Wolfington-Silva Trial Draws to a Conclusion with a Day of Close Arguments

By David M. Greenwald and Antoinnette Borbon

Deputy District Attorney Ryan Couzens summarized his case against Billy Wolfington and Shannon Silva, arguing that victim Bobby Brittenum said something that was arguably threatening, but more simply offensive, and Billy Wolfington stabbed him to death.  He argued that the motive was a perceived lack of respect on the part of Mr. Brittenum.

In DDA Ryan Couzens’ closing, he talked more about all of the laws and instructions of those laws than of the actual stabbing itself. But he wanted to make sure the jurors truly understood how they are to view the law and make the decision of guilty or not guilty.

When he talked about the evidence and proving his case-in-chief, he talked about catching the defendant lying on the stand. Mr. Couzens stated the only one telling certain details of the night was Mr. Wolfington himself.

Mr. Wolfington’s case, he argued, was that Mr. Brittenum said something that was threatening, then attacked Shannon Silva and charged Billy Wolfington, forcing Mr. Wolfington to pull out a knife and end Mr. Brittenum’s life.

The problem is that none of this testimony – in his view – is corroborated by the evidence and it is inconsistent with the blood pattern and wounds.  Mr. Couzens would argue that the witnesses’ testimony proved Wolfington was lying about seeing a knife, and lying about the events which led up to the stabbing.

When he had Mr. Wolfington on the stand he showed a picture of his arm from booking, which he claims showed that there was no wound.  In closing, Mr. Couzens argued that Mr. Wolfington told a “lie” and said that there was a defensive wound that he didn’t have.  He told the jury to look at the photo and they will see no wound.

“He was lying about what happened,” he argued.  “You can decide if that amounts to a ‘consciousness of guilt.’ “

He argued that, even if with buy into the defendant’s story about the threat issued by Bobby Brittenum, Mr. Wolfington has to show that he was imminent danger, that he had to instantly deal with this danger or face a loss of life.

He argued that this does not meet the standard, and added that the defense is “all baloney.”

There is no mutual combat here.  Mr. Brittenum may have been fighting, but in actuality he was fighting back, which is a big difference.

Mr. Couzens defended the credibility of the witnesses, arguing that they remember a ton of details.  Most importantly, he cited the fact that no one saw Mr. Brittenum with a knife at any point and no one heard Mr. Brittenum say, “I’m going to pop you, cracka,” which the defense alleged was the precipitating threat that followed Mr. Brittenum’s “If I leave, I’ll come back” statement when Mr. Wolfington attempted to clear the motel room.

When Mr. Wolfington had taken the stand, he had argued that for each stab by Mr. Brittenum, he stabbed back.  He went through a visual depiction showing the fight that looped around a small area of the motel room in a circular pattern over a very brief period of 15 to 20 seconds.

Mr. Couzens questioned the veracity of the account on the stand, noting that Mr. Wolfington received no defensive wounds (Mr. Wolfington asserted his hand was injured), he could not describe the knife, the wound pattern was inconsistent with what was described, and  the wounds were too deep and too fierce to be defensive wounds.

While Mr. Wolfington had a clear nexus to the stabbing, the case against Shannon Silva is more complex.  Mr. Couzens argued the jury should find him guilty of the murder under two theories.

The two theories are: first, as an aider and abettor and, second, under a theory of natural and probable consequences.  Mr. Couzens argued that Mr. Silva started the altercation by punching Mr. Brittenum.  He had to know that Mr. Wolfington had intended to commit the crime, which he argued he did because he saw him playing with his knife earlier in the evening and knew of Mr. Wolfington’s history and propensity for violence.

He had to intend to aid and abet the crime.  Mr. Couzens cited witness testimony that Mr. Silva threw a sucker punch and that the punch came out of nowhere.

He had to aid in the commission of the crime.  Here the evidence suggested that, after the first few punches were thrown, Mr. Silva was far away from the action on the other side of the room.  This, Mr. Couzens argued, was a departure from the beginning where defense attorney Danny Brace argued that Mr. Silva was trying to break up the fight.

Under the natural and probable consequences theory, as a reasonable person, Mr. Silva would have had to have known that the natural and probable consequences of committing his battery on Mr. Brittenum would be murder.

Mr. Couzens spoke about Mr. Wolfington’s checkered past, his attitude in prison, his power there and the content of recent letters to his gang member affiliates.

Mr. Couzens acknowledged that Mr. Wolfington had a sympathetic story of his childhood but expressed to the jurors there are several other people who have been through the same things and do not choose to live that kind of life. He pointed out that, even if the witnesses were in fact homeless, drug-addicted people, they too had an opportunity to be believed. Mr. Couzens talked about their fear of gang members and the reluctance to come to court and testify.

Nearing the end of his close, Mr. Couzens also brought up the statement made by Simone Mitchell, a witness, who opened the window and yelled, “They’re killing him, they’re killing him!”

He argued that these were not the words of someone who was viewing a mutual combat scenario.

After a very detailed and lengthy closing, Ryan Couzens asked the jurors to find the defendants guilty on all counts.

In closing arguments by defense attorney Ron Johnson, he began with a statement that talked about fancy words used, and shiny nickels being something a person throws out for you to notice instead of the truth. In other words, to avoid the truth, the prosecutor papers his argument in big and fancy legal terminology.

Mr. Johnson went on to talk about Wolfington’s testimony on the stand and how it did, in fact, match up to the witnesses’ testimony.  His strongest argument was comparing the taped interrogation of witness Carlitha Gordon on the night of the stabbing to Mr. Wolfington’s testimony.

