OH v. Andrew Griffin Day One

Court attendees and officials (00:00):

(silence).

(00:00)
[inaudible 00:04:29]?

Speaker 1 (00:00):

Yeah, I think no... Yeah.

Court attendees and officials (04:42):

[Inaudible 00:04:32].

(04:42)
We're planning on putting some of the early preliminary people on today and getting through [inaudible 00:04:49].

Speaker 1 (04:47):

[inaudible 00:04:49].

Court attendees and officials (04:58):

I didn't understand that.

Speaker 1 (04:59):

It's mostly a [inaudible 00:05:01].

Court attendees and officials (05:01):

Yeah, yeah, okay, cool. I got you.

Speaker 1 (05:03):

[inaudible 00:05:03]

Court attendees and officials (05:03):

Is the microphone not in your way? Is that good?

Speaker 2 (05:19):

Oh.

Speaker 3 (05:19):

[inaudible 00:05:20].

Speaker 2 (05:19):

Okay.

Speaker 3 (05:19):

However, we believe that no birth control was [inaudible 00:05:29]

Speaker 2 (05:29):

I wondered what your position was going to be on that.

(05:30)
[inaudible 00:05:38].

Speaker 1 (05:30):

What's going on over here?

Speaker 2 (05:30):

[inaudible 00:05:58]

Speaker 4 (08:30):

Pleasure to meet you. And this is Mr. Foler.

(08:30)
[inaudible 00:08:34]

Speaker 2 (08:30):

Well, that's pretty good.

Speaker 4 (08:30):

[inaudible 00:08:42]

Speaker 5 (08:30):

Oh, that's fine. I just talked to him. He said his was fine.

Speaker 4 (08:30):

[inaudible 00:09:20].

Speaker 5 (08:30):

What time is it?

(08:30)
[inaudible 00:09:54].

Speaker 4 (08:30):

It's just warm. Could you crank the A/C?

Speaker 5 (08:30):

I turned it down, it's 71.

Speaker 4 (08:30):

We're going to bake. We had about 30 people in here.

Speaker 5 (12:00):

Oh, it is on 70 now. Someone turned it down again.

Speaker 4 (12:31):

If you're hot now...

Speaker 5 (12:33):

I know. I don't want to get in trouble.

(12:34)
We'll see.

(12:34)
[inaudible 00:12:53].

Speaker 4 (12:34):

[inaudible 00:14:20]

(12:34)
I didn't speak to Lisa.

Speaker 6 (12:34):

Okay, I'll tell him.

(12:34)
[inaudible 00:14:54]

Speaker 5 (12:34):

I'm like, I have to get that.

Speaker 4 (12:34):

That's right.

(12:34)
It's mine.

Speaker 6 (12:34):

[inaudible 00:15:20]

Speaker 2 (15:23):

He said he just wanted to say all he [inaudible 00:15:25] if you don't want the whole thing. So when you look at me because I figured you would, that's all he said.

(15:32)
Chrissy or Ed can say it. I didn't say it. I don't care.

(15:36)
I asked him. I said just all rise. You don't even just want it first initial? He said no.

(15:45)
[inaudible 00:15:56]

Speaker 5 (15:45):

Oh, I know.

Speaker 2 (15:45):

Yeah, but, yeah, [inaudible 00:16:17]

Speaker 5 (15:45):

Oh, yeah.

Speaker 2 (15:45):

Although it's not even 9:00 yet.

Speaker 5 (15:45):

[inaudible 00:16:48]

Speaker 2 (15:45):

Is that okay?

Speaker 5 (16:51):

Oh, yeah. I don't think I would've got in if you hadn't told me that. [inaudible 00:17:01]. Yeah, I was here. I was here 7:30. I got here right before 7:30.

Speaker 2 (17:17):

I wanted to leave earlier.

Speaker 5 (17:19):

I don't have a baby get ready, so.

Speaker 2 (17:21):

Well, I didn't really, but he was very, he wanted me this morning and I felt bad. I still left early enough.

Speaker 5 (17:25):

Is he sleeping [inaudible 00:17:41] in the house?

Speaker 2 (17:25):

Yeah.

Speaker 5 (17:25):

You're lucky.

Speaker 2 (17:49):

He did. I will say on Saturday we went home. We went to the old house.

Speaker 5 (18:00):

Yeah. Oh.

Speaker 2 (18:01):

And he was so excited because we played on the swing set.

Speaker 5 (18:01):

Aww.

Speaker 2 (18:01):

He went "We're home!" And I'm like...

(18:01)
I know he doesn't know. I mean he knows what home is, but I also feel like he just look at it as a place. You know what I'm saying?

Speaker 5 (18:01):

Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (18:11):

I hope that's how he thinks of it anyway, but I keep saying the new house is home. But...

Speaker 5 (18:15):

He'll get it.

Speaker 2 (18:15):

I know.

Speaker 4 (18:15):

[inaudible 00:18:18].

Speaker 5 (18:17):

Thank you. Okay. Is she okay?

Speaker 4 (18:18):

[inaudible 00:18:38]

Speaker 2 (18:44):

I'll tell him, I know.

(18:44)
This is going to be difficult. [inaudible 00:18:45].

(18:44)
Really bad timing.

Speaker 4 (18:44):

Yeah.

Speaker 6 (18:44):

Ah, they're going to a hear him right now.

Speaker 4 (18:44):

[Inaudible 00:18:45]

Speaker 2 (18:44):

I just hope that she'll be distracted this week. I mean, hopefully.

Speaker 5 (19:21):

[inaudible 00:19:22]

Court attendees and officials (19:22):

You missed me.

(19:57)
You don't have to say it out loud.

Speaker 5 (19:57):

Hey, Ned, listen. My good friend Caroline, she [inaudible 00:20:09].

Court attendees and officials (19:57):

We love sweet Caroline.

(19:57)
[inaudible 00:20:38]

Speaker 5 (19:57):

The judge needs you all again.

Speaker 1 (19:57):

Oh. The Judge has a copy of the motion, right? He just said he reviewed and held something up, right?

Speaker 7 (22:12):

[inaudible 00:21:54] They're all back there again. The judge needs to address them...

Court attendees and officials (22:14):

Oh.

Speaker 7 (22:14):

[inaudible 00:22:23].

(22:14)
(Silence).

(22:14)
[inaudible 00:26:37].

Speaker 8 (30:06):

Will you tell security that we're going to get started?

(30:17)
[inaudible 00:30:18] presence of the jury, so [inaudible 00:30:18].

Speaker 9 (30:17):

Yes, sir.

Speaker 8 (30:17):

Kate, I'm going to shut this door.

Court attendees and officials (30:31):

Do you know the...

