Defense Attorney Joshua Weiss
speaker
134 appearances
5 recordings
1 series
first heard Feb 2025
last heard Mar 2025
Defense Attorney Joshua Weiss’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
He left breadcrumbs everywhere he went. He got Jasmine's phone. He used her phone. The state has asked you to believe that Jason had full control of her phone from 2 o'clock on, but they don't want you to think for a moment that he, yet again, made a mistake. He tries to not share a location, stops sharing a location, and drops a pen.
They want you to believe that Jasmine was shackled when she was being stabbed. Dr. Coxwell was asked very specific questions, questions that you can remember. You can look back through your notes and recall his testimony and discuss this among yourselves. There were no ligature marks on Jasmine's wrist. There were no ligature marks on Jasmine's ankles. There were no cuts. There were no bruising.
The state would like for you to believe That's because she couldn't move. She couldn't break the shutters. She couldn't break the handcuffs. The reason they aren't there is because they were not applied so that Jason could stop her. They were applied so that you could fit her into garbage bags before putting her into a safe place.
The law is clear. We're not asking you to believe that Jason had hours, days, months that he's playing this out. But you have to know with moral certainty that he had a moment to reflect and that he didn't. It's the state's burden to show you that he had that moment of reflection and that he chose to disregard and to continue to engage in acts that killed Jasmine Pace.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's not you.
Premeditation means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act. What we've heard for days is everything Jason has done after. This is not you going to the jury room and determining that there's postmeditation. Premeditation. Everything that Jason did before Jasmine's death.
It's not necessary that the purpose of guilt pre-exists in the mind of the accused for any definite period of time. The state says each of those actions, 120 movements, that Jason should have had the ability to report. They haven't shown that he did.
Specifically, voluntary manslaughter requires that the killing result from a state of passion. The state's witness talked about it. They talked about the individual that inflicted these wounds being in a state of anxiety or a state of passion. right here in your journey instructions. That is something for you to consider.
It does require there has to be a state of passion that's produced by adequate provocation. You heard a yelling from the floor below that was enough to wake an individual up at two o'clock in the morning. So loud that she couldn't even make out what was being said.
This has been a hard case. Jasmine deserves justice. You have given Mr. Chin the benefit of a fair trial. Your attentiveness has been very clear throughout this, and it's much appreciated. In reviewing this evidence, we ask you to return a verdict.
In opening statement, I told you that we would give you the dots and we would help you connect them. Every single fact we mentioned in opening statement, we proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Every single fact we committed to, we proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt because that's what opening statements are for. To give you the evidence you're about to see.
And then you heard from Mr. Chin's attorney who committed to a very specific story. Remember, we didn't just talk about that story, right? We backed off that story because, uh-oh, that story doesn't work anymore. And we're going to talk about that story. This entire trial has been muddy the waters. It has been muddy the waters to confuse the jury.
The opening statement from the defense was meant to confuse you. It was meant to have you thinking about other things, possible defenses that the state disproved. Not only did you not hear evidence of what they said in their opening statement, the state outright disproved it.
Let's talk about what we committed to in opening statement as Jason Chin's attorneys. They met on Tinder, wrong? You have text messages. They met on Bumble. Simple thing, but we're just starting with the untruths that the state disproved. They traveled to Chicago together that summer, wrong end of October. You have text messages that show that he asked her to go to Chicago.
You heard that you will see messages where you'll see that one of them likes one of them more than the other. Oh, but Jasmine liked him more than he liked her. Wrong. You never saw proof of it. In fact, you have all the messages that they didn't want to show you. They wanted to put them in evidence and then just hope that maybe you'll waste your time reading them. So what did I do?
I put them on the screen for you. That weekend before he killed her, he asked her to come over. Oh, she likes him more? No. If you want to waste your time reading the messages, read them. You'll find out that that was not true. What they committed to an opening statement was not true. They drink wine, smoked pot, smoked wax. We didn't hear that just now, did we? Why? Because it's not true.
They committed to a story to throw mud at the wall and it was never true. It was meant to confuse you. And then also how offensive the victim drank wine. So he murdered her. The defendant was smoking wax. No proof of it. Zero proof of it. Didn't happen, but let's say that it did. The defendant smoked wax marijuana. So he murdered her.
That is no defense, but it's certainly not a defense when you say it and you've never proved it. You committed to this in your opening statement. And by the end of trial, when the jury's no longer confused, you don't want to talk about anyone. In order to open one of the bottles of wine in the bedroom,
Jason had to go to the kitchen and get a kitchen knife to take off that plastic wrapper that goes around the top of the wine bottles. We've seen that knife. Well, we've seen part of it. We'll never know where the other part of it is. We've seen part of it, right? So he was able to get it off the top of the wine bottle. They finish off the bottle.
She goes into the kitchen to get another one and she sees those tender messages. The tender messages are significant. Mostly because that was their adequate provocation. The only adequate provocation you ever heard in this trial was an opening statement, which is not evidence. And then what was the state able to do through an expert who nobody can deny that Mark Hamilton is an expert?
Showing 21–40 of 134 · page 2 of 7
← Previous
Next →