Tag Archives: court witnesses

Exclusive: Trump’s former White House ethics lawyer told Cassidy Hutchinson to give misleading testimony to January 6 committee, sources say


Washington
CNN
 — 

The January 6 committee made a startling allegation on Monday, claiming it had evidence that a Trump-backed attorney urged a key witness to mislead the committee about details they recalled.

Though the committee declined to identify the people, CNN has learned that Stefan Passantino, the top ethics attorney in the Trump White House, is the lawyer who allegedly advised his then-client, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, to tell the committee that she did not recall details that she did, sources familiar with the committee’s work tell CNN.

Trump’s Save America political action committee funded Passantino and his law firm Elections LLC, including paying for his representation of Hutchinson, other sources tell CNN. The committee report notes the lawyer did not tell his client who was paying for the legal services.

Over the summer, Hutchinson emerged as a blockbuster witness for the committee, providing key insight into Trump’s state of mind and his actions leading up to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. Before her public testimony, Hutchinson dropped Passantino and got a new lawyer.

When asked about pressure on Hutchinson after Monday’s hearing, committee member Rep. Zoe Lofgren, told CNN: “She was advised to say that she didn’t recall something when she did. So that’s pretty serious stuff.”

The episode is just one of several instances in which the committee has accused members of Trump’s orbit of trying to obstruct the panel’s investigation.

Two sources familiar with the situation tell CNN that Hutchinson has discussed the episode with the Justice Department. CNN has previously reported that Hutchinson was cooperating with the Justice Department’s January 6 investigation, after she became a crucial public witness in the House probe.

CNN reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

Passantino has not been accused of a crime. He said House investigators never reached out to him for an interview.

In a statement to CNN, Passantino said he didn’t advise Hutchinson to mislead the committee. “I represented Ms. Hutchinson honorably, ethically, and fully consistent with her sole interests as she communicated them to me. I believed Ms. Hutchinson was being truthful and cooperative with the Committee throughout the several interview sessions in which I represented her.”

Passantino pointed out it’s not uncommon for people to change lawyers “because their interests or strategies change,” according to his statement. He also said political committees sometimes cover client fees “at the client’s request.”

In response to an accusation from the committee that he also shared her testimony with other lawyers and the press even when she told him not to, he said, “External communications made on Ms. Hutchinson’s behalf while I was her counsel were made with her express authorization.”

By Tuesday, Passantino’s professional biography had been removed from the website of a midwestern-based law firm where he was a partner – and he acknowledged in his statement he was on a leave of absence from the firm “given the distraction of this matter.” That firm, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, said on Tuesday it was not involved in the situation and Hutchinson wasn’t a client.

Passantino said he remains a partner at Elections LLC.

The House January 6 committee, during hearings over the summer, said it was concerned about potential witness tampering. CNN has reported that witness was Hutchinson.

The committee summary stated that the panel “is aware of multiple efforts by President Trump to contact Select Committee witnesses. The Department of Justice is aware of at least one of those circumstances.”

Then on Monday, in the executive summary of the final report, the committee revisited the issue in its handoff of the investigation to the Justice Department.

According to the report, “the lawyer had advised the witness that the witness could, in certain circumstances, tell the Committee that she did not recall facts when she actually did recall them.”

“When the witness raised concerns with her lawyer about that approach,” according to the summary, the lawyer said, “They don’t know what you know, [witness]. They don’t know that you can recall some of these things. So you saying ‘I don’t recall’ is an entirely acceptable response to this.”

“The lawyer instructed the client about a particular issue that would cast a bad light on President Trump: ‘No, no, no, no, no. We don’t want to go there. We don’t want to talk about that,’” the report said.

At the committee’s final public hearing, Lofgren said: “The witness believed this was an effort to affect her testimony, and we are concerned that these efforts may have been a strategy to prevent the Committee from finding the truth.”

Lawyers must follow extensive ethics guidelines as part of their profession, including avoiding conflicts of interest that could compromise their representation of a client. According to legal ethics experts, a lawyer swaying their client’s testimony in a way that wouldn’t be entirely truthful could be looked at as possible obstruction of an investigation.

Elections LLC, a political law practice Passantino and other Trump lawyers founded after he left the Trump White House, has received regular payments from Save America PAC and other Trump-backed groups, according to FEC filings. The Save America PAC distributions to the firm for legal consulting total more than $150,000 in 2021, and about $275,000 in 2022. The firm also has worked for major Republican congressional campaigns.