Speaker 2 (30:31):

Sorry?

Court attendees and officials (30:31):

...WiFi password?

Speaker 2 (30:31):

No.

Court attendees and officials (30:31):

Do you know what the WiFi password is, Christy? I can't remember.

Speaker 5 (30:31):

I wonder if I can see it.

Court attendees and officials (30:31):

[inaudible 00:30:40].

Speaker 5 (30:31):

It's not there, is it? [inaudible 00:30:46].

(30:31)
Let me see.

Speaker 1 (30:31):

Does counsel know?

Speaker 5 (30:31):

She may. I should know it, I'm sorry. I'm looking to see if it's... Oh, yeah, there I got it.

Speaker 1 (30:31):

[inaudible 00:31:03]

Speaker 5 (30:31):

Oh, no, I can't get it. I'm not an administrator.

Speaker 1 (32:57):

[inaudible 00:31:19]. That's the prior one.

Speaker 5 (33:01):

You got to use the [inaudible 00:33:01].

Speaker 1 (33:01):

Nobody knows it.

Court attendees and officials (33:03):

What is the public one?

Speaker 1 (33:03):

Courthouse public wifi. [inaudible 00:33:11].

Court attendees and officials (34:36):

Yeah, thank you.

(34:36)
( silence).

(34:36)
[inaudible 00:34:37].

Speaker 1 (34:36):

[inaudible 00:34:37].

Court attendees and officials (34:36):

Yeah, I know.

Speaker 1 (34:36):

[inaudible 00:35:00].

Court attendees and officials (34:36):

Yeah.

Samuel Shamansky (35:02):

Yeah. Oh, you know what we didn't do? We didn't waive his appearance for that discussion. Just in case.

(35:09)
[inaudible 00:35:25]

Katherine Clark (35:09):

[inaudible 00:35:31]

Mr. Gortz (35:09):

All rise.

Judge Chris Berhalter (35:57):

Please everyone be seated. Calling the case of State of Ohio versus Andrew Griffin, case number 25CR46. Mr. Griffin is present in the courtroom with his counsel, Samuel Shamansky, as well as Katherine Clark. The state of Ohio is represented by prosecuting attorney Kevin Flanagan, assistant prosecuting attorney Joseph Vavra, and assistant attorney general Christopher Kinsler. We are on the record outside the presence of the jury at this time. First, we have State's Motion P. I have a response from the defendant and then an additional reply from the state.

(36:39)
Does the state have anything to add?

Joseph Vavra (36:42):

Nothing additional, Judge.

Judge Chris Berhalter (36:46):

Mr. Shamansky.

Samuel Shamansky (36:48):

Your Honor, with respect to P, nothing. But sir, if you don't mind, with the court's permission, I would like to place on the record that relative to the conference that we had in your chamber on the record, we specifically waived and are now waiving again our client's appearance. He understands the issue and he understands that we moved forward without.

Judge Chris Berhalter (37:10):

All right.

Samuel Shamansky (37:12):

And nothing with respect to P, I'm sorry.

Judge Chris Berhalter (37:16):

I have reviewed again State's Motion P, undertaken a significant amount of research on the same. And based on Evidence Rule 616, State's Motion P is overruled as that information specifically underlying relationships, circumstances and influences operating on a witness are admissible and should be presented to the jury. In regards to the jury view script, that is Court's Exhibit 36. That was submitted to the court by the parties.

(37:54)
Does state have anything to add to that?

Joseph Vavra (37:57):

No, Judge.

Judge Chris Berhalter (38:00):

Does the defendant?

Samuel Shamansky (38:01):

No, sir.

Judge Chris Berhalter (38:03):

And in regards to the instruction on a jury view, I have included that in my preliminary instructions that I will give to the jury this morning. Does the state have anything to add?

Joseph Vavra (38:15):

No, Judge.

Judge Chris Berhalter (38:15):

Mr. Shamansky?

Samuel Shamansky (38:16):

No, we're good, Your Honor.

Judge Chris Berhalter (38:17):

Okay. Thank you. In regards to State's Motion N, where are we at with that, Mr. Vavra? That is scheduling a hearing on the same.

Joseph Vavra (38:28):

Thank you, Judge. After speaking with the attorney who represents that witness, the state believes it appropriate to simply address that on the date and time when we would actually physically call the witness, which we anticipate to be Monday, November 2nd. So we would propose to the court that we would just address that motion and the issues contained therein at that time.

Samuel Shamansky (38:54):

Totally agree with that, Your Honor.

Judge Chris Berhalter (38:56):

All right. Then that has been addressed. Before we bring in the jury, are there any other issues the state of Ohio needs to address?

Joseph Vavra (39:04):

Yes, Judge. We discussed this last week during the voir dire process. At that time, the state moved to dismiss specifications related to the death penalty and somewhat in conjunction with that, we have now discussed dismissing certain charges in the indictment that the state believes are duplicative. And to avoid any confusion, the state would now move at this point to dismiss the following counts contained in the indictment. Count 3, count 4, count 5, count 6, counts 9, count 10, count 11, count 12, and count 15. That would leave the remaining charges as counts 1, 2, 7, 8, and 13.

Judge Chris Berhalter (39:51):

Mr. Shamansky, does the defendant have a position?

Samuel Shamansky (39:55):

We're in favor of that, Your Honor. I think it makes sense to streamline the case as much as possible. Thank you, sir.

Judge Chris Berhalter (40:01):

Then the state is granted to dismiss and, Mr. Vavra, counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and what was the final count?

Joseph Vavra (40:14):

15.

Judge Chris Berhalter (40:14):

15.

Joseph Vavra (40:17):

I'm sorry, Judge, 14. There is no count 15.

Judge Chris Berhalter (40:21):

Okay. Thank you. And this trial is proceeding on counts 1, 2, 7, 8, and 13. Is that correct, Mr. Vavra?

Joseph Vavra (40:32):

It is, Judge.

Judge Chris Berhalter (40:33):

Thank you. Any other issues the state needs to address?

Joseph Vavra (40:37):

No, Judge.

Judge Chris Berhalter (40:38):

Mr. Shamansky, are there any issues you need to address outside the presence of the jury?

Samuel Shamansky (40:42):

No, thank you, sir.

Judge Chris Berhalter (40:43):

All right. Thank you.

(40:43)
Mr. Gortz, if you'll bring in the jury, please.

Mr. Gortz (40:48):

Yes, sir.

