The case was handed to the jury on Day 8 of the trial

Precise News

RELATED: Who is Nicolae Miu, man on trial for killing 1, stabbing 4 on Apple River?
Waterman then spent about an hour, including a brief recess, giving the jury its instructions before closing arguments began.
The prosecution’s closing arguments Prosecutor Karl Anderson, who gave the opening statement, also gave the closing arguments on Wednesday.
Anderson showed footage of Schuman pushing Miu after the stabbing began, and Schuman appeared to grab his throat as Miu stabbed him in the heart.
“Without the video, Miu would’ve slipped away.”
Chirafisi also told the jury the boys “pretty much invented” their assertion Miu was looking for little girls.
He also highlighted, as heard in the video, that someone in the group told Miu, “You got 10 seconds.”
Chirafisi said the jury should have sympathy for Schuman’s family, “but you don’t get to decide this case based on sympathy.


Madison, Wisconsin. On Wednesday, lawyers had their final opportunity to persuade a Wisconsin jury regarding Nicolae Miu’s 54-year-old murder conviction.

On Tuesday, Miu stood up to defend himself against the stabbings that happened on July 30, 2022, on the Apple River close to New Richmond. Four individuals, all in their 20s, were hurt in addition to the 17-year-old Isaac Schuman. They were Dante Carlson, Tony Carlson, A. A. J. Martin along with Ryhley Mattison.

In connection with Schuman’s demise, Miu is accused of first-degree intentional homicide as well as four counts of attempted first-degree intentional homicide.

RELATED: Who is Nicolae Miu, the defendant who is on trial for stabbing four people on the Apple River and killing one?

The defense contends that Miu stabbed the five individuals in self-defense, while the state tries to show he was the aggressor that day.

September 20, 2022, saw Miu enter a not guilty plea to all charges.

You can view live coverage of WCCO throughout the trial on CBS News Minnesota, Pluto TV, the CBS News app on your phone, or connected TV, as well as in the video above.

Strike one juror, the prosecution tries, but fails.

On Wednesday morning, the prosecution moved to remove one juror.

Juror 4021, according to lawyer Karl Anderson, dozed off several times during Tuesday’s court proceedings.

John Shilts, the investigator, was called as a prosecution witness.

According to Shilts, “I saw one juror with her head down and she would startle up.”.

According to Shilts, the juror dozed off “four or five times” when Brandie Hart, a lieutenant in the Special Services division of the St. The Croix County Sheriff’s Office. In the wake of the stabbings, Hart spoke with Miu and his former spouse.

When the prosecution played a 56-minute video of Hart’s interview with Miu, Shilts claimed to have seen the juror “chin down, eyes closed.”.

Denying the motion, Judge Michael Waterman agreed with the defense that there was insufficient evidence to remove the juror.

Waterman clarified that the testimony was not live and that the jurors could ask to rewatch the video in the deliberation chamber.

Waterman then instructed the jury for approximately an hour, interspersed with a brief break, prior to the start of closing arguments.

The closing statements from the prosecution.

On Wednesday, the closing arguments were delivered by prosecutor Karl Anderson, who had earlier made the opening statement.

Reiterating his opening rhetorical question from the beginning of the trial, Anderson asked, “Why didn’t Miu just walk away?”.

Despite the fact that Wisconsin is not a “stand your ground” state, Anderson also questioned Miu’s testimony from Tuesday, in which he claimed to be “standing his ground.”.

Anderson stated that Miu’s violent reactions were not justified, even though he acknowledged that the two women in the Carlson group approached him and touched him, and that the group of teens in Schuman’s group had insulted and degraded Miu.

“Nicolae confronted these boys because they were belittling him, not because they approached him. “He was furious,” Anderson remarked.

Anderson repeatedly emphasized that Miu was acting out of revenge for being made fun of, not out of self-defense.

But he also made it clear that if Miu felt secure enough to repeatedly turn his back on the Schuman and Carlson groups before striking Madison Coen, he couldn’t have been afraid for his life. He also brought out the fact that Miu had lied to Coen when she had initially approached him, saying the teenagers had taken his snorkel.

