All language subtitles for the.jury.death.on.the.staircase.s01e04.1080p.hdtv.h264-cbfm_track4_[eng]

The metal juicer was here.

The deceased was laying
with his feet here and his head here.

Maybe he got to here
and lost his balance at the top

and then kept going.

What do these show?

Without being racist,
the Chinese burn.

I thought it was something
to do with their intimate life.

They could have been, like,
sexual play.

The direct cause of death was
blunt force head and neck injury.

He's been bashed.

So, the Christian in me is thinking
there needs to be justice.

There's a...a fight.

It was bang, bang.

Put him away.

You tell me that you wish to
bring in a verdict of not guilty

without hearing anything more.

Is anybody else blown away
completely with this development?

Listen to me. He's saying the Crown
has convinced him he's guilty of...

- No, no, no..
- That's not what she's saying at all.

I'm seriously starting to get the
shits with half the people in there.

Fuck. I'm losing it.

When a person
is accused of a crime,

it's often the job of a jury
to decide their fate.

But do juries always get it right?

To find out, for the first time
in Australia,

we're following a jury
through a criminal trial...

Can you indicate to the jury
what signs there are for you

that death has occurred
by strangulation?

..with actors restaging
a real case word for word.

Did you find any blood
on the juicer?

No.

But just as in a real court,
the jurors are everyday people.

- That was hard to watch, huh?
- Blimey.

We'll follow 12 jurors

as they work to decipher
a baffling criminal trial.

It's a strange place to fall dead.

Ai-yi-yi.

Does that mean
it's beyond reasonable doubt?

Mm. No, it's actually the definition
of reasonable doubt.

Will the jury convict
an innocent man?

Hang on.
He's supposed to convince us, right?

Or will they free one who is guilty?

I'm very unlikely to change my mind.

The jurors reveal their strengths
and their prejudices.

I totally recognise
that I do have a bias.

"Thou shalt not kill"
really rings home.

I only have one opinion of
criminals. They're guilty.

They're all liars.

Will our 12 jurors
arrive at the same verdict

as the original trial?

Is the accused guilty or not guilty?

In the name of
Allah the Beneficent...

- ..I solemnly...
- ..and sincerely declare...

..that I will give a true verdict...

..according to the evidence.

Day six of the manslaughter trial
continues.

In line with the original trial,

the judge has asked the jury
for an early verdict

before the defence
starts their case.

I know for a fact I'm not convinced.

- Yeah.
- For a fact.

- I'm a not guilty, already.
- Mm.

She's not asking us to say
whether he's guilty or not.

She's asking you to say
is he NOT guilty.

Correct. That's the only decision
we can come up with,

whether he's not guilty right now.
Yeah.

If the prosecution
has failed to convince the jury

of Shaun Yang's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt,

the trial ends today.

- All 12 of us have to say...
- "Stop it right now."

- ..he's not guilty.
- "Not guilty."

It can only be a not guilty verdict
to stop it right now.

Yeah. All not guilty.

But the trouble is, I'm...

Can we not at the same time
be not convinced by him,

but also not convinced
of his innocence?

- Yeah.
- Mmm.

I think this is a really
difficult ask for the jury.

They want to hear the full story

before they have to
make any decisions,

and they're being asked
to make a preliminary decision.

I think they're really confused
about what their role is here.

I think if everyone
has reasonable doubt,

- no-one is convinced...
- One way or the other.

And therefore, if you're not
past reasonable doubt,

- then you're not guilty.
- Yeah, then it's...not guilty.

Are we...are we absolutely saying
he is not guilty, finish the trial?

All 12 of us say yes,
OK, trial's finished.

If it's not guilty,
done and dusted for the day.

- That's right.
- Trial's over.

Yeah.

I think he's guilty of manslaughter.

Like, he's admitted it himself.
"We had a fight."

To me, it's pretty clear-cut.

At the end of the day,
there's a dead body.

Well, yeah. At the end of the day,
someone's lost their life.

- Exactly.
- That's what...

- There was only two in the room.
- Yeah.

We need to be focusing on
the fact someone's dead.

You know, lights out.
They're not coming back.

Exactly.

No-one gets to see
inside a jury deliberation room.

This is rare insight to seeing
how juries actually make decisions.