This year, Trump’s Save America PAC has made payments to several law firms representing witnesses in the January 6 and Mar-a-Lago investigation. An issue only arises if the lawyer doesn’t follow the client’s wishes, legal experts and professional rules say.

The committee, in its summary Monday, gave several other examples of “evidence suggesting specific efforts to obstruct” their work. They noted efforts by Trump to contact some witnesses, as well as multiple Secret Service agents hiring private lawyers rather than agency-provided lawyers who would represent them for free. A Secret Service driver’s lawyer admitted to writing notes to the driver as they testified, about what was being said, according to the committee.

The committee also said it believed some witnesses, such as Trump’s former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and the former president’s daughter Ivanka Trump, weren’t as “frank or direct” as others.

The report also said the committee believed a White House staffer Anthony Ornato “gave testimony consistent with the false account” in a book written by Mark Meadows, downplaying Trump’s wish to go to the Capitol on January 6.

The committee says it plans to release transcripts that will shed further light on the witness testimony they found to be questionable.

In its summary Monday, the committee gave several other examples of “evidence suggesting specific efforts to obstruct” their work. They noted efforts by Trump to contact some witnesses, as well as multiple Secret Service agents hiring private lawyers rather than agency-provided lawyers who would represent them for free. A Secret Service driver’s lawyer admitted to writing notes to the driver as they testified, about what was being said, according to the committee.

The committee also said it believed some witnesses, such as Trump’s former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and the former president’s daughter Ivanka Trump, weren’t as “frank or direct” as others.

The report also said the committee believed a White House staffer Anthony Ornato “gave testimony consistent with the false account” in a book written by Mark Meadows, downplaying Trump’s wish to go to the Capitol on January 6.

The committee says it plans to release transcripts that will shed further light on the witness testimony they found to be questionable.


This story has been updated with other potential examples of obstruction identified by the committee.

Read original article here

Tony Ornato, former White House deputy chief of staff, meeting with the House January 6 committee



CNN
 — 

The House select committee investigating the Capitol riot is interviewing former White House deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato on Tuesday, a potentially key witness whose testimony could shed new light on former President Donald Trump’s movements leading up to and on January 6, 2021, according to two sources familiar with the panel’s work.

Former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified back in June that Ornato, who transitioned back to his post at the US Secret Service after Trump left office and retired earlier this year, told her the former president lashed out in anger and lunged at a member of his protective detail as he demanded to be taken to the Capitol on January 6.

Tuesday’s virtual interview is the first time Ornato has met with the panel since Hutchinson’s testimony. Ornato met with the committee twice prior to his expected interview on Tuesday, once in January and again in March.

Hutchinson testified that Ornato told her that Trump got so angry when informed he could not go to the Capitol after his speech at the White House Ellipse on the morning of January 6 that he lunged at the lead agent of his motorcade, Robert Engel, and said something to the effect of “I’m the effing president. Take me up to the Capitol now.”

“The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said ‘Sir; you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We’re going back to the West Wing. We’re not going to the Capitol.’ Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel,” Hutchinson testified.

Hutchinson said that Ornato told her the story of Trump being “irate” back at the White House office later that day with Engel present. She said Engel, whom CNN previously reported has also interviewed with the committee in recent weeks, “did not correct or disagree with any part of the story.”

Hutchinson’s testimony of Ornato’s description of the altercation was under oath during the committee’s public June 28 hearing and has become a key event in the timeline of Trump’s movements on January 6. The panel interviewed Engel for the first time since Hutchinson’s public testimony on November 17.

Neither Ornato and Engel have denied Hutchinson’s testimony on the record. A Secret Service official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, previously told CNN that Ornato denies telling Hutchinson that the former president grabbed the steering wheel of his presidential SUV or an agent on his detail.

Members of the panel have long said they want to call Ornato back in for further questioning.

“We’re in a position in the very near future to call the witnesses from the Secret Service back in for a few additional questions,” Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a committee member, told CNN’s Pamela Brown on “CNN Newsroom” in October.

Committee member Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a Republican, told CNN in September that members of the panel believe Ornato was personally involved in efforts to discredit Hutchinson’s testimony while he was still at the agency and said unnamed Secret Service officials and others simply adopted his side of the story.

