REDWOOD CITY — Attorneys sparred Monday in closing arguments over whether or not a person accused of killing his pregnant girlfriend ought to be convicted of homicide or manslaughter, with the prosecution pointing to proof that it took greater than 60 seconds for him to strangle her to loss of life, whereas the protection argued that his psychological state and pleasure to be a father precluded him from premeditation.
Andrew Coleman, 34, was charged with two counts of homicide with a number of enhancements after allegedly strangling 37-year-old Kirsten Fort, killing her and his unborn little one, in 2024 on the sufferer’s duplex in San Mateo earlier than fleeing to Southern California with the sufferer’s secure containing $37,000 in his trunk. Fort’s 10-year-old daughter from a earlier marriage discovered her mom topless and deceased on the ground of their house.
Ryan McLaughlin, a deputy district legal professional for San Mateo County, implored the jury to search out Coleman responsible of first diploma homicide for each counts on the idea that Coleman exhibited intent, premeditation and deliberation. In his arguments, he pointed to rising tensions between the couple within the days main as much as Fort’s loss of life and the “hundreds, if not tens of hundreds, of selections Mr. Coleman made” earlier than fatally strangling her.
McLaughlin argued that Fort, who was 5’4 and eight months pregnant, would have been no bodily match for Coleman, who on the time was 5’9″, 230 kilos and a educated boxer. He maintained that Fort’s loss of life by asphyxiation, which takes a few minute for mind loss of life, would have required Coleman to “double down” after she went unconscious and that her bodily accidents indicated that Coleman’s malice “is apparent.”
“This may solely be categorized as a brutal home violence homicide,” McLaughlin mentioned. “It’s not simply intent to kill. It’s premeditated. It’s deliberate.”
Jonathan McDougall, Coleman’s protection legal professional, argued that the cost ought to be diminished to manslaughter as a result of Coleman was appearing in response to Fort lunging at him. He additionally mentioned that the jury ought to take into account Coleman’s intoxication as a think about his psychological state attributable to his “ample, constant alcohol use.” He additionally accused McLaughlin of hypothesis in his interpretation of proof.
“The prosecution merely doesn’t know what occurred,” McDougall mentioned. “This complete case relies on intent.”
McDougall argued that Coleman was excited to turn into a father, pointing to his testimony to that truth on the stand and the thought that went into choosing the infant’s identify, Indigo. That exhibits, he argued, that Coleman “had no intent to kill mother whereas she was pregnant.”
Overseen by San Mateo County Superior Courtroom Decide Leland Davis III, the case will now go to the jury for deliberations. They are going to be tasked with deciding whether or not to convict Coleman of first-degree homicide, second-degree homicide or manslaughter.
The battle between the Coleman and Fort began constructing on Aug. 2, 2024, McLaughlin argued, after Fort’s child bathe when “one thing turned bitter.” Within the days earlier than Fort’s loss of life, she despatched texts to Coleman through which she accused him of being bodily abusive. In a number of texts, Fort instructed Coleman that she wished “nothing to do with him” whereas he repeatedly requested for her location, he added.
“He’s turning into a tightly coiled spring,” McLaughlin mentioned. “Essentially the most constant through-line on this dialog is her wanting nothing to do with him.”
McDougall aimed to contextualize the alternate with earlier arguments the couple had over textual content, stating that that they had a “dysfunctional relationship” with a sample that alternated between “loving” points and hostility. These earlier conflicts, he mentioned, by no means resulted in violence. He pointed to the texts exchanged on at some point in April 2024 through which Fort instructed Coleman that he was “not abusive.”
“She’d play this card to make him really feel responsible,” McDougall mentioned. “It’s a sample.”
McLaughlin additionally offered a surveillance video from outdoors Avenue Liquors in San Mateo round 7 a.m. Aug. 4 with enhanced audio, through which he maintained that Coleman made reference to a chokehold and spoke to himself in a “name and response” through which he mentioned, “Why you gonna choke me? Trigger you’re a [expletive].”
However McDougall contested McLaughlin’s characterization of the video, sustaining that “that’s not what’s being mentioned in any respect.”
Fort returned to her residence round 12:37 p.m., McLaughlin mentioned. She was alive for at the very least 45 minutes after that, when her closing textual content was despatched. The coordinates of Coleman’s car positioned him on the residence from 12:28 p.m. till 3:27 p.m., McLaughlin mentioned, when he then made a beeline for Southern California.
McLaughlin maintained that although Coleman was drunk, his psychological acuity was intact. McDougall additionally referenced a car cease of Coleman in West Covina that evening, through which he was “appearing up.” A blood draw round 1 a.m. confirmed his BAC at 0.28 — thrice the authorized restrict. His degree of intoxication confirmed, McDougall argued, that he was “not somebody who in his thoughts was a cold-blooded killer.”
“This isn’t the conduct of somebody who … for minutes on minutes killed the mom of his daughter,” McDougall mentioned.