He noted that she said she had asked Mr. Brittenum to leave.  But Mr. Brittenum was defiant, saying, “If I leave I’m coming back.” Mr. Wolfington stated Bobby told him, “If I leave I am coming back,” and “I’m going to pop you, cracka,” to Mr. Wolfington. It was a threat.

Not one of the other witnesses heard this conversation between Wolfington and Mr. Brittenum shortly before the fight broke out, but Mr. Johnson argued that was due to the type of people who were in the room, the fact that they were more focused on other things, and they feared talking to the police.

He argued that when someone has a knife, they are allowed to defend themselves.  There is no duty to retreat.

He noted that people asked “who is that white boy (both Mr. Wolfington and Mr. Silva appear white but are mixed race)?” It was in this context, he said, not a gang context, that someone said he’s from Broderick.

He said that when Mr. Wolfington, believing he was acting on Kiki’s behest, told everyone to leave the room.  Mr. Brittenum protested.  He said, “If I leave I’m [coming] back, back.”  Mr. Johnson argued “that means something in that room.”  He argued it was a threat.

Mr. Brittenum added, “I’m going to pop you, cracka,” and at that point Mr. Wolfington said, “That’s if I let you leave,” or something to that effect.

The issue of the knife is critical.  Mr. Couzens argued vehemently that there was no second knife – they never found a second knife and none of the witnesses saw a second knife.

But Mr. Johnson makes a series of arguments at least casting doubt on that contention.

First, he argued if there were no second knife, how did Shannon Silva get cut?  They found blood on Mr. Silva’s shirt, but it was all his blood.  Mr. Johnson argued that proves that Mr. Silva was not near the fight when the stabbing occurred, otherwise he should have had Mr. Brittenum’s blood on him.

In addition, the police never found Mr. Wolfington’s knife, either.  He testified that he dropped it on the floor.  Mr. Johnson argued that the police searched the areas with dogs and never found it.  He claimed this is evidence that someone cleaned the room after they left and hid the knife (both knives?).

Mr. Couzens, in rebuttal later, argued that there was no blood on the floor to corroborate this claim and that Mr. Wolfington could have hidden the knife in a large area without detection.  He called the second knife claim and the theory of cleaning the room a fantasy by the defense.

Finally, Mr. Johnson went through the eyewitness testimony and argued that the knife fight happened so fast that no one even saw Mr. Wolfington’s knife.  Ms. Gordon told police that she did not know there was a knife until she learned of the stabbing.  Kiki had a similar story.

Simone Mitchell never saw the knife itself but saw the wounds, so she knew there was a knife.

He argued that no one saw any knife, as it happened too fast.  So, naturally, they would not have seen Mr. Brittenum’s knife.

Mr. Johnson argued that there was a wound to Mr. Wolfington’s arm.  That it was treated by medics was documented, and Mr. Couzens improperly implied that Mr. Wolfington is lying about the knife wound.

Mr. Johnson talked about the defensive wounds on Mr. Wolfington’s hand and wrist, which could have only come from a person fending off another. He talked about Carlitha Gordon giving one statement to police on the night of the stabbing and then changing a few things in her story while under oath.

He also reminded the jurors about the first moment Bobby and Wolfington met outside the motel room – that it was cordial. Mr. Johnson stated there had been no talk about either one being in a gang, but rather just where they were from, thus backing up testimony given by all three female witnesses who testified, stating “this had nothing to do with gangs or drugs”

Mr. Johnson also made mention of Carlitha talking about being afraid of “Bobby’s” family and the cops for a separate incident involving a stolen car. Earlier in trial, we heard her say to Officer Wilson, during his interrogation, “If Bobby’s family hears about this…I’m (expletive) like, I know I have a price on my head.”

Mr. Brace’s closing argued that his client, Shannon Silva, did not stab Mr. Brittenum, that he was never a Broderick Boy, nor a Northern Rider, and had no intent to aid or abet and had no knowledge of an impending crime.  In short, he argued that his client committed no crime at all.

He argued that this case had nothing to do with gangs, and that gangs had nothing to do with what happened in the hotel room.

He argued that Mr. Brittenum threw the first punch and that Mr. Silva’s punch back was in defense.  Mr. Silva suffered a cut to the back of the arm.  He could not have suffered it staying back from the fray, as the witnesses testified.

Mr. Brittenum had a knife and first went after Mr. Silva, then turned towards Billy Wolfington.

Mr. Brace argued that even if you accept the prosecutor’s rendition of the facts, how does a battery turn into a murder?

Mr. Couzens would respond that Mr. Brace’s defense was vastly different from his opening statement, in which he argued that Mr. Silva had tried to break up a fight and got stabbed.  He argued this was a more reasonable explanation, for at least it explains how Mr. Silva got stabbed – he got in the way of Mr. Wolfington’s stabbing of Mr. Brittenum.

The prosecutor said that Mr. Wolfington lied and that Ron Johnson, in attempting to minimize Mr. Wolfington’s culpability, made up the fact that there was a second knife because the self-defense claim based on the threats alone would not have stood up.

He argued that they brought in the people in the motel room to tell the jury what happened that night and they did not tell the jury anything that Mr. Wolfington claimed happened.

He argued there was no evidence that there was a knife, no evidence of an attack by Mr. Brittenum, and that in the end this was a perceived threat by Mr. Wolfington that less threatened him and more annoyed him.  In the end, Mr. Wolfington brutally stabbed Mr. Brittenum out of a perceived slight.

Categories: