Okay, mic check. All right, good. I tried to do this last week and or maybe even week before last and I couldn't get my mic to work with me. So, I'm glad it looks like I still have sound. Okay. So, um I believe the order I want to go in with this one is we're going to look at how the Detroit Police Department they they failed Naziah when she was actually identified as a victim before this time when she, you know, now is no longer alive and how an aunt did step in, not the aunts we saw on the um stand, but uh another aunt stepped in and did try to report his actions. Um, then we're going to look at his multiple 2026 plea deals that he took. That does include um the plea deal he took concerning Naziah Harris. And then lastly, uh unfortunately, it's going to be a trigger warning, but he had an August 2025 pre-trial for his daughter that was also his victim. And I do want to end on showing how this monster ruined another child's life. And not even just any child, his own child. So that's the order we're going to go in. Um, hey Veronica D. Baby Peaches. All right. So first, let's start with um the first time that uh it was actually reported that Nazia may be a victim of Jarvis butts before it got to the point where uh she became pregnant and everything. Did Detroit police miss [music] a chance to save the life of Nziah Harris? Records uncovered by the seven investigators tonight show that they did. >> Nearly two years before Nziah went missing, police received a warning involving the man now accused in her murder. >> And tonight, DPD says they messed up. Seven Investigator Ross Jones reveals what went wrong and what's changed as a result. >> Mr. But targeted and befriended women who had to have sexual relationships with their young daughters. He was a classic and expert groomer and pedophile. >> On the same day Jarvis Buts would be accused of killing and sexually abusing 13-year-old Naziah Harris, police and prosecutors urged the community to protect its children at all costs. >> But when it comes to our children, we must be deliberative. We must be diligent and laser focused on their safety. uh we make strong and good decisions for our children, keep them out of harm's way. >> But more than 20 months before Harris ever went missing, Detroit police had been warned that she'd been victimized by Jarvis Buts and failed to ever investigate. >> There was enough for the department to ask about Nia. >> Yeah, we could have done better. No question. Last month, we showed you that Jarvis Buts had been the subject of multiple complaints to Children's Protective Services, including at least one that named Nziah Harris as a victim. What we did not know at the time is that CPS wasn't the only agency who'd been warned. In April of 2022, in response to a complaint CPS had received, workers there submitted a law enforcement notification or LEN to Detroit police. It's an alert to possible criminal behavior that may warrant a police investigation. In this case, the complaint told DPD that there was an incident at a birthday party where a child accused Buts of sexual abuse. Naziah and name withheld reported that Jarvis touched them inappropriately as well. It read, "Jarvis is a sex offender and a felon." Naziah's great aunt, Jernelle, says she filed that complaint with CPS that ultimately made its way to DPD. They're the police. They're supposed to investigate. I mean, they had all the everything is there. >> But the department never did investigate, at least with respect to Naziah. Instead, according to officials, only the other alleged victim named in the report was questioned because CPS only listed her under the victim header, even though Naziah was identified as an abuse victim, too. >> Does that make any sense to you? >> No. Makes zero sense. Either they didn't read it or they didn't comprehend it. That's my opinion. >> Tom Barry is a retired Detroit police lieutenant who reviewed the report that bears Naziah's name. How many victims do you see identified there? >> I see two for sure, maybe three. Somebody dropped the ball. It's pretty clear by reading that that there's at least two allegations of sexual assault there. >> Her name was right in the report. At a minimum, the department should reach out to her and at least ask if something happened. But that didn't happen. >> It did not. Today, Assistant Chief Charles Fitzgerald makes no excuses, saying much has changed with how the department handles the more than 5,000 LEN reports it receives every year. Unlike when the Naziah complaint came through, he says DPD now interviews everyone identified inside, regardless of whether they're listed under the victim header. Complaints are triaged and are assigned quickly, and missing information, like in this case, Naziah's last name, is fared out by investigators. It's a horrible excuse. We still should have done what we should have done. >> The fact that they acknowledge it shouldn't have worked this way and it took for something so tragic to happen to her. You're damn right it shouldn't have worked that way. They should have did their job. >> Kuwana Morton is one of Naziah's relatives who says she filed complaints with CPS2. She wonders tonight if the 13-year-old's fate might have been different had police ever bothered to reach out. >> Somebody has to answer for that. They absolutely do. CPS and DPD. >> I think