“I just think it’s so important to keep in mind that, through quote, anonymous sources, which we believe to be actually Tony Ornato himself, he pushed back against Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony and said, it’s just not true and Tony will testify under oath,” he told CNN. “And then of course, has not come in to testify under oath.”

In addition to the motorcade incident, Ornato could also be key to helping investigators fill in other blanks pertaining to the Secret Service.

Questions over potential deleted Secret Service text messages surrounding January 6 emerged over the summer which resulted in the panel demanding more information from the agency via subpoena. The agency ultimately provided approximately 1.5 million communications from the lead-up to the attack, including emails and planning documents to the committee, according to an agency spokesman. The batch of records, however, do not include the text messages lost to a data migration that prompted a criminal probe by the Department of Homeland Security inspector general.

Members had said they wanted to finish going through the material before calling Ornato and other agents and officials back in.

In its October hearing, the committee revealed it had obtained messages and emails showing the agency received warnings before January 6 about the prospect of violence, as well as real-time reports of weapons in the crowd ahead of Trump’s speech at the Ellipse as part of the massive trove of documents it received.

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said in that hearing that that the Secret Service received alerts of online threats made against former Vice President Mike Pence ahead of the Capitol riot, including that Pence would be “a dead man walking if he doesn’t do the right thing.”

On January 6, one Secret Service agent texted at 12:36 p.m., according to the committee, “With so many weapons found so far; you wonder how many are unknown. Could be sporty after dark.”

Another agent responded minutes later, “No doubt. The people at the Ellipse said they are moving to the Capitol after the POTUS speech.”

Ornato’s expected interview with the committee on Tuesday comes as the panel has moved at a rapid clip to bring in as many as half a dozen more Secret Service agents and officials. In recent weeks the panel has interviewed the onetime head of Pence’s security detail, Tim Giebels; former Secret Service agent John Gutsmiedl; agency spokesman Anthony Guglielmi; the Secret Service agent who was in the lead car on January 6; and the driver of Trump’s presidential vehicle on January 6.

Read original article here

Prosecutors use Oath Keepers leader’s own words against him in heated cross-examination



CNN
 — 

In a tense, head-to-head exchange with Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes, prosecutors used Rhodes’ own words from texts, speeches and interviews to suggest to the jury that the militia leader misled them when he testified he was unaware of other members’ activities on January 6, 2021, and was appalled by the violence that day.

Rhodes is the first of the five defendants charged with seditious conspiracy in federal court in Washington, DC, to testify.

In his two-day testimony, Rhodes told the jury that he wasn’t involved in the specifics of planning for January 6, and that he had no knowledge of plans for the so-called quick reaction force that the group set up in Virginia to quickly move weapons into Washington, as prosecutors have alleged.

Prosecutor Kathryn Rakoczy, however, showed the jury Signal messages in which Rhodes told other members that “We WILL have a QRF” on January 6 because “this situation calls for it” and was part of group messages where members shared photographs of routes the QRF could use to enter the city.

“The buck stopped with you in this operation,” Rakoczy said to Rhodes, reading the leader’s messages aloud.

“I’m responsible for everything everyone else did?” Rhodes responded.

“You’re in charge, right?” Rakoczy said.

“Not if they do something off mission,” he shot back.

“That’s convenient,” Rakoczy said, smiling.

The militia leader also told prosecutors that he “hoped to avoid” conflict and was only concerned about a civil war breaking out after Joe Biden became president – leading to a chiding question from Rakoczy about how “the civil war will be on [January] 21st and not on the sixth?”

“I don’t condone the violence that happened” on January 6, Rhodes testified. “Anyone who did assault a police officer that day should be prosecuted for it.”

Rakoczy pointed to statements Rhodes made in a secretly recorded conversation in the days after January 6 where he said he wished the Oath Keepers had brought rifles to the Capitol that day.

“If he’s not going to do the right thing, and he’s just going to let himself be removed illegally, then we should have brought rifles,” Rhodes said in the recording prosecutors again played for the jury.

“We could have fixed it right then and there,” Rhodes said of the Capitol attack, according to the recording. “I’d hang f**king Pelosi from the lamppost.”

After playing the recording, Rakoczy asked Rhodes, “That’s what you said four days after the assault at the Capitol, right?”

“Yeah, after a couple drinks and I was pissed off,” Rhodes testified.

Rhodes and the other four defendants have pleaded not guilty to the seditious conspiracy charges.