I'm not saying absolutely
that he's not guilty,

but I'm not convinced
he's guilty yet.

- So you want to hear more evidence?
- I agree.

I am not...
I want to hear a lot more.

Who would like to hear more?

Sure.

This one doesn't have to be
anonymous, right?

- No, it doesn't have to.
- It doesn't?

- It has to be...
- We've all got our hands up, so...

- Well, mine are not.
- So...so we don't want to?

- Oh.
- Oh, OK. That's fine.

Honestly, if it would be up to me,
that's where it would end.

So, it's 9/3 at the moment.

We're asking ourselves
the wrong question.

It's not a question of
do we want to hear more evidence?

It's not that.

It's...it's can we unanimously agree
at this point,

based on everything that we've
heard, that he's not guilty?

I mean, I don't think
an hour's worth of discussion

is going to change the point of view
of nine people.

Personally, I don't know how anyone

can be completely convinced
right now.

You know, I hope
that's not a precursor

of...of it being a...a tricky thing.

It was interesting that the room
wanted to continue hearing more,

when it felt like we didn't believe
beyond reasonable doubt

that he had committed this crime.

But I can understand it because it
allows you to continue hearing more,

which delays your decision-making,

which is the hardest part
out of all of this.

As jury foreperson,

it's Guy's job to deliver the
midpoint verdict to the judge.

Mr Foreperson, please stand.

What is the decision of the jury?

We'd like to continue,
to get more evidence.

Thank you, Mr Foreperson.

You may be seated.

This trial will proceed.

With the decision to continue,
the focus shifts to the defence case.

Their strongest weapon -
to see doubt in the jurors' minds.

Mr Benedetti, are you ready
for your first witness?

Yes, Your Honour.

Defence calls Victor Mineau.

The defence begins by calling into
question the safety of the staircase.

You are a builder by occupation.

Yes, I am.

And did you carry out
a staircase inspection

on behalf of the company
that you work for?

Yes, I did.

Did this staircase comply with
building codes of New South Wales

associated with staircases?

No, it didn't.

Did you have difficulty
going down these stairs?

I had to be mindful to not overstep
and miss the tread.

Yes.

Why do we have building codes
about staircases?

Because people fall down them
when they're unapproved, correct?

Yes.

Thank you. That will be all.

I have no further questions,
Your Honour.

I take it even though you've
building work done internally,

the council
doesn't come along and say,

"Pull down those stairs
and build some more compliant ones"?

Not that I'm aware of, no.

One goes up and down as one has to,
given the stairs that are there?

Yes.

No further questions.

I am convinced that it's just that
easy to have a split-second slip.

You don't grab the banister
correctly,

or if there's a bit of water
on your hands...

Anything could have happened.
Anything could have happened.

Is it possible
that he fell down the stairs? Yes.

Someone falling down the stairs
and having visibly no injuries

we know is possible.

But is that reasonable doubt?

Mr Benedetti, are you ready
for your next witness?

Defence calls Hayden Jagger.

With Carlo's cause of death
still unclear,

the defence calls
their own forensic expert.

Professor. Full name
is Hayden Grierson Jagger?

Yes.

You are a forensic pathologist
by occupation?

Yes.

So, far as your practical
experience is concerned,

I think you've taken part
in many thousands of post-mortems.

Oh, I have conducted personally...
oh, about 15,000. Yes.

- If we could just go then
immediately to this case.
- Mm.

On the material
that you have been given,

what caused the death of Mr Levetto?

Well, to me, Dr Palazar,
who performed the autopsy,

couldn't, in my opinion, distinguish
between which of those injuries

was more likely to have caused
the actual death.

We know that there were
no skull fractures,

but could the injury to the brain
have been caused

by the head
impacting on a hard object,

like a wall or a floor
or object of that type?

Yes.

In terms of the staircase itself,

if the head impacted with the solid
timber structures of the staircase,

could that cause the injuries
to the head?

Yes.

There was bloodstaining
on the handrail going up the stairs.

Could the injury to the chin

be occasioned
by hitting that wooden handrail?

Yes. There's nothing specific
about this chin injury.

Did you see any stigmata
of strangulation?

Well, there was some bruising
on the neck,

but excluding that or putting that
to one side, if you like,

the things one usually sees in cases
of manual or ligature strangulation

were just not present.

