State or defence
wish the jury to be polled.
MARIA: Yes, sir.
Could you poll the jury, please?
Ladies and gentlemen,
this means that the clerk, Mr Travis
is going to ask you a question,
each of you individually
whether or not
the verdict that was read
is your verdict.
You should simply answer yes or no,
alright?
No, nothing else is required,
just yes or no,
if this is your individual verdict.
Mr Travis, will you go?
Ms Fernandez, is this your verdict?
MS FERNANDEZ: No.
Thank you, you need
to go back to the jury room,
continue with your deliberations.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
WOMAN: The courtroom confusion
in a high profile murder case.
CBS4's Bobeth Yates has been
standing by outside the courthouse
in Fort Lauderdale,
waiting for the jury's decision.
Well, Elliot and Lauren,
it was definitely a wild day.
As you mentioned,
five days of jury deliberation
and yet again the jury could not
come to a decision.
For just a few minutes tonight,
it seemed like there was
a verdict in this case.
But when that verdict
was read aloud,
the Judge quickly learned that
those jurors were not unanimous.
And without a unanimous decision,
the Judge said deliberations
should keep going.
Here is where we stand,
that jury can come back
and find him guilty of
that 1st degree murder charge,
which can end in life in prison
or even the death penalty.
They can come back and find him
guilty on lesser charges,
they can acquit him all together,
or they can even come back
and tell the Judge that
they just can't reach an agreement.
And in an unexpected twist,
the years long saga is not over.
Now, they will resume
tomorrow morning at 9:00am
to begin deliberations once more.
This is one of
the most unusual nights
for justice in Broward County
that I have ever seen.
God, I ask that you begin
to deal with the prosecutors.
God I ask that you go before Moochie
in any situation, God.
God, you are the head.
God I ask that you shield him.
God, that you give him peace,
that you let him know that you are
in the midst of the situation.
God, that there's
no one like you God.
(INDISTINCT)
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
KIA: 'You either did it,
or you didn't.'
He was charged with murder,
and if y'all said
y'all don't think he killed them,
then I don't understand what's left.
It's either yes or no.
It ain't no in between.
It's just yes or no.
That's just that.
That's the bottom line on that.
(KNOCK ON DOOR)
WOMAN: Jury are entering.
JUDGE: Ladies and gentlemen,
thank you. Please be seated.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I got your jury enquiry form
where basically you indicate
you are unable to reach
a unanimous decision on
any one charge, and its elements.
We the jury, signed by Ms Fernandez.
Is that correct?
You are unable to reach a verdict?
ALL: Yes.
So, what I would be doing then
is just declaring a mistrial...
..and we'll pick up another time
with a different jury.
(KIA CLAPPING)
(INDISTINCT CHATTER)
(INDISTINCT SPEECH)
Good, I'm happy, I'm happy.
I hope the next jury
that get picked...
they all agree to not guilty.
Good.
I think I'm going
to have me a drink,
now that my nerves
have calmed down a little bit.
We made it through the battle
but we still got a war.
For the non-believers out there,
I hope you know God is real,
let that part be known.
I think it's premature to be happy,
but if I were in their shoes,
the most optimistic way
to look at this is to say,
this jury was ready
to send him to prison.
For at least 15 years, maybe 30.
This jury was ready to do that.
And instead, we get another chance
to convince the next jury
he's not guilty.
A jury foreman speaking out about
what was going through her mind,
moments before a high-profile
murder case ended in a mistrial.
MAN: The jury foreman,
who chose not to show her face
for her safety,
describing a group of jurors,
some of them bias,
others not following rules.
WOMAN: She said most of the jury
was ready to convict Resiles
of at least 2nd degree murder.
But three refused
because the defendant is black.
WOMAN:
They'd said, "I don't want to send
a young black male to jail
for the rest of their life.
WOMAN: They compromised
on manslaughter but she said
she had a pit in her stomach,
and she changed her mind.
I took a deep breathe, I'm staring
at the judge and the clerk,
and they're just waiting for
my verdict of either yes or no.
And, I just couldn't
and that's why I said no.
MAN: While not the reason
for her change of heart she said,
she did notice
the defence celebrating
when that manslaughter verdict
was read.
And that was unsettling to me,
you know,
because I knew that
it was pre-meditated.
Returning to the jury room, she said
she was cursed out, even threatened.
I was threatened
to get smacked in my mouth
because I said, "I don't see colour,
all I see is a person."
I asked if the outcome
would be different,
if the defendant were white Anglo,
or a white Hispanic.
We would have been done by Friday.
We would've had a verdict on Friday.
How could I agree to manslaughter
and say that I'm not going to put
a man in jail?
That is actually putting
the man in jail
if you agree to a person
committing manslaughter.
You don't get to walk free
if you get manslaughter,
you say, "You can go home today."
No, that isn't what that does.
I know that all the other jurors
that I've been in touch with...
we all feel that
that was not a representation of...
an accurate representation
of what happened.
If you were to look back,
I thought we were being a very...
proficient jury. You know,
I think we were being sensitive,
we were taking our time. We were
letting everyone get to speak.
That doesn't scream of
an incoherent, racist,
ranting and raving,
lunatic room, you know?
WANDA: Some of the jurors
needed more evidence.
They needed more and...
..they weren't just convinced
with the DNA.
There was too much DNA,
and the fingerprints
that didn't match the defendant,
that we all felt that
there were somebody else.
The question whether
the other person did it or not,
and what was their motive,
I don't know,
but that's why manslaughter became
the lowest common denominator.
(SIGHS) I don't know man.
I just did not want that guy
to go home that same day.
I didn't want him to get in his car,
while I'm getting in my car
and go home
and leave that courthouse.
You know what I mean? So.
When the deputy comes in...
we're like, "Yeah, we're ready."
(LAUGHS) But I had my doubts
that it was gonna carry through,
and the moment I heard,
"We're gonna poll the jury..."
I was holding my breath.
Definitely a weird moment
because it was so, like, "No."
I still, "No!"
Holy fuck, now what?
That's what I was like. I was like,
"Holy fuck, now what?
What are they gonna do with us?"
We were done and then a couple of us
were like, "Let's just give it
one more chance at the apple,
let's try one more time,
and if we can do something, great,
if we can't do something, fuck it."
And I thought we got over a hump,
and then of course,
the same bullshit happened.
LARRY: She was like,
"All young black men are the same."
You know,
"They all behave this way."
And you know, like,
I have three sons
and so, you know, like,
my head exploded.
And, I said some things.
I think he actually offered
to slap her or something
and, you know,
so it really got ugly.
Like I instantly apologised
because then I knew
that I was dead wrong,
I was dead wrong for allowing it
to get to that point.
It's hard to get 12 people...
to believe in the same.
Because remember,
when you get the evidence...
..you have choices.
You can weigh it high...
..you can weigh it low,
or you can ignore it all together.
Even with witnesses,
you know what I mean?
You can just pick
and choose what you want.
And, it's going to be hard
for 12 people, in any case...
..to decide on anything.
The three of us walked away from it
feeling like...
Well, I should just
speak for myself.
I walked away from the first trial
feeling like...
..a not guilty was possible,
but that...
we needed to make some changes
in order to make that happen.
And...
..presenting the evidence
of Nan-Yao and Justin's involvement
in a more aggressive way,
was our best shot in doing that.