Read original article here

Parkland shooting: School shooter avoids the death penalty after jury recommends life in prison


Fort Lauderdale, Florida
CNN
 — 

The Parkland school shooter has avoided the death penalty after a jury recommended he be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the February 2018 massacre at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School – a move that left some of the victims’ loved ones disappointed and angry.

The jury’s recommendation Thursday, coming after a monthslong trial to decide Nikolas Cruz’s punishment, is not an official sentence; Broward Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer still is expected to issue the gunman’s formal sentence on November 1. Under Florida law, however, she cannot depart from the jury’s recommendation of life.

Families of the gunman’s victims bowed or shook their heads as the verdict forms for each of the 17 people he killed were read in court Thursday morning. The jury found the aggravating factors presented by state prosecutors did not outweigh the mitigating circumstances – aspects of Cruz’s life and upbringing his defense attorneys said warranted only a life sentence.

None of the jurors looked in the direction of the victims’ families as their verdicts were read, but instead looked down or straight ahead. Cruz – flanked by his attorneys, wearing a blue and gray sweater over a collared shirt and eyeglasses – sat expressionless, looking down at the table in front of him.

Live updates: Jury reaches decision in Nikolas Cruz sentencing trial

Tony Montalto, the father of 14-year-old victim Gina Montalto, called the jury’s recommendation a “gut punch” for the victims’ families, lamenting that “the monster that killed them gets to live to see another day.”

“This shooter did not deserve compassion,” he said outside the courtroom, after the jury’s findings were read. “Did he show the compassion to Gina when he put the weapon against her chest and chose to pull that trigger, or any of the other three times that he shot her? Was that compassionate?”

Cruz, now 24, pleaded guilty last October to 17 counts of murder and 17 counts of attempted murder for the shooting in Parkland, Florida, in which 14 students and three school staff members were killed, and 17 others were injured. Because Cruz pleaded guilty to all counts, the trial phase was skipped and the court went directly to the sentencing phase.

Prosecutors had asked the jury to sentence the gunman to death, arguing Cruz’s decision to carry out the shooting was not only especially heinous or cruel, but premeditated and calculated and not, as the defense contended, related to any neurological or intellectual deficits.

To illustrate their point, prosecutors detailed Cruz’s thorough planning for the shooting, as well as comments he made online expressing his desire to commit a mass killing.

In their case, the shooter’s defense attorneys said Cruz had neurodevelopmental disorders stemming from prenatal alcohol exposure, and presented evidence and witnesses claiming his birth mother had used drugs and drank alcohol while pregnant with him. Cruz’s adoptive mother was not open about this with health professionals or educators, preventing him from receiving the appropriate interventions, the defense claimed.

Of the 12 jurors, three voted against the death penalty, jury foreman Benjamin Thomas told CNN affiliate WFOR, saying, “I don’t like how it turned out but it’s that’s how the jury system works.”

“There was one with a hard ‘no,’ she couldn’t do it, and there was another two that ended up voting the same way,” said Thomas.

The woman who was a hard no “didn’t believe because he was mentally ill he should get the death penalty,” Thomas said.

The parents of Alyssa Alhadeff, another 14-year-old victim, said they were disgusted by the verdict.

“I’m disgusted with those jurors,” Alyssa’s father, Ilan Alhadeff, said. “I’m disgusted with the system, that you can allow 17 dead and 17 others shot and wounded, and not get the death penalty. What do we have the death penalty for?”

Linda Beigel Schulman, the mother of geography teacher Scott Beigel, echoed that question, telling reporters, “If this was not the most perfect death penalty case, then why do we have the death penalty at all?”

She, like many of the families who addressed reporters, commended prosecutors for their work, saying they perfectly executed the state’s arguments against the gunman.

“Justice was not served today,” her husband, Michael Schulman, said.

The jury’s recommendation robbed the victims’ families of justice, the father of 14-year-old Jaime Guttenberg told reporters, saying it could make another mass shooting “more likely.”

“We are all in this position now of doing the work that we do around this country to keep this from happening to another family,” Fred Guttenberg said after court. “This decision today only makes it more likely that the next mass shooting will be attempted.”

“This jury failed our families today,” Guttenberg said.

The widow of 49-year-old Christopher Hixon, who was the school’s athletic director, said the jury’s decision indicated the gunman’s “life meant more than the 17 that were murdered” and the rest of the community who remain “terrorized and traumatized.”

