IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CRIMINAL DIVISION “X”

STATE OF FLORIDA CASE # 2016CF005507AMB

v.

NOUMAN KHAN RAJA,

Defendant.
/

STATE’S CLOSING REMARKS CONCERNING THE DEFENSE’S MOTION TO

DISMISS PURSUANT TO FLORIDA’S STAND YOUR GROUND LAW

COMES NOW the State of Florida, by and through the undersigned Assistant State

Attorney, and hereby files these closing remarks. The State respectfully requests this Honorable

Court to DENY the Motion.

Initial Overview

Corey Jones was an innocent citizen in need of assistance in the early morning hours of

October 18, 2015. It was his misfortune that instead he received the reckless and aggressive

actions of a rouge officer, the Defendant. Corey Jones was treated as a criminal from the word

“Huh”. While Corey legally waited for the tow truck that would take him to safety, the

Defendant aggressively drove his unmarked white van the wrong way up an interstate exit ramp

and stopped within two feet of Corey’s front bumper. The Defendant immediately jumped out of

his van wearing a t-shirt, jeans and a ball cap. Absolutely nothing about him provided any

indication that he represented a law enforcement agency. That is doubly true concerning his

demeanor. He had no badge, no law enforcement insignia, no radio and absolutely no verbal

approach that would allow any reasonable or unreasonable person to conclude he was an officer
of the law. There is absolutely no credible evidence that the Defendant ever announced himself

as an officer; the only evidence brought forth through the recorded phone call is to the contrary.

The Defendant rushed toward Corey, chasing him from the cover of his own vehicle. He

aggressively and incredulously shouted “really” at Corey, followed by a barrage of profanity.

The only logical conclusion that a citizen such as Corey could reach pursuant to the evidence

submitted was that he was about to be the unfortunate victim of a violent crime. And that is

exactly what happened. If the Defendant would have simply followed the generally accepted

practices of all law enforcement and acted in the manner consistent of how the huge majority of

well-intentioned officers act on a daily basis, Corey would still be alive today. The State

absolutely agrees that Stand Your Ground exists in this case. Corey stood his ground against the

initial aggressor that was the Defendant. All evidence points to Corey running away from his

vehicle trying to escape the Defendant’s violence. And now, the Defendant has unsuccessfully

tried to defend his criminal actions by blaming Corey. The Defendant’s only supporting,

credible evidence is that a light reflectivity test was completed that provides the possibility that

he saw Corey’s gun at some point that night. It alone does not prove that the Defendant ever had

a gun pointed at him and only truly corroborates that Corey was scared enough of the Defendant

to Stand His Ground. The Defendant mistakenly believes that one partial truth will solely be

what this Honorable Court relies upon in the evaluation of his motion. Well, a half-truth is still a

lie. The sheer breadth of inconsistencies between the Defendant’s statement and the real

evidence is why his walk-through is wholly not credible. Whether perceptual distortion,

impaired memory, or just plain lies, the Defendant’s statement should be disregarded as

supporting his motion. There is no test to tell the difference between these and the only use of

the statement is one to the contrary of the Defendant. It only took the Defendant seconds to
jump out of his vehicle and shoot at Corey. It only took him ten (10) seconds to continue to

shoot at a fleeing and unarmed Corey. However, it took him thirty-three (33) seconds to actually

call 911. Those facts are undeniable and point to only one thing – his guilt, not just clear and

convincing, but beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt.

Legal Basis

The Defendant places his legal reliance upon Peraza and Martin. State v. Peraza, 226

So.3d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Martin v. State, 2018WL2074171 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2018). The

State does not concede that Martin is controlling. The Third District Court of Appeals has just

declined to apply the Stand Your Ground amendment retroactively and certified a conflict with

Martin. Love v. State, 2018WL2169980 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2018). The State continues to aver that

the Stand Your Ground amendment should not apply to Defendant. The State does concede that

Peraza is presently controlling solely as it relates to the application of Stand of Ground to law

enforcement officers. The Florida Supreme Court will ultimately decide that issue, but the State

has met its burden in every way regardless.

While the State agrees that Peraza is singularly controlling on one issue, it is clearly

factually distinguishable and the ruling does not extend in the manner the Defendant is

attempting to utilize. That court placed great importance on the fact that the officer’s account

was consistent with the other credible witnesses and the physical evidence. Peraza at 940. The

same is not true in the present cause. That court found that the man ignored repeated orders to

drop the weapon and turned on the officers pointing his gun at the officers and children. Id. The

same is not true in the present cause. That court’s most significant finding of fact was that the

officers were responding to an emergency and investigating a disturbance. Id at 946. The same
is not true in the present cause. That court found that any reasonably prudent person would

perceive danger and the necessity of force. That is exactly what Corey Jones did.

