Narrator (6:52)

This is sequestered a juror's perspective on the murder trial. For Jasmine Pace, I'm Sarah, juror number 11. Each episode, I'll take you inside the courtroom, behind the scenes, and into the weighty moments of this trial as we honor Jasmine's life and navigate the complexities of seeking justice.

Sarah (7:13)

Let's begin.

Narrator (7:20)

This is episode eight.

Sarah (7:23)

Closing statements.

Narrator (7:30)

Day seven began like the others.

Sarah (7:33)

Breakfast. Security.

Narrator (7:35)

Back into the jury room. We had no idea what the day would hold, but it didn't take long to find out. Inside the courtroom, the final pieces of the case were starting to fall into place.

Sarah (7:48)

The state was given the opportunity to respond to the defense's case, but they declined. With no rebuttal, the defense formally rested its case at 9:42am but before the trial could move forward, the court had to address one final legal battle, one that could alter how the jury weighed the case. Which charges would we be allowed to consider? Defense attorney Weiss pushed for the inclusion of voluntary manslaughter, citing testimony from a neighbor who had heard a woman scream and an argument that suggested a crime of passion rather than premeditated murder. Weiss framed it as a possible case of self defense, an impulsive act rather than an intentional killing. But DA Cody Womp stood her ground and pushed back, arguing that Tennessee law is clear. Murder can only be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the victim's actions provoked the defendant. And according to the prosecution, there was no evidence that Jasmine Pace had done anything to provoke Jason Chen that could possibly justify a lesser charge. Here's Judge Patterson denying the motion for self defense. All right.

Judge Patterson (9:04)

On this particular issue, what we do.

Defense Attorney Weiss (9:06)

Have is that each defendant, I believe, is six one large individuals. The victim's size is barely 5ft, around 100 pounds. The only evidence of anyone having a deadly weapon is the defendant. There's no evidence the defendant was put in a reasonable state of fear where he could have believed that self defense would have been justified. So I don't think that self defense has been fairly raised by the proof the court has heard so that the request for self defense instruction be denied.

Sarah (9:45)

Shortly after this, the jury received detailed instructions on the charges against Jason Chen. There were six possible verdicts related to Jasmine's death, ranging from first degree premeditated murder to criminally negligent homicide. On top of that, we were given a second separate charge, abuse of a corpse. For each charge, we were instructed to reach a unanimous decision starting at the top, if we didn't agree on first degree murder, we were to move to the next charge down, then the next, and so on until we found consensus. The same process applied to the abuse of a corpse charge. I didn't have the guts to look around the room at this moment. For me, the pressure was building, and I'm sure my fellow jurors could feel it, too. The weight of what was coming next. It was real. These jury instructions were long, repetitive, detailed, and honestly, this was probably the first time I felt sleepy while court was in session. Still, they were important. Judge Patterson was laying out the exact framework we were expected to follow when we enter deliberations, which, what each charge meant, how to weigh the evidence, and what a unanimous decision would require. Here is Mary Beth Magrum from News Channel 9 summarizing these instructions.

Mary Beth Magrum (11:13)

First, what we do is go over some of the potential verdicts that the jury could come to when they do reach that deliberation phase. So all of these charges for count one, Jason Chen, can either be found not guilty of all of them or guilty of one of these counts. So it's first degree premeditated murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless homicide, reckless aggravated assault, criminally negligent homicide, assault, or reckless endangerment. And the jury can also, you know, go ahead and find him not guilty of all of those charges. Now he's also facing a second count that will be guilty of abuse of a corpse or not guilty. Now, when it came to those jury instructions, it is, you know, the jury's job in these cases to determine the guilt or, you know, the innocence of the defendant in this case. One thing that Judge Boyd Patterson said is that absolute certainty is not required, but moral certainty in this case is, and that the statements the jury don't believe are supported by the evidence presented in this case. Those should be disregarded by the jury. Now we'll go into a little bit more of what they're able to do. So the jury is free to believe all, none, or some of the witness testimony that we've heard in these seven days of this trial. The jury can consider the reputation of truthfulness or any sort of spirit, special reasons that a witness may have to be honest or dishonest in this trial. And they can also decide who they believe or what testimony matches the evidence that was presented in this case. They also do not have to believe the opinion of the expert witnesses that was, you know, shown in this trial, or if there is a part of that testimony that they believe they can choose to go ahead and believe that portion while disregarding the others. If there's any sort of disagreement to the testimony that we've heard so far, any form of contradiction, the jury may be able to decide what they believe in that case. And one thing that they also mentioned, Meg, you mentioned that Jason Chen did make the choice to not testify today. The jury cannot use that. They cannot use Chen's choice to not testify as guilt because it is the responsibility of of the state in this case to prove his guilt.

Sarah (13:50)

If you've been following the podcast, we've got something new for you. Now you can dive even deeper into each episode on our website, SequesteredPod.com we've added exclusive blogs for every episode, packed with extra details, behind the scenes insights and key moments from the trial. Plus, we've organized all the trial and news coverage by each day of the trial so you can follow along just like we did in the jury room. Head over to SequesteredPod.com now to explore the case in a whole new way. We had heard every piece of evidence. We had seen the surveillance footage, reviewed forensic reports and listened to expert testimony. Now it was time for the final argument. The moment the prosecution laid out exactly why Jason Chen was absolutely guilty of first degree pre medicine murder and abuse of a corpse, Assistant District Attorney Paul Moyle stepped forward. His words were powerful and his delivery was sharp. I closed my notebook and sat up.

