Whitman says he wants the truth to come out.
Pros asks who created the dangerous situation. Whitman responds that the dangerous situation was created when the Padillas came after their guns.
Pros: I think we're going to agree on one thing: That it wasn't thought out.
Whitman says it wasn't thought out and that they didn't plan to use the guns.
Pros asks if a dangerous situation was created when you go into an apt with loaded guns.
Finck asks about Mike's demeanor when he gets up off the couch.
Finck brings up his earlier assertion that Wiedrich used deceit in his interview with Whitman. Asks whether detective was using deceit during interview.
Whitman admits that he said that.
Simonson asks whether he was trying to protect Borner. And whether he was remorseful that Borner was involved.
Whitman says he was making aggressive movements and speaking aggressively.
Pros asks if he was remorseful about killing Mike. Asks Whitman if he said, "It couldn't have happened to a better f---er."
Whitman is dismissed. Finck rests.
We'll take a lunch break now.
That is certainly what Borner and Whitman testified to, but I can't speculate as to the strategy of their attys. That will come out in their closing arguments.
Closing arguments are scheduled to begin at 1 p.m.
@Law & Order Fan: Conspiracy to commit murder is not a lesser charge than murder. It is actually pretty much the same thing. Prosecutors are alleging that Borner and Whitman were involved in a conspiracy to murder the Padilla brothers. Conspiracy to commit murder, like murder itself, is a Class AA felony, punishable by a maximum of life in prison without parole. In a conspiracy case, prosecutors have to prove that the defendants were involved in overt acts that furthered the conspiracy rather than prove that they completed the action. If you go to the beginning of the blog, Nick posted the definition of a criminal conspiracy from the North Dakota Century Code, which might help explain it.
@Law & Order Fan: No problem. It's a long blog.
Court is back in session. Ladd Erickson will now deliver his closing argument.
Pros is telling jury that he has been trying to make sense of what happened during shooting since he first heard abou it.
He says he can't. Calls this the "definition of senseless violence."
Pros: All this leaves us with is the law.
He will now go through the elements of the case.
Pros: I'm not charging them with intentional murder.
Pros says the defense has been trying to elevate the standard that the state has to prove.
He says his evidence was about two men who "knowingly hatched a plan." Says they picked up some guns and went to the apt together.
He says the defendants "don't understand common sense" when they say the Padillas are rsponsible for the violence that took place that night.
Pros says he has a hard time believing that this was just about goin over to the apt to buy some weed.
Pros: There is no sense to the facts here. They intended to terrorize.
Key phrase for pros: "Knowingly agreed" to create circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life.
Pros tells jury that if they don't find this, they must consider whether Whitman and Borner "recklessly agreed" to create these circumstances. If so, they must convict them of the lesser charge: Conspiracy to Commit Reckless Endangerment.
Pros: Regardless of their intent, whether or not to use violence, what happened after they entered the apt and the Padillas did not follow their commands to get on the ground, was the resultof a decision on their part to stay in the apt.
Pros says that regardless of their intent, there was a shooting that resulted from a situation they created.
They then tried to avoid being detected. This is another element of a conspiracy.
Pros: Theoretically, there could be a lot of other charges here. There were more people on the other side of that Sheetrock.
Def: I would agree that it is a bizarre set of facts that brought us here.
He thanks them for their attention.
Def starts out by saying that Borner and Whitman are just as innocent as the members of the jury until the state proves otherwise.