Professor, as a result, do you think
that the cause of death

was strangulation
or attempted strangulation?

I think the cause of death here
is obscure.

Thank you.

That will be all.

The cause of death for Carlos
is complex.

I mean, if medical professionals

and people
that are meant to be experts

can't even agree on something,
it's like, well, how do you expect

an everyday person
coming in on a jury to know?

It's really complex.

The prosecution now cross-examines
the defence witness.

Professor, would you say
that it's highly unlikely

that those marks or bruises
were caused by a fall,

given the number and the complexity
of them?

I...

I would not support a simple fall

as causing this entire complex
of bruising.

But usually
with these sorts of injuries -

and I think
you've alluded to this -

a person doesn't die immediately,
do they?

Well, most people who fall on the
back of their head don't die at all,

but if they ARE going to die,

there'll often be
substantial bleeding

between the inner membrane
lining of the skull

and the outer membrane
covering the brain,

and Mr Levetto didn't have that.

Would you agree that the injury
to the back of the head or the brain

is more significant
than the injury to the chin?

Well, there are two bruises
to the skull at the back.

Because they are there,
they must be considered significant.

What caused them?

Obviously the head impacted
on something twice

or something impacted on the head
twice.

If we could please share exhibit C
with the witness.

And would you agree, would you not,

that if one holds the bowl
near the spout

and uses the rest of it to strike
someone, such as the deceased,

that would be consistent
with an injury to his chin,

would it not?

It could be, yes.

Whether on impact that would produce

that somewhat complex laceration
to the chin or not,

I would say it's possible.

Alright, so you've been forwarded
some photographs overnight

by the Crown, have you not?

Uh, yes. Thank you.

If you can go to 38.

Yes, I've got 38.

The bloodstaining is behind his head

and not up very far away
from the rug.

Do you agree with that?

I agree it doesn't go very far.

And, Doctor, if indeed the deceased

was struck in an area
that was already bleeding,

with an object
such as this juicer bowl,

you would expect the blood
to go behind him

as we see here, wouldn't you?

You're asking me, are you likely
to get a spray of blood

from the impact?

- Yes.
- And the answer is yes.

There appears to be
some very dark bruising

over the area of the voice box,
does there not?

Yes, and to the right
of the voice box as well.

If we can now go to the chest area -
photograph 5.

In relation to
the injuries to that area,

given the severity
of the bruising that you see,

would the marks on the chest
be suggestive of a struggle?

Yes.

Between the protagonists?

Yes.

Given that the bruising on the neck

shows reasonably heavy bruising
on the area around the voice box

and some bruising on the left side
of the neck,

could the application
of pressure there

have caused the heart to slow
and then stop?

Yes.

Thank you.
I have no further questions.

It was surprising that the
defence had presented some witnesses

that were agreeing with what
the prosecution had been stating.

After I heard
the prosecution speak,

I thought, "Oh, my God,
he's actually guilty."

Didn't...didn't expect that.

So I'm shocked about that.

But the defence barrister
is not done yet.

After the prosecution's
cross-examination of the pathologist,

some jurors now believe
Shaun could be guilty.

The defence has one last chance
to convince the jury

that Carlo may have died
from other causes.

Professor, in terms of Dr Palazar -

I think you trained Dr Palazar,
didn't you, many years ago?

I had some part
in his training. Yes.

And in some occupations
there are clear, singular answers.

Two and two must equal four.

In forensic medicine,
of which you are a specialist,

it doesn't always work out
that way, does it?

Uh, yes. I agree. Mm.

With all of your experience,

you're unable to assist us any
further as to the cause of death?

Well, I don't want to
muddy the waters.

Um...but I'm about to.

Now, Dr Palazar reported

that this chap had left
ventricular hypertrophy,

which is an increase in the muscle
in the lower left chamber
of the heart.

Going back through
his medical records,

I noted
that he'd gone to see his doctor

because he was worried
his heart was racing.

He had an ECG, which showed a number
of disordered extra contractions

affecting his heart.

Now, that means that the orderly
electrical transmissions
to his heart

was effectively misfiring,

and that was one of the reasons
why his medication was increased.