Narrator (15:18)

Straight in my chair.

Assistant District Attorney Paul Moyle (15:22)

What's in the bags is a matter of perspective. One person in the courtroom was contained in Exhibit 138 6, found on the banks of the Tennessee river in Hamilton county, was an inconvenience, something that needed to be gotten rid of, discarded like a piece of trash, something that you don't care about. But to other people in the courtroom, when you've heard from over the course of this week, something to be cherished, something precious, something that you'd be willing to go to the ends of the earth to find and bring home safe. What's in the bag? Jasmine Face.

Sarah (16:13)

There was one person in that courtroom who saw Exhibit 138 6, the suitcase found on the banks of the Tennessee river, as an inconvenience, something to be discarded. But Jasmine Pace's family saw it differently. To them, she was everything. I had to give Moyle credit for how he explained premeditation. In the end, it was this analogy that clarified it for me and ultimately shaped my decision. In the jury room, he compared Jason's decision making to something we've all experienced approaching A yellow traffic light. In that split second, you have to choose. Hit the gas or tap the brake. It happens fast, but it's still a decision, a conscious choice to keep going or to stop. Jason's decision was no different. It was quick, but it was deliberate. And the consequences were irreversible.

Assistant District Attorney Paul Moyle (17:20)

We've all approached a traffic light. The light has turned yellow. See it here. As someone approaches this traffic light, they have a choice. You step on the gas, you step on the brakes. You consider what time of day is it? Are there pedestrians? What's the traffic look like? Are you running late? Is there a need to get where you're going quickly? All things that your mind processes in an instant. You make the conscious choice to either hit the brake pedal or go hammer down. And as we'll see, Silver Carr, when faced with that decision, just like Mr. Chin, accelerated, kept going, did it stop? I want you to keep that in mind as we start going through the proof. What opportunities did Mr. Chin have during this to take the off ramp away from violence, away from murder, away from 60 stab wounds? It's important to know the timeline. How long does it take to choose to kill Ms. Jasmine Pace? Mere seconds.

Sarah (18:50)

It all came down to a moment of decision. Do you slow down or do you hit the gas?

Assistant District Attorney Paul Moyle (18:56)

Do you?

Sarah (18:56)

Jason Chen didn't just keep going, he accelerated. He had so many opportunities to stop, to de escalate, to walk away. But every single time, he made the same choice. He chose violence. He chose control. He chose murder. That's when D.A. moyle walked us through the timeline. At 11:42pm, Jasmine arrived at Jason's apartment. Hours later, at 2:11am, a neighbor heard a scream. A woman's voice, sad but assertive. And then silence. Just seven minutes after that, at 2.18am, Jasmine's phone sent a location pin to her mother, Katrina Bean. A signal, a warning, maybe even a final attempt to be found. By 3am There were no signs of a struggle. No more cries for help. Just the steady hum of a garbage disposal and a washing machine echoing through the silence. Premeditation doesn't always look like planning. It can happen in an instant. And once that moment arrived, Jason didn't hesitate.

Assistant District Attorney Paul Moyle (20:16)

A pin of her last location to her mother, Jasmine Pace sends it to Katrina. Now, there's two options, sure. But circumstantially, we know that it's Jasmine that sent that message. Because there's only two options. It's either Ms. Jasmine Payson to cry for help, letting her family know where she is, or it's Mr. Jason Shin using the phone, sending a message to Jasmine's mom. For what purpose? To get caught. We know he doesn't want that to happen.

Sarah (20:49)

I've always believed that Jasmine helped solve her own murder by dropping that pen. It was a split second decision on her part, but one that said everything. Something was wrong. After that, D.A. moyle shifted his focus not just on what Jason Chen had done, but on what he did next. Because after Jasmine was gone, Jason got to work. Not in panic, but in strategy. At 4.04am, Jasmine's phone came back to life. Not because she was using it, but because Jason was. He was trying to access her bank accounts. And that was just the beginning of what Moyle called Chen's digital trail. Later that morning, Jason opened Tinder and started chatting with other women just hours after killing Jasmine. Then he went to Walmart and bought cleaning supplies. By 11am he sent a photo of Matcha tea with the caption slept like a baby. A twisted joke, considering Jasmine's body was lying lifeless just a few feet away. Then Moyle turned to the brutality of the crime itself. Jasmine had been stabbed 60 times and that each of those wounds required two deliberate movements. One in, one out. That's 120 choices. Moyle painted Jason not as someone acting in a moment of chaos, but someone in full control of their actions. From the bank access to the icloud attempts, to the casual messages on Tinder. This wasn't someone spiraling. This was someone calculating.60 individual stab and.

Assistant District Attorney Paul Moyle (22:41)

Is sized wounds were on Jasmine Pace's body at the time she was examined.

Defense Attorney Weiss (22:45)

By genetic lodger's office.

Assistant District Attorney Paul Moyle (22:48)

That means stab action one, removing action two. Each stab in and of itself consists of two distinct movements. The movement plunging the knife blade in and the movement removing the knife blade out. Back in, out. 120, 120 times. He had to move his body to be able to inflict the number of injuries that we see on Jasmine pace's body.

