At a motions hearing Thursday, a number of new revelations regarding a well-known Tennessee murder investigation and case were disclosed.
Jason Chen, 24, is accused of first-degree murder in connection with the passing of Jasmine Jazzy Pace, 22.
While the victim and defendant were dating, Pace vanished. November 22, 2022, was the last time her relatives saw her alive. Chen was charged with her murder at the end of the month.
On December 1, 2022, Pace’s body was found in a rural Chattanooga area, close to Suck Creek Road, packed inside a suitcase and wrapped in a waste bag.
The young woman was shackled, with both ankles bound to her right wrist, authorities said. She had sustained about 60 stab wounds.
The defense attempted to have a long video taken from body-worn cameras of a search that was authorized by a warrant and in which Chen was taken away in handcuffs excluded in a crucial motion that took up a large portion of Thursday’s hearings.
According to Chen’s defense lawyer, there are several reasons why this footage shouldn’t be allowed during the trial.
The defendant is shown in the video undressing. The Miranda Warning is not in effect. Whether these communications to law enforcement are voluntary or not is unclear.
Law enforcement is using my client as a translator to inform my client s parents that they have a search warrant and will be entering the premises.
Chen’s lawyer continued to attack police for making the arrest while carrying out a search warrant. According to him, the most important thing is the placing of handcuffs.
The attorney contended that pictures of his client in handcuffs were unfair and discriminatory and had no probative value.
The defense lawyer also cited the video of the search and subsequent arrest as evidence of a linguistic barrier.
Judge Boyd M. Patterson of the Hamilton County Criminal Court, for his part, showed some sympathy for the defense’s arguments.
This seems to be a legal discussion, the court said. Mr. Chen inquires about the cause, wants details, and the fact that he is speaking Mandarin to his parents. If I don’t grasp what that means, I’m worried.
And there may be a juror who believes they know enough Mandarin to make a mistaken interpretation of what happened.
The state, on the other hand, argued that the video was relevant because it served as a form of identification, locating the defendant at the searched location. The prosecution also argued that the jury should consider Chen s demeanor during the encounter.
Furthermore, the state stated that the video showed Chen wearing a particular article of clothing a reference to his red hat in the footage. The prosecutor stated that the hat would be seen throughout numerous other recordings of other locations on different days.
That is highly, highly relevant, the prosecutor claimed. Highly probative.
Chen s defense attorney fired back, flatly dismissing those arguments.
The state wants to introduce this because they want the jury to see the defendant arrested, placed in handcuffs and transported to, well eventually, to the jail, said the prosecution s attorney.
What impression does that convey? It conveys the impression of guilt. Witnessing someone being arrested and placed in the back of a police car gives the jury the impression of guilt.
This is why it is an unfair prejudice. There was nothing said that was incriminating, at least as far as we know today. That video has absolutely no probative value.
The alleged killer s lawyer went on to criticize the demeanor argument as having marginal probative value. He asked aloud what displaying the defendant calm six days after Pace s death was supposed to demonstrate.
What type of demeanor is he supposed to have? the defense attorney demanded.
In the end, the judge awarded wins to both sides based on the poorly lit and frequently difficult-to-see body-worn camera footage.
This is what I d like to do, Patterson explained. I believe there is a risk of unfair prejudice in that video.
What I d like to do in general is have you provide a 30-second clip of what you believe captures a demeanor in your interaction obviously with the red hat in the location to be searched.
And I think that s about as far as I m comfortable with this video. I believe there is a significant risk of unfair prejudice in some of this video.
Finally, the prosecution was ordered to edit the footage and resubmit a shorter version. The judge will make a final decision based on the content of the resulting edits.
On Thursday, a number of other motions were resolved.
Patterson also denied a defense motion to stop referring to Pace as a victim during the trial. Additionally, the judge denied a defense motion to suppress an illustration created by a state medical professional.
That illustration is a composite of photographs taken from various angles of the suitcase in which Pace was found. The resulting composite image depicts coloration as the handcuffs push through the fabric.
Jury selection will start next Wednesday. The trial is set to begin on January 13.
SOURCE
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
Eliot Pierce is a dedicated writer for ChiefsFocus.com, covering local crime and finance news. With a keen eye for detail and a passion for storytelling, Eliot aims to provide his readers with clear and insightful analysis, helping them navigate the complexities of their financial lives while staying informed about important local events. His commitment to delivering accurate and engaging content makes him a valuable resource for the community.