the obvious question that a case like this begs is how many other victims or alleged victims in reports like this were named but never contacted by DPD. >> Yeah. Prior to the recent process, I don't know. I I would hate to speculate even. >> Do you do you worry that there are other cases like this? >> Of course. Yeah, for sure. >> I don't think it stopped in one child sliding through the crack. They clearly weren't doing their jobs. >> We don't. >> So that is Oh, that's so haunting cuz it's just like it was right there in their faces on that report. Um I mean there is no excuse he could make. So I'm glad he didn't try to make excuses, but yeah, that tells me they skimmed the reports. They were skimming uh at least then. And because they they did question the victim that was listed under victim, but then didn't didn't read the narrative to see that there was like the retired police officer said there's at least two vict there's two victims for sure and he said there could be a third um in there. Um D said, "I smell a lawsuit coming and pray the awful family members that were supposed to care for her cannot gain anything by her unalivvening." I pray the same. the um I wanted to make sure I highlighted the great aunt Janelle because there is at least one aunt that was there and cared and pointed out what she saw and tried to save at least two kids. She did what she was supposed to do. She went to CPS. CPS did what they were supposed to do. They went to the Detroit Police Department and then that's where the ball got dropped. So, it's it's it's more than just unfortunate. Like, it's he he gonna have a Yeah, they're gonna have a hard time with that one. But, um, so now we're moving on to the plea deals that Jarvis Buts took because he actually ended up taking more than one at a time, which I didn't realize that at first. And please forgive me because my cough has gotten better, but it is slowly slowly going away. And the more I'm reading, the more it might show up. So, I do apologize for any coughing right now, but I do have all of his well, all the plea deals I'm aware of. I have all of them. So, we're going to go through each one. And it actually does name each victim. This was made publicly available. So, um although normally some of the victims were not named, they are named here. Yes, the aunt Shannon and her mom need to go to jail as well. I agree with you, Ma B. I do. I I needed them to be investigated so hard and thoroughly like it it wasn't Oh my gosh. I agree with you. I just want you to know that. Um All right. So, the first one were So, we're I'm going to go through these plea deals. All of them. The last one is Na the plea deal he took concerning Nziah Harris, but all these were taken in 2026, either the same day or very very close to the same day. So, we're about to go through them. Um all right. So, the first one, I'm going to read the first one fully through, then the other ones, they have the same format, so I'll only read the highlighted parts for the other ones. Um, but this is the state of Michigan. It's a settlement offer, advice of rights, and notice of acceptance. And, um, this is, of course, the defendant's name is Jarvis Buts. So, the first thing Xed out or checked on here is no charge reduction for this one charge. It say you will plead to the following charge and it's count three criminal sexual conduct secondderee person under 13. So basically victim under 13 and then the defendant Jarvis Buts was 17 years of age or older which obviously you know he was 30s or whatever. Um and it says statutory maximum penalty is 15 years to life and it says the people agree to dismiss. So from this one case they did dismiss there's a count one of criminal sexual conduct firstdegree person under 13. Count two criminal sexual conduct firstdegree person under 13. Count four criminal sexual conduct secondderee person under 13. Count five criminal sexual conduct second offense notice. And the same for count six. And then it says um also to withdraw notice to enhance sentence habitual offender. fourth offense notice mandatory 25-year sentence. And then the sentence agreement, it says terms and conditions as to count three, which is the one that they kept. And then um they dismissed the other ones for this case. As to count three, 10 years to 15 years, MDOC, uh Sora, tier three, lifetime electronic monitoring, sex offender treatment, no contact with Janiah, buts or family. Janiah is his daughter. any restitution if applicable. Any other terms and conditions as set by the court, cost and fines to run concurrent with, and these cases are the ones we're going to look at coming down. And then he gets his advice of rights and notice of acceptance. Um, I'm just going to actually I might read the second one cuz this one got warped. So when we come to this on the next one, I'll read it cuz it's kind of warped on this one and they're all the same format. Okay, so the next one we have, of course, the defendant is still Jarvis Butts. No charge reduction. It says, "You will plead to the following charge." This is count two, criminal sexual conduct, second degree, person under 13, defendant 17 years of age or older, statutory maximum penalty 15 years uh and lifetime electronic monitoring. And it says, "The people agree to dismiss count one, criminal sexual conduct, first degree, person under 13, and count three, criminal sexual conduct, second offense notice. Withdraw notice to enhance sentence, habitual offender, fourth offense notice, mandatory 25ear sentence. Terms and conditions as to count to 10 years to 15 years. um lifetime electronic monitoring, sex offender treatment, no contact with, and this is the next victim's name, Paris Bryant or family. Well, I'm assuming these are the victim's names um because when we get down to the bottom, Nziah's name is listed um in there. And it says any restitution if applicable, any other terms and conditions as set by the court, cost and fines. And then advice of rights is said you have offered to plead guilty or no contendery in this matter. Before accepting your plea, the court must be convinced that you understand the following. If your plea is accepted, you will not have a trial of any kind, and so give up the rights you would have had at a trial, including the right to be tried by a jury, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, to have the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty, to have the witnesses against you appear at the trial, to question the witnesses against you, to have the court order any witnesses you have for the defense to appear at the trial, to remain silent during the trial, to not have that silence used against you, and to testify at the trial if you want to testify. If your plea is accepted and you commit misconduct before sentencing, the court will not be required to follow a sentencing agreement or evaluation. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to, failing to appear for sentencing, violating a bond condition, violating a sentencing or plea agreement, or failing to obey a different court order. Fines, costs, and other financial obligations imposed by the court must be paid at the time of assessment except when the court allows otherwise for good cause shown. If you are not able to pay due to financial hardship, contact the court immediately to request a payment alternative. If your plea is accepted, you will be giving up any claim that the plea was the result of promises or threats that were not disclosed to the court at the plea proceeding or that it was not your own choice to enter the plea. If your plea is accepted, you may be giving up the right to appeal issues that would otherwise be appealable if you were convicted at a trial. Further, any appeal from your conviction and sentence pursuant to this plea will be by application for leave to appeal and not by right. If your plea involves a statement by the court that it will sentence to a specified term or within a specified range, then any sentencing guidelines range discussed at the plea hearing is a preliminary estimate and the final sentencing guidelines range determined by the court may differ. Sentencing guidelines range discussed at the plea hearing are part of the plea and you have a right to withdraw your plea if the final sentencing guidelines range determined by the court as sentencing are different and to be provided a numerically quantifiable sentence term or range. A quantifiable sentence range includes but is not limited to language such as lower, upper half or lower, upper quarter. You will be required to state orally on the record that you have read and understand all the above and that you agree to wave all the above rights. Okay. On to the next plea deal he took for another victim. Okay. It says you will plead the following charge. Count two criminal sexual conduct secondderee person under 13. The people agree to dismiss. Count one criminal sexual conduct firstdegree person under 13. Count three, criminal sexual conduct second offense notice. Count four, criminal sexual conduct secondderee, person under 13. Count five, criminal sexual conduct, second offense notice. Count six, criminal sexual conduct secondderee person under 13. And count seven, criminal sexual conduct second offense notice. Um, it says withdraw notice to enhance sentence habitual offender, fourth offense notice, mandatory 25-year sentence. Terms and conditions as to count to 10 years to 15 years lifetime electronic monitoring sex offender treatment no contact with I'm going to say alche den witty or family any restitution if applicable any other terms and conditions as set by the court cost and fines to run concurrent with cases and enlist the cases. So concurrent, they're not stacking them. They're unfortunately they're just it's just going to be whatever the the max minimum to the max max that's what he's going to serve. It's not going to go 10 to 15 years plus 10 to 15 years plus 10 to 15 years unfortunately. Um now he he does you'll see when we get to Naziah the total that he'll um he has the possibility of being sentenced in March but just you know it is concurrent though cuz consecutive is the one I believe that's where it would have stacked but concurrent is like they count them all together like unfortunately and nolo contenderate is no contest from what I read. Okay. All right. And then the next one, next victim, you will plead the following charge. Count one, criminal sexual conduct, secondderee, person under 13. The people agree to dismiss. Count two, criminal sexual conduct, secondderee, person under 13. Count three, criminal sexual conduct, second offense notice. Count four, criminal sexual conduct, second offense notice. And it says, uh, withdraw notice to enhance sentence, habitual offender, fourth offense notice. Terms and conditions as to count one, 10 years to 15 years. Lifetime electronic monitoring, sex offender treatment, no contact with Michaela Jackson or family, any restitution if applicable, any other terms and conditions as set forth by the court. Cost and fines. Let me see. Okay, this we're still not even to Nziah yet. Okay, this is the next plea deal. You will plead to the following charge. Count one, criminal sexual conduct, third degree, person 13 through 15. The people agree to dismiss. Count two, criminal sexual conduct, second offense notice. Withdraw notice to enhance sentence, habitual offender, fourth offense notice, mandatory 25ear sentence. Terms and conditions as to count one, 10 years to 15 years, sex offender treatment, no contact with Jaylen, White, or family, any restitution if applicable, any other terms and conditions as set by the court. And then this is our last one, plea deal or sorry, people settlement offer charge reduction. So this one um it says you will plead to the following charge homicide murder second degree. The people agree to dismiss. Count two child sexually abusive activity. Count three criminal sexual conduct firstdegree person under 13. Count four, criminal sexual conduct second offense notice. Withdraw notice to enhance sentence. Habitual offender fourth offense notice mandatory 25-year sentence. Terms and conditions. asked to count one 35 years to 60 years. So that with all the ones that we just read, he's going to get from 35 years to a total of 60 years. Um because they're all going to run concurrent. It says no contact with Annette Harris or family of Naziah Harris. Agree to to provide truthful statement regarding the body of Naziah Harris. So that's where he was. He has to tell him where he placed her body. But from what I read in the articles, they just kept saying he said I placed I put her body in the river. So that gives me really no hope that they're going to find her. And you know, like it's it's it's not looking good. Um cuz that's what I read so far. Now he may say more at his other thing, but right now all I read was he said, "I I dumped her body in the river. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. [sighs] Okay. So, now what I wanted to show y'all because he he has been in now he took the plea deal. So, it's no longer going to go to a trial, but I just wanted y'all to still hear what the attorneys argued about in the sense of what his charges should be when it concerns unfortunately his daughter because he needs to always be remembered as the monster he is. Um, so let's look at this one is uh this was in August 2025. Oh, sorry, not this. This occurred in August 2025. Um, and I'll just let y'all hear it. I may come in with some comments. I may not because y'all are most of you already know how he is. But if I have something, I will come in because I have to give commentary. But I'll just try to let it play as much as possible. Uh, let me put in the chat. It's trigger warning. Trigger warning. Trigger warning. I can't give you enough trigger warnings. [clears throat] So, if you can't handle exactly what we just read, what his plea deal was about, I would not stick around uh for this because some of the language that they use, [clears throat] sorry, and what's described is I mean, it's horrible. Sorry, I'm trying to type this out to pin it in the chat. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and hit play. >> All right, good morning everyone. We're calling cases 24002236, 24006232, 2500218, and lastly 2500241. These are all in the matters of people versus Jarvis Buts. I apologize. I believe I missed one. There's also file 25004478. [clears throat] Um, can I make appearances? Let's start with the prosecutor. >> Good morning, your honor. Martina Ripley on behalf of the people P83688. >> And good morning, your honor. Matthew Makepiece. Also on behalf of the people, P82796, >> defense. >> Good morning, honor. People defender service by Cheryl Quick, P83973 on behalf of Jarvis Buts together with full council Ken Rigggins and Lauren Butler. >> And good morning. Good morning to your staff. Neighborhood Defender Services by Ken Rig P82125 on behalf of Mr. Jarvis Buds. >> Good morning, honor. Lauren Butler, P88126, also from Neighborhood Defender Service on behalf of Mr. Bets. Thank you. Mr. But is also joining us in court. Mr. Buts, your name is >> Dr. But thank you. You can all have a seat. Right. Attorneys, thank you for your patience this morning. We did have a relatively short chambers conversation about these cases this morning. And just to briefly summarize defense, uh you intend to raise an issue uh with regard to uh some outstanding discovery on the case ending in 218, which has the homicide charge. Is that accurate? >> That's correct, Judge. >> All right. It's also my understanding uh that there are two motions to quash filed uh today. The parties uh the people submitted a written response. Those motions squash have had an opportunity to review them. Parties are ready to to argue those motions today. Correct. >> We are honest. >> Okay. Very good. Um all right. Well, let's start with the file Mr. Butts is here to be arraigned on. That being the file ending in 4478. Um how does he wish to proceed for? >> Yeah, Mr. us