prosecution closing

Your Honor

, Opposing Counsel, Members of the Jury. May it please the court: 

This case

is about a game that went too far

What began as

a television competition, a game built on strategy, sabotage, and spectacle, turned into something deadly. Not because of bad luck. Not because of a tragic accident. But because one player, Charlie Martin, decided that winning the game wasn’t enough.  

He 

wanted revenge

And that desire,

that choice, set off a chain of reckless, deliberate actions that ended with Rob Armstrong’s death.

Ladies and gentlemen,

let’s start where this story begins: Season Two of the Saboteurs.  

Charlie Martin was

humiliated on national television. And while most people would have moved on, Charlie couldn’t. 

He carried

that resentment. He let it grow until it consumed him. 

By the time

The Saboteurs: All-Stars came around, that bitterness had become something far more dangerous......Motive 

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, 

the evidence we presented today clearly demonstrates Charlie Martin’s malicious aforethought and desire to kill Rob Armstrong. 

Investigator Rivera

gave you the facts: She proved motive, access, and opportunity.  

On January 8th,

before filming had even begun, Charlie Martin downloaded the Material Safety Data Sheet for Oxalic Acid. This document clearly warns that the chemical was toxic and potentially fatal if inhaled. It shows that Charlie Martin had already begun planning, long before the cameras ever started rolling. 

Ms. Kaye told you 

that just 90 minutes after downloading that sheet, the defendant texted her, agreeing to be on Season 10.  

That was not

coincidence. That was intent.

While on set,

Mr. Martin texted Ms. Kaye, “Where do they keep cleaning supplies in this place?” He was looking for access to the very chemical he had researched. 

And on April 1st, 

Ms. Kaye warned “we can’t go too far” and Charlie’s responded “Sure, WE can’t”. Mr. Martin was done playing by the rules.

Then on April 6th,

the game truly went too far. 

Investigator Rivera saw

Charlie Martin that morning tampering with Rob Armstrong’s scuba equipment  just hours before the fatal challenge. 

And we don’t have 

to guess what he was doing. Charlie Martin admitted it. He said himself that he put oxalic acid in Rob Armstrong’s mask. He admitted to taking a substance he knew was deadly and putting it where Rob would breathe it in. 

Dr. Atlas Hartley explained

what that meant. The oxalic acid Martin used burned Armstrong’s lungs, triggering hypoxia and drowning. Without that acid, Rob Armstrong would have survived. 

Under Midlands Penal Code

18-201, a defendant’s conduct is the legal cause of death when (a) the result would not have occurred but for that conduct, and (b) the risk of that result was the natural and foreseeable consequence of it. 

That’s exactly what 

Dr. Hartley’s testimony showed and is exactly what the defendant himself confirmed. A foreseeable, direct, and deadly outcome of a game pushed too far. 

He knew the

danger. He researched it. He sought it out anyway. He ignored the risk to human life because, to him, the game mattered more than the person.

Under Midlands Penal Code

§18-303(A)(2), a killing is first degree murder when it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life. 

And what does

“recklessly” mean? 18-104 defines it clearly. “A person acts recklessly when they consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their conduct will cause a particular result.” 

The defense has

not given you a different story. They have not explained away the acid, the weights. Because they can’t. The evidence is too clear.  

(IF the argue production was reckless)

Defense tried to argue that the production team was reckless. Even if you think that is the case, you must defer to what the court said in State v. Bernardi (2018), another person’s negligence doesn’t erase the defendant’s own culpability. Charlie Martin cannot escape their culpability

Even when you

look at the defense’s own witnesses, the truth shines through. Every path leads back to the same point: Charlie Martin pushed the game beyond its limits, until the game became lethal.  (DISCUSS MAIN POINT FROM CROSSES)

We accept

our burden: beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the highest standard in our justice system  and rightly so. It means we must prove not just that something could have happened, but that it did. Not just that it’s likely, but that it’s certain beyond reason. 

And we 

have met that burden

There is

no reasonable doubt about who caused Rob Armstrong’s death. 
There is no reasonable doubt about how it happened. 
And there is no reasonable doubt about why it happened: because Charlie Martin couldn’t let go of revenge. 

That is murder. That is what the law calls a reckless indifference to human life. And that is what you must call it, too. 

Charlie Martin

turned The Saboteurs from a competition into a weapon. He treated a life like a move in a game. And when the game went too far, a man lost his life. That is what the law calls reckless indifference to human life. And that’s what you must call it too. 

Members of the jury, 

we ask you to return the only verdict that the law and the evidence demand: find Charlie Martin guilty of 1^st degree murder.