The court in Peraza relied upon the circuit court order which provided that the Defendant

was entitled to immunity “notwithstanding his occupation as a law enforcement officer.”

Furthermore, that circuit court’s analysis was one placing the defendant as a “person” per the

Stand Your Ground statute, not some twisted logic in which a law enforcement officer receives

the benefit of the statute along with the standards provided in Graham. Graham v. Conner, 490

U.S. 386 (1989). The purpose of the inclusion of such language is due to the court’s discussion

and ultimate finding that the defendant would also have protections pursuant to Section 776.05,

Florida Statutes. The present hearing does not encapsulate this review as it would potentially be

argued at trial. Stand Your Ground analyzes the use of force by a “person” and the initial

aggressor analysis still applies regardless of the Defendant’s classification as an officer at the

time of killing Corey Jones. He acted recklessly as a “person”, as an officer and as any moral

human being.

Furthermore, cases cited by the Defendant in reference to allowing testimony of specific

orders by a supervisor were not specifically applicable to the testimony of our expert or Sgt.

Garcia, only to the introduction of policy manuals themselves. Lozano v. State, 584 So.2d 19

(Fla. 3rd DCA 1991). Courts citing this case have restricted its precedence to the introduction of

the policy manuals themselves. Gensler v. State, 868 So.2d 357 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004); Smith v.

State, 888 So.2d 112 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004). The State has previously provided legal precedence

to the court during the hearing on the Defendant’s motion to exclude our expert. That motion

was appropriately denied and it was relegated specifically to the testimony of the expert, not a

lay witness. The law espoused by the Defendant relates to introduction of policy manuals and
general orders of an agency. It has nothing to do with the testimony of specific commands

issued by a supervisor and the Defendant’s statements that he clearly understood the parameters

of his detail. All of this is evidence of the recklessness of the Defendant’s actions, not holding

him to a heightened standard by which the Defendant would be judged. The testimony adduced

at the hearing was outside of the purview of the court in Lozano.

The Evidence

Corey Jones was standing his ground against the initially aggressive Defendant. The

Defendant called “expert” witnesses who alleged that a citizen can’t just pull a gun on another.

That is completely false; a citizen absolutely can if he or she feels their life in in danger in the

manner the Defendant threatened Corey. Corey was chased out of his vehicle to behind his SUV

before the first shots were even fired. Witnesses discussed how dangerous it would have been

for the Defendant to have remained in his van. The converse also holds true in that it was

equally, albeit more, dangerous for Corey to remain in his vehicle. Corey actually took flight in

an attempt to avoid the fight but the Defendant did not accept this. Even the Defendant’s own

experts agreed that Corey was approximately thirty (30) feet behind his own vehicle when the

Defendant opened fire on him. Corey continued his flight from the aggressive Defendant until

reaching his final resting place, alone among the cold trees.

The most unbiased piece of evidence is the roadside assistance recorded phone call which

captured the audio of the interaction between the Defendant and Corey and the shooting. The

Defendant’s true intentions are revealed. His confrontational manner of repeatedly asking

“Really?” is not even close to what would be normal conduct of a law enforcement officer during

a citizen encounter, or even a traffic stop. This type of reckless behavior further illustrates how
Corey Jones had no plausible way of knowing that the Defendant was an officer. The audio

“expert” testified appropriately to two salient facts: (1) the voice heard before Corey says

“Huh?” speaks for about the same length of time that it took Corey to say “Huh?” and (2) that

Corey did not hear what was said or why would he have said “Huh?.” The Defendant did not use

the necessary time to announce himself as a law enforcement officer and he never responded that

he was an officer upon Corey saying “Huh?.”

Through the audio evidence, we know that the Defendant absolutely did not see any gun

until at the very earliest when he had already chased Corey behind his own vehicle. We can hear

the Defendant yell three times, “Show me your (expletive) hands!” Clearly, the Defendant had

not seen Corey’s hands at that point when he had already forced an innocent civilian to run away

from him. We then hear Corey say, “Hold on…..” Not the words of a violent assailant, but the

words of a passive man trying to deescalate the violent assault by the Defendant. Then there is

ten (10) long seconds before the next round of deliberate shots were fired by the Defendant.

Each shot was one second apart and the Defendant stated that he was yelling “Aim!” during this

volley. Ten seconds during which Corey is running for his life. Ten seconds in which Corey had

already thrown his gun in the tall grass behind his vehicle. Ten seconds for the Defendant to

reflect on the absence of threat and the necessity to make contact with command to set up a

perimeter. Instead, the Defendant chose to gun down Corey Jones.