Samuel Shamansky (40:48):

[inaudible 00:41:54]

Katherine Clark (40:48):

[inaudible 00:42:40]

Judge Chris Berhalter (43:21):

Please everyone be seated. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I know I just asked you to have a seat, but I'm going to ask you to stand again because the first thing we're going to do is I'm going to place you under oath. So if you all will raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will diligently inquire into and carefully deliberate all matters between Andrew Isaac Griffin and the state of Ohio and diligently and faithfully try to reach a fair and impartial decision in this matter to the best of your skills and understanding without bias or prejudice, so help you God. To take this oath, please now say, " I so swear or affirm."

Jury (44:01):

I so swear or affirm.

Judge Chris Berhalter (44:04):

Was there anyone who could not take that oath? Record will reflect no one has answered in the affirmative. Please be seated. Now, each party is entitled to jurors who approach this case with open minds and agree to keep their minds open until a verdict is reached. Jurors must be free as humanly possible from bias, prejudice, or sympathy and not be influenced by preconceived ideas as to the facts or the law. You will receive the facts from evidence admitted during the trial and/or stipulated by the parties. Instructions of law will be given to you by this court. It will be your sworn duty to apply the instructions of law given to you. You may not substitute what you think the law is or ought to be.

(45:05)
It is important that you be fair and attentive throughout this trial. Do not discuss the case among yourselves or with anyone else and do not permit anyone to discuss it with you or in your presence. Do not form or express any opinion on the case until it is finally submitted to you in its entirety. Additionally, each of you may not discuss this case among yourselves until it is finally submitted to you. You'll receive the opening statements, the evidence, the law from this court and arguments of counsel in that order. It would be unfair to discuss the case among yourselves before you receive everything necessary to reach an informed decision. You must explain this rule prohibiting the discussion of this case to your family and friends.

(46:02)
When the trial is over, you'll be released from this instruction. At that time, you may, but you're not required to discuss the case and your experience as a juror. The court instructs you not to converse with the attorneys, the parties, or the witnesses during the trial. Likewise, the participants in the trial must not converse with you. I have instructed counsel and their respective clients not to converse with you. Therefore, they are not being rude if they do not speak or merely say hi, they are following the orders of this court. If anyone should attempt to discuss this case with you, report the incident to the court or to the bailiff immediately. You must not post anything about this case on the internet or any electronic device, including cell phones. This would include blogs or any social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and others. Any discussion, if discovered, could lead to a mistrial and would severely compromise each party's right to a fair trial.

(47:12)
Do not investigate or attempt to obtain additional information about this case outside of the courtroom. It is highly improper for any one of you to attempt to do so. You are instructed not to read, view, or listen to any report in a newspaper, radio, television, or online on the subject of this trial. Such reports may be incomplete and sometimes are inaccurate. You may only consider and decide this case upon the evidence received at trial. If you should acquire any information from an outside source, you must report it. These admonitions will remain in effect throughout the entirety of this trial. And if they sound familiar, I recited them to you several times during voir dire on Wednesday, and I think you left with me reciting these as the last thing I gave you.

(48:13)
Was there anyone among you who had any issues since we were last together on Wednesday complying with those orders? Please raise your hand. Record will reflect no one has had any issues following those orders.

(48:28)
Now the procedure for this trial is as follows. First, counsel for the state outlines what he expects the evidence will be in opening statements. Counsel for the defendant may then state what the evidence will be in his opening statement. Although in a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent and need not produce any evidence in his defense. These opening statements are not evidence. They are a preview of the claims of each party, designed to help you follow the evidence and understand the case as it is presented. In the presentation of the evidence, the state proceeds first. Thereafter, the defendant may offer evidence and the state may offer rebuttal evidence. The court will then give you further instructions of law and the trial itself concludes with the closing arguments of counsel. Thereafter, you will deliberate on your verdict.

(49:29)
Before you hear the opening statements of counsel and begin to take evidence, I think it would be helpful if you were to have some preliminary instructions to follow in listening to and considering the evidence that you will hear in this case. Later, after you've heard all the evidence and the closing arguments of counsel, I will give you instructions covering additional law, which you are to follow in this case. It is the duty of the judge to instruct you in the law, and it is your duty to follow the law, as I will state to you both now and at the conclusion of the evidence. First, it is your exclusive duty to decide all questions of fact submitted to you. In connection with this duty, you must decide the effect and the value of the evidence. You must not be influenced in your decision by sympathy, prejudice, or passion towards any party, witness, or attorney in the case.

(50:34)
If in these instructions or in the instructions I give you at conclusion of the evidence, any principle or idea is repeated or stated in varying ways, no emphasis thereon is intended and none must be inferred by you. Therefore, you must not single out any particular sentence or individual point or instruction and ignore the others, but rather you are to consider all of the instructions as a whole and are to consider each instruction in relation to all of the instructions.

(51:12)
The fact that I give you some instructions now and some at the conclusion of the evidence has no significance as to their relative importance, nor does the order in which I have given you the instructions. The attorneys for the parties will of course have active roles during the trial. They will make opening statements to you, question witnesses, make objections, and finally will argue the case with closing statements as to the last step before you commence your deliberations. Remember, the attorneys are not witnesses and since it is your duty to decide the case solely on the evidence which you see or hear in this case, you must not consider as evidence any statement of an attorney made during the trial. There is an exception and that is if the attorneys agree to any fact, such agreement, stipulation or admission of fact will be brought to your attention and you may then regard such fact as being conclusively proved without the necessity of further evidence on such fact.

(52:24)
If a question is asked and the objection to the question is sustained, you will then not hear the answer and you must not speculate as to what that answer might have been or the reason for the objection. If an answer is given to a question and the court then grants a motion to strike that answer, you are to completely disregard such question and answer and not consider them for any purpose. A question in and of itself is not evidence and may be considered by you only as it supplies meaning to the answer given by the witness.

(53:05)
Any fact in this case may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence means exactly what the name implies, that it is evidence which directly proves a fact without having to infer that fact from some other fact. Direct evidence is usually the testimony given by a witness who has seen or heard the facts to which he or she testifies. It includes exhibits admitted into evidence during the trial. Circumstantial evidence on the other hand is proof of facts by direct evidence from which you may reasonably infer a fact in question. An example of the differences between direct and circumstantial evidence is as follows.

(53:52)
If the issue in the case is whether Johnny ate the cherry pie, testimony by a witness that he saw Johnny put the pie in his mouth and eat it would be direct evidence of that fact. However, if a witness testifies that he arrived in the kitchen only to see Johnny standing there with an empty pie tin in his hand and cherry pie on his face, that would be circumstantial evidence of the fact that Johnny ate the pie. The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence as to the degree of proof required and the facts may be proven by either type of evidence or a combination of them. Each is accepted as a reasonable method of proof and each is respected for such convincing force as it may carry.

