Closing arguments began Tuesday morning in the Parkland school shooter’s sentencing trial — the last chance for prosecutors and defense attorneys to make their case before a court that will help decide whether the gunman is sentenced to death or life in prison. .
The impending conclusion of the months-long trial comes nearly a year after Nikolas Cruz, 24, pleaded guilty to 17 counts of murder and 17 counts of attempted murder in connection with the February 14, 2018, massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in South Florida. in which 14 students and three school staff members were killed.
“What he writes, what he says, is a window into someone’s soul,” lead prosecutor Michael Sachs said at the start of his closing arguments, encouraging jurors to review the gunman’s online comments that expressed his desire to carry out mass murder and the investigations. asked for information on how to do it.
“What he wanted to do, his plan and what he did, was to murder children at school and their caregivers,” Satz said. “That’s what he wanted to do.”
Satz went on to detail an account of the shooting — how “methodical and deliberate” the gunman’s actions were — and how the shooter killed or wounded each of his victims, whose families and loved ones filled the courtroom gallery.
Cruz, wearing a striped sweater and flanked by his public defenders, stared blankly, occasionally glancing down at the table in front of him.
Each side has been given two and a half hours to make their closing arguments. Jury deliberations are expected to begin Wednesday, during which jurors will be sequestered, according to Broward Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer.
Prosecutors, seeking the death penalty, argued that Cruz’s decision to carry out the deadliest mass shooting at a US high school was premeditated and calculated and not related, as the defense suggested, to mental disorders or developmental delays.
The state completed its rebuttal last week, which included footage of Cruz telling clinical neuropsychologist Dr. Robert Denney that he chose to shoot on Valentine’s Day because he “felt like no one loved me and I didn’t like Valentine’s Day either. he wanted to ruin it for everyone.”
Denny, who spent more than 400 hours with the gunman, testified for the prosecution and concluded that Cruz has borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder, but did not meet the criteria for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which he argued the defense.
When he read the list of the names of the 17 people killed and was asked if Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder explained their murders, Denny answered “no” every time.
The defense, seeking to present jurors with mitigating circumstances — reasons why Cruz should not be sentenced to death but to life in prison without the possibility of parole — offered evidence of a lifetime of struggles at home and school, including at birth. to a woman who abused drugs and alcohol while pregnant with Cruz.
If they choose to recommend the death penalty, jurors must be unanimous or Cruz will be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. If the jury recommends death, the final decision rests with Judge Scherer, who could choose to follow the recommendation or sentence Cruz to life.
The lengthy trial – jury selection began six months ago in early April – has seen prosecutors and defense attorneys present evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, reasons why Cruz should or should not be put to death.
Prosecutors argued that Cruz was “cold, calculating, manipulative and deadly” in carrying out the attack, which Satz called “planned” and “systematic” in his opening statement in July. The state pointed to seven aggravating factors, he said, including the fact that the killings were “especially heinous, gruesome or cruel.”
“These aggravating factors far outweigh the mitigating circumstances,” Satz said in July, including anything to do with the gunman’s history, upbringing or mental health.
Underscoring their case, prosecutors presented evidence showing the gunman spent months searching the Internet for information about mass shootings and left behind comments on social media sharing his express desire to “kill people.”
Some of his Google searches included generic, generic terms like “murder” or “shooting people.” Others said he sought information about specific mass shootings and the people who carried them out. He also searched for a map of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, from which he had been expelled, and for information about “how long it takes for a police officer to show up at a school shooting.” And on YouTube, Cruz left comments like “I’m going to be a professional school shooter” and promised to “go on a killing spree.”
As part of the prosecution’s case, family members of the victims were given the opportunity to take the stand and offer raw and emotional testimony about how Cruz’s actions had changed their lives forever. At one point, even members of Cruz’s own defense team broke down in tears.
“I feel like I can’t really be happy if I smile,” testified Max Schachter, the father of 14-year-old victim Alex Schachter. “I know behind that smile is the sudden realization that part of me will always be sad and miserable because Alex isn’t here.”
But before the prosecution rested, jurors also visited the scene of the massacre, the 1200 block of Marjory Stoneman Douglas, which had been sealed off since the shooting to preserve the crime scene — filled with dried blood, Valentine’s Day cards and student items – for trial.
In their own case, public defenders appointed to represent Cruz asked the jury to consider his troubled history, from a dysfunctional family life to severe mental and developmental issues, with attorney Melisa McNeill describing him as “broken and injured’ person.
“His brain is broken,” she said. “He’s a broken man.”
Among the first witnesses was Cruz’s older sister, Danielle Woodard, who testified that their mother, Brenda Woodard, used drugs and drank alcohol while she was pregnant with him — which McNeill said caused his brain to “break irreparably’ through no fault of his own.
“It introduced me to a life that no child should be introduced to,” he said. “He had no regard for my life or his life.”
The defense also called teachers and educators who spoke about developmental issues and delays Cruz exhibited as a toddler, including challenges with vocabulary and motor skills. Several counselors and psychiatrists also testified, offering their observations from years of treatment or interaction with Cruz.
Former Broward County school district consultant John Newnham testified that Cruz’s academic achievement in elementary school fell short of expectations. Cruz would describe himself as “stupid” and a “freak,” Newnham said.
Despite these obvious issues, Cruz’s stepmother, the late Linda Cruz, was reluctant to seek help, according to the testimony of a close friend who lived down the street from the family, Trish Devaney Westerlind.
Newnham’s testimony echoed that: While Lynda Cruz was a loving mother, after her husband’s death, she would seek help but not use the support available.
“She was overwhelmed,” Newnham said. “She seemed to be missing some of the basic foundations of positive parenting.”
Westerlind still gets calls from Cruz and, he says, even though he’s in his 20s, Cruz still talks like an 11-year-old.
Cruz’s attorneys acknowledged that as he grew older he developed a fascination with firearms, and school staff raised concerns about his behavior with authorities, McNeil said.
In June 2014, an adolescent psychiatrist and a school therapist at the school Cruz attended at the time wrote a letter to an outside psychiatrist who was treating Cruz, expressing concern that Cruz had become verbally aggressive and had a “preoccupation with weapons ” and “dreams”. to kill others.”
The psychiatrist, Dr. Brett Negin, who testified that he treated Cruz between the ages of 13 and 18, said he never received the letter.
The defense’s case ended unexpectedly last month when – having called just 26 of 80 planned witnesses – the public defenders appointed to represent Cruz suddenly rested, prompting the judge to admonish the team for what she said was unprofessionalism , resulting in a courtroom altercation between her and the defense (the jury was not present).
Scherer went on to question Cruz about the decision to rest, making sure he had a chance to discuss it with his attorneys and understood that it wouldn’t mean no one else, including his brother Zachary Cruz, would take the stand in his defense.
“Are you comfortable with the decision?” asked Scherer.
“Yes,” Cruz replied.
Defense attorneys would later file a motion to disqualify the judge for her comments, arguing in part that they suggested the judge was not impartial and that Cruz’s right to a fair trial had been undermined. Prosecutors disagreed, writing “judicial comments, even of a critical or hostile nature, are not grounds for disqualification.”
Scherer ultimately declined the offer.
Prosecutors then presented their rebuttal, concluding…