Anderson played a grainy clip from a different group that looked to show Miu going after Dante Carlson to stab him.

“He was told to leave several times when he turned his back on them and faced the water. He removed his knife instead. That doesn’t make sense,” Anderson remarked.

He claimed that even though there was no video proof that he had hit Coen, a number of witnesses, including one from Miu’s group, had stated that Miu had struck or shoved her with “violent” force. Anderson claimed that Miu practically acknowledged pushing her in his testimony. This indicates that Miu incited the violence, according to Anderson.

Anderson stated, “Nikola punched Madison with his right or left hand, and that’s when it all started.”. Nicolae did not feel scared. He lost his temper. He knew he had snapped because he was angry. ****.

Anderson stated that Miu only needed to take out his knife and yell, “Return.”. Rather, he remained mute and gave off the impression of a smirk, even as he held the knife to strike Coen. As per Anderson’s statement, this indicates that Miu’s level of fear was not as high as he claimed (a “10 out of 10) during his Tuesday testimony.

He claimed that because he was the only one with a weapon, Miu had an open path out before using his knife and that neither he nor anyone else was in grave danger.

“People aren’t blocking his exit; he’s not in an alley with no way out,” Anderson remarked.

Anderson said that the defense misrepresented Schuman’s interaction with Miu, alleging that the teenager attempted to choke him—a claim that Miu did not make to the authorities. Video, which Anderson played, showed Schuman pushing Miu after the stabbing started. As Miu stabbed him in the heart, Schuman seemed to grab his throat.

“Any amount of force used by Isaac was justified. “All he saw was Nicolae stabbing two people who weren’t even close to him,” Anderson stated.

Miu stabbed Schuman with the intention of killing, according to Anderson.

“When you stab someone in the heart, the only intention other than death is present,” Anderson stated.

He added that Miu’s holding his knife blade-side up and the severity of the other victims’ wounds indicated he intended to kill them.

“(A. A. J. Without (the medical chopper) and without surgery, Martin would have passed away,” Anderson stated. “He’s very fortunate to still be here.”.

He claimed that Miu narrowly missed her critical organs and that Ryhley Mattison also required emergency surgery after Tony Martin was stabbed just below the heart.

It’s obvious that Nicolae realized this was not a self-defense situation. Anderson said, “He knew that all of his actions from the moment the stabbing was finished were wrong. It’s clear. His acts were senseless and horrifying. He stabbed Ryhley while she was just standing there, disemboweled AJ, killed Isaac Schuman by stabbing him deep in the heart, and then approached Dante. ****.

Anderson claimed that Miu’s three-point escape strategy—dashing from the throng, appearing naive to the police, and then fabricating an excuse for using force—was an ineffective one.

“Miu expressed his gratitude for the existence of the video. We are, too,” Anderson remarked. “Miu would have vanished if it weren’t for the video. “.

Anderson claimed that after stabbing five people, Miu left, cleaned his knife in the river, tossed it to a riverbank, informed his group that the teenagers had stolen his knife, put on his shirt and hat, and boarded his tube again.

He showed a clip from Sheriff Scott Knudson’s body cam that was recorded not long after Miu was taken into custody by the river. The video appears to show Miu saying, “I fit the description of someone who got stabbed. The violent scene, he continued, was just “kids being kids.”. This demonstrates that Miu wasn’t shocked by the attack, according to Anderson.

Anderson continued by going over the numerous lies that Miu had told the investigators, among them his assertion that two of the teenagers had knives and that he had stabbed them in self-defense by turning one of their knives around.

Moreover, Anderson claimed that after the altercation—which was not captured on camera—Miu attempted to accuse his friends and wife of abandoning him and not standing by him when he called out for assistance.

Although Miu was only 52 years old at the time of the incident, Anderson criticized the defense’s repeated assertions that she was “old man” and “feeble.”.

Even though Miu had had quadruple bypass surgery two years prior, his friends and wife attested to the fact that he was not a weak, frail man.

Defense lawyer Joe Tamburino, who is not involved in the case, claimed that Anderson had “stepped up his