Debra Hixon also rejected the defense’s arguments about the gunman’s mental or intellectual struggles, pointing to another one of her sons, who has special needs.

“I have a son that checked … a lot of those boxes that the shooter did as well,” she said. “And you know what? My son’s not a murderer. My son’s the sweetest person that you could ever meet.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis also was disappointed by the jury’s decision, he said Thursday, as well as how long it took for the judicial process to play out.

“I was very disappointed to see that,” he said of the jury’s verdict. “I’m also disappointed that we’re four and a half years after these killings, and we’re just now getting this.”

Broward County Public Defender Gordon Weekes commended the attorneys in his office who represented the gunman, telling reporters, “With the greatest bit of sympathy, we attempted to prepare this case and present this case in the most professional and legal manner as we could.”

Weekes urged the community to respect the verdict, saying Thursday “is not a day of celebration, but a day of solemn acknowledgment, and a solemn opportunity to reflect on the healing that is necessary for this community.”

Weekes declined to comment when asked whether Cruz had a reaction to the jury’s recommendation.

To decide on a recommended sentence, jurors were asked to weigh the aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances presented by the prosecution and defense during trial.

Prosecutors pointed to seven aggravating factors, including that the killings were especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, as well as cold, calculated and premeditated. Other aggravating factors, prosecutors said, were that the defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many people, and that he disrupted a lawful government function – in this case, the running of a school.

The defense, meantime, offered 41 possible mitigating circumstances, including that Cruz was exposed to alcohol, drugs and nicotine in utero; that he has a “neurodevelopmental disorder associated with prenatal alcohol exposure;” and that his adoptive mother did not follow the recommendations of medical, mental health and educational providers, among many others.

For each victim, jurors unanimously agreed the state had proven the aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt and that they were sufficient to warrant a possible death sentence.

However, to recommend death, all jurors still would have needed to find that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances. They did not unanimously agree on this, the jurors indicated Thursday on their verdict forms – meaning Cruz must be sentenced to life in prison and not death.

In closing arguments Tuesday, prosecutors argued Cruz’s decision to commit the shooting was deliberate and carefully planned, while Cruz’s defense attorneys offered evidence of a lifetime of struggles at home and in school.

“What he wanted to do, what his plan was and what he did, was to murder children at school and their caretakers,” lead prosecutor Michael Satz said Tuesday. “The appropriate sentence for Nikolas Cruz is the death penalty,” he concluded.

However, defense attorney Melisa McNeill said Cruz “is a brain damaged, broken, mentally ill person, through no fault of his own.” She pointed to the defense’s claim that Cruz’s mother used drugs and drank alcohol while his mother was pregnant with him, saying he was “poisoned” in her womb.

“And in a civilized humane society, do we kill brain damaged, mentally ill, broken people?” McNeill asked Tuesday. “Do we? I hope not.”

Read original article here

Parkland shooter’s death penalty trial nears its end as the prosecution and defense make closing arguments



CNN
 — 

Prosecutors have called on a Florida jury to recommend the Parkland school shooter be put to death, saying in a closing argument Tuesday he meticulously planned the February 2018 massacre, and that the facts of the case outweigh anything in his background that defense attorneys claim warrant a life sentence.

“What he wanted to do, what his plan was and what he did, was to murder children at school and their caretakers,” lead prosecutor Michael Satz said of Nikolas Cruz, who pleaded guilty to 17 counts of murder and 17 counts of attempted murder for the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in which 14 students and three school staff members were killed. “That’s what he wanted to do.”

But Cruz “is a brain damaged, broken, mentally ill person, through no fault of his own,” defense attorney Melisa McNeill said in her own closing argument, pointing to the defense’s claim that Cruz’s mother used drugs and drank alcohol while his mother was pregnant with him, saying he was “poisoned” in her womb.

“And in a civilized humane society, do we kill brain damaged, mentally ill, broken people?” McNeill asked Tuesday. “Do we? I hope not.”

With closing arguments, the monthslong sentencing phase of Cruz’s trial is nearing its end, marking prosecutors’ last chance to convince the jury to recommend a death sentence and defense attorneys’ last opportunity to lobby for life in prison without parole.

Prosecutors have argued Cruz’s decision to commit the deadliest mass shooting at an American high school was premeditated and calculated, while Cruz’s defense attorneys have offered evidence of a lifetime of struggles at home and in school.

Each side was allotted two and a half hours to make their closing arguments.

Jury deliberations are expected to begin Wednesday, during which time jurors will be sequestered, per Broward Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer.

If they choose to recommend a death sentence, the jurors must be unanimous, or Cruz will receive life in prison without the possibility of parole. If the jury does recommend death, the final decision rests with Judge Scherer, who could choose to follow the recommendation or sentence Cruz to life.

In his remarks, Satz outlined prosecutors’ reasoning, including the preparations Cruz made. For a “long time” prior to the shooting, Satz said, Cruz thought about carrying it out.

Revisiting ground covered in the trial, the prosecutor said Cruz researched mass shootings and their perpetrators, including those at a music festival in Las Vegas; at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; at Virginia Tech; and at Colorado’s Columbine High School.

Cruz modified his AR-15 to help improve his marksmanship; he accumulated ammunition and and magazines; and he searched online for information about how long it would take police to respond to a school shooting, Satz said.

Then, the day of, Satz said, Cruz hid his tactical vest in a backpack and took an Uber to the school, wearing a Marjory Stoneman Douglas JROTC polo shirt to blend in. Based on his planning, he told the Uber driver to drop him off at a specific pedestrian gate, knowing it would be open soon before school let out.

“All these details he thought of, and he did,” Satz said.

Satz also detailed a narrative of the shooting, which he called a “systematic massacre,” recounting how the shooter killed or wounded each of his victims, whose families and loved ones filled the courtroom gallery.

Cruz, wearing a striped sweater and flanked by his public defenders, looked on expressionless, occasionally looking down at the table in front of him or talking to one of his attorneys.

“The appropriate sentence for Nikolas Cruz is the death penalty,” Satz concluded.

In her own statement, McNeill stressed to jurors that defense attorneys were not disputing that Cruz deserves to be punished for the shooting.

“We are asking you to punish him and to punish him severely,” she said. “We are asking you to sentence him to prison for the rest of his life, where he will wait to die, either by natural causes or whatever else could possibly happen to him while he’s in prison.”

The 14 slain students were: Alyssa Alhadeff, 14; Martin Duque Anguiano, 14; Nicholas Dworet, 17; Jaime Guttenberg, 14; Luke Hoyer, 15; Cara Loughran, 14; Gina Montalto, 14; Joaquin Oliver, 17; Alaina Petty, 14; Meadow Pollack, 18; Helena Ramsay, 17; Alex Schachter, 14; Carmen Schentrup, 16; and Peter Wang, 14.

Geography teacher Scott Beigel, 35; wrestling coach Chris Hixon, 49; and assistant football coach Aaron Feis, 37, also were killed – each while running toward danger or trying to help students to safety.

The lengthy trial – jury selection began six months ago, in early April – has seen prosecutors and defense attorneys present evidence of aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances, reasons Cruz should or should not be put to death.

The state has pointed to seven aggravating factors, including that the killings were especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, as well as cold, calculated and premeditated, Satz said Tuesday. Other aggravating factors include the fact the defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many people and that he disrupted a lawful government function – in this case, the running of a school.

Together, these aggravating factors “outweigh any mitigation about anything about the defendant’s background or character,” Satz said.

Satz rejected the mitigating circumstances presented during trial by the defense, including that Cruz’s mother smoked or used drugs while pregnant with him. Those factors would not turn someone into a mass murderer, Satz argued, adding it was the jury’s job to weigh the credibility of the defense witnesses who testified to those claims.

Satz cast doubt on the defense’s other proposed mitigators. In response to a claim that Cruz has neurological or intellectual deficits, Satz pointed to the gunman’s ability to carefully research and prepare for the Parkland shooting.

In response to claims Cruz was bullied by his peers, Satz argued Cruz was an aggressor, pointing to testimony that he walked around in high school with a swastika drawn on his backpack, along with the N-word and other explicit language.

“Hate is not a mental disorder,” Satz said.

During trial, prosecutors presented evidence showing the gunman spent months searching online for information about mass shootings and left behind social media comments sharing his express desire to “kill people,” while Google searches illustrated how he sought information about mass shootings. On YouTube, Cruz left comments like “Im going to be a professional school shooter,” and promised to “go on a killing rampage.”