(54:45)
As jurors, you have the sole and exclusive duty to decide the credibility of the witnesses who will testify in this case. Which simply means that it is you who must decide whether to believe or disbelieve a particular witness and how much weight, if any, you are to give to their testimony of each witness. In determining these questions, you will apply the test of truthfulness which you apply in your daily lives. These tests include the appearance of each witness on the stand, his or her manner of testifying, the reasonableness of their testimony, the opportunity he or she had to see, hear, and know the things concerning which they testify, his or her accuracy of memory, frankness or lack of it, intelligence, interest and bias, if any, together with all the facts and circumstances surrounding all the testimony. Applying these tests, you will assign to the testimony of each witness such weight as you, the jury, deem proper.

(55:57)
You are not required to believe the testimony of any witness simply because it was given under oath. You may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the testimony of any witness. You should not decide any issue of fact merely on the number of witnesses who testify on each side of such an issue. Rather, the final test in judging evidence would be the force and the weight of the evidence, regardless of the number of witnesses on each side of the issue. The testimony of one witness believed by you is sufficient to prove any fact.

(56:38)
Also, discrepancies in a witness's testimony between his testimony and that of others, if there is any discrepancy, does not necessarily mean that you should disbelieve the witness, as people commonly forget facts or recollect them erroneously after the passage of time. You are certainly aware of the fact that two persons who are witnesses to an incident may often see or hear it differently. In considering a discrepancy in a witness's testimony, you should consider whether such discrepancy concerns an important fact or a trivial one.

(57:19)
If you conclude that a witness has willfully lied in his or her testimony as to a material fact, you may distrust all of his or her testimony and you would then have the right to reject all of his or her testimony, unless from all the evidence you believe that the probability of truth favors his or her testimony in other particulars.

(57:46)
This court will permit those jurors who desire to take notes during the trial to do so. Underneath you is a notepad with two pens. Those are yours throughout the course of the trial. They will remain in this courtroom. You will only take them back to the jury room once you begin to deliberate. With you being permitted to take notes, keep in mind that no juror is required to take any notes. The taking of notes is entirely a matter of personal choice for each juror. The fact that the notes taken by a juror support his recollection in no way makes his or her memory more reliable than that of the jurors who do not take notes. Do not let the taking of notes divert your attention from what is being said or what is happening in the courtroom during the trial. Some persons believe that taking notes is not helpful because it may distract a person's attention and interfere with hearing all the evidence.

(58:54)
All notes are confidential and for the consideration of the jury only. Each note taker will leave his notes on the chair or underneath the chair during all recesses and until deliberations begin. At that time, you'll be allowed to take your notes into the jury room. Upon the conclusion of this trial, all notes will be returned to the bailiff for destruction at the time the jury is discharged. You will only be permitted to begin taking notes after opening statements and the jury view occurs. You will note that these proceedings are being broadcast and photographed by members of the news media. However, you will not be. You must not allow this fact to divert your attention from this case or to interfere with your duties as jurors. You are not allowed to talk to members of the media during this trial and members of the media are not permitted to contact you. Should any member of the media contact you, you should notify the bailiff immediately.

(01:00:05)
Now ladies and gentlemen, this concludes my preliminary instructions. I hope that they have been of some assistance to you in listening to and considering the evidence. Please keep these instructions in mind as you listen to the evidence and the statements of counsel. I may give you additional instructions during the trial and when the evidence is concluded, I will give you additional instructions on the law that you are to follow together with the instructions that you have just heard and any other instruction that is given during the trial.

(01:00:41)
At this time, counsel for the parties may have an opening statement. Opening statements of counsel are concise and orderly descriptions of each side's claims and defenses and the evidence counsel expects to produce in support of those claims and defenses. They are not evidence. Each side will address you once during opening statements. The state will proceed first. Immediately after opening statements, you will be transported for a jury view. You'll be taken to the location involved in this case. You'll remain together under the supervision of the bailiff until you return to the courtroom. Counsel and the parties have decided not to accompany you. The bailiff may call your attention to certain objects requested by counsel.

(01:01:36)
What you observe outside this courtroom is not evidence. Conditions may have changed since the time of the events in this case. The evidence of the physical appearance of the scene must come to you from the witness stand. The only purpose of your visit is to help you understand the evidence as it's presented in this courtroom. You are not permitted to discuss with each other anything about this jury view while it is occurring, nor are you permitted to ask any questions during the jury view. And again, at this time, we will proceed with opening statements.

(01:02:17)
Does the state of Ohio have an opening statement?

Joseph Vavra (01:02:20):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge Chris Berhalter (01:02:21):

Then, Mr. Vavra, you may proceed.

Joseph Vavra (01:02:22):

May I step up?

Judge Chris Berhalter (01:02:24):

Yes.

Joseph Vavra (01:02:27):

May it please the court, counsel for the defense, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Good morning. Opening statement is a chance for the attorneys to address you directly and to preview for you the evidence that you're going to hear. The judge used the word concise. I'm going to do my best, but what you're going to find out is this was an investigation that spanned about five years. So I'm going to try to summarize this evidence as best I can for you. I'm going to ask you to stick with me.

(01:03:04)
On the morning of Tuesday, September 21, 2021, around 7:00 AM, Belmont County 911 received multiple calls of a structure fire on Trails End Drive in Belmont, Ohio. One call came from a neighbor. Two calls came from employees of Stonebrakers Garage, which is across the street from where the fire was occurring. The callers weren't sure if anyone was inside, what the situation was. The employees from Stonebrakers went to the house. Two of the individuals got there. They attempted to get access to the front door. Front door was locked. They could see smoke inside, couldn't make contact, beat on the door, honked their car horn, got no response.

(01:03:58)
These two individuals then actually broke out one of the windows in the front of the house to, again, try to make contact. No luck. They then travel around to the back of the house where there's a door leading to the backyard and they found that door to be unlocked. They open it. The room is filled with smoke. They can't see inside. One of the individuals attempts to go in, Mr. Stonebraker himself, and he can't make it more than a step or two because of how bad the smoke is. John Phillips, who is another one of the employees who called 911, he's also a firefighter, a volunteer firefighter in his spare time. He comes around to the back and he's able to get on his hands and knees. He crawls, he has a flashlight on his phone, enters the home and is actually able to find a deceased female in the house. He drags her out, sets her on the back porch. It is clear and evident that she is no longer with us.

(01:05:12)
He then doesn't see anything else when he's in there, so he doesn't go back in. He waits for other firefighters to arrive. Multiple fire departments respond, as well as the sheriff's office at this point. Jeremy Wright, captain at Cumberland Trail Fire Department will testify and tell you that he, along with others, enter the house as well. When they enter the house, he finds a male individual inside on the ground. He drags that individual out and sets him on the back porch. Once again, it is clear and evident that this individual is no longer with us. They then turn their attention to putting out the fire. Eventually, they're able to do so.

