TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — After several hours of testimony from Curtis Reeves, the man who killed Chad Oulson in a Wesley Chapel movie theater in 2014, Reeves’ defense attorneys rested their case Thursday in the high-profile murder trial.
Reeves spent several hours on the stand Thursday morning and into the afternoon to describe the moments leading up to the deadly shooting and what happened after. He maintains that he shot Oulson in defense.
Prosecutors started questioning Reeves Thursday afternoon, asking him if he killed Oulson out of rage or “blind fury.”
“No sir, I killed him out of fear,” Reeves said.
During the cross-examination, prosecutors asked Reeves why he didn’t move seats in the theater or why he didn’t go to theater employees initially before directly speaking with Oulson. The prosecution also questioned Reeves about the statements he made to a deputy the night of the shooting.
Prosecutors at one point showed surveillance footage from the inside the theater and questioned Reeves about a reflective light seen multiple times in the video. The prosecutor pointed out that Reeves had reflective strips on his sneakers that night and worked to make the point that those strips were the flashes seen on the screen, not Oulson’s cell phone.
The attorney then asked Reeves about any injuries he may have had to his face, pointing out that he had previously testified that he bruised easily.
Reeves was also asked about comments he made that night about “second-guessing” whether or not Oulson actually hit him.
“Yes sir, I’ve been second-guessing it for the last eight years,” Reeves said. “Anybody that’s involved in something like that and they don’t second-guess it has gotta be nuts.”
“I second-guessed every step of that encounter,” he added.
Before he was cross-examined by prosecutors, Reeves answered questions from his defense attorneys and testified about the argument over Oulson using his cell phone in the theater and said he went to theater employees at one point.
He then told the jury that Oulson “looked like a monster” standing over him as he sat in his seat. Oulson’s wife was in court listening as Reeves said the other man appeared “out of control.”
“I had no other choice, I reached for my pistol,” Reeves told the jury, saying that Oulson was exhibiting “uncontrolled anger or rage.”
The defense attorney then asked Reeves if he wanted to shoot Oulson.
“I didn’t want to shoot anybody,” Reeves answered. “I came to the theater with my family to enjoy a movie. Not to be attacked by some guy that’s out of control.”
Earlier Thursday morning, Reeves – a retired police captain – recalled his career with the Tampa Police Department in specific detail. He then explained his position as head of security at Busch Gardens and told the jury he never had the need to fire his weapon in the line of duty.
On Wednesday, the jury spent hours listening to testimony from expert witnesses. The court also spent a considerable amount of time with attorneys discussing legal arguments outside of the presence of the jury.
Attorneys spent an hour in the morning talking about evidence that will include the use of the mannequins. The state argued they are not close to the actual size of those involved and would give the jury an unrealistic view of what happened.
The judge took time to go to her office to look up matters of law and then ruled against the state’s objection. Eventually the judge allowed the testimony with some restrictions.
Dr. Michael Knox, a forensic scientist and criminologist, spent several hours testifying about the evidence he feels should have been collected at the crime scene by the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office. Knox says the detectives in charge of the case should have brought witnesses back into the theater and had the movie previews playing at the same sound and light level as they were playing at the time of the shooting.
“So it’s not just about coming in and taking what somebody says at face value, it’s about testing what they said to make sure it’s true and accurate,” Knox said.
Tampa attorney Bryant Camareno is not involved in the case, but has handled many high-profile cases. Camareno says a defense team often uses expert testimony for many reasons.
“One theory is to educate jurors. The other theory sometimes is to distract jurors. You know, sometimes if you have a really strong case, if the state has a really strong case – sometimes experts are there to distract jurors and give them alternative theories and defenses,” Camareno explained.
However, he says the strategy can go against the defense if an expert witness takes too long on the stand.
“The risk is this, is the average attention span for humans is 20 minutes,” said Camareno.
Several of the defense witnesses have testified for hours.
Judge Susan Barthle told the jury she expects they will begin their deliberations on Friday.