Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Shattered Souls: Moussa Maida

Episode Date: November 28, 2021

Join veteran forensic investigator Karen Smith on the Shattered Souls podcast! After teenager Moussa Maida was gunned down in the cashier’s booth of his family’s store, his mother’s cries haunted Karen. The case languished for two years before investigators received the break they needed — but the cut-and-dried case threatens to crumble in the courtroom when the defense makes an argument that could let a killer walk free. Subscribe to the Shattered Souls podcast and catch up on all of Season 1 available now:Apple PodcastiHeartSpotifyMusic by Sam Johnson Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Like hell But it doesn't matter how you feel This is the new real This is the new real This is Shattered Souls. I'm your host, Karen Smith. This podcast contains graphic language and is not suitable for children. This is the new real.

Welcome back. This is Episode 6. When we left off, we were hunting a perpetrator who shot 19-year-old Musa Mehta through what was purported to be bulletproof glass in a door to the cashier's booth where Musa worked at his family's store. The suspect entered the front door and confronted Musa at gunpoint. Musa gave him the money and he put it in a plastic bag and when the suspect exited that booth, Musa pushed a button that magnetized the front doors and locked the suspect inside. The suspect circled back around, took aim, and shot Musa through that door. The suspect cut himself as he yanked at the burglar bars, and he escaped underneath them, leaving blood and the money bag behind. And that entire crime had been captured on full-color video with audio inside the store.

A few weeks later, I called the lead homicide detective, and she told me that there were no leads. I was stunned. But the suspect was wearing a mask that covered his face, a hoodie, and a glove on his left hand. There was no description. The blood samples from the scene couldn't be matched to anyone because there were no hits in the CODIS database. The palm print left on the money bag couldn't be matched either

because there was no database for palm prints in 2008. So, the case went cold. Two years went by, and as I was between a couple of calls, my phone rang. It was the state attorney's office. Good morning, you ready for a deposition? The voice said. Yeah, sure, what case? Musa Maida. Do you remember that one from the food mart? And I stopped for a minute, because I was speechless and frankly, a little hurt.

Nobody called to tell me that a suspect had been identified and arrested. Second, how did they get him? Who was he? I peppered the attorney with questions and he told me to slow down and he answered my questions. The suspect was Michael Jacob. He was booked down south for aggravated assault and a sample of his DNA was submitted in Dakotas. Our homicide detectives requested what's called a blind run of the blood samples from the crime scene. That's when they just say, hey, laboratory, please run my samples again

and let's see if anything pops. Well, this time it did. And he said they did a comparison of the palm print as well from the bag. And the latent print examiner said there's enough detail to make an identification. We got him. And I said, that's great news. So he's indicted? And he said, yeah, it's a death penalty case. You ready? You know I am. This is lead homicide investigator Eileen Simpson. So what happens is, you obviously run it initially. There's nobody in the system.

That doesn't mean that no one did it. That means whoever did it hasn't had a sample put in the system based on another felony yet. And that was what happened in this case. It was Michael Jacobs. And the interesting thing is, he had a twin. And so we had that whole thing to deal with. But fortunately, we had put the twin down somewhere where he couldn't have done it. I had no idea that Michael Jacob had an identical twin brother. That could have put a serious kink in the investigation since twins have the same DNA.

But we had that palm print from the money bag. Twins don't have the same fingerprints or palm prints, so the fact that Eileen had put the twin brother at another location at the time of the murder and that palm print on the money bag was identified as belonging to Michael Jacob, what could have been a devastating blow to the investigation, was quickly overcome with that inculpatory print on the money bag, a fact that would become a focal point of the defense. The date of my deposition was only a few days away, and I needed to pull that case file and review it. In the two years that had passed since Musa's murder, I had investigated over a hundred death cases and thousands of others. Recalling details can be really difficult when your brain can only hold

so much information at a time. So I pulled that thick folder out of the filing cabinet. There were two DVDs of photographs and diagrams, dozens of pages of reports, and copies of the homicide documents. The medical examiner report was tacked behind the rest, along with a body sheet showing the location of the bullet wound in his chest. The details of that day became crystal clear again, and it brought Moose's mother's tormented scream back up from the recesses of my mind, where I had safely tucked it away. And I instinctively touched my neck

where her fingernails had raked down to my bulletproof vest. And I quickly shut the folder and I tucked it next to my driver's seat in my van and waited for that court date. The following Wednesday, I went to the public defender's office to give my deposition of the investigation. A court reporter sat to my right, and the defense attorney and prosecutor sat on opposite sides of the table. Both of them had large accordion files and boxes of discovery documents. Good afternoon, detective. Have a seat, defense counsel said. And I sat between the reporter and prosecutor. I raised my right hand, and I was sworn in.