(01:06:07)
And because we know that we have two deceased individuals, the Belmont County coroner is called in. When she arrives, she notices what she believes to be bullet holes on both victims in their head, multiple bullet wounds. At this point, we're no longer talking about a fire and somebody potentially dying as a result of the fire. We are talking about murder. The investigation shifts. Someone from the State Fire Marshal's Office comes in and conducts an investigation, looks around the house, and he finds that there are actually four points where a fire was started or attempted to be started in the home. One is a couch in the living room where our two deceased bodies were found. A hallway closet is a second source of fire. A master bedroom is a third source of fire. And a fourth source of fire was the oven in the kitchen. Now, that fire never ignited and you'll hear details about explaining what happened there, but it was a potential source for fire.

(01:07:17)
You'll also hear testimony about how fire complicates a crime scene and what all occurs from that. Because you're talking about, one, the damage the fire and smoke do on their own. You're talking about multiple individuals entering the home, firefighters who try to put the fire out. And then you're also talking about the water damage that's occurring. So you'll hear testimony about how those things affect the crime scene, affect collection of evidence, things like that.

(01:07:53)
Additionally, I mentioned firefighters, I mentioned state fire marshal, sheriff's office, coroner, BCI is called, Bureau of Criminal Investigation, they're a state agency and they investigate any crimes occurring in the state property. And in a case like this involving murder, they are called in to investigate as well. They take control of the crime scene to process it. Now, in the days following this, our two deceased individuals, Tom and Angela Strussion, are taken for autopsies. And in that process, we learned that Angela Strussion was shot three times in the head. We learned that Tom Strussion was shot twice in the head and once in his upper right shoulder area in the back.

(01:08:46)
Last week, defense counsel told you there's not a question that a murder occurred, and I agree with that. There's no question here if these two were murdered. The question is who did it? Who was responsible? The Belmont County Sheriff's Office and BCI did as best they could with the scene in collecting evidence, testing samples, looking for DNA, looking for fingerprints. All those attempts came up empty. No such luck.

(01:09:23)
I want to pause here and just tell you about Tom and Angela Strussion and who they were a little bit. Angela Strussion did not grow up in this area. She grew up in the South, educated, went to college, met Tom. They decided to move here. Tom is a businessman, he's a restaurateur. They were running two businesses at the time of their death, Salsa Joe's in Belmont, Ohio and Salsa Joe's in Elm Grove, Ohio. In addition to that, Angela also held down a full-time job. She was more of the behind the scenes person with the businesses, controlled a lot of books, finances-

Mr. Joseph Vavra (01:10:00):

... the behind-the-scenes person with the businesses, controlled a lot of the books, finances, things like that. Tom was more of the face of the businesses. He was president at the restaurants and dealt with customers, and things like that. He was also assisting in cooking a lot of the food that was served. Throughout the course of this trial, you're going to hear some things that may make you not like Tom Strussion. He wasn't faithful to his wife, and he wasn't the most honest businessman and the most honest business partner. You may not like him because of that, and that's okay. Not liking him because of those things doesn't mean he should be murdered.

(01:10:47)
Again, our officers were running on every lead they could. They investigated multiple folks. Their investigation actually turned up two individuals who were actually extorting Tom Strussion for money. Those folks were prosecuted. However, they were cleared of any involvement in this situation. The officers with our sheriff's department, as well as BCI, as well as the FBI, became involved. They began looking at cellphone towers, phone records. Seeing who was present or what phones were present at the scene at the time that we believe this to have occurred. As you can imagine, this location you'll see is right next to Interstate 70. So, these towers are picking up every car that's driving by. It's processing a lot of people, a lot of information. They are sifting through this, trying to make connections, not getting very far at this point.

(01:11:49)
Early on in the investigation, Andrew Griffin is identified as a person of interest. Andrew Griffin is from Oklahoma. He was in this area. He met Tom and Angela Strussion. He became involved in their businesses, and actually became a partner in running the Salsa Joe's Elm Grove location. When investigators first looked at him, they looked at his cellphone records. They saw that his cellphone was in Oklahoma at the time these events occurred. Based on that, he was somewhat set aside. They believed that that may have shown he wasn't here, so he was set aside. At that point, nothing else was really pointing in his direction. They continued investigating. They investigated an entire rogues gallery of usual suspects in Belmont County, in the Wheeling area, and were coming up empty. At a certain point in the spring of 2023, Chief Detective Ryan Allar says, "You know what? I'm going to call this Andrew Griffin guy. We're not getting anywhere. He was a business partner. He may be able to point us in the direction." Reaches out, doesn't receive a response.

(01:13:12)
In June, July of '23 in this timeframe, Detective Allar learns from Lisa Balog, who is Tom Strussion's sister, you'll hear testimony from her, informs them that, "Hey, I heard that Andrew Griffin is missing in Oklahoma." Detective Allar looks into this and finds out yes, in fact, he is reported missing in Oklahoma. And the investigation indicates that he took a work truck and crossed the border into Mexico and was not heard from right there. This piqued the investigator's interest. It was at this time as well that they reached out to Stacey Griffin. Stacey Griffin is the ex-wife of Andrew Griffin. At the time, July of 2023, they were estranged. They reach out to her and speak with her. And during this part of the investigation and speaking with her, they learned that Brett Cole is Andrew Griffin's best friend. You're going to hear a lot about Brett Cole in this trial. He's not a nice guy. He is currently serving life in prison for child rape. He's not somebody to like, but he became someone of interest in this.

(01:14:47)
Investigators subpoenaed his phone records to see where this leads. FBI Analyst Brian Warcholak looks at his phone records and he finds something odd in looking at it, something that doesn't look like everything else. On the morning of September 21, 2021, the same morning, Tom and Angela were found, he finds a strange number, doesn't look like any other numbers, calls Brett Cole. And he calls him at 7:03 Central Time, which would've been about an hour after the bodies were found. This call was placed from Jackson, Tennessee, and it became something of interest. It was 24 seconds in duration, very short. And Analyst Warcholak reached out to Special Agent Bryan Lacy with the FBI. Agent Lacy was the one looking at a lot of the cellphone tower information in this area. He says, "Hey, it might not be anything, but check out this number, this number that placed this call on Brett Cole. Seems odd, let's look at it." Agent Lacy looks at it and finds that this phone number, this phone was pinging off cell towers, the cell towers nearest Tom and Angela Strussion's house at the time we believe the murders occurred.