“What one writes,” Satz said, referencing Cruz’s online history Tuesday, “what one says, is a window to someone’s soul.”

In their own case, the public defenders assigned to represent Cruz have asked the jury to take into account his troubled history, from a dysfunctional family life to serious mental and developmental issues, with attorney McNeill describing him earlier in the trial as a “damaged and wounded” person.

“His brain is broken,” she said during her opening statement in August. “He’s a damaged human being.”

Among the first witnesses was Cruz’s older sister, Danielle Woodard, who testified their mother, Brenda Woodard, used drugs and drank alcohol while pregnant with him – something McNeill said made his brain “irretrievably broken” through no fault of his own.

“She introduced me to a life that no child should be introduced to,” she said. “She had no regards for my life or his life.”

The defense also called teachers and educators who spoke to developmental issues and delays Cruz exhibited as a young child, including challenges with vocabulary and motor skills. Various counselors and psychiatrists also testified, offering their observations from years of treating or interacting with Cruz.

Former Broward County school district counselor John Newnham testified Cruz’s academic achievements in elementary school were below expectations. Cruz would describe himself as “stupid” and a “freak,” Newnham said.

Despite these apparent issues, Cruz’s adoptive mother, the late Lynda Cruz, was reluctant to seek help, according to the testimony of a close friend who lived down the street from the family, Trish Devaney Westerlind.

Newnham’s testimony echoed that: While Lynda Cruz was a caring mother, after the death of her husband, she would ask for help but not use the support available.

“She was overwhelmed,” Newnham said. “She appeared to lack some of the basic foundations of positive parenting.”

Westerlind still accepts calls from Cruz and, says though he’s in his 20s, Cruz still talks like an 11-year-old child.

Cruz’s attorneys acknowledged as he grew older he developed a fascination with firearms, and school staff raised concerns about his behavior to authorities, McNeill said.

In June 2014, an adolescent psychiatrist and a school therapist at the school Cruz attended at the time wrote a letter to an outside psychiatrist treating Cruz, in which they expressed concern Cruz had become verbally aggressive and had a “preoccupation with guns” and “dreams of killing others.”

The psychiatrist, Dr. Brett Negin, who testified he treated Cruz between the ages of 13 and 18, said he never received the letter.

As part of the prosecution’s case, family members of the victims were given the opportunity this summer to take the stand and offer raw and emotional testimony about how Cruz’s actions had forever changed their lives. At one point, even members of Cruz’s defense team were brought to tears.

“I feel I can’t truly be happy if I smile,” Max Schachter, the father of 14-year-old victim Alex Schachter, testified in August. “I know that behind that smile is the sharp realization that part of me will always be sad and miserable because Alex isn’t here.”

Before the prosecution rested, jurors also visited the site of the massacre, Marjory Stoneman Douglas’ 1200 building, which had been sealed since the shooting to preserve the crime scene – littered with dried blood, Valentine’s Day cards and students’ belongings – for the trial.

The defense’s case came to an unexpected end last month when – having called just 26 of 80 planned witnesses – public defenders assigned to represent Cruz abruptly rested, leading the judge to admonish the team for what she said was unprofessionalism, resulting in a courtroom squabble between her and the defense (the jury was not present).

Defense attorneys would later file a motion to disqualify the judge for her comments, arguing in part they suggested the judge was not impartial and Cruz’s right to a fair trial had been undermined. Prosecutors disagreed, writing “judicial comments, even of a critical or hostile nature, are not grounds for disqualification.”

Scherer ultimately denied the motion.

Prosecutors then presented their rebuttal, concluding last week following a three-day delay attributed to Hurricane Ian. Their case included footage of Cruz telling clinical neuropsychologist Dr. Robert Denney he chose to carry out the shooting on Valentine’s Day because he “felt like no one loved me, and I didn’t like Valentine’s Day and I wanted to ruin it for everyone.”

Denney, who spent more than 400 hours with the gunman, testified for the prosecution that he concluded Cruz has borderline personality disorder and anti-social personality disorder. But Cruz did not meet the criteria for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, as the defense has contended, Denney testified, accusing Cruz of “grossly exaggerating” his “psychiatric problems” in tests Denney administered.

When read the list of names of the 17 people killed and asked if fetal alcohol spectrum disorder explained their murders, Denney responded “no” each time.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misspelled the first name of defense attorney Melisa McNeill.

Read original article here