Sarah (23:24)

At 5:59pm Jason wheeled a suitcase out of his apartment.

Assistant District Attorney Paul Moyle (23:30)

Then we Fast forward to 559. You've seen it. Mr. Chen emerges from his apartment with a suitcase. Watch as he tips it over, how heavy it is, pulls him to the ground. Watch as he struggles to go around the corner towards the life post right there. Because it's not clothes, he's not going on some trip, it's a person. It's jasmine pace, 98 pounds, 5 foot 2 inches tall. This rolling suitcase.

Narrator (24:12)

He drove to Suk Creek Road, a.

Sarah (24:15)

Place he had scouted out already. Twice that day and dumped her body. He wasn't frantic, he wasn't panicked. He was in control. And then, just hours later, he logged onto Call of Duty with his friends. Next, Moyle moves on to talk about how Jason shackled Jasmine's body.

Assistant District Attorney Paul Moyle (24:42)

That's all it took, having her in the fetal position with one arm chained to her right way on the inside. And let's think about it. Why on the inside, not the outside? If it is, as the defense would have you believe, that Jasmine Pace was cuffed up while she was dead, Right. Why on earth would they apologize? Apply one shackle to the elbow and the other one to the left leg. She's not moving. She's not going anywhere. You'd make it so that it matches, right? You want it to be in as tight of a package as possible to fit into this teeny little suitcase that's not designed to hold a person. She's not moving. Cuff the hands together. Shackle the two legs together and pull. Pull them together, you wouldn't go haphazard. Right hand to right leg, and then attach a cuff here and attach the shackle to the left leg. That's indicative of. She doesn't want to be shackled. He's just slapping the shackles on, whatever he can find, whatever he can get his hands on.

Narrator (25:58)

As he delivered his final argument, D.A. moyle laid out what he believed to be the clearest proof of premeditation. Jason Chen's own actions. He argued that Chen wasn't out of control or acting in the heat of passion. Instead, every move Chen made was calculated, from restraining Jasmine to carrying out the attack to covering his tracks afterward. And most importantly, when he had the chance to stop, he didn't.

Assistant District Attorney Paul Moyle (26:34)

Everything he does is calm. It's collected. Most importantly, it's rational. Everything he does is to a point, and that's to escape capture. Everything he does leading up to the attack by shackling and restraining Jasmine Pace, is to make it easier to accomplish the act itself. That is premeditation. It doesn't matter that you didn't have it written down on some sheet of paper. Today will be the day that I kill Jasmine Pace. All that matters is he took steps to commit the murder. He committed the murder. And during the commission of the murder, you mean to tell me that during any one of those 60 staffs, he never once thought, I should stop? No. Like the car approaching the yellow light, it was, hammer down, keep going, don't stop.

Narrator (27:29)

Then Moyle pulls up a photo of the autopsy again.

Assistant District Attorney Paul Moyle (27:34)

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chen unlawfully killed this case. He acted intentionally. The number of wounds is restraining the victim before the attack. His conduct after all, shows calm reflection on the task at hand. And that's why he's guilty of first degree murder. Go find him. Guilty for snuffing out as Jasmine Pace his life on the 23rd of November 2022.

Defense Attorney Weiss (28:06)

Thank.

Narrator (28:24)

You know, during sequestration I had a lot of time to think and honestly I kept wishing I had a speaker so that I could just listen to a great book.

Sarah (28:33)

That's why I love audiobooks.

Narrator (28:35)

Whether I'm driving, walking the dogs or traveling, I can just press play and get lost in an amazing story anytime and anywhere. One of my all time favorites is New York by Edward Rutherford. This epic historical novel spans over 400 years, following generations of families through the city's most pivotal moments. From its Dutch settlement days and all the way to 9 11. It was one of the first audiobooks I had ever listened to. It felt like the narrator was reading the story just for me. I was completely hooked. Here's some good news. You can listen to New York or any other book for free. Audible is giving sequestered listeners a free audiobook with a 30 day trial. Just go to audibletrial.com sequestered. That's one free book. Yours to keep forever. So find something you love and get listening. Go to audibletrial.com sequestered the prosecution had made their case arguing that Jason Chen's actions were calculated, premeditated and intentional. And now it was the defense's turn. Oddly, it wasn't defense attorney Weiss resting his case. Instead, the defense's co counsel, Amanda Morrison, took the floor. Morrison did not dispute that Jason Chen killed Jasmine Pace. Instead, she challenged the idea that this was a planned act of murder. Morrison asked the jury to consider something different. That Jason's actions weren't cold and calculated, but rather a tragic moment of uncontrollable emotion. Here's how she began.

Defense Attorney Amanda Morrison (30:37)

On November 22, just before midnight, Jasmine Pace came to Jason chen's home at 110 Train, Wall street, apartment 2 10. It's undisputed what happens between 12:00 and 2:00. No proof of it. What we do is at 2 o'clock in the morning, Courtney Brewer was awakened. She's awakened or what she described as a female screaming. What we know is that Courtney couldn't describe what was being said. She couldn't answer any questions about what the argument was over. She described it as something that you couldn't decipher motions are up, pulses are up, Everyone aggravated. Jason Chan's scared, Jasmine's upset. Jason's upset. And Jason killed Jasmine. He got a knife. And 60 times Jasmine missed out.