Now, it is speculative,
but one must wonder

if he had a period of cardiac
dysrhythmia quite spontaneously,

he may have had a version of that in
association with his ultimate death.

And that worries me because
there is, as I've already said,

absolutely no clear-cut
cause of death in this case.

And you think
he may have had a heart attack?

He may have died
because of a cardiac event. Yes.

It may have been compounded
or caused by a stressful situation.

There's no way of telling.

Thank you. That will be all.

Anything further, Mr Crown?

Yes, Your Honour.

Professor, in relation to this most
recent statement by you,

you didn't consider that
to be significant enough

to include in your initial report?

It wasn't that I didn't
consider it significant enough.

I was rereading his medical notes
last night,

and this began to worry me.

But in terms of there being a heart
attack, as my friend has said,

was there any evidence
at post-mortem to indicate

that he had a heart attack?

Um, except for the fact that he had
increased muscle mass, no.

And that in itself is not evidence
of him having a heart attack.

It is evidence, though,

of the soil, if you like,
being ready for a heart attack.

But nothing was observed by
Dr Palazar that would support that?

Nothing at all.

Thank you.

Thank you for attending today,
Professor.

You may now leave the court.

Thank you.

Thank you, Professor Jagger.

Mr Benedetti, am I to understand
that Professor Jagger

was your final witness?

Yes, Your Honour.

Dr Jagger was the final witness
for the defence.

With the defence case
complete,

all of the trial evidence
has now been heard.

This is all the jury will have
to decide the fate of Shaun Yang.

How's everyone feeling? What are we
leaning towards specifically?

I'm reserving judgement
at this point.

I'm hoping that what the judge
is going to give us

is going to help us
make our decision.

We're not going to hear
any evidence?

- I think that's it.
- No more. There is no more anything.

Guilty or not guilty?

Do you think it's too early
to even say?

I mean, I'm sure there's people...

I'm sure all of us have one...
one way or another.

- Like, I think we're all...
- I do. Not guilty.

Because so much is inconclusive

and you can say, "Yeah,
that could've happened,

"that could have happened,"
and so it's all very speculative.

And they think he contributed
because they had an argument,

so it's inevitable that...
that whole scenario led to what...

He was involved, it just doesn't...
I think that's...

Is there anyone here,
like, in the room

that is, like, "Yep, 100% guilty"?

- Not 100%.
- Is anyone...is anyone...

..well, leaning more towards guilty,
then, let's go?

Anyone?

I found it...
Yeah, I thought it was...

I think he's played a big part
in what has happened.

I'm starting to believe that.

And I...just the facts of the...
the blows and the repeated blows

- and the location of the blows...
- Mm.

..seems like the information
is...is against Shaun.

So, here's my question.

So, the prosecutor's going on
about the blood splatter

and whether, you know,
if he was hit again,

but there's no blood
found on the jug.

He keeps saying "what appears
to be blood", which drives me crazy.

We're talking about the bowl
or the jug?

- When you say jug, you mean...?
- The bowl?

- The juicer.
- The bowl.

The evidence clearly says
there was no human blood on the jug.

I thought it was inconclusive.

But the evidence clearly says
there's DNA, Guy.

Are you dismissing Carlo's DNA
on the spout?

- No.
- Right.

To me, that's enough.

No, but he...he could not say
where the blood splatter came from.

A court case isn't about
finding the truth.

Jurors think
that they're detectives of truth.

That's not their job at all.

Their job is to consider the facts

that are provided to them
in the courtroom,

and decide whether
those facts are enough

to satisfy the charge
the accused is against.

Because I can't see how you'd hit
him in the area where there's blood

and not have any blood
on the...on the weapon.

Yeah, but what if you got hit there
and the blood came out that way?

That evidence has not been...

No-one has said that.

What about that red incision
of the photograph,

at the back of Carlo's head?

When people are playing
the detective,

that can sway your mind a bit,

and I think you might...

There's a risk
you'll come back to that theory.

- Yeah, whoa, whoa.
- But you're talking about this...

Hold on. Guys, guys.

My question is,
how could he hit the blood

and not have blood on the weapon?

The jury room is definitely
harder than the courtroom.

The courtroom is interesting.

The jury room is not.

Unfortunately.