would uh wave a formal reading of the information. He stands mute. We ask the court to enter a plea of not guilty in his behalf. >> Thank you. A plea of not guilty will be entered on his behalf. Um council, was the examination held in that matter? >> It was. >> All right. We're going to get that transcript ordered. And uh with that uh we want to move right into the respective motions to quash or did you want to address the discovery issue? >> Um I think we can do go ahead and do the motions and then we can discuss the discovery at the end. >> Okay. Very good. All right. Who's going to take the lead from defense? >> Yeah, I will. Your motion? >> Yeah, your honor. Thank you. So, your honor, I did file a motion to quad relating to case um ending in 6232. Um for the sake of privacy, I won't mention the complaining witness's name, but your honor, there was a preliminary examination held in this matter. Um there was one witness called. The complaining witness was the only witness called. She testified that at the time of the at the time of the incident she was four years old at the current at the time of the hearing she was 13. So there had been a substantial passage of time her testimony was she was home with Mr. Buts and Mr. But girlfriend at the um at some point the girlfriend left the bedroom. Mr. Butts was in the bedroom. She was on the couch. Mr. but summoned her to the bedroom at which point she was ordered to take off her clothes. Her testimony was she took off all her clothes except her underwear. She took off her clothes, then Mr. Butts touched her. I believe the order of touching her was he touched the top of her thigh, then he touched under her breast, and then she said he touched her where she peaked. Okay. Um that was the sole testimony of this witness. Um, at the end of the proofs, prosecution moved to bind over on an original count of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree and added a count of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree because of the statement of mis I'm sorry, because of statement of complaining witness. Yiana, we believe that is an abuse of discretion. The only thing that we have on the record is she said she touched where she uses the restroom and the only clarification we had was she said this is where she pees from or she urines from. Excuse me. Those were her words. Um from that we had the pro um prosecution postulating that that meant that there was some penetration except there was no penetration mentioned. There was no penetration discussed. We know from case law for ACSC1 to happen there has to be some form of penetration even the slightest. Page law also tells us if she testified that he were to force her underwear inside of her that would be sufficient for penetration. Yeah. We don't have any of that. We never have conversation or we never have any testimony about her panties being pulled side. We never have any testimony about her pains being forced in her. We never have any testimony about anyone penetrating her. Now that is given the fact that she was four years old at the time this happened. Granted, but at the time of the hearing, she was 13. Surely she could testify. I believe she was asked on direct does she remember the events? And she said she remembered the events. None of that was testified. I think to say that there was sufficient evidence on the record that says that there was a penetration [clears throat] for the purpose of a CS1 is an abuse of discretion and we believe that should be dismissed. >> Thank you. And councel uh your your respective motions uh they're similar in nature in that you're arguing the issue of uh whether or not there's sufficient evidence on the issue of penetration on both your motions across. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Do you want to Why we got >> I I just want to say that his defense attorneys, and I know this is what defense attorneys do, but they are not arguing [clears throat] if he touched his daughter inappropriately or violated his daughter inappropriately. They are arguing the degree of if penetration occurred. That is I there's no you just have to just bar me. I just have to go to consulting or something. There's no way I would be forced to defend this person. There's just there's no way. >> Argued is uh on a second matter and then we'll hear one response from people if you're okay with that. >> That's fine. Okay. >> Okay. So, this has been with regard to the case ending in 24101. Um and sorry. >> Okay. And this is Lauren Butler P88126 again. Um so first to overview the facts from that case I want to emphasize that this is only with regard to one of the two instances described the complaintant described two instances but only one of them has been charged as firstdegree and I am only arguing regard to that and that particular charge. So at the preliminary exam for that instance that was described the testimony included wearing panties. So again that is similar. She never described those being removed. She did not describe any instances of penetration and only described light touching while wearing panties. The prosecution had the burden at the exam of establishing evidence of every element and that included penetration. And again, the case law is clear on this. In particular, the case I cited in my motion, people v McNees, while that is unpublished, it is particularly relevant because it highlights this um distinction where it needs to be more than just it uses very similar language to that use of the exam here with this emphasis on touching the vagina, rubbing the vagina. That's not enough for penetration. Um and there there was even specified um testimony about under the underwear and over. And yet even with that fact, the court still held that this was not penetration. And that's similar to what we have here. This description of some degree of touching on that area, but that alone is not penetration. It also relies on published case law people v pain. Rubbing one h where it concludes that rubbing one hands over another vaginal area does not qualify as penetration. And I'd also like to address the response from the prosecution to this motion because the um argument they're making was not reflected in the preliminary exam testimony. Specifically, there was no testimony about inside the vagina. So, while they are now arguing that that is possible, it's not the testimony we heard. We didn't hear this contrasting of the labia and the vagina. And this diagram that is now referenced in the motion was not used the exam. So in conclusion, the prosecution did not meet the probable cause standard for first-degree criminal sexual conduct because there was no evidence of penetration and bind over was not proper specifically as to that charge. >> Thank you. All right. Who's going to take the lead from the people? >> That's me, Judge. >> All right. Very good. >> So I'll start with the um the first argument made by Mr. Reagan's um the complaining witness there um referenced by his initials PB. Um, she testified specifically that he touched my private part where I use the bathroom with. Um, when asked what comes out, she stated urine. I then asked tell me about what part of him touches you there. She states his hand. And what does he do? What does his hand do when he touches you there? He states he rubs. She states he rubs my private part with his hands. I then clarified, "Is this on the top part of that?" And she interjected. She said, "The bottom." And I said, "Would that be where the pee comes out?" She says, "Uh-huh." I clarified, "Is that a yes?" So, in summary, she testifies she's rubbing the bottom part of her private part where the pee comes out. Um, your honor, in a motion to quash, this is the the highest uh difference to the to uh the reviewing magistrate uh in this case. Um, it requires an abuse of discretion um which is is most deference to the district court. Um, penetration requires uh any sort of intrusion however however slight. Um and we use the term genital opening rather than vagina. So that penetration of that labia majora is sufficient to establish uh penetration uh or criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. Here the complaining witness testified that the defendant rubbed her on her bottom part where the pee comes out. Um when we think about basic anatomy. Um, we know that pee or urine for women comes through the urethral opening. There's a lot of, you know, bi biological anatomy down there, but we know that the urethra opening is an internal structure that's beyond both the labia majora and the labia minora. Um, so when this complaining witness testifies that he rubbed her bottom part where the pee comes out, she's referring to an internal structure thereby penetration. Um, the examining magistrate also found that and said in her ruling that for a woman to urinate, it's not on the outside of her labia. That's that's an internal. It would be beyond that. And so she felt that it was a question of fact. Um, I don't believe >> um I'm going to answer this out loud just because you know for my replay people as well, but my B asked so are they saying it's not that bad because there was no penetration. That is exactly what his defense is saying. And the prosecution right now is explaining first of all there's different degrees or different uh penetration is defined in a very specific way and it's not uh just how they're the defense is trying to write it off. Um so yes, the defense is trying to get it I think down from firstdegree to a secondderee offense. That's what they were trying to do. And if you were here earlier, you already know now he's taking a plea deal for all his victims. Um, but this Shay's creation, this is his daughter's pre-trial that was his victim when she was four years old and I think she was 12 now when she had to testify. And I just wanted to put this in here cuz there there will be no more trial for him. So, I wanted to make sure that everything that they aired about him, we made sure that people were aware and we're watching that. So this was this was his daughter's uh case >> that there's any abuse of discretion by that. Um and uh I believe that there's uh satisfactory testimony at least to a probable cause standard for that count. And do you want me to go on to the next one >> please? >> Okay. Uh in the uh second case uh extremely similar. Um this one is uh Specifically, um, this complaining witness starts off by saying, "You know how like how somebody would play with you in your sleep, like you would feel them in your ear, um, like this or something." We don't have what she was demonstrating, but she's playing with her ear. Um, he was doing that to my vagina when I woke up and I was crying. She stated or I stated, "All right, when you wake up, you wake up to feeling something." She said, "Yes." I asked, "Where do you feel something at?" She says, "At my at my vagina." And I said, "What do you feel at your vagina?" She said, "I feel like like somebody's playing with me. Like I don't know, like somebody's trying to touch you but not wake you up while he's touching you." And I said, "What part of him is touching him? How touching you?" She said, "He's using his hands." She later confronted the defendant about it. He's asked her why I was acting so weird towards him. He said, "You don't." She said, "You don't remember what you did to me?" he you he the defendant looked me dead in the face and said I don't remember doing that but if I did do it then I'm sorry again the reviewing uh standard is abuse of discretion and here similarly um she testified that she felt the defendant at her vagina that she felt the defendant playing with her using his hand at her vagina it's more than just mere contact mere brushing against a vagina or just merely uh touching on top of it. It's an intentional act at at her vagina by stating she felt the defendant's hand at her vagina. She's testifying to penetration. She did not state that she felt his hand on or over her vagina, but rather at her vagina. Again, we look >> and I'll say when I watched this the first time, I was like, "Oh man, is this going to be enough?" But then when the prosecutor that's speaking right now said she the little girl demonstrated like when someone plays in your ear that is I mean a child can't really be more clear than that. So I was glad that that's the way that um she testified so they could also have that to back up the fact that this did not need to um that that this was penetration. >> Look at basic anatomy judge. The vaginal opening is beyond both the both beyond or inside both the labia majora and the labia minora. And so because sexual penetration is defined as the labia majora and beyond um the vaginal opening is beyond both the uh labia majora and minora. Um and so by stating that she felt the defendant's hands at her vagina playing with her um she testified to penetration. And I believe that there is um satisfactory uh testimony on the record uh to satisfy that to the probable cause standard which is again probable cause standard is the lowest standard and abuse of discretion is the highest deference to the examining magistrate. Um and I believe that they both create questions of fact. >> Thank you. do defense to respond. >> Yeah, >> in all serious we were we're giving far more biology of the human anatomy that was ever put on the record at at the preliminary examination. All we had at the preliminary examination were both were they were touched at the area. We [clears throat] have young ladies who although at the time this happened may have been too young to describe the actual part at the time of the preliminary examination. Surely they could have said he touched me on the inside. He forced my panties aside. He touched me on the inside. And in either case was that testimony ascertained. That testimony was given. That question was asked by either people. So here all we have is hyperbole. This is what the complaining myth witnesses must have meant when they said that. Yeah. I I think that is a far reach and I think surely that is an abuse of discretion to just simply say they must have meant there was internal penetration. That is an element the prosecution has to prove in each and every case when they charge when they uh charge a CST in the first degree. In neither case was that proven, was that ascertained? We just have speculation and to put those put those charges in front of a jury would simply be wrong, your honor. So, we're asking you to deny to grant both motions of quash. >> I would just reiterate what he's already saying. I think in my case in particular, there's this emphasis on the word at. There's just no, it's not realistic to say that that's what at means. this comparison between at and over. That's really not what plain meaning tells us about the word at at is very different from inside all of the what Mr. Organ's really just emphasized. So again, I would object that this should be dismissed today. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Well, on a motion to quashion here, there's two motions to quash filed by defense. The court has to review the record for an abuse of discretion, which has already been pointed out. The abuse of discretion standard is a it's a it's a hyperb and defense here through their written and oral arguments today have challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented on the bind over of the respective counts of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree uh regarding the issue of penetration. So the court has had an opportunity to listen to the respective arguments from the attorneys here today. may have also had an opportunity to review the lower court record and namely transcripts. And of course, the prosecution at the preliminary examination has the burden to show competent evidence that probable cause exists on each of the elements of the charge offenses. So here looking at pertinent portions of the transcript um and I'll start with the case where is the alleged complainant. Uh there's there's a few pertinent portions of that