Narrator (31:39)

Morrison didn't deny what had happened. She acknowledged the brutal reality of Jasmine's death and admitted outright that Jason was responsible.

Sarah (31:51)

It's still pretty wild to hear a.

Narrator (31:52)

Defense attorney make these kinds of statements, but I knew there would be a catch eventually. And then Morrison pushed back on one key point, that point being the idea that Jason had planned this murder ahead of time.

Defense Attorney Amanda Morrison (32:10)

What's been disputed is the state's allegation that this is premediting. You as a jury have the most important job. You're going to retire to a jury, and you're going to be looking at all of this evidence. You're going to be looking at all of the testimony, recalling the testimony that you've heard from all of the witnesses. Investigator Crawford, Dr. Cogswell, Courtney Brewer, CSU investigators. You're going to be going through nouns, evidence, days of testimony. And like the general asked you, during jurisdiction, you get to use your common sense. You get to apply what you know to the facts and the evidence that's been given to you.

Narrator (32:58)

The state painted a picture of Jason Chen as cold and methodical, making calculated decisions every step of the way. But Morrison argued the opposite. Jason wasn't thinking rationally at all. In fact, she said, his behavior after Jasmine's death proved it.

Defense Attorney Amanda Morrison (33:19)

What we know is that from just after 2:00 in the morning, everything that Jason did showed that he wasn't acting rational. Rational people don't shackle individuals and put them in garbage bags. They don't shackle the individual, put them in the garbage bag and put them in a suitcase. They don't go the next day to Walgreens and Walmart to get cleaning supplies. They call the police. Everything that Jason Chen did was disgusting.

Narrator (34:00)

Morrison suggested that Jason panicked and that.

Sarah (34:04)

His irrational scattered choices were proof he.

Narrator (34:07)

Hadn'T planned anything in advance. She turned to face the jury box and said, if Jason had truly premeditated this murder, why did he leave so many mistakes behind? And in that moment, I swear, she locked eyes with me. I mentioned this in an earlier episode. My seat was front row, third in basically center stage. And as she spoke, her gaze didn't drift. It was steady, direct. Was it intentional? Was she trying to sway my thinking, make a connection? Maybe, maybe not.

Sarah (34:44)

But I felt it.

Narrator (34:46)

Then she went after one of the prosecution's strongest arguments, that Jason restrained Jasmine.

Sarah (34:53)

Before he killed Her. If that were true, if the shackles.

Narrator (34:57)

Were applied before the stabbing, it would be a powerful indicator of premeditation. But Morrison pushed back. She argued there was no proof of that sequence, no evidence that the restraints were there before Jasmine's death.

Defense Attorney Amanda Morrison (35:16)

He left breadcrumbs everywhere he went, got Jasmine's phone, used her phone. The state has asked you to believe that Jason had full control of her phone from 2:00 on, but they don't want you to think for a moment he yet again made a mistake, tries to not share a location, stop sharing a location, and drops a pin. They want you to believe that Jasmine was shackled when she was being stabbed. Dr. Cogswell was asked very specific questions, questions that you can remember. You can look back through your notes and recall his testimony and discuss this among yourselves. There were no ligature marks on Jasmine's wrist. There were no ligature marks on Jasmine's ankles. There were no cuts. There were no bruising. The State would like for you to believe that's because she couldn't move. She couldn't break the shackles. She couldn't break the hand cups. The reason they aren't there is because they were not applied so that Jason could stab her. They were applied so that he could fit her into garbage bags before putting her into a sequence.

Narrator (36:29)

Morrison insisted that the shackles weren't applied before Jasmine's death. Instead, she argued that Jason used them after the fact to position Jasmine's body so it would fit inside the suitcase. To be fair, that point has always been a bit of a question mark for me. On day five, the medical examiner, Dr. Cogswell, testified that there were no ligature marks or abrasions on Jasmine's wrists or ankles. At least nothing that would clearly indicate she had been shackled while alive or during a struggle. But given the extent of her injuries, it's hard to know which one of the 60 stab wounds might have incapacitated her first. It would be extremely difficult, maybe even impossible, to rule anything out with certainty, especially considering that all of her injuries were consistent with her being in the fetal position at the time of the attack. Then Morrison shifted. She turned away from the evidence and toward the legal standard we as jurors, were expected to uphold beyond a reasonable doubt. She challenged us to consider, did the prosecution actually prove that Jason had a moment to reflect? Because that, she said, is what premeditation requires.

Defense Attorney Amanda Morrison (37:54)

The law is clear. We're not asking, Asking you to believe that Jason had hours, days, months, that he's playing this out. But you have to know with moral certainty that he had a moment to reflect and that he didn't. It's the state's burden to show you that he had that moment of reflection and that he chose to disregard and to continue to engage in acts that killed Jasmine. And so, ladies and gentlemen, that's not you.

Narrator (38:27)

She reminded the jury, it wasn't Jason's job to prove he didn't plan this murder. It was the state's job to prove that he did.

Defense Attorney Amanda Morrison (38:38)

Premeditation means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act. What we've heard days is everything Jason has done after this is not you going to the dream room and determining that there's post meditation. It's premeditation. Everything that Jason did before Jasmine's dead.

Judge Patterson (39:03)

It's not necessary that the purpose of.