The meeting went really smoothly, with very few questions about the forensics. What could the defense counsel possibly ask me? Was it blood? How do you know? How many samples did you take, and why did you select those specific areas? None of her questions mattered because the entire crime was captured on that video. My testimony would be secondary to the DNA analyst and the latent print examiner who would explain the nuances of CODIS hits and palm print minutia. They would explain to the jury how the evidence led to the arrest of Michael Jacob. The DNA analyst would testify that the samples from the crime scene, the blood that I took, matched Michael Jacob with a probability of 59 quadrillion to one.

For some perspective on that, consider the size of a grain of sand, a single grain. Now consider how many beaches there are across the United States. If you took the time to count every grain of sand on every one of those beaches, you might come close to 59 quadrillion. Maybe. It would be statistically impossible for that blood to match anyone but Michael Jacob or his twin brother. But we had put his twin at another location, and Michael's palm print was on that money bag. So in my mind, it was a slam dunk. The case made its way to the courtroom in October of 2011. Twelve jurors watched in absolute horror

as the video of that cold-blooded murder was shown in open court. Detective Eileen Simpson. You just watch what happened to him, that terrorizing moment, that terrorizing minute. Detective Eileen Simpson. And then you think to yourself, I can never let them see this. I don't want, you know, if you go to trial, they're going to see this. They're going to hear him take his last breath and stomp on the ground one last time. It's terrorizing for them, and you just want to protect them from that. Before that happened in court that day, Moose's parents and family were sitting on the benches behind the prosecution table. The judge gave a warning prior to the video being played,

and they all quietly excused themselves from the courtroom and waited outside in the hallway until it was over. I took the stand on the third day to offer a platform for the analytical testimony that would come later. The prosecutor began by establishing Michael Jacobs' presence inside the store with his blood on the door handles. Because the stains on those door handles were very small and the vast majority of blood was removed from them when I took a DNA sample, the prosecutor had me step out of the witness box and move to the front of the jury to explain

how those handles had been positioned on the door. And he handed me a pair of latex gloves and he said, tell us where this would be positioned. And I demonstrated it. And then he said, where was that bloodstain on this door handle? So I flipped it over and I pointed to a really small area of remaining blood and the swab mark that I left there three years prior. And he guided me back to the witness stand and I took a seat. And he said, now regarding the bloodstains that you recovered from the floor, how did you collect those? And I said, well, it depends.

Protocol states that the least amount of altering done to a stain is best. This stain in particular was dry, so I used a sterile scalpel to scrape it into an envelope. If it's a really small sample, I'll use distilled water on a cotton swab and collect it that way. And this went on through the money that I collected and that money bag that was dropped by Michael Jacob on his way out. And at that moment, the judge decided to take a short break and dismissed the jury to the back room. Unbeknownst to me, the defense had alleged a bad chain of custody for that money bag with Michael Jacobs' palm print on it. They were attempting to have that evidence suppressed, meaning not allow the jury to see it. The prosecutor argued that the chain was solid and was given the opportunity to clarify that through my testimony.

So the jury was brought back inside and we continued. Detective, you mentioned one item that I showed you that had your initials on it. Is that correct? That's correct, I said. And would that be true of all of the items that were recovered there at the scene by you or the other detectives? Would each item have initials on it? Yes, we use our initials and identification number. Okay, and once you collect an item, what do you do with it? And I said, we take everything directly to our property and evidence facility, where it's placed into a bin that is

then numbered and coded. And would that be true for all of these exhibits, he said? Yes, that's correct. There were no objections at that point, and the judge admitted all of the evidence without further issue. It was a typical speed bump in the process, but a very big reminder about the scrutiny that each piece of evidence undergoes before and during trial. The prosecutor finished with my direct questioning, and the defense attorney took her place at the podium, and it was contentious from the outset. Detective, when you arrived, how did you enter the location, she asked. And I said, I didn't enter the store until later into the investigation.

