DA Michael Allen:…has to do with sanity. Specifically, the defendant’s sanity. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court will give you jury instructions. One specific jury instruction will talk specifically about insanity.
It will read that as to the question of sanity, the defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the acts if she was so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the acts as to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to that act. Or she suffered from a condition of mind caused by a mental disease or defect that prevented her from forming a culpable mental state that is an essential element of a crime charged. A culpable mental state is like intentional or knowingly.
Evidence, in this case, will show that she could distinguish between right and wrong and that she was absolutely capable of forming the specific intent required for these charges. Those instructions will go on to give specific guidance on what qualifies as a mental disease or defect.
It says care should be taken to [not] confuse mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, action growing out of anger, revenge, or hatred; or other motives and kindred evil conditions. Because when an act is induced by any of these causes—the ones that I have just listed—the person is accountable to the law. Meaning that person can be found guilty for committing crimes charged.
You should consider the evidence you will hear in this case in context with that instruction.
This case is about two people.
{skipped portion describing physical elements of crime}
(17:08) All of her actions were purposely designed by her to distance herself from what she did; throw off investigators. Buy her time. Escape accountability for what she did to Gannon on January 27, 2020.
At the conclusion of the evidence that we will be presenting in this case, you will be asked to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges that we have leveled against her. You will also be asked to determine whether she was sane or insane at the time that she killed Gannon.
All of her decisions; all of her deliberate actions betray her claims of insanity. She knew that what she had done to Gannon was wrong. Why hide it? You will hear her own voice through recorded phone calls and interviews. The evidence itself will prove her sanity.
As jurors, part of your job will be to determine how much credibility, if any, you give to the witnesses. That same rule applies to expert witnesses. You will get to hear from doctors, you will get to hear from GPS expert witnesses. And when they take the stand and take an oath, you get to judge whether what they are saying makes sense. Is it credible or not? And if it’s not credible, you get to discard it. If it’s credible, you can use it in your deliberations. But you all get to decide whether that credibility extends to that witness or not. The same will hold true for our expert witnesses, and the defense expert witnesses.
You get to hear from a doctor that will testify that the defendant was insane at the time of the murder of Gannon Stauch on January 27, 2020.
With all the expert witnesses, you should gauge what they are saying, measure it against the other evidence that you are hearing. Does it make sense or not? Like all expert witnesses, if it doesn’t make sense, you can discard it.
You will also hear from others who knew her best. People that had the best opportunity to see how she was acting. Did she understand the difference between right and wrong; could she form intent? People like Al Stauch, the man who was married to her. People like her brother, Dakota Lowry, who flew out here after Gannon went missing. And most importantly, her very own daughter, Harley Hunt. See, Harley Hunt was at the best position to know the defendant’s state of mind especially as it relates to when this crime occurred. She was the only other “older” person in the house. When Al left to go to Oklahoma, Harley Hunt was working. She is young. 17 years old at the time; thinking about going into the Air Force. And she becomes the defendant’s closest confidant after the defendant killed Gannon Stauch. In fact, she also rode with the defendant on that van ride from Colorado Springs to Florida. She will be able to tell you in her own words whether the defendant understood the difference between right and wrong. Whether she could act intentionally or deliberately or not. And she will tell you that she could on both counts.
Remember this case is about two people. Gannon had no choice what happened to him that day on January 27. The other, this defendant, she held every single decision in her hands. She took deliberate thoughtful actions that ended a precious life and tore a family apart.
Your job as jurors will be to listen intently to all of the evidence. Because even the most mundane evidence, it might seem inconsequential when you are listening, is being given to you purposely so that you can make the determinations you need to make as jurors.
Did she understand the difference between right and wrong? Was she able to form a culpable mental state? Every single piece of evidence that comes from this chair will be used by you to make that determination. The next time I get to talk with you directly the way I’m doing right now—that will mean we have concluded the evidence and we are giving closing arguments. At that time both sides will get to ask you to make determinations based on what has, what you all have heard.
We are going to ask you to hold us to our burden of proof. The criminal justice system doesn’t work if you don’t hold us to our burden of proof. Our burden of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The things we have to prove are the elements of the crimes charged. We also have to disprove that the defendant is insane. Meaning essentially, we have to prove that she was sane. The evidence will do that for you.
We will ask you to give justice to Gannon Stauch. We will ask you to find this defendant guilty for what she did to him more than three years ago. We will ask you to find her guilty of murder in the first degree—murder in the first degree of a child under 12 years of age; tampering with a deceased human body for taking Gannon’s body from that scene and transporting it across the country; and tampering with physical evidence.
We’ll ask you to convict her on each and every one of those charges. And the evidence will guide you towards those convictions.
On January 27, 2020, at 6:55 pm, the defendant herself called 911. She called 911 to report that Gannon was missing and had not come home. The call taker you will hear asked the defendant, “Who was the last person to see Gannon”? (Tape playing) “Uhm, I guess, me.”
The evidence will show that she was the last person to see Gannon alive. The evidence will show that she was sane on January 27, 2020, when she ended Gannon’s life. The evidence will show that she acted intentionally and deliberately when she took Gannon’s life.
And then we will ask you to convict her. Thank you.
www.frontiersin.org
www.sciencedirect.com
link.springer.com