Defense Attorney Amanda Morrison (39:05)

Heal pre exists in the mind of the accused for any definite period of time. State says each of those actions120movements. Jason should have had the ability to reflect. They haven't shown that he did.

Narrator (39:22)

If the jury couldn't be sure that Jason intended to kill Jasmine ahead of time, then Morrison pleaded for us to consider the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. She pointed to Tennessee law which allows for voluntary manslaughter if the killing happened in a state of passion.

Defense Attorney Amanda Morrison (39:42)

Specifically, volunteer manslaughter requires that the killing result from a phase of passion. The state's witness talked about. They talked about the individual that inflicted these wounds being in a state of exception or a state of passion. Right here. Your jury instruction. That is something for you to consider. It does require. There has to be a state of passion that's produced by adequate protection. Provocation. You heard yelling from the floor below. That was enough to wake an individual up to a call so loud that she couldn't even make out what was being said.

Narrator (40:21)

Morrison pointed to the yelling heard by Courtney, the downstairs neighbor, as a key.

Sarah (40:27)

Piece of her argument.

Narrator (40:28)

She claimed it was evidence of a heated argument, not a calculated pleasure plan. That Jason acted not out of control, but out of passion. And ultimately, she suggested that Jasmine provoked him. It was a heavy moment, a deliberate shift from accountability to justification. But Morrison didn't ask us to excuse what Jason did. In her final words, she acknowledged the brutal reality of Jasmine's death. And she said Jason should be held accountable, but for the right charge.

Defense Attorney Amanda Morrison (41:06)

This has been a hard case. Jasmine deserves justice. You have given Mr. Chen the benefit of a fair trial. Your attentiveness has been very clear throughout this, and it's much appreciated in Reviewing this evidence, we ask you to return a verdict. A volunteer missile.

Narrator (41:27)

And just like that, the defense rested. They had made their case not to deny what Jason Chen had done, but to reframe it. They argued he wasn't a cold blooded killer, but a man who lost control, that this was a moment of passion, not premeditation. And now it was the state's turn. District Attorney General Cody Womp stood before the jury one final time.

Sarah (41:57)

You could feel it.

Narrator (41:59)

This was her last opportunity to cut through the noise, to bring everything back into focus. And she came in sharp, confident, direct, unapologetically fired up. She told us the defense hadn't even.

Sarah (42:15)

Stuck to the story they laid out.

Narrator (42:16)

In their opening statement because they couldn't, because the evidence didn't support it. And instead of clarity, she said they had tried to muddy the waters. Let's listen.

Judge Patterson (42:28)

In an opening statement, I told you that we would give you the dots and we would help you connect them. Every single fact we mentioned, an opening statement we proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Every single fact we committed to, we proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt. Because that's what opening statements are for, to give you the evidence you're about to see. And then you heard from Mr. Chin's attorney, who committed to a very specific story. Remember, we didn't just talk about that story. Right. We've backed off that story story because, oh, that story doesn't work anymore, and we're going to talk about that story. This entire trial has been muddy the waters. It has been muddy the waters to confuse the jury. The opening statement from the defense was meant to confuse you. It was meant to have you thinking about other things, possible defenses that the state disprove. Not only did you not hear evidence of what they said in their opening statement, the state outright disproved it.

Narrator (43:44)

Right after that, DA Whomp walked over to the podium, grabbed a thick folder of papers, and gave it a shake. At first, I wasn't sure what it was, but then it clicked. It was the transcript of the opening statements. And that moment hit harder than I expected. Those opening statements were what our entire job as jurors had hinged on just seven days earlier. I even recall juror number five passing a note to the judge on that first day, asking if we'd have access to the transcript during our deliberations. His response, simply, no. So to hear the defense's opening statement read back to us now by the state in the final minutes of this trial, it wasn't just a helpful move. It was a baller one I'm going to play this next clip uninterrupted so you can hear it, just like I did in the moment as a juror.

Judge Patterson (44:45)

Let's talk about what we committed to in opening statement as Jason Chin's attorneys. They met on Tinder. Wrong. You have text messages. They met on Bumble. Simple things. But we're just starting with the untruth that the state disproved. They traveled to Chicago together that summer. Wrong. End of October. You have text messages that show that he asked her to go to Chicago. You heard that. You will see messages where you'll see that one of them likes one of them more than the other. Oh, that Jasmine liked him more than he liked her.

Assistant District Attorney Paul Moyle (45:24)

Wrong.

Judge Patterson (45:25)

You never saw proof of it. In fact, you have all the messages that they didn't want to show you. They wanted to put them in evidence and then just hope that maybe you'll waste your time reading them. So what did I do? I put them on the screen for you. That weekend before he killed her, he asked her to come over. Oh, she likes him more. No. If you want to waste your time reading the messages, read them. You'll find out that that was not true. What they committed to an opening statement was not true. They drank wine, smoked pot, smoked wax. We didn't hear that just now, did we?

Narrator (45:57)

Why?