If we're told
that we have to believe the test

where there's no human blood
found on that jug,

how can he keep suggesting

that Shaun kept hitting Carlo
in the area where the blood is?

- From a...from a test standpoint?
- I've got to be...

You've got to believe the test,
haven't you?

- No, nothing is...
- The test was absolutely definite.

- There's no human blood.
- Yeah. I agree.

We really need to come together
as a group

and really... ..just get
to the bottom of everything.

There's been a lot of talk
and a lot of stories

and misleading information just to
try and get us away from some...

We just need to...um...

..yeah, kind of block the noise out
and just get down to the facts.

Let me show you visually.
You could get hit...

OK. The first blow there,

second blow here.

There's no blood here.
There's only blood here.

You can get hit here
and you could turn your head

- and the spillage of blood could...
- Yes, it could.

Yeah. So that's what...

I found it really frustrating
that people speculated

a little too much
that then people would get confused

about what HAD actually happened.

But there's experts here
saying it's highly irregular.

That's his opinion.
This is my opinion.

- It's everyone's opinion.
- Yeah.

So I think that can be dangerous
to fill in the blanks.

That's what I reckon
that's what happened.

It's...everyone's
different versions.

But I'd go with the pathologist,
who's a scientist.

What is it exactly he does for a
living? Write songs for children?

Hello.

Today's session has wrapped up.
Thank you very much.

It's been a very, very big day
for you all.

I think as a jury we could get
it wrong, which is worrying.

I've never had the responsibility
of making a decision like this.

It's black and white.
It's a yes or a no.

You're either guilty or you're not.

So, given there are only two options,

I think it's quite easy
to get it wrong.

After a week of jury duty,

friendships have formed,
opinions have changed,

and jurors continue
to reveal their differences.

I was brought up Catholic

and about 15 years ago
I converted over to Muslim.

I still obey by most of the Muslim
laws, but not all of them.

For instance,
now I should be doing Ramadan,

but I'm not, so...probably
get in trouble for that one.

I was in a Catholic school
all my life,

and the nuns always thought
I was going to be a nun.

I said, "I've decided
I'm going to rewrite the Bible

"when I get out of school."

She wasn't too happy about that.

When I was a teenager,
that was a time when Soviet Union

was crumbling and collapsing
and everything around it.

I came to Australia in 1993
and I came by myself.

Definitely consider myself Aussie.
Yeah.

Don't be fooled by this accent.

True blue Aussie.

You need that diversity of opinion.

You want those different
experiences, different backgrounds.

It's what a jury is.

We're here to do the right thing.

The trial
has entered its final phase.

The barristers get one more chance
to address the jury

with their persuasive
closing arguments.

Is everyone ready for the jury?

- Yes, Your Honour.
- Yes, Your Honour.

Please bring in the jury.

In my head,
I'm leaning towards not guilty.

But perhaps there's something
that maybe I'm thinking,

"Well, that was intentional."

I don't know. We'll see how it goes.

I'm... "Aah!"

It's the job of a good prosecutor
to provide a roadmap

through all the evidence that was
provided throughout the trial.

It has to be done in great detail
and in an order

that is comprehensible and logical
for the jury to understand

if they're going to prove their case
beyond reasonable doubt.

Members of the jury.

The Crown says that in relation
to the evidence that you've heard

that it is sufficient to establish
the charge of manslaughter.

Now, in this case, members
of the jury, the Crown relies on

what is called
circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence
is evidence of a basic fact

from which you are asked to draw
a conclusion as to further facts.

There are a number of circumstances
in this case that are relevant,

and they are...

One, the accused and the deceased
lived together.

Two, the deceased told Mr Gentile

that the relationship
was deteriorating.

Three, Carlo relayed further
concerns regarding his relationship.

Four, there was evidence
of an argument on 11 March, 2022.

Mr Clifford Reid refers to that.

Five, crashing noises
were heard by Miss Cooper

on 12 March at about 8:15am.

Six, she heard the accused screaming
and crying shortly thereafter.

Seven, at 9:12am,
a 000 call was made.

Eight, ambulance officer
Alistair Lewis

said that the accused was sitting
at the bottom of the stairs

with the deceased's head in his lap,

and he observed the juicer.

Nine, the accused's conversation
with Senior Constable Reynolds,

which included, "We had a fight."

