you we are going to try to speak as best we can to a fifteen and fifteen allocation of time mr harris i assume you'd like to reserve a few minutes rebuttal yes and we'll make sure you get your chance to see when you say we are trying to be too strict but generally keep  as the father of her children on school forms who she considered a father during the on periods of the on and off relationship knowingly lacked consent to drive her kids away when she got out of the car they were all hung up on him when he immediately called her to ask why she got out of the car and refused to answer several of his calls over the following hours the jury struggled with his case pending more than twenty hours over two long days of deliberations specifically asking to see transcripts of serious surfaces testimony twice saying they were deadlocked including hopelessly deadlocked perhaps sensing the closeness of this evidence the prosecutor finished her closing argument with a strictly emotional plea to the jury asking them to issue guilty verdicts to rican pets santos and her friends and family for the saying that santos acted to protect her kids and then know that they all survived but their lives will never be the same never prosecutor said they'll never sleep the same at night in the never perfect kids with any sense of security that so many are peace that many people take for granted this argument had nothing nothing to do with the question before the jury had everything to do with engendering sympathy and compassion for santos and her family and seeking some sort of compensation of a guilty verdict  two or two responses that st i don't think it's a reasonable inference to say this is something permanent or the prosecutor repeated never and will never do this will never sleep well at night they'll never part with kids with any sense of security and there's no indication that even by the time of trial two years later she can't leave kids with friends or families or boyfriends or loved ones with any sense of security let alone that this will last for the rest of her life or the kids can't sleep well at night i mean that the even i don't think it's even reasonable to infer that a four year old would have a permanent memory of something like this and nd even if it is an inference one could make it is not a if appropriate argument to the jury because it does not bear on the question of whether michael i committed elements of these crimes whether these people would have psychological trauma for decades into the future does not help the jury answer the question before of whether he committed these crimes whether he was not committing kidnapping and therefore was was able to use justified self defense you're not you at least several because yes there well the defense theory was that my client had did not lack consent trip to drive these kids if he doesn't like consent he's not committing kidnapping if he's not committing kidnapping he's allowed to justifiable use for explain to her family why this on off temporarily at that point i guess off boyfriend and her kids and made up this story pointing a gun to her she made up a story to the police officer about getting hit in the  streets posed to do with that or they can rely on her testimony but she got out of the carcass she didn't want this fight to continue or escalate in front of the kids they cannot suggest that this history of ten years of a relationship includes violence credibility was called into question by several contradiction as noted in the previous most notably that she either lied to the jury or to the police when the police officer who st responded to recalling noted that she claimed he hit her with a closed fist numerous times in the car but knows no injury ishi son no medical treatment in the trial she said it didn't hit her at all some other contradictions like her she said she they never made it to the st mall that they were went to work for because she talked to the kids and learned they were  the somewhere she picked him up in the morning sometime around nine or ten i believe and the incident at the mall was around one in the mean time she went back to her house there is a different test and contradictory considered him a father to the kids and so it ever the question of whether he could knowingly be aware that he lacks in st when day by day he may be considered a father and might not is a close one and in the case close case like this that depends on the credibility with all these contradictions these comments could have tipped the scales against my client and he should get a new trial for these errors separately the evidence of aggravated vehicular hijacking was insufficient both because it did not show that he took the van the legislature out of the term immediate as modifier courts have to give effect to these legislative choices of language and the facts like you said were there while he's in the parking lot he was attacked with a hammer before you even got out of a car and fired a shot there is also no indication that it's taken by force as the legislature had contemplated regarding a forcible separation from a car toronto and santos were the ones who got out of the car to quickly attack my client his force was defensive even if the jury ultimately found he wasn't able to use that as a legal justification it was still defense of act against him or attacked not in any way connected to trying to take a car and there's no an even no indication he was aware that this van was behind him at the time he fired the gun shot they ran to the door before he even got out of the drive to see they opened it they tried to yank him out smith was hitting him with a hammer when he took a gun from the panel of the car and fired it and so this force the system simply insufficient evidence to show this force was sufficiently connected or at a sufficient concurrence with the later taking of the fan that toronto had actually gotten out to attack my client instigated that violence defendant had consent when she got out of the car that consent was revoked when she told me to bring her children back and she did that on the phone she said take this to your mother's house bring them to me take them to my house where are you with my children and his response was i'll treat the children for you so even if there was consent which she denied even if there was it was revoked so he did not have permission to take those children in terms of the comments in closing arguments the st set of comments regarding the sleep and the effect of this have the victims was not what the jury was left with at the end of the rebuttal argument the prosecutor said  that person to go through a tragic event such as this having your children being taken for three hours and not knowing where they are being shot at by someone who knew and for ten years i have been dating that can cause an effect that can reasonably impetuously and these are matters of general knowledge and matters of common sense again it's not directly based on the testimony but it's a reasonable inference from the circumstance that occurred here based on human experience the nd set of comments that samantha got out of the car because she knew what he was capable of that was in response  argument he implied in closing that she got out of a car bomb terribly and that her reasons for getting out were irrational but samantha had testified that he had taken control of her car by putting it in park taking the keys ordering her out and when she refused he got out and push the car and she explained that she got out of the car because she was scared and did not want situation escalates she said i did not want him to fight me in front of my children and the prosecution but all she said she got out because she knew defendant she had known him for ten years and knew what he was capable of and that was not about crimes or bad acts samantha test by this young for ten years she dated him within the past two years of this incident on and off and when you are interacting with somebody on that level for that length of time you have no knowledge of their personality their disposition their actions reactions you have knowledge of the quick to anger and so she had that knowledge not based on his prior crimes based on her experience in interacting with him over this length of time and also based on what happened when he got in her car that morning he was angry because when the force and the taking are part of a series of continuous acts isn't that the way the legs i'm sorry that precedent has clearly already established several operate when when they describe how the force can occur in current with and taking of the van occurred in an uninterrupted sequence of events over a brief period of time during which defendant took advantage of his shot to the frame by taking the car after a friend fled the immediate present element has to do with the danger to the courts found that there was a bigger hijacking where those victims exited their cars were attacked by the defendants fled the attack and then the defendants got in their cars and drove away we also know this from cooksey biggie and robinson all in which the victims were not near their car where they were accosted or not near their car when force was used against them and were not ever in the immediate presence of their vehicle with the defendant by contrast here if ray was within feet of his band one defendant shot him by shooting him and causing him to run and the fact that the friend had the presence of mind and the physical ability to run does not negate the fact that there was immediate presence when he was shot and the fact that he had the ability to run also does not produce forensic ability for taking  the needed presence was connected to the taking and the force because defendant's use of force in the immediate presence of the band caused the frame to flee and after he fled to find and took the van the statute does not require synchronization of the taking the force and immediate presence and this is course not interpreted as doing so because defendant should not be rewarded and society penalized for a friend's interest in self preservation imposing a limit on how far a gunshot victim can flee from his vehicle before the shooter is no longer legally responsible for taking the car is irrational and unjust given the greater risk of harm to a gunshot victim who remains in the presence of his car with an active shooter it's not reasonable to think that the legislature wanted t to only apply when a victim who flees doesn't leave be under certain radius of his car if i had intended that it would have written that into the statute as it stands defendant's conduct clearly constitute aggravated vehicular hijacking he shot lasting unproven but life long emotional trauma and about consent whether he may have had consented not knowing he lacked consent when he drove away but that it was later revoked that really just turns on her credibility again whether she's believable that