Judge Patterson (45:57)

Because it's not true. They committed to a story to throw mud at the wall, and it was never true. It was meant to confuse you. And then also how offensive. The victim drank wine, so he murdered her. The defendant was smoking wax. No proof of it. Zero proof of it didn't happen. But let's say that it did. The defendant smoked wax marijuana, so he murdered her. That is no defense. But it's certainly not a defense when you say it, and you never prove it. You committed to this in your opening statement, and by the end of trial, when the jury's no longer confused, you don't want to talk about it anymore. In order to open one of the bottles of wine in the bedroom, Jason had to go to the kitchen and get a kitchen knife to take off that plastic wrapper that goes around the top of the wine bottles. We've seen that knife.

Defense Attorney Amanda Morrison (46:57)

Well, we've seen part of it.

Judge Patterson (46:58)

We'll never know where the other part of it is. We've seen part of it. Right. So he was able to get it off the top of the wine bottle. They finish off the bottle, she goes into the kitchen to get another one, and she sees those Tinder messages. The Tinder messages are significant. Mostly because that was their adequate provocation. The only adequate provocation you ever heard in this trial was an opening statement, which is not evidence. And then what was the state able to do through an expert who nobody can deny that Mark Hamilton is an expert. He put those Tinder records on the screen and he explained them to you. They are records that cannot be toyed with. They are records that T mobile holds regardless of whether you delete things. Those are his tender records. And not only did he not have Tinder notifications from that morning, he didn't even have Tinder notifications from November 22nd. That was their adequate provocation. It didn't happen. We know for a fact it didn't happen. So now they stand up here and they say adequate provocation. He was provoked with zero evidence. What the evidence was is that he chased her to the door of that apartment. Ms. Pagolino, groomer was the state's best witness. And I didn't even call call her. I wish I would have. She nailed down our timeline. If you didn't already believe the timeline. Because she sent her mother her location at 2:18. Courtney knows it. Courtney looked at her phone at 2:11 in the morning after she heard a scream of a woman in quote, distress. And here's the kicker. They want you to believe this fabricated story that there's no proof of. But how does Courtney help us? Because she attacked Jason. Again, we're uncommitted to this story now, but let's just go back to their opening statement. She attacked him with a wine bottle. And then subsequently after he kicked her 98 pound body. According to opening statement, he kicked her 98 pound body to the floor where she fell on wine glasses. She then subsequently came at him with a wine glass and he stabbed her irrationally and very fast, 60 times. Not true. Why? Because of Courtney and because of that phone location. Courtney was 2:11am the phone location to her mom was 2:18 7 minutes. She screamed, Things happened. She was able to know she was in enough danger that she needed to send her mother her location. It wasn't fast. It wasn't fast at all. And we know that 2:11 is seven minutes from 2:18. It wasn't fast. She knew she was in danger. She tried to get out of the door. And Courtney told you that she heard a door slam. Jasmine knew she was in trouble. She had time to use her phone before he started killing her.

Narrator (50:09)

Then general Womp reminds the jury of the opening statements that the defense claimed he kicked her.

Judge Patterson (50:18)

He kicked 98 pound. Jasmine Pace and then he ran away. But he couldn't get the bathroom door closed because of a bath mat. Couldn't close the door on 98 page count, Jasmine Pace. So we had to run to his bedroom. Jasmine's right there coming at him with this broken glass. In closing, they don't want to talk about the story that they committed to because the story they committed to was that he killed her in the bedroom. And he gets back into his bedroom, and Jasmine's right there coming at him with this broken glass. Jason sees the knife and he reacts and he stabs. Okay, we got two problems there. First of all, his own expert, who I wish I would have called good expert, says that there's something that happened in the bathroom. There is blood spatter on the wall in the bathroom, like General Moyle showed you. There is blood in the grout in the bathroom. We know she was moved. Why do we know she was moved? Because Dr. Cogswell testified that on the ground in the bedroom, where you see all of the blood, which was almost all of the blood that was in her body, because he was only able to get a small vial of blood because it had all leaked out on the carpet, that for that blood to be on the carpet, she had to be laying on her wound side. That's what he said. Because if she was not on her wound side, the blood would have soaked down to the other side of her body, and the medical examiner would have been able to see that. He said she was side down. We know she was moved. We know she was moved. And we know there wasn't enough room right there to just simply flip her over. She was killed. Stabbing began in the bathroom, and then he drove her into the bedroom where he put her on her side with the wound so she could bleed out. We know that. What else is the problem with this? Jason sees the knife and he reacts and he stabs. She's coming after him. He sees the knife and he stabs. The problem is, without question, over and over, including in writing, our medical examiner says her wounds match her fetal position. It is not true. Trying to confuse you.

Narrator (52:38)

And then DA Whomp took it even further. She didn't just reference the defense's words, she read them aloud. Specifically the part where they explain why Jason Chen tried to cover up Jasmine's murder. According to the defense, quote, he was scared. End quote. Let's get into how DA Wamp handled that moment.

Judge Patterson (53:03)

Really, the worst part of the opening statement is he's scared for what his future entails, but more importantly, the shame that he's going to bring on his family. The shame that comes with everything that he's being accused of today. Manipulative. Selfish. He's scared for what his future entails. He's so scared that he texts on tinder Victoria at 9:52 with some corny pickup line. He's so scared for his future that he's playing video games with his friends later that day. Don't worry about Jasmine Pace, who's dead in your apartment the entire day until 6pm when you take her to Stuff Creek Road. Keep in mind when he Tinder messages Victoria Jasmine is dead in his apartment. Uncontested facts Is this the mindset of someone that just irrationally stabbed a girl 60 times? No. And then he lies over and over and over again. And this is something that General Moyle didn't mention. He lies to Katrina Pace on the phone. He says he hadn't seen her since Saturday. A lot. Then he gets to his parents house in Nolensville and he's trying to come up with a story. Not the story you heard Monday, but he's trying to come up with a story. It says the last time I saw her was the 18th of November. The other sticky note on the desk says the last time I saw her was the 19th. Trying to get his facts right. He knows he's being looked for. He knows law enforcement is trying to contact him.