10, the accused's conversation
with Mr Reid, "We had an argument."

11, the accused's conversation
with the Detective Sergeant Adams,

"I don't remember.
Carlo argued with me.

"He criticised me a lot."

12, damage to the beam
in the kitchen,

the render below it and carrot pulp
around the chipped render.

13, bloodstaining on the walls
and behind the deceased's head.

14, the Chinese burn.

15, the evidence of Dr Palazar
regarding the head and neck,

the injuries
not occasioned by a fall

and no evidence of heart attack.

16, the deceased's DNA
was on the spout of the juicer

and in the dent.

17, evidence of blunt force injury
to the brain,

consistent with a fall
to the back of the head.

Having listed the key facts
of the case,

the prosecutor now pulls everything
together to explain Carlo's death.

The Crown says that what happened
here is that the relationship

between the deceased and the accused
was deteriorating.

It appears that the accused
has lost his temper with Carlo,

that he had a fight with him -

because they probably
had a lot of fights -

but this fight escalated
from verbal altercation

to a physical altercation,
and Shaun Yang just hasn't stopped.

You know for a fact that what
Felicity Cooper heard from next door

was this juicer bowl being thrown
against the beam in the kitchen

with some considerable force

and landed on the floor
in the kitchen.

But the juicer was found
next to the body of the deceased

at the bottom of the stairs,
not the kitchen.

The Crown says that's indicative of
the juicer bowl being picked up...

..and having been used by the
accused to strike Carlo Levetto,

causing the injury to his chin.

Then there's the injuries
to the chest,

and the considerable bruising
were caused by Shaun Yang

beating or striking Carlo
around the chest area.

There is considerable bruising
in the area of the voice box.

You might ask yourselves,
members of the jury,

using your combined common sense
and experience,

how would those injuries occur
falling down the stairs?

Now, something, SOMETHING
has applied considerable force

to cause this bruising,

and the Crown says
this is Shaun Yang.

The Crown says he made these marks
with his hands.

As this assault continued -

that is the striking to the chin,
the falling over,

the damage
to the back of the head,

the striking to the chest,

the strangulation -

there would have been, to any
reasonable person, a realisation

that it was dangerous
and posed a risk of serious injury.

The question of the heart.

Now, if indeed it was
the application of force

and the head injury and the chest
injury, the injury to the chin,

and finally as a result
there was a failure to the heart,

that is still manslaughter.

Members of the jury,
if all these other injuries

place enough stress on the body
for the heart to give out

and they are caused by the accused,

then that is sufficient
for manslaughter.

So, members of the jury,
the Crown says

that it has established its case
beyond reasonable doubt,

and that you will find the accused
guilty of manslaughter.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Crown.

I think this is the right time
to take a break

and we will resume with the defence
closing remarks.

Thank you.

I don't think
it's ever been that quiet.

- I'm enjoying it.
- We're all pondering.

Somebody fart, quick.

Yeah.

I'm enjoying the silence.

I'm doing...I'm doing mental
gymnastics in my brain.

Yeah, absolutely.

It's the most convinced
I've ever been by the Crown.

- He was certainly the most...
- You know? I definitely bought that.

- Mm.
- Um...

Definitively?

No, I...I'm not saying...
But I've been leaning...

I'm now leaning toward... Like, it's
shocking for me to even say that.

- But... You know.
- I'm the same.

It's starting to sway that way now.

I mean, that story
had very few holes in it.

I think everything
that the Crown said made sense.

He didn't try and hide anything.
He wasn't challenging anything.

But he basically put forward
the charge of manslaughter.

And that's...that's all plausible,
what the prosecutor said.

But beyond reasonable doubt?
Not...not for me.

The prosecution put that
evidence in a narration.

There's nothing definite in that.

I don't think there's...there's
any proof of...like, undoubted proof

that...that he's guilty.

And what was the strangulation?

I mean, I've just realised
that what they're saying is

he was so angry that then he
grabbed him around the throat

just to finish him off,
but...he obviously didn't.

- Finish him off?
- Well...

- Well, you don't know.
- Yeah, that...

They had experts say

it's not consistent
with falling down the stairs.

And he...the prosecutor
summarised that.

He repeated that.