examination transfer starting on page 58 and it notes line 20 her answer to a question. He touched my private part where I use the bathroom question. Okay. And when you use the bathroom, what comes out? Answer. Question. Urine. Okay. Tell me about the part. Tell me about what part of him touches [clears throat] you there. Answer his hand. Question on the following page. Okay. What does his hand do when he touches you there? Answer. Uh, he rubs my private part with his hands. Question. Okay. Was this, so when he's rubbing your private part with his hands, is this on the top part? Answer, the bottom. Question. The bottom part. Okay. Answer. Yes. Question. Okay. And is that would be where the P comes out? Answer. Yes. With regard to the file where the alleged complainant is at, I'm directing the attorney's attention to the pertinent portion of the testimony on this issue of penetration, page 83, uh, line 14. U, this would be multiple paragraphs into her respective answer reading. And you know how you know how you like how somebody would play with you in your sleep, like you would feel them. And I think part of this answer that's relevant to this determination is the next three words and again it's like you would feel them quote in your ear like this or something he was doing that to my vagina when I woke up and I was crying moving to the next page page 84 question okay where were you sleeping answer I was sleeping in the bed with him question you were sleeping in the bed with your dad Answer yes. Moving to page 85, line eight. Question. All right. And when you wake up, you kind of wake up to feeling something. Answer yes. And where do you feel something at? Answer, my vagina. Question. What is it that you feel at your vagina? Answer. I feel like like somebody playing with me. Like I don't know. Like somebody like trying to touch you but trying not to wake you up while touching you. Question. Okay. Do you know what part of him he is using to touch you? Answer. He's using his hands. So sexual penetration uh is defined uh and that's defined number 75052 AR sexual intercourse tunnel fellatio anal interourse or any other intrusion however slight of any part of a person's body or of any object into the genital or anal openings of another person's body but admission assment is not required and here based Bas upon my review of the lower court's record testimony utilized uh in making the find over decision I think based upon the the testimony that I just read in the record verbatim the examining judge uh did not use discretion in binding over respective count criminal sexual conduct. I think there was sufficient evidence presented on each of the elements and specifically the elements of penetration in both files to uphold the bind over and attorneys I'm going to respectfully deny motion. All right. So attorneys uh we have a couple of other issues to discuss. Um okay that's the end for me. Um, I will link the what we're watching if you want to watch the remaining nine minutes of this, but I did want to show the judge uh was not buying that bull basically. So, um, yeah, he was going to get charged a higher charge. Again, if you were here earlier, I did read each plea deal he took in February for, I believe it was five total victims, including the Ziah Harris. All of his victims are going to need therapy. And then there is no there's there's he just took Nziah's life. So there's nothing with that. Like he just he needs to be in jail forever, but it says 30 to 65 years. 65 years will be the max he'll be serving uh with his plea deals. And I just wanted to make sure people just kept seeing because some people keep trying to villainize Naziah. And I don't understand that. I see what they're saying and I just don't even understand how they could work their fingers to type what they said. But I just wanted to show another trial he had violating his own child. And then she's only the second of five. And that's just the ones for these plea deals. That's not every victim he's probably ever left in his wake. Like I just so I just don't understand how some people have worked their fingers to somehow put blame on Nia. I don't I don't get it. and stay away from my channel with that. It's not happening. Yeah, put him in Gen Pop, Janetta. I'm with you on that. Yes. Um, so this this is the last that I had uh of him. So, please just hit the replay if you missed anything that I read or that I played. I again want to say thank you to Janiah's great aunt Janelle that did ring the alarm to CPS in 2022. I believe she tried. She identified Nia as a victim back in 2022. So there is a family member at least that cared and did do the right thing. Um so you know I pray for her great aunt Janelle. F Shannon and Annette and all the other adults that did see something and just turned around and act like they didn't see anything because this man was sloppy and blatant. This was not a oh there's no way we could have known type stuff. So yeah, that's all I have for this one. I will see y'all if you decide to come back to my channel for other things. But yeah, thank you for sticking it out with me on this one. Um, unfortunately, this will not be the last trial that I'll um have like this for you for those that can take it. But uh yeah, just want to highlight these monsters. All right, y'all. But I'll talk to you later. All right, bye.