Juror 5 (54:49)

Why?

Judge Patterson (54:50)

Because he's got Zach Crawford's number written on a Post it note. Does he ever say, hey, I killed her because she came at me with a wine bottle?

Assistant District Attorney Paul Moyle (54:59)

No.

Judge Patterson (54:59)

He's got Zach Crawford's number written on the Post it note. He's scared for what his future entails.

Narrator (55:09)

Womp closed the folder she'd been reading from and paused. She didn't rush. She just stood there, serious, grounded and fully present. You could feel the passion behind her.

Sarah (55:22)

Words, but she kept it steady.

Narrator (55:27)

Then she slipped her hands into her pockets, looked at the jury and said she had a couple more requests. Let's listen as DA Whomp delivers the final words of her closing argument, the.

Sarah (55:39)

Last message she would leave us with before deliberation.

Judge Patterson (55:47)

I'm going to ask you all to do something for me.

Defense Attorney Amanda Morrison (55:50)

It's been a long week.

Judge Patterson (55:52)

I'm only going to have a couple more requests. When you think about this trial in 10 or 15 years, you tell somebody about the jury that you had to serve on in Hamilton County. Tell them about the case. I don't want you to remember this case as the case of State of Tennessee vs Jason Chin the trial of Jason Chen. I don't want you to remember it with the suitcase and the girl left on the side of the road. I want you to remember this trial as the trial for Jasmine Pace. Because we talked a whole lot about criminal defendants. You've heard the name Jason Chin a whole lot since we started jury selection last week. Victims matter. Jasmine Pace is not just some girl listed in an autopsy report. She is not. The photos that you have seen. Don't minimize her to a name on an indictment. She is a person. She had family that loved her. She was a friend. She was a granddaughter. Please don't minimize this trial to the trial for him. I'm going to ask that you take all this information, all the notes you've made this week, all of the closing argument information. You're instructed to go back there and begin with first degree premeditated murder. Go back there together and find him guilty, please.

Narrator (57:31)

General Womp closed her argument by asking us to remember who this trial was really about. And not only will I remember, I will never forget that this was the trial for Jasmine Pace.

Sarah (57:45)

That's why we were there.

Narrator (57:46)

Jasmine is why we were there. She's who we were seeking justice for. And now, the start of that task, the real job of a jury, was just moments away. But before we could begin deliberating, Judge Patterson had one final official duty. Selecting the alternates. If you remember from the first episode, 16 jurors were selected for this trial. We knew from the beginning that four of us would be chosen as alternates. But until now, we had no idea who. Still, all 16 of us were expected to remain four fully present throughout the entire trial. The reason for having extra jurors in a case of this magnitude is simple. If someone experienced a personal emergency or was exposed to media coverage along the way, or became unable to continue for.

Sarah (58:42)

Any reason, they'd be excused.

Narrator (58:45)

But that didn't happen. Our group made it all the way through. So now, with no clear criteria to go by, the selection would be made at random. Literally names drawn from a plastic cup. Can we just pause to take in the weight of that? On January 9, 2025, 16 people were plucked from their lives in Nashville, Tennessee, and shipped off to Chattanooga to serve on this grand jury. We didn't really have a choice in the matter. Some of us were excited. All of us were nervous. But every single one of us chose to show up.

Sarah (59:24)

We sat through days of testimony, graphic.

Narrator (59:27)

Evidence, legal language, and emotional testimony. And now four of us would be plucked again. Only this time, they'd be silenced. No deliberation, no voice, no opportunity to fulfill what we'd all come here to do. Do. A clear plastic cup was handed to the judge. Inside, 16 tiny folded slips of paper. One by one, names were drawn. Juror 12, Juror 5, Juror 6, and Juror 16. The alternates were thanked for their service and asked to leave the courtroom immediately. Each of them stood, rose from those.

Sarah (60:15)

Blue, squeaky office chairs, and awkwardly shuffled.

Narrator (60:19)

Out of the jury box, stunned and confused.

Sarah (60:23)

The extra chair that had to be.

Narrator (60:25)

Put in for juror 16, every time we entered the jury box was left out for good. This time, they were gone. And without skipping a beat, Judge Patterson moved straight into the next portion of the trial, reading through the formalities of our upcoming duties as a jury. He explained that we would receive a copy of these instructions once we were in the jury room for deliberations. I tried my best to follow along, but honestly, my mind was scattered.

Sarah (60:56)

We had just lost a piece of.

Narrator (60:58)

Our group, and now the most significant part of our job was moments away. For the first time, we would finally be able to talk to one another about this case. As you know, up until now, we had been strictly admonished every single day not to discuss the trial with fellow jurors, not to look up any information, not to form opinions out loud. And now, suddenly, that wall was gone.

Sarah (61:27)

We.

