Eau Claire firefighter murder trial: Closing arguments and jury deliberations
BERRIEN COUNTY, Mich.--- The jury is now in deliberations on day six of the trial of Rigoberto Gomez, the 47-year-old accused of murdering off-duty Eau Claire firefighter, 36-year-old Chad Medlin.
The prosecution called 30 witnesses to testify to the facts of the case; meanwhile, the defense called only one: the suspect himself.
The question the jury is deliberating now: was Rigoberto Gomez acting in self-defense when he pulled the trigger?
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kate Arnold argued this was a case about choices and said Gomez chose to go after and kill Medlin.
"He chose to take that gun out of his jacket pocket, turn the laser on, and aim it at Chad Medlin," Arnold said in closing arguments. "These weren't accidents, this wasn't an accidental encounter, this wasn't a fear response. The defendant went walking with a purpose and looking for Chad Medlin, a guy that he had just met at the bar, who was calling him a woman-beater."
Arnold's closing arguments lasted about an hour.
Next up, Defense Attorney Caleb Grimes, after waiving both his opportunities to give an opening statement in this trial, gave closing arguments that lasted roughly 20 minutes.
He emphasized how the burden of proof is on the prosecution and argued they didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gomez did not act in self-defense. He argued that, given the defendant's perspective of his circumstances at that time, he did what he believed was his only option. He said the surveillance video shows Gomez being surrounded and circled.
"This is going to be very important for your determination. Who moves forward and who retreats? When you watch this video, when you see this surveillance video, Rigo is the one backing up, he's backing up," Grimes said in his closing argument. "Chad is the one moving forward, moving forward towards him."
There are eight counts against Gomez that the jury must consider. Count one is an Open Murder charge, meaning the jury can deliberate first- or second-degree murder. The prosecution is arguing for first-degree, saying it was a premeditated killing. The defense says it was self-defense. Now it's time for the jury to decide.
Jury deliberations resume Thursday.