And she said, well, in regard to the cashier's booth area, how did you enter that location? And I said, we entered through the heavy door at the end of the booth. And did you classify that as a bulletproof door? I'm not sure how anyone classified it at that point, I said. How did you classify it? So I took out my report and I read verbatim what I had written down. A heavy plexiglass bulletproof type door. It was just very thick plastic. So once you collected the samples from this scene, where did you go, she asked, bringing up the chain of custody again. And I said, to the property and evidence facility. You and the other detective were not in the same vehicle, correct? That's correct. So two different

vehicles, and both of you went down to the property room. That's correct. And did you generate a report where you had to sign for entering any of the property? And I said, I believe that would be under the other detective's name. And she continued, so there would be no report with your name on it saying you entered evidence. And I said, the report would have the other detective's name on it. She presented me with the property and evidence document with my co-worker's signature. This is a non-issue, since every major case, like a homicide, has more than one detective working the evidence. She pushed this matter because questioning the chain of custody was her only available argument for the bag with her client's palm print smack on it. And what I've shown you here is the storage card in this case, correct? Yes. No further questions,

Your Honor. And at that point, the prosecutor stood up for a redirect to clarify our solid chain of custody. Detective, were you present when the evidence was submitted, he asked. Yes, we worked together on every aspect of the case, including evidence submission. Thank you. No further questions. I was dismissed from the courtroom and all of the evidence was allowed to be presented to the jury without an issue. Sometimes when a defense attorney has nothing to go on because their client is obviously guilty, they'll pull at straws. It's a tactic that hinges on an officer's integrity and work ethic, which is reason enough to always do things by the book. Eileen Simpson echoed my sentiment about the attempt at suppression of that money bag. You know, you have their back against the wall so poorly.

You know, there's an old saying that says what they're doing is throwing shit on the wall and see what sticks. of that money bag. She's right. It was a less than noble attempt. But I'm not going to lie to you and tell you that the pucker factor for me wasn't real on the stand that day, despite the stupidity of their argument. Regardless, it all worked out. On the fourth day of trial, after a short deliberation, the jury returned with a guilty verdict. On December 5th, 2011, the judge addressed Michael Jacob directly prior to imposing the death sentence. The judge said, This murder is forever memorialized in full color on the video and audio security recordings of Snappy Food Store. This is not a case of a robbery gone bad.

This is not a case of things going out of control. This is the case of a man who made a conscious decision to end the life of a 19-year-old boy. For three years, Michael Jacob sat on Florida's death row. In March of 2014, the Florida Supreme Court reversed Jacob's sentence, stating that it was not proportional to other cases in which the death penalty had been imposed. The justices concluded that Michael Jacob had not entered the store with the intent to murder Musa Mehta, regardless of the aggravating factor of armed robbery. As a result, his sentence was commuted to life without the possibility of parole, and he's serving his time at the Cross-City Correctional Institute in Florida. This is an excerpt from that Supreme Court ruling.

Quote, after a thorough review of the record, we disagree with the trial court's determination that the crime in this case was not a robbery gone bad. The evidence shows that although Jacob held a gun on Maida while in the cashier's booth, he pocketed it as he left the booth and continued walking toward the front door despite seeing Maida stand up inside the cashier's booth, perceiving Maida's sudden movement first to the counter and then toward the booth door as a threat to the completion of the robbery and his escape,

Jacob immediately pulled out the gun, ran back to the booth door, and shot twice, killing Maeda with the second shot. There was no indication that murdering Maeda was part of Jacob's original robbery plan, unquote. Let's talk about premeditated murder for a moment. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know all of the nuances or legal jargon, but from what I do know, premeditation can happen in the blink of an eye. It is a conscious decision by the perpetrator to inflict deadly harm on the victim, and whether that decision was made months or weeks or seconds before the fatal action, that is premeditation. Musa Mehta was doing his job. He showed up for work and was doing nothing wrong. It was Michael Jacob who decided to pull a gun and rob Musa Mehta. It was Jacob who pointed the gun at the doorknob and fired a shot trying to get back inside the cashier's booth.

It was Jacob who consciously put the money bag on the floor, leveled the gun, put his finger on the trigger, took careful aim, and pulled that trigger at Musa Maida, killing him. Michael Jacob decided to take all of those actions. It was Michael Jacob's premeditated decisions that took the life of Musa Maida and nothing else. Jacob bears the responsibility, and he should pay the price for his actions. My heart goes out to Musa's family. I hope they found some peace in the years since this horrible crime. And I will never forget you or your son. Sam Johnson at SamJohnsonLive.com. Underscore music by Kevin MacLeod at Incompetech.com. All rights reserved by Angel Heart Productions.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast.