Episode 7 Transcript
The State Rests
Sequestered: A Juror’s Perspective on the Murder Trial of Jasmine Pace
Episode 7: The State Rests
​
Content Warning
Before we begin, please be advised that this episode contains graphic descriptions of violence as presented during the trial. Please take care while listening.
​
Trial Recap
It’s Saturday, January 18, 2025, Day Six of the trial.
By now, we were no longer the fresh, wide-eyed jurors who had entered the courtroom on Day One. The gravity of this case had settled in, and with each passing day, the weight of our role grew heavier.
​
We had listened to hours of testimony, examined evidence, and watched the state methodically build their case against Jason Chen.
​
We'd seen Jasmine's family take the stand. Heard the pain in their voices as they recounted the frantic hours they spent searching for her.
​
We had listened to expert witnesses break down crime scene details, some with precise conclusions, others with more uncertainty.
​
We had watched DA Coty Wamp and her team present their evidence with confidence, reinforcing over and over again that this was a premeditated act. Not a crime of passion, not an accident, but a murder.
​
The days of feeling like outsiders in the courtroom were over.
​
At this point, we weren’t just observing the trial. We were part of it.
​
This didn't feel new anymore. We were here to finish what we started, and apparently so was the state.
​
This is Sequestered: A Juror’s Perspective on the Murder Trial for Jasmine Pace.
I'm Sara, Juror #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.
Let’s begin.
​
The State Rests
​
As the courtroom took their seats, Judge Patterson turned to the prosecution and asked if they had any more witnesses.
​
DA Coty Wamp stood and, to our surprise, simply said, “The state rests their case.”
Just like that, the prosecution was done.
​
A brief explanation followed from the bench. Now, it was the defense's turn. But before we even had a chance to absorb the shift, we were asked to exit the courtroom.
​
The judge and attorneys needed to cover a few motions before the defense could begin.
We returned to our coffee, card games, and books in the jury room.
​
Meanwhile, in the courtroom, the defense did something pretty standard in criminal trials:
They filed what’s called a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.
​
​
This is a formal request for the judge to dismiss some or all of the charges, arguing that the prosecution didn’t present enough evidence for a reasonable jury to convict.
​
It’s a way of saying, “Even if you take everything the state just presented at face value, it’s still not enough to legally support these charges.”
​
Now, this motion is rarely granted in high-profile cases like this, especially in a murder trial, but it’s a critical procedural step because it preserves the defense’s ability to appeal later on, if needed.
​
Lesser Included Offenses
The defense also made a separate request for the judge to allow the jury to consider what’s called lesser included offenses.
​
Lesser included offenses are exactly what they sound like. They’re charges that are still illegal, but they’re considered less severe versions of the primary charge.
​
In this case, the primary charge was first-degree murder, which requires proving premeditation—meaning the killing was planned.
​
The defense asked the court to also instruct the jury on lesser charges like second-degree murder (which doesn’t require premeditation) or voluntary manslaughter (which could apply if the killing happened in the heat of the moment).
​
This kind of legal maneuvering is common, but it’s also strategic.
It gives the jury more options, so instead of choosing between convicting on the most serious charge or letting the defendant go free, they could land somewhere in the middle.
​
One of those moments where you could feel both sides preparing for the end game:
-
The defense protecting their client from the harshest sentence possible.
-
The state holding firm that this was a premeditated, intentional murder.
​
Forensic Psychologist Request Denied
The defense had one more move up their sleeve.
Mr. Weiss renewed a motion he’d already tried once before:
He asked the judge to allow a forensic psychologist named Dr. Douglas Lewis to testify for the defense.
​
Dr. Lewis was a specialist in assessing a defendant’s mental state, particularly their ability to form premeditation.
​
Judge Patterson’s Ruling
For a second time, Judge Patterson denied the request, citing:
-
Speculation: Dr. Lewis’s opinions were too speculative, failing to meet the legal standard of certainty needed for expert testimony.
-
Timing: The defense had waited until after the trial started to formally request Dr. Lewis’s testimony. Allowing it now would be unfair to the state.
​
The defense took a 30-minute break to organize their witnesses.
We re-entered the courtroom and took our seats in the jury box.
​
The defense called their first witness to the stand: Courtney Paglino-Brewer, the neighbor who lived in Apartment 110, directly below Jason Chen’s apartment.
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“On the night of November 22nd, early hours of November 23rd, was there an incident that you recall?”
​
Courtney:
“Yes, I was woken up in the middle of the night by a loud scream.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“Can you kind of take us—and you can go slowly—through the next step? What woke you up, and then everything that you've heard from that point until you can hear?”
​
Courtney:
“There was a scream that startled me out of my sleep. I checked my phone to see the time because I was going to call 911. It was around 2am. There was a voice that was screaming words, the words I couldn't understand fully.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“Was it a male voice?”
​
Courtney:
“And then, assuming that the apartment above mine is laid out the same as mine, there sounded like chasing—a lot of footsteps going across towards the front door.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“One person's footsteps?”
​
Courtney:
“It sounded like multiple.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“You said, ‘towards the front door.’ Was that towards the front office?”
​
Courtney:
“I was in the bedroom and I heard it.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“You had said that you heard a scream. Can you describe the scream?”
​
Courtney:
“Distressed? Not quite, angry, emphatic.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“Would you say you could hear arguing—an argument or a fight?”
​
Courtney:
“I thought that maybe I had heard the tail end of the fight. I only ever heard one voice.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“After hearing the scream and the arguments and the footsteps, what did you do?”
​
Courtney:
“I lay there awake for a minute because I couldn't go back to sleep. My husband had woken up, but he thought the noise came from outside, and he went back to sleep rather easily. I could hear the sounds of TV, and then when I moved from the bedroom to my living room, there were sounds of someone walking across the apartment and the sound of the washer and the garbage disposal.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“You said you could hear the arguing.”
​
Courtney:
“I only heard her voice, so I just assumed. It was an argument.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“Did you hear any crying?”
​
Courtney:
“The voice that came after the screaming—it kind of sounded like when you're already upset, but you're trying to prove a point and you're crying at the same time. So it was just very kind of garbled. I would say that there was crying behind it.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“Did you call 911?”
​
Courtney:
“I did not, because by the time I settled down from being abruptly woken up and thought that I heard footsteps going across and a door slam, I thought that it had just been a normal apartment argument, and everything kind of calmed down.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“Did you ever contact authorities?”
Courtney:
“I did. I want to say the 27th or the 28th.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“Why did you contact them?”
Courtney:
“Because I’d seen the missing persons poster for Jasmine on Facebook and connected the dots of her last known location being the floor above mine. And so I submitted a tip to Crime Stoppers, saying what I heard, and I just thought it was the right thing to do.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“And is what you told Crime Stoppers then the same thing you testified to here this morning?”
​
Courtney:
“Yes, sir.”
​
Courtney testified that in the early hours of November 23—the night Jasmine was murdered—she was jolted awake by a loud, panicked scream. It startled her so much, she immediately grabbed her phone to check the time, thinking she might need to call 911.
​
According to her, it was 2:11am. It was the voice that stuck with her.
​
The scream she heard came from a woman, and after that initial burst of terror, Courtney could hear her trying to talk through sobs—like she was crying and arguing at the same time. The words were garbled, and Courtney couldn't make out exactly what was being said.
​
Then came what she described as chasing—the sounds of two people running from the floor directly above her toward the front door of the apartment, followed by the distinct sound of the front door slamming.
​
Twenty minutes later, Courtney heard the TV in the bedroom turn on loudly, and about thirty minutes after that, she heard the garbage disposal turn on, and then the washing machine. Both were running at the same time.
​
It wasn't until days later, when Courtney saw Jasmine’s missing person flyer on Facebook, that she realized what she had actually heard.
​
According to the flyer, Jasmine’s last known location was at 110 Tremont Street, Apartment 210—the apartment directly above hers. That’s when Courtney knew she had to say something.
She immediately submitted a tip to Crime Stoppers, sharing everything she remembered from that night.
​
Courtney’s Testimony Reflections
As I sat there listening to Courtney, my mind couldn't stop racing with questions. Questions, of course, that no one could fully answer.
-
Was the TV turned up to cover the sound of something no one was supposed to hear?
-
What was Jason washing in the middle of the night? Sheets? Clothes? Something worse?
-
And the garbage disposal—what did he put down there? Something small? Evidence of something that could never be recovered?
​
None of us knew for sure. But what haunted me the most was the realization that Jason wasn’t just up late tidying his apartment. He wasn’t cleaning the house.
​
He was covering up a crime scene right above Courtney’s head.
​
Travis Pace’s Testimony
The next witness was Jasmine's biological father, Travis Pace. It's important to note that Travis and Jasmine's mother, Catrina Bean, are divorced.
​
With Mr. Weiss’s leading, Travis walked us through the night Jasmine’s family realized she was missing—November 26 into the early morning hours of the 27th.
​
On the 26th, Travis was out to dinner with friends celebrating Thanksgiving when his daughter, Gabby, called in a panic. Jasmine wasn’t answering her phone, and no one knew where she was.
Travis and his girlfriend drove to the last location Jasmine's phone had pinged—a building near Tremont Street. When they got there, they found Gabby and some of Jasmine’s friends all trying to figure out how to get inside.
​
They managed to get into the building through a back door and started knocking loudly on every door they could. They were desperate to make noise, to wake people up, and find someone who had seen Jasmine.
​
And that's when they learned about Jason Chen. A neighbor told them Jason lived on the second floor and that Jasmine had been there recently. That's all they needed to hear.
​
Travis went straight to Jason's apartment and knocked. There was no answer. The door was locked, but Travis managed to force the handle open.
​
What he found inside made his stomach drop. The apartment was empty, but it was clear someone had left in a hurry.
-
The bed was unmade.
-
There were female items in the bathroom.
-
When Travis opened a desk drawer, there was Jasmine’s driver’s license and credit cards just sitting there in a neat little stack.
​
That's the moment he knew something was terribly wrong.
​
Courtroom Exchange
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“What did you do in the bedroom?”
​
Travis:
“There were no persons in the bedroom. So now I turned around with a different goal, of not looking for a person, but to look for evidence of Jasmine.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“What did you do to look for evidence of Jasmine?”
​
Travis:
“The doors were open, the cabinets were open. Things were on the surface, and it appeared there were female products in the bathroom. I walked forward and opened the drawer. There was a computer desk in the top left of the apartment, if you’re facing into the hallway.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“So if you're entering through the door, is it to the right?”
​
Travis:
“To the right, immediately. There’s a computer desk. I opened the drawer. Jasmine’s driver’s license was right there on the top, stacked up in a pile, alongside her credit cards, her bank cards—a stack of all of Jasmine’s cards and identifications.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“What did you do?”
​
Travis:
“I took them out of the drawer and I spread them apart widely, distinctly from left to right. Without a search warrant, they could not open a drawer and look for those themselves. And me telling them that they were there was hearsay. But if I lay it across the countertop and they flashed their light on it and recorded it, they can show that to Missing Persons. It’s something moving it forward.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“Did you do something to help the police investigate?”
​
Travis:
“Yes.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“What did you do after you laid out the cards?”
​
Travis:
“Called 911. I actually—as soon as I opened the door and I saw the cards, I called 911 and told them to call 911. This is absolutely the apartment that Jasmine was in.”
​
Travis immediately stepped out of the apartment and called 911.
At this point, Mr. Weiss asked Travis if he would recognize himself on a 911 recording. The State objected wildly, and the jury was asked to leave the courtroom.
​
While we were out, they played the 911 tape for Travis Pace, but Judge Patterson ultimately overruled the option to play it in court, so we never heard it.
​
All we know is that Travis told the 911 operator exactly where they were and that Jasmine had been missing since Wednesday.
​
Travis Describes His Interaction with Officers
Travis:
“Take a report and submit a report to Missing Persons. I said, you get them on the scene. They’re on standby. They’re not reporting to the scene. Call your detective or your sergeant, and put pressure on their sergeant to make their sergeant force Homicide—force Homicide—to show up.
​
He said, ‘The best I can do would be to tell my sergeant that I think it’s important to put pressure on their sergeant and see what happens. It’s the best I can do for you.’”
​
Re-Entering the Apartment
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“Did you go back into the apartment?”
​
Travis:
“Yes, we went back in immediately.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“Did you continue to look for more things—anything that would lead to finding Jasmine?”
​
Travis:
“Yes.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“How long were you in the apartment?”
​
As soon as the officers left, Travis went back into Jason Chen's apartment.
He spent the next hour searching, looking for any clue that might lead him to Jasmine.
​
Sitting in that jury box, what stood out to me was how clear it was that Travis wasn’t thinking about evidence, chain of custody, or crime scene protocols that night.
​
He was thinking like a dad desperate to find his daughter, doing anything he could.
​
I couldn’t quite figure out the defense’s angle in calling Travis to the stand. So far, everything he testified to only seemed to strengthen the case against Jason Chen.
​
Cross-Examination
Defense Attorney Weiss then took a sharp turn, focusing on small discrepancies between Travis Pace’s and Catrina Bean’s testimony from the night they all went to the Tremont apartments looking for Jasmine.
​
I’m assuming this was to put doubt in our minds that their stories didn’t totally line up. But it seemed like such a small detail.
​
If you remember, on Day One of the trial, Catrina Bean testified that they used a credit card to break into Jason Chen’s apartment.
​
I remember thinking, Did it really matter how they got in? At this point, both had already admitted to breaking in.
​
When asked about the discrepancy, Travis remained calm, and his response was simple.
Travis:
“We remember it differently.”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“You were there with Catrina Pace when you were interviewed by Detective Crawford. And I would say you were here in this courtroom in February of last year, and you heard Catrina Pace testify. And then this past Monday, you were in this room and you saw Catrina Pace testify on that stand, right?”
​
Travis:
“We remember it differently. It's true. Who am I to say what the truth is?”
​
Defense Attorney Weiss:
“Did a resident of the apartment building open the door for you, to support you to come in the building?”
“Did Catrina Pace or others get into Jason’s apartment with a credit card?”
“Who was the first person to get into the apartment?”
“Did you ever see Katrina Pace or another person use the credit card again?”
“You said earlier it’d be impossible to use a credit card. You heard Katrina testify that she went back into the apartment multiple times after that night. Were you with her for those times?”
“Do you know what she did in the apartment during those times?”
“Does your ex-wife, Katrina Pace, have a reputation for being honest?”
​
State’s Cross-Examination of Travis Pace
The State now takes their turn, and the tone shifts to confrontation.
​
Prosecutor (General Wamp):
“Did you receive a subpoena to testify in this trial?”
​
Travis:
“I did.”
​
Prosecutor:
“By who?”
​
Travis:
“I never received a subpoena from the defense attorney.”
​
Prosecutor:
“Were you ever notified by the defense that they were going to call you as a witness today?”
​
Travis:
“No.”
​
Prosecutor:
“Did they tell you Monday? Did they tell you Tuesday? Did they tell you Wednesday, Thursday, Friday?”
​
Travis:
“They said something this morning. I didn’t know I was being called as a witness until I was sitting right there. You said my name, is that right?”
​
Prosecutor:
“Yes. How long have you and Katrina been divorced?”
​
Travis:
“20 years.”
​
Prosecutor:
“Is it fair to say that y’all don’t have a great relationship?”
​
Travis:
“Yes.”
​
Prosecutor:
“Is it fair to say that this whole experience has strained your already tough relationship?”
​
Travis:
“Sure.”
​
​
Prosecutor:
“Would you say that you’re the one that initially saw Jasmine’s photo ID, her driver’s license, and her credit cards in Mr. Chen’s apartment?”
​
Travis:
“Yes.”
​
Prosecutor:
“Were they in the desk drawer, and you took them out and put them on the desk? Is that correct?”
​
Travis:
“Yes.”
​
Prosecutor:
“And you were knocking on doors because you couldn’t find your daughter, didn’t you? And all you were trying to do was find your daughter.”
​
Travis:
“Yes.”
​
Establishing Desperation
Prosecutor:
“You were desperate. You thought she might be in Jason’s apartment, didn’t you?”
​
Travis:
“I don’t know that part.”
​
Prosecutor:
“Would you have done anything to get in that apartment because you had reason to believe based on what the neighbors told you, that she could have been in danger?”
​
Travis:
“Yeah.”
​
Prosecutor:
“You have a military background, is that correct, sir?”
​
Travis:
“It is.”
​
Prosecutor:
“Is that one reason you’re proficient in firearms?”
​
Travis:
“It is.”
​
​
Prosecutor:
“Did you clean anything up in Mr. Chen’s apartment?”
​
Travis:
“No.”
​
Prosecutor:
“Did you plant any evidence in Mr. Chen’s apartment, other than moving her credit cards and driver’s license?”
​
Travis:
“No.”
​
Prosecutor:
“You didn’t take anything in there and leave it?”
​
Travis:
“No.”
​
Prosecutor:
“Did you have any idea at the time what had happened to your daughter?”
​
Travis:
“Definitely not.”
​
Prosecutor:
“She hadn’t been located, had she?”
​
Travis:
“No.”
​
Prosecutor:
“But did you know that Jason Chen might be involved?”
​
Travis:
“Yes.”
​
Prosecutor:
“Well, certainly, because he lied about speaking with her, about the duration, about the timing.”
​
Prosecutor:
“And you were aware that he lied?”
​
Travis:
“Yes.”
​
Prosecutor:
“That’s your girlfriend. You’re participating with the parents to look for her. What can I do? I’m equally concerned that she’s missing. How can we find her together? The fact that that wasn’t happening was the biggest, immediate red flag. He’s my number one suspect.”
​
Prosecutor:
“Well, did he tell you that he did it? That it was because she came after him with the wine glasses?”
​
Travis:
“No, he lied.”
​
Prosecutor:
“When did he say he’d seen her last?”
​
Travis:
“I don’t remember exactly what he said. I just know that it wasn’t what the phone record showed. It was different than what we had proof of.”
​
Prosecutor:
“Was he concerned about her?”
​
Travis:
“No. Not at all.”
​
After that frantic night of searching, Travis and Jasmine's family were left with fear and unanswered questions. The next clue didn't come from the apartment—it came from Jasmine's own Facebook account. At some point, on Saturday, November 26, a photo was posted to her Facebook page. It was a picture of Jasmine, but immediately her family and friends knew something was wrong.
“Were you monitoring Facebook during this time period?”
​
Travis:
“We were.”
“Do you recall a time that week when a photo was posted from your daughter's Facebook account?”
​
Travis:
“It was literally like the match that lit this whole thing on fire because it was not a modest photograph posted on Facebook. And anybody that knew Jasmine knew she would not have posted that, and it was a different timeline of her photo, so it wasn't even recent either. There were so many problems with it that it drew immediate red flags to everybody in the family and friends, people that were.”
“What day was that posted?”
​
Travis:
“I believe that was the same Saturday, the 26th.”
“The 26th. And as you know, it wasn't a recent photo?”
​
Travis:
“She has tattoos, and we can know basically what year it is based on which tattoos she has.”
“Did she have tattoos in the photo she allegedly posted from her Facebook the week of Thanksgiving?”
​
Travis:
“They were missing, which means that it most definitely was an earlier photograph.”
​
The Facebook Photo Displayed
After some back and forth with the judge, the Facebook photo they were talking about was finally displayed on the screen. The courtroom was now presented with an image of Jasmine standing in front of a mirror, taking a photo of herself with her phone. She was wearing black lace lingerie, and as her father later described, it was not a photo Jasmine would have ever chosen to share publicly.
Below the image was a caption that read:
“Enjoying Thanksgiving with my baby.”
But Jasmine hadn't been with anyone for Thanksgiving, and the words didn't sound like her at all. Then came the most chilling realization: this wasn't even a recent photo of Jasmine.
Her arms and body were missing the tattoos her family and friends knew well, marks that should have been there if this was a recent photo of her. Jasmine hadn't posted this. Jason had. It felt fake, forced, as if someone was trying to make it look like she was alive and well when her family already knew she wasn't.
​
As Travis put it, “This was the match that lit this whole thing on fire.”
In other words, this was the moment when everything shifted for the family. Jasmine wasn't just missing—someone was actively manipulating the narrative, rewriting her story in real time.
“Is this the photo that I just showed you?”
Travis:
“Yes.”
​
“Is that your daughter?”
Travis:
“She was.”
“Does she have tattoos on her arm, on her shoulder in that photo?”
Travis:
“No.”
“Mr. Pace, does that say ‘Enjoying Thanksgiving with my baby’?”
Travis:
“It does.”
“And you now know when that was posted from Facebook, she was dead, is that right?”
Travis:
“Yes.”
“And you now know that at this point in time he had her phone, didn't he?”
Travis:
“Yes.”
​
As we sat there listening to Travis walk through how the family pieced all of this together, how they knew without a doubt that Jasmine would never post something like that, it was one of the clearest windows we got into who Jason Chen really was.
​
This wasn't just about hiding evidence. This was about control. Even after Jasmine was gone, Jason was still trying to control the narrative and manipulate how the world saw her.
​
Once Travis finished his testimony, Judge Patterson let the jury ask questions. This was the part where we could write down anything we still wanted to know. The judge and attorneys would review the questions, and if they were appropriate, he would ask them directly to the witness right there in open court.
​
There was something incredibly human about this part of the process. It wasn’t lawyers trying to make a point—it was us, regular people, a jury of peers, trying to understand what really happened that night and trying to make sense of the choices Travis and the rest of Jasmine’s family made in those desperate hours.
​
Jury Questions for Travis
The first question was simple: How well did Travis even know Jason? Did he know they were dating? Had Jasmine ever mentioned him directly?
​
Travis admitted that Jasmine had never brought Jason up to him, but she had talked about him to other people she trusted. Travis knew they'd been close enough to take a trip to Chicago together recently.
​
Jury Question:
“How did you know Jason Chen was Jasmine’s boyfriend?”
​
Travis:
“I didn't necessarily know that it was her boyfriend. I knew that they had been speaking. His name had been spoken about, and that they knowingly went on a trip to Chicago together, and that his name was relevant. We knew they were at least somehow close enough to take a trip to Chicago. More than that, I wasn't aware how much more they were dating or not dating, at least enough to go to Chicago.”
​
Another juror wanted to understand exactly how they got into Jason’s apartment. Travis explained that he forced the handle, physically breaking the mechanism to get the door open. Once inside, he unlocked it so that they could come in and out freely.
​
And then came my question: the dumpster. Did anyone in your party check it that night? And if so, what did they find?
​
Jury Question:
“Did anyone in your party search the dumpster area on the night of November 26–27? Do you recall finding any particles of clothing or a sanitary pad?”
​
Travis:
“Yes, we did. We did on that night and for the next—”
​
Judge Patterson (interrupting):
“I'm sorry to interrupt. So you did search the dumpster area, or you did see the clothing and sanitary pad?”
​
Travis:
“Both. Okay, we did search them. We did see both.”
​
Jury Question:
“Was Catrina Pace ever inside the apartment at the same time you were?”
​
Travis:
“We accepted if she was.”
​
Jury Question:
“Were you present when any items were taken from the apartment? If so, what do you recall being collected?”
​
Travis:
“No, I was not present for that.”
​
Jury Question:
“Did you take anything before?”
​
Travis:
“No, I did not. Possibly—and I really don't recall—possibly we would have on the very next entrance, right after the police had left, and we kind of all concluded that their help was going to be less than expedient. We may have actually grabbed all of her IDs and stuff at that exact moment, but it’s a blur.”
​
This wasn't a forensic team with gloves and evidence bags. These were parents, terrified and exhausted, looking for anything that could be a clue.
​
Another question from the jury to Travis Pace was if he smelled marijuana in Jason Chen’s apartment that night. Travis said that he didn’t smell anything, but he remembered a bong sitting on the computer stand with a baggie beside it, and even though Travis wasn't sure that was relevant to Jasmine’s disappearance, he pointed it out to the police anyway.
​
Finally, we asked Travis what the bed looked like when he first walked in. He said it was messy, unmade with pillows and blankets rumpled and some clothing thrown on top. Nothing dramatic, but it painted a picture of an apartment where something had happened in a hurry.
​
Johnny Lawrence Takes the Stand
The next witness was Johnny Lawrence, a private investigator and crime scene expert from right here in Nashville, Tennessee. His specialty? Crime scene reconstruction and blood stain analysis. His job was to examine the evidence, document it, analyze it, and piece together the order of events based on what the scene itself revealed.
​
A little side note here—Johnny Lawrence was kind of all over the place. He was presented as the defense’s expert witness, but unlike the state’s experts, his credibility wasn’t immediately accepted. The prosecution and defense argued back and forth in front of us about whether Lawrence’s opinions should even be allowed as expert testimony.
​
Under Tennessee law, for someone to testify as an expert, their opinions have to substantially assist the jury in understanding the evidence. It took at least 30 minutes for Judge Patterson to decide whether he could even be entered as an expert witness. At one point, we were asked to leave the room while they debated it.
​
Defense Argument Clip
Weiss:
“Their opinion is this, so that’s—there is flexibility in there. I’m not asking for it to be absolutely certain. I think the flexibility comes from to the reasonable degree, but your opinion has to be something more than speculation, just—”
​
“So, Dr. Cogswell talked about the position of the body when killed. That is something that the pathologist would find out. Dr. Cogswell commented on the crime scene in general. While he did not testify that Ms. Pace was shackled or handcuffed—because he’s excluded from that—the state made those implications that she was. Mr. Lawrence can testify regarding the state of the body when found. He can testify regarding kind of the same things that Dr. Cogswell saw.”
​
“Then there’s Investigator Crawford and the CSI team. One of the arguments is this is the most blood they have ever seen. Our argument, our rebuttal, is they’re not seeing just blood. What we’re seeing is the cleaning materials that we talked about. Then all these people have contaminated the scene. So, yes, the report is probably right. I have one on contamination, okay, but it’s not just blood that would have been tracked throughout the apartment. It would be the cleaning materials too, and he can opine on that as well.”
​
“One of the most serious things, and one of the most important things we need Mr. Lawrence to testify about, is how the Technical Crime Scene Investigation team collected evidence, and more importantly—and what’s going to come out through Mr. Lawrence—are pieces of evidence he said the CPD still doesn’t know. So, it’s important for me to be able to introduce that through this witness.”
​
Johnny Lawrence’s Testimony
When we returned to the courtroom, Johnny Lawrence was still on the stand. Judge Patterson ruled that we would hear his testimony, but he made it clear it was just one expert’s opinion, not fact. Lawrence was sworn in, and we were ready to hear what he had to say.
​
Unlike the state’s experts, Lawrence wasn’t involved from the start. He was hired by the defense in early December 2022, weeks after the initial investigation. That meant he wasn’t present for either of the two searches of apartment 210. Instead, he relied on reviewing law enforcement’s photographs and visiting the scene himself on December 9.
​
He described walking into the apartment noting how the main room was dark, illuminated by an eerie blue-tinted light. He took his own photos, conducted his own tests, and quickly formed his opinion—this crime scene had been contaminated.
​
I’m going to be honest. Lawrence’s testimony was a bit painful to sit through. He struggled to clarify whether his statements were conclusions, theories, or just opinions. At one point, Judge Patterson had to step in.
​
Despite the confusion, Johnny Lawrence pressed on. He detailed his examination of Jason Chen’s apartment, describing blood stains, transfer stains, and impact stains that suggested potential contamination.
​
Using digital crime scene photos, he enhanced images to reveal new details, including what he believed to be a blood transfer stain on a maroon sheet, possibly from Jasmine Pace’s hand. But discrepancies started to emerge.
​
Lawrence pointed out differences between police body cam footage and the crime scene photos later taken, indicating that items had been moved after officers arrived. He also highlighted the challenges of interpreting blood spatter patterns, noting that contamination could have come from multiple sources: Jason Chen, law enforcement, or even the initial investigation itself.
​
To his credit, Lawrence never claimed to have all the answers. He didn’t say, “This is exactly how Jasmine died, and this is exactly what happened in apartment 210.” In fact, he repeatedly emphasized that he couldn’t reach any absolute conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt, which ironically is the state’s job.
​
Judge Patterson even reminded him of that.
​
Still, while Lawrence couldn’t offer definitive answers, he did form theories—educated guesses based on the patterns and traces left behind. One of those theories? Blood wasn’t just present in one area. It had been moved, tracked, and smeared across different parts of the apartment, suggesting that after Jasmine was injured, there was movement.
​
For us as jurors, this put us in a strange position. On one hand, we had an expert telling us that gaps existed in the investigation, that key evidence may have been missed. But on the other hand, even he admitted that he couldn’t say with certainty what happened in that apartment, and that left us with more questions than answers.
​
News Recap by Latricia Thomas (NewsChannel 9)
“The most revealing images of the day came from this—a maroon sheet that was found in Jason Chen’s apartment. But how it was found, in what direction, and in what specific part of the bed remains to be seen. And that’s because of what Johnny Lawrence testified himself about, which is the changing in the crime scene from the first time Chattanooga Police officers went in with their body cameras on—which would have been November 27 in the early morning hours, after Pace’s mother and father called them there—to when those crime scene photos were later taken by CSI investigators from the Chattanooga Police Department.”
​
“We’re not going to show all of them to you, but you can see here in these comparison images. They’re pointing out a few different things: a door was closed, items on the floor had moved, the blind position was different, and there’s a pair of underwear on the floor in one photo that wasn’t there in the first image.”
​
“Another thing the prosecution brought up on cross-examination of Mr. Lawrence was the direction and the shape of these supposed handprint blood transfers. They pointed out, if you look at that first big spot that could be a finger, the edge is very straight. And the prosecution asked Mr. Lawrence, ‘If you have a handprint, is the edge of it usually straight?’”
​
Homicide Investigator Paul Moyle (Prosecution):
“Isn’t it possible, sir, that what we actually see on the screen is not a bloody handprint or bloody fingerprints, but where the cloth had been folded over, and the transfer happened that way?”​
Johnny Lawrence:
“Not necessarily, because you have to understand what this stain is showing is variants of the fingers that have blood on them. And then we don’t know how much blood was on there, if this was a hand.”​
“Again, on cross-examination, the prosecution got Lawrence to admit he wasn’t sure it was a handprint either. So a lot of doubt about what we were actually seeing in some of these photographs was raised.”
​
“Something I thought was very interesting—the jury is allowed to ask questions of the witnesses after the state and the defense are done. And Judge Patterson has actually commended the jury on how good of notes they’re taking and how specific their questions are.”
​
“One juror asked about the items that were moved in the apartment, referring to Mr. Lawrence’s own report. The judge read the jury question aloud:
​
‘Do you think it’s possible that Jason Chen moved items on November 27 after the body cam footage was filmed, since cellular records show him in that same area later in the day?’
“Lawrence responded, ‘There’s nothing that gives me any information about who moves items. There’s nothing to lock in who it was.’”
​
​
Day six of the trial gave us more than just testimony. It gave us a timeline of desperation.
We heard from Jasmine’s father, Travis Pace, who physically forced his way into Jason Chen’s apartment, driven not by protocol, but by panic. He wasn’t looking for evidence. He was looking for his daughter.
​
We heard from Courtney, the downstairs neighbor who unknowingly became the ear witness to Jasmine’s final moments, hearing a scream, the chase, and sobs that would later haunt us all.
And we heard from Johnny Lawrence, a private investigator who was brought in too late. His job was to reconstruct a crime scene that had already been trampled through by family, law enforcement, and Jason himself.
​
What Lawrence gave us wasn’t certainty. It was a list of what ifs. And that was the defense’s entire case—three witnesses. None of them did much to help their argument. And then just like that, they were done.
​
The Defense Rests
After all the build-up, motions, and attempts to poke holes in the state's case, the defense rested with Johnny Lawrence as their final witness. No bombshell revelations, no airtight alibis, just speculation, discrepancies, and a forensic expert who wasn’t even there when the evidence was collected.
​
For a case of this magnitude, it felt underwhelming.
​
Next Time on Sequestered
DA Cody Wamp:
“Victims matter. Jasmine Pace is not just some girl listed in an autopsy report. She is not the photos that you have seen. She’s 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.”
​
As the trial nears its end, the prosecution and defense make their final gripping arguments. Was Jason Chen’s crime a calculated act of murder, or a moment of uncontrolled passion?
That’s next on Episode Eight.
​​​
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 by Sara Reid, with co-production by Andrea Kleid. News clips featured in this episode were sourced from WTVC News Channel Nine, Local 3 News Chattanooga, and the Law and Crime Network.
​
Music and sound design are curated to reflect the gravity and sensitivity of this story, with the intent to honor Jasmine, her family, and the community affected by her death.
​
For more information or to connect with us, visit sequesteredpod.com or follow us on Instagram at @sequesteredpod.
​
Thank you for listening. Until next time, stay curious and stay safe.