The Defendant asks this Honorable Court to believe his statement for all the reasons that

benefit him but omit all the ones that contradict the evidence. Here are some of the

contradictions to what the Defendant now wishes the Court to accept:

1. The Defendant stated that Corey spoke first three times during his statement.
 2. The Defendant stated that Corey immediately jumped out of his car and pointed a gun

at the Defendant.

3. The Defendant stated that Corey was running but not sprinting.

4. The Defendant stated that he was “surprised” at how fast he drew his weapon.

(Actually, everyone finds it quite unbelievable)

5. The Defendant stated that Corey turned on him with a gun past the point of the sign.

6. The Defendant stated that he called 911 before the second volley of shots.

7. The Defendant stated that he said “Drop the gun!” prior to the first shots.

In fact, the Defendant stated that after the first volley and after the physical evidence shows that

Corey was unarmed, the Defendant yelled “Drop the gun! Drop the gun! I’m gonna (expletive)

kill you!” Well, that is exactly what the Defendant did. He shot and killed Corey Jones as he

was running away.

The State provided the following evidence to this Court:

1. Corey was waiting calmly for assistance due to being broke down on the side of the

road.

2. Corey had purchased a firearm to protect himself and the expensive drums he had

with him in his vehicle.

3. The Defendant was part of a plain clothes operation in which he violated several

general practices and direct orders. The point of a plain clothes detail is to blend in

while at the same time being clearly identifiable as a law enforcement officer.

4. The crime scene location of relevant evidence and the communications that were

recorded during the event.

 5. The location of Corey Jones’ body and his firearm along with the statement by the

Defendant that Corey threw his gun in the tall grass right behind his vehicle.

6. The trajectory of the shots fired by the Defendant matches with Corey running away.

7. The Medical Examiner testimony matches with Corey running away and being shot to

death far away from his gun.

8. The Use of Force and Police Tactics/Procedures expert testified that the Defendant

was reckless in his entire approach and was unjustified in his use of force.

All of the evidence equates to the Defendant being the initial aggressor and creating all of the

circumstances that led to the death of Corey Jones.

The Defendant’s presentation of evidence either supports that State’s position or is not

reliable. The Defendant has agreed that the statement he previously provided is not credible and

full of inconsistencies. The Defendant also agrees that Corey would have been located on a

trajectory line which would place him close to his final resting place. The “experts” produced by

the defense were not credible. To highlight some of the testimony provided:

1. A defense witness stated that credibility is not assessed but then relied upon the

beneficial statements of the Defendant.

2. A defense witness stated that law enforcement officers always shoot within a foot of a

target, even during the stress of an officer-involved shooting and even at a moving

target.

3. A defense witness testified that the Defendant is correct when it benefits him and it is

perceptual distortion when it does not benefit him.

4. A defense witness testified that the standard is an “objectively reasonable law

enforcement officer” when it is clearly a “reasonable person”.

According to one witness called by the defense, any time a law enforcement officer is faced with

deadly force, regardless of the actions by the officer preceding this belief, that officer is justified

in using deadly force. Basically, all the actions of an officer prior to the use of force should be

ignored at all times. In essence, the Defendant is stating with certainty that a law enforcement

officer can never be charged and convicted of Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence.

The Defendant is expected to follow the law as much as anyone else, especially in the

context of a Stand Your Ground hearing. He created the entire situation in which he ultimately

killed Corey Jones. He has failed to meet the legal obligations of immunity pursuant to Stand

Your Ground just like he failed to properly approach an innocent civilian in need of his

assistance, not his gun.

Wherefore, the State has met its burden of proof and objects to the Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss on the Basis of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law and respectfully requests

this Honorable Court to DENY the Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVE ARONBERG
STATE ATTORNEY
PALM BEACH COUNTY
STATE OF FLORIDA

____________________________________
Brian L. Fernandes FL BAR #186295
Assistant State Attorney
401 North Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 355-7100
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been furnished to the following counsel of

record by E-service this 15th day of May, 2018.

Richard Lubin Scott Richardson Ralph King, III

rich@lubinlaw.com snr@scottnrichardsonlaw.com Rickk@pbcpba.org
1217 S. Flagler Drive 1401 Forum Way, Suite 720 2100 N. Florida Mango Dr.
Second Floor WPB, FL 33401 WPB, FL 33409
WPB, FL 33401

____________________________________
Brian L. Fernandes FL BAR #186295
Assistant State Attorney