Defense Attorney Joshua Weiss

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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,

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.

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?

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?