Narrator (61:28)

We were just minutes away from saying anything we wanted about this case. For the first time. I'm saving the details of our deliberation and the verdict for the next episode, but I want to close with something special. A journal entry from Juror number five, one of the four names drawn as an alternate. When I heard her name called from the judge, I muttered to myself, oh, no. Because it was so clear to me. She was our four person. She had that energy, that presence, that ability to lead with clarity and care. I even remember telling her on our way out of the hotel one morning that she looked like a famous author or something.

Sarah (62:11)

I just loved her style, her perspective.

Narrator (62:14)

Her way of moving through the world. She was committed to this case. Oddly enough, just a couple nights before, she predicted that she'd be one of the alternates. She said it almost casually over dinner. So when Judge Patterson actually read her name, I was shocked, because in so many ways, she felt like the heart of the group.

Juror 5 (62:38)

It came down to a raffle, more or less. Nine days of obsessive note taking and eye straining. Eyes always dry and tired and redlined by the time we left. 87 hours in courthouses in total, and the Judge pulled just four juror names and numbers out of a black cup. Juror 5 was called second, despite the fact that I had told my boyfriend before I even left that best case scenario for me, morally and ethically speaking, would be the alternate route. I felt immediately like a an outsider, like I didn't belong. I felt uncomfortable having my full name read in the courtroom, and I kept my eyes down as I walked from my chair on the very end of the jury box, passing by the remaining 14 folks who I had felt at the very least on the same team with over the course of the trial. At most, I had ideas of being jury foreman after being told that by three three other people. First, the HR coordinator at my work said he thought it was likely when I turned in my notice for jury duty in the first place. Then Juror 11 said she thought I would be while watching me respond to questions during poor dear. Finally, jokingly, Juror 4 would say something like sounds like foreman talk. The times I would try to help organize group decisions in the jury room, such as how much time we should take off for the upcoming MLK holiday weekend. We all decided just one day after everyone put anonymous votes in a cup I had placed by the coffee machine. We all wanted to get back sooner to the people and the dogs that we love. Now here it is Monday. It's MLK Day. A president is being inaugurated, California is on fire, it's snowing in Florida, and one of the deputies told us that TikTok was briefly taken offline over breakfast. I asked they would tell us if it was the apocalypse out there. Right? A few hours later. And the same process I used to pull the weekend vote is essentially the same process that was used to pick alternates. I'm an alternate and I'm escorted out of the courtroom with three other alternates down the hall, about five doors away from the real jury room. We sit and wait for their deliberation. I try to read as two other alternates play a card game, but my mind races. What did I do wrong? Did I ask the wrong questions? Am I in trouble? After about 15 minutes, I break. I say this sucks. It feels like it was all a waste of time. I tried to remain positive throughout the whole experience, but like I said before, now I feel like I don't belong anymore. And that's a feeling I felt too many times before due to personal circumstances that I won't get into here. In the parlance of my generation, you could say I was triggered. But a Younger Juror, Juror 6, who throughout the trial was sensitive and funny and kind and frankly, gorgeous. Says, you can't think like that. Everything happens for a reason. Still, my mood is sour. After we were told that we basically have to sit in that jury room and continue to not talk about the trial until a decision is reached. I try to figure out how I'm going to get the books back that I lent out to some of the real, actual jurors. About 15 more minutes pass and there's a knock at the door. The bailiff points to another alternate and says, pick a number between 1 and 10. 9. She says, okay, you can all probably go home tonight. What we say in chorus They've reached a decision, so we're trying to organize transport for you all tonight. He leaves and we're all stunned. It couldn't have been my son longer than 30 minutes of isolation and they decided. I had always respected my fellow jurors for not taking the easy way out or lying or making excuses to get out of sequestration to begin with. Now, after two weeks of being voluntold to uproot their lives and make a monumental decision, I respected them all the more. But still, I think thank God I was an alternate.

Narrator (67:11)

Next time on Sequestered the verdict and sentencing of Jason Chen.

Juror 5 (67:17)

It only took about 40 minutes of.

Judge Patterson (67:19)

Deliberation for the jury to sentence Jason Chen.

Juror 5 (67:23)

Womp said this is the quickest she's ever seen a jury come to a decision.

Narrator (67:27)

After all the testimony, all the evidence, all the facts, the verdict comes down to one decision. Was the murder of Jasmine Pace premeditated? We'll see you next time. Thank you for listening to Sequestered A Juror's perspective on the Murder Trial for Jasmine Pace. Each episode brings us closer to understanding the trial, the people involved, and the weight of seeking justice. If this story speaks to you, please follow, share and continue the conversation with us. Jasmine's story deserves to be remembered. This is a BP production. The show is written, edited and produced.

Sarah (68:35)

By me, Sarah Reid, with co production by Andrea Clyde. News clips featured in this episode were sourced From WTVC News Channel 9, Local 3, News Channel Chattanooga and the Law and Crime Network. Music and sound design are curated to reflect the gravity and sensitivity of this story and with the intent to honor Jasmine, her family, and the community affected by her death. For more information or to connect with.

Narrator (69:02)

Us, visit sequesteredpod.com or follow us on instagramquesteredpod.

Sarah (69:08)

Thank you for listening. Until next time, stay curious and stay safe.

Defense Attorney Amanda Morrison (69:37)

SA.