Yeah. It's not consistent.

Now do you...do you get it?

- Yeah.
- The extent of his injuries.

- Yeah.
- That's how he died.

So hypothetically, if they did
have a fight, the Crown said,

"If these injuries are enough
for the heart to give out,

- "then that is manslaughter."
- That is still manslaughter. Yeah.

- And that's where...
- He just had to contribute.

He just had to contribute, right?

All he had to do is hit him once,

and that's...it's contributed
to trauma that led to his death.

- Even if it was self-defence?
- Technically it's manslaughter.

- Yeah.
- What do you think?

- What would I think?
- Yes.

There are people that have
made up their minds.

They already made up their minds?

I think there are a few people that
have made up their minds. Guilty.

Oh, God.

That's what the evidence
is showing us.

Yeah.

If he contributed to the trauma,
that it led to his death.

If he... Even a little bit.

Even if he contributed
a little bit...

- Could have been anything.
- ..it's still manslaughter.

The Crown provided
a series of events,

and that was very compelling.

And I thought, "Wow, that's it.

"That's the case,
and that's what happened."

I think it's the morning,
they had a kerfuffle.

- There was irritation...
- I think there was a bit of tension.

There was a bit of tension.

- It's a boiling point.
- And it was just deteriorating.

It's a boiling point.

Every single person is
capable of being that angry

that they can't control themselves,
definitely.

Every single person.

Anybody here been in a fit of rage?

Uncontrollable?

Yep.

- You just can't control, yeah?
- Absolutely.

Have you seen red before?

When you get so angry,
you see the colour red?

- Haze.
- Oh, plenty of times.

The extreme anger.

A couple of times that's happened
to me and I've had to, yeah,

really stop myself before
I went one step too far.

Testosterones were going
through and I was shaking

and just felt like
I lost control of myself, mm.

And your body, like,
the adrenaline takes over...

- The adrenaline, yeah.
- ..and you feel more powerful.

And you shake and everything
when you're finished.

- Have you been in a physical...
- Uncontrollable.

Yes, yes.

Good people can do bad things,
for sure.

If we agree that
there's a fight, though,

and that that led to manslaughter,

how do we know the fight
wasn't self-defence?

That's not for us to decide.

We're here to decide if
the actions that he took

led to Carlos dying.

- Mm.
- Yes, they did.

Craig was very adamant
that he was guilty.

I won't change my mind. I was like,
"I will die on this hill."

Mr Benedetti...

..I invite you to present the
closing remarks for the defence.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Shaun Yang's barrister
will now work

to undo the gains made
by the prosecution.

Defence closing argument
is there to poke holes

into the prosecution's case, to find
gaps, to find that reasonable doubt.

As I mentioned to you
when the trial commenced,

you - and that's all of you -
must obey...

An old-fashioned word, I accept.

Nonetheless, you must obey Her
Honour's directions of law to you.

You must accept her directions
of law to you as being the law.

You can't allow sympathy
or prejudice

to play a part
in your deliberations.

You know Mr Yang is homosexual.

The case is not about whatever views

you may or may not have
about human behaviour.

That's got nothing to do
with the case.

You can't speculate.

That's what you're not
permitted to do.

Now, this is a circumstantial case.

There's so many gaps in this case
that are cause for concern.

There are so many gaps
in the evidence that we say

the prosecution has failed to prove
to you that Mr Yang is guilty

of manslaughter
beyond reasonable doubt.

I want to take you through the many
holes in the prosecution's case.

The Crown told you that Miss Cooper
would have heard

the juicer hitting the wall.

There's no evidence of that.

She doesn't say that at all.

That's just speculation.

And where's the evidence that
the juicer struck the wall

with great force?

There isn't any.

The force of the juicer being
thrown is just speculation.

Mr Gentile gives evidence,
you will remember,

about how Mr Levetto said
he was considering

leaving the relationship.

He was concerned
about Shaun's behaviour.

Well, members of the jury,
that stands in direct contrast

to the observations of Mr Reid.

Mr Reid used to live
with the accused.

He knew him very well, and he was,
as it were, voluble and expressive,

but never physical in arguments.

He also said they were going away
with the deceased and the accused

on a holiday,
a holiday to China together.