(01:16:17)
This phone now becomes the focus of the investigation. They're able to subpoena all the records for this phone. They find that this phone first registered, first time ever registered with a cellphone tower in Marion, Illinois on September 19th, 2021 at 5:48 PM Central Time. They then tracked the path of this phone. This phone goes directly from Marion, Illinois to Belmont, Ohio, when it arrives at 3:43 AM Eastern Time on September 20th, 2021. This phone then continues hitting cell towers surrounding the Strussion's home the entirety of that day. Now, we know from Angela Strussion's cellphone information that she was at home most of the day. You'll hear Lisa Balog testify to that as well. She was actually with her at the house that day. We know from Tom Strussion's phone records and other information that he was out and about. He was at the Salsa Joe's Elm Grove location that evening of the 20th of September until about 10:00 PM. Phone data shows his phone then leaving that area, heading home.

(01:17:41)
At about 10:30 PM, his phone connects to his house wifi. So, we know that he is in the home. We know that Angela is in the home. For the next about one hour, all three phones are there, hitting off these same towers until 11:37 PM. That is when our mystery phone leaves that house, leaves that area, and immediately heads west on Interstate 70. That phone is tracked on a path heading back to the state of Oklahoma, a path that evidence will show Andrew Griffin had utilized in the past. That phone is either turned off or shut off at 10:40 AM Central Time in Benton, Arkansas. It's never used again. That phone exists for about 40 hours. It exists from 5:48 PM, when it's activated on September 19th, until it's turned off or dies on September 21 at 10:40 AM. It existed to travel from Marion, Illinois to Belmont County back towards Oklahoma. Now, Benton, Arkansas is where it shuts off about 10:40. That is about three hours from Andrew Griffin's home in Whitesboro, Oklahoma. So if the State's theory means anything, he should arrive back home at about 1:40 PM.

(01:19:27)
Now, I mentioned that phone had one purpose: traveling to Belmont County and then leaving. I forgot about a second purpose, because the second purpose was he called Brett Cole the morning that these murders occurred. Now, Brett Cole's phone information shows that after receiving that call, he made a couple of calls. He called Amy Chase and he called Dalton Ray. We'll talk about them later. As mentioned, Andrew Griffin's phone was in Oklahoma this entire time. On September 19th, it's nears home in Whitesboro. After the 19th, it then travels to Hugo, Oklahoma. That's where Brett Cole lives. It then stays in and around that area until our mystery phone calls Brett Cole on September 21, and then it travels back to Andrew Griffin's phone in Whitesboro. It arrives there at approximately, I believe, 10:00 AM. Will remain stationary, inactive, doesn't do much of anything until 1:48 PM Central Time, when it starts making multiple calls to multiple individuals.

(01:21:02)
Now, you might ask what was Andrew Griffin's phone doing activity-wise on September 19th and September 20th? It wasn't doing much of anything. You'll see that on September 18th, it was making a lot of calls, a lot of activity. On September 19th, it placed zero calls. On September 20th, it placed zero calls. On September 21, at 1:48 PM, it begins making multiple calls. Now, there's a few text messages in there and we'll hear about that. We'll also hear that any calls coming into that phone for those two dates went completely unanswered. They went to voicemails. Nobody picked up the phone. Nobody said hello. Going back to our mystery phone, detectives looked at that tower that had hit in Marion, Illinois, noticed a couple areas of interest. There was a Cricket phone store there and there was Walmart there.

(01:22:05)
They reach out to Cricket, nothing there. Our detectives reach out to Walmart, and here they find where that phone was purchased. They obtained a receipt for September 19th at 5:05 PM, where a cellphone, a phone card to put minutes on the phone, and a portable charger were purchased with cash. Now, they don't come upon this information until July of 2024. So, we're almost three years removed from our murder. They attempt to get video of this purchase in September of 2021, but they're told, "Hey, sorry guys, we don't have it anymore. We don't keep our video that long." Detectives are able to obtain the registration information for this phone. It was registered in the names of a James Jody, and given an address in Knoxville, Tennessee. Detective Allar traveled to this address, could not find anyone named James Jody. The charger that was purchased became a little interesting, and our officers were able to identify and get a picture of it, what it would look like in Walmart's website if you were to look it up and purchase it that way.

(01:23:27)
Now, talking about Stacey Griffin again, ex-spouse of Andrew Griffin, she will testify. She will testify regarding some comments made during the marriage between she and Mr. Griffin. She will testify that once she began talking to officers, they asked her to keep an eye out for things. She will testify that in a car that she possessed that had previously been used by Mr. Griffin, she found a cellphone and a tracking device. She turned those over to our officers. You will find that the cellphone belonged to Brett Cole. You will find that the tracking device was used to track Tom Strussion's vehicle in the months of May and June of 2021.

(01:24:20)
I mentioned the charger being of interest. Detective Allar reached out to Ms. Griffin and said, "Hey, can you keep an eye out for a charger, a portable phone charger?" Didn't show her a picture of it, didn't tell her how it looked, nothing like that. She takes a look, gets a hold of it and says, "Hey, wait, I found one." Takes a picture of it, sends it to him. Same exact charger purchased in Marion, Illinois at Walmart. Make, model, looks the same. She provided it to Detective Allar. We have it in evidence. It's something you'll be able to see and look at. In the more recent past, you'll hear some testimony from Ms. Griffin that there were some moves, things being boxed up, not finding things right away. You'll hear some testimony from her that recently, this past summer, she found a couple more cellphones, gave them to our detectives. Our detectives searched them, were able to establish that they belonged to Mr. Griffin prior to the murder. So, they were older phones, this was sitting around the house.

(01:25:26)
However, one item of interest from these phones when the detectives looked it up is they found that Mr. Griffin had a Facebook friend by the name of James Jody. Now, we know the path our phone traveled. We don't know how it was traveling. Was it in a truck? Was it in a car? What was the situation there? We turned back to Brett Cole. In searching him, our detectives applied for search warrants to Facebook. They find Facebook messages in an exchange on September 13th of 2021, about a week prior to our murders, between Brett Cole and Corey White. Corey White lives in Texas. He is advertising and selling a motorcycle. There's some talk between the two of them about price. They said, "I want $3,000." Brett Cole asks him specifically in this text exchange, or Facebook exchange, "Will it make a long trip?"