Dr Palazar is asked about
the bruising to the chest,

and he agrees that if the fingers
and hands are placed

high up on the chest and neck
in resuscitation,

that could be an explanation
for bruising.

There's a whole range of things
are possibilities.

He says there are a lot of
variables,

and he agrees that we
just don't know enough.

He thinks it is a combination
of injuries...

..and that it was a result
of blunt-force trauma.

A lot of people get confused
about what blunt-force trauma is.

Blunt-force trauma does not mean
an intentional attack. It can.

You smash your head
into this table,

that is blunt-force trauma.

Police had to physically restrain
the accused

to make sure he didn't interfere
with the crime scene.

If he got a couple of bruises
on his wrist,

then that's the way it goes.

If you don't want to be handcuffed
and you are resisting

and flapping your arms around,
there's a lot more physical contact

and scope for injury.

Frida Martin gave evidence
that the DNA as found on the juicer

is DNA of the deceased,
but not one drop of blood.

Frida Martin could not establish
any human blood on the juicer.

The blood must have some method
of avoiding the object.

Some James Bond-style juicer
that goes whack, whack!

Now, the Crown said in the opening
of the case, and I quote,

"It may well be that the deceased
has fallen over

"and hit the back of his head,
because there is an abrasion there,

"and that could have
caused brain damage.

"And then may well be that
the accused has placed his hands

"around the neck of the deceased

"and caused the injuries
occasioned to the neck."

Members of the jury,
be very, very careful

about equating phrases
like "it may well be"

and "it could be"

to "beyond reasonable doubt".

"It may well be"

is not the criminal standard
of "beyond reasonable doubt".

It is far less.

"Could be" can mean a lot of things.

It could be the case,
or it may not be the case.

You know that there was, even
according to the Crown case,

a loving relationship between these
two men over a long period of time.

You've heard that
there's no suggestion

of what could be described
as a motive to kill.

So please...don't speculate.

This is not Hercule Poirot
where a hidden motive

will suddenly emerge
at the last moment.

Suspicion is not enough.

Sympathy plays no part.

None.

The prosecution has failed
to satisfy each element

of the offence of manslaughter
beyond reasonable doubt.

This is because there is simply
not enough direct evidence

for the prosecution to
prove their case.

While it might be frustrating that
we will never know what happened,

the jury cannot speculate and fill
in the gaps of what likely happened.

If you are not satisfied with
each element of manslaughter

beyond reasonable doubt...

..then you must find Mr Yang
not guilty.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Benedetti.

Members of the jury,
you may retire now.

Thank you.

When the jurors return
in the morning,

they'll start their
formal deliberation.

The trial and Shaun's fate
is theirs to decide.

Both arguments
are compelling,

and at the moment I'm indecisive
in terms of where I sit

because both of those presentations
are correct,

but they delivered two
different conclusions.

The prosecutor was very
convincing, but he made up a story

like we all made up stories
in the first couple of days.

There's a lot of
"could have, might have"

where the defence barrister actually
went after that and said,

"Well, there's a lot of doubt."

And that's the key word here,
is there a lot of doubt?

I think the defence barrister
influenced me

more than the prosecutor.

Tomorrow, I don't think
anyone's going to have anything

to hide behind.

They're going to have to really
put themselves out there and

say what they think
and why they think that.

Next time...

So, first of all, your position,
do you think guilty or not guilty?

I can't even answer it.

..the pressure is on as the jury
must reach a unanimous verdict.

Yeah, I agree, there's
a number of possibilities

that could have happened
that day, a number.

But can they shift
each other's thinking?

The DNA on the juicer?!

Guys, guys, guys,
it's five against one.

That was like a pack of wolves
trying to get him to conform.

None of these injuries
are severe enough.

There was no brain haemorrhage.

You know, like, what's the use
of trying to make a point

when you know they're not
going to buckle?

They won't get you
and do this to you.

There was no signs of openness
to be thinking any differently.

The thing is, we don't
all have to agree.

- The problem is we do.
- No, we don't.

This test of our jury system
comes to an end

with a verdict that will shock
the entire courtroom.

Mr Shaun Yang is charged with
the manslaughter of Carlo Levetto

How say you?
Is the accused guilty or not guilty?

Captions by Red Bee Media
SBS Australia 2024