(01:26:39)
Corey White responds, "Oh yeah, it's in tip-top shape." That day, November... I'm sorry. September 13, 2021, Brett Cole and another individual we soon learn as Dalton Ray, travels to Corey White's home in Texas to purchase this motorcycle. While Brett Cole is there physically, the phone records show that Andrew Griffin and he spoke four times on the cellphone. Through part of this, Mr. Griffin's bank records will come up. They were subpoenaed as well. You will hear and see that on August 31, he withdrew $5,000 cash from the bank. You will hear that the sale of this motorcycle was $3,000 cash on September 13, 2021. Mr. White is a cautious man. He took photographs of the individuals, Mr. Ray and Mr. Cole, with the motorcycle loading it on or loading it up when they took it out. You'll see the registration that was filled out for this vehicle to transfer the title. You'll see that the transferee, the person it's going to, was filled out, somebody named James Fisher from Mississippi. Investigators are never able to confirm whether that person exists.

(01:28:11)
The phone number written down on that document is the exact same phone number that Andrew Griffin had at the time, except one digit was changed. Title was never transferred. That bike remained in Corey White's name for quite some time after these events. I mentioned Dalton Ray. He is present when this bike is purchased. He's mentioned as being around Mr. Cole at the time this was going on. Detectives made attempts to reach out to him. They were not successful. You will hear about that. However, they did confirm that in Andrew Griffin's bank records, there were multiple checks written out to Dalton Ray. So, we know they knew each other. We know Mr. Ray was around.

(01:29:09)
Now, turning back to our motorcycle and our cellphone, detectives knew the path of travel, and they knew the times that this motorcycle was hitting cellphone towers on its travel, and you're going to see all this information. They attempted to get some kind of photograph or video of this motorcycle. And again, given the passage of time, they knew this was going to be a challenge. They were coming up empty. They located a toll bridge that goes from Indiana to Kentucky to the time that the motorcycle should be traveling somewhere in that area on September 19th, 2021. In August of 2024, they subpoena records from Riverland. That's who controls these cameras, and processes, and plates that are rent because you're going to learn that's what they're looking for. It was explained to our detectives that, "We don't have any motorcycles at this time. The license plate was obscured or hidden. We wouldn't have picked it up anyway, and our system would've gotten rid of it. We don't have anything."

(01:30:41)
That was the status quo until January of 2026, this January. Our detectives began talking to a Karen Nakonis. This is a different fresh set of eyes. She looked... The license plate might not have been read, but if there's footage, it still exists. It's just in a different place than they were looking before. She is able to look back and find in their storage. That at 10:52 PM, a motorcycle and a rider in a helmet crossed that bridge in this photograph. We have that photograph. You will see that photograph. You will be able to look at pictures of that motorcycle and compare it to pictures of the motorcycle that Corey White sold to Brett Cole, and you will find that... Now... Oklahoma area, at the time these murders occurred. We also found that there was one bank transaction on his banking account, his credit/debit card, that occurred during this timeframe as well, September 20th, 2021. There was a purchase at a Shell gas station in Hugo, Oklahoma.

(01:32:16)
Now, I've mentioned Amy Chase before. Cole, at the time that she was... Someone set with him off and on at his home in Hugo, Oklahoma, along with Dalton Ray from time to time. She's going to tell you that at the time that we're talking about, she caught Brett Cole with two phones. As his girlfriend at the time, she kind of panicked. "What the heck? What's the second phone for? You're stepping out on me? What's going on here?" She confronts him about that, and she learns that Mr. Cole had two phones because one belonged to Andrew Griffin. Andrew Griffin was in Oklahoma. Had Andrew Griffin's credit/debit card at the time and used it to make a purchase at a gas station in Hugo, Oklahoma.

(01:33:40)
At this point, Amy Chase is also interested in [inaudible 01:33:48], so the detectives look at her phone records. They find her phone activity during this time and confirmed that she was in and around Hugo as expected. You'll also hear testimony that her phone and Mr. Griffin's phone were in the same locations around Hugo at the time. You'll hear her testify that she didn't see Andrew Griffin during this time, but his phone was there. He just wasn't. You'll hear specifically that her phone and Andrew Griffin's phone were hitting off a tower near a farm and feed store in Grant, Oklahoma. You will see at the same time, there was a purchase at Grant, Oklahoma made by Brett Cole, who signed the credit card receipt with his name, and you'll see the exact time that that occurred. So Brett Cole was there, and Amy Chase was there, and Andrew Griffin's phone was there.

(01:34:47)
I mentioned Brett Cole log times. I told you you're going to hear a lot about him. In December of 2024, you'll hear he was in federal prison in Illinois at the time, serving his life sentence. Our detectives were able to secure and bring him back here, and he spoke to our detectives. You're going to hear that he was given immunity to give information. You're also going to hear again, he's already doing life in prison. You're also going to hear that our investigators indicate while he may have... No evidence indicates he ever left the state of Oklahoma. Now, one of the things Mr. Cole mentions to our defendant is that, "Hey, that motorcycle helmet, I still have it. It's at my mom's house in Oklahoma." Sure enough, detectives secure the motorcycle helmet from Brett Cole's mom's house in Oklahoma. Once they receive it, they send it to a place called Pure Gold Forensics in California to see if there's any evidence, any DNA, anything that might link [inaudible 01:36:06].

(01:36:05)
They conduct an investigation. They send their results to Cybergenetics, which is another DNA place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Cybergenetics will confirm that Mr. Griffin's DNA was found inside that motorcycle helmet. Now, you may be thinking why would Mr. Griffin do this? What's the motive? I mentioned before when Mr. Griffin came here from Oklahoma, he met Tom and Angela, and struck up a relationship. Decided that he was going to go into business with Tom and Angela. They signed a written agreement on March 17th, 2021, indicating that they're 50/50 partners with Salsa Joe's Elm Grove. Prior to that, in January of 2021, Mr. Griffin's bank records said that he wrote a check to Tom and Angela's business, AJS Holdings, in the amount of $10,000, which was deposited into the Belmont Salsa Joe's location. So, that's his initial investment. From March of 2021 until July of 2021, Mr. Griffin invests another, roughly, $96,000, in AJS Holdings, the Salsa Joe's Elm Grove location.

(01:37:50)
As far as getting money out of that business during this timeframe, zero. No withdrawals, no draws, nothing. Now, he did receive about six or seven paychecks. He was a manager at that business, so he was getting a weekly paycheck for about seven weeks, $1,000 a week for that. But as far as actually getting investment back? None. You will learn that Salsa Joe's Elm Grove was open from about mid to late May until the time that Tom and Angela passed. In that timeframe, the business took in about $90,000 in cash sales. There were other sales, credit cards, [inaudible 01:38:36], things like that. Cash that came into that business. You will find that Tom Strussion is the one who controlled the cash that came in, and you will find that at the time Andrew was involved in the business, zero cash went into AJS Holding accounts. From about the 4th of July 2021 until the August 22, 23 of 2021, Mr. Griffin was not present there. He was, I believe, down south in Oklahoma. And during this time, the business, that Elm Grove wasn't doing very well to begin with. During this time, it got even worse. When Mr. Griffin returns, he has a meeting on August 23 with Tom Strussion at the business and is told, "Hey, we're done. Business, we're going to shut this place down. We're done. We're not making any money." So he offers to buy him out and say, "Hey, I'll buy it." Mr. Griffin offers to buy him out to keep the business going, and is told, "No, not an option." The next day, August 24, Tom and Angela Strussion take him off the AJS Holdings account without telling him. We know this because Mr. Griffin calls Commonwealth Savings Bank with this account is and say, "Hey, what the heck? I can't get access." And is told by Pam McKinnon about [inaudible 01:40:10]. "Well, you got to talk to them about it because they're the ones who took you off."

(01:40:16)
A few days later, he returns to Oklahoma. So at this point, he's contributed about $106,000 to this business and has received nothing on his return, save $7,000 in income from being the manager. That's what we're talking about here as a motive: money and revenge.

(01:40:45)
Now, we're going to present to you some other witnesses from Oklahoma, some other acquaintances of Mr. Griffin. They're going to talk to you about discussions they had with him about these murders. And you're going to hear some phone calls, some wiretaps, because at one point, our officers secured a wiretap warrant from Mr. Griffin's phone. You're going to be able to hear his own comments and statements on these wiretaps. One individual that you're going to hear from, from Oklahoma, is Arthur Cole. Arthur Cole is elderly. He's not in good health. Physically, he's not going to be able to be here. And we took his deposition prior to this trial last summer in 2025, and you're going to be able to watch him. You're going to be able to look at him. He sat in that chair there, and testified, and was cross-examined. Arthur Cole is Brett Cole's grandfather. He's also a surrogate grandfather to Andrew Griffin. He looked at Andrew as a grandson, Andrew looked at him as a grandfather.

(01:41:57)
His wife, Arthur Cole's wife, actually assisted when Andrew Griffin's mother gave birth to him. She was there in the room and helped that process happen. When they were growing up, he was always around. Arthur Cole raised him like a grandson. Arthur Cole will talk about how there were two different versions of Andrew. There was a version of Andrew prior to the time he spent in Belmont County, and there was the version of him after he returned, and how different that version was. You're also going to hear that at one point, Mr. Griffin came to pick Mr. Cole up to drive around. This is something he did all the time, get in the car, drive and talk, go to different hunting locations and things like that. On this particular occasion, Mr. Griffin was on the phone talking to somebody, and Arthur believed he was talking to Brett Cole, his grandson.

(01:42:57)
And Arthur overheard the conversation, and he heard Andrew Griffin say, "Well, I had to go get my money and I killed two people." After that conversation, Mr. Cole instructed Mr. Griffin that he was no longer welcome to his house, that he was not to come around. He'll tell you that Mr. Griffin did come around a couple days later to tell them goodbye. And it was shortly after that, that Mr. Griffin left the area and appeared to go to the Mexico. You'll hear more details about that, and how he was eventually returning to Mexico, and we'll delve into that now.

(01:43:52)
So at the start of this, and somewhat last week, we talked about there's no question these murders happened. There's no question his house was set on fire. The question is, who did it? The State's going to present a lot of evidence, a lot of witnesses, a lot of undisputed data information, cell phone towers and things like that. That information, plus what Arthur Cole tells you he heard, is enough for you to convict Mr. Griffin of murder. I think what you're going to find though, at the end of the day, is the State's going to need you a lot more than that. Thank you.

Judge (01:44:31):

Mr. Shamansky.

Mr. Samuel Shamansky (01:44:35):

Thank you, Judge. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, counsel for the government. When I, Kate and I, should say, participated in voir dire, we explained to you that we didn't have a burden. That remains true today. That doesn't mean we're not going to challenge this evidence that the government claims proves beyond a reasonable doubt-

Speaker 10 (01:45:00):

...Proves beyond a reasonable doubt that our client, Andrew Isaac Griffin, in cold blood, over a hundred grand supposedly, took the lives of two innocent Belmont County citizens.

(01:45:14)
Now, even though we have no burden, let me guarantee you what we're going to prove. We're going to prove the evidence upon which the government relies points to a conspiracy for sure, but it is a conspiracy that does not involve Andrew Griffin. It involves one of the lowest, most unreliable scumbags of the earth. That is a man who rapes a child, receives, as he should, life in prison, who then makes a deal with the government to save his own pitiful hide.

(01:46:15)
That's just one of the characters that the government wants you to rely and act upon. They want you to believe somehow that this man is trustworthy, all because of some electronic data, the reliability of which, God knows what.

(01:46:33)
Secondarily, the government wants you to believe in the likes of Stacy Griffin, a woman who has also been immunized. And if you believe the government's version of facts in this case, she's as guilty of murdering two people as her husband. Same with Mr. Cole. And what do they get? A pass. Why do they get a pass? Because the government believes that they've got to prove this case, and that they've got to prove that Andrew Griffin did it. And they're going to rely upon two of the most unreliable characters you will ever hear.

(01:47:13)
Mark my words, this is what we're going to establish.

(01:47:18)
The government has done a workman-like job in running down electronic leads, cell towers, none of which will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew Griffin was anywhere near the Strussion [inaudible 01:47:37] perished.

(01:47:39)
There's zero proof of who committed these two murders, who set this house on fire. I should say there's zero forensic proof. The scene was not properly analyzed. And when BCI came up with snake eyes, they did nothing further to try to establish who was in that house, who pulled the trigger, and who lit the place on fire.

(01:48:07)
This is a case built on innuendo and it's a case built on bought-and-paid-for testimony, which is the most unreliable testimony on the face of the earth. And you'll hear right out of Brett Cole's mouth, "What's in it for me? What are you going to do for me? If I have to take this stand, I'm going to help my brother."

(01:48:29)
And then lo and behold, the promises start coming, fast and furious.

(01:48:36)
And when all this testimony is over, you're going to have to ask yourself, are you going to bet the farm on the likes of a Brett Cole and Stacy Griffin in a case where there is not one piece of direct evidence that ties Andrew to this murder or to these murders? That's what you have to ask yourself, because all this chicanery, all this conspiratorial conduct all occurred behind his back and he's nothing more than a fall guy.

(01:49:10)
As you listen to this evidence, you evaluate the likes of a child rapist and an angry ex-wife, find our client not guilty. Thank you.

(01:49:25)
Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge (01:49:29):

Thank you.

(01:49:29)
All right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you're going to retire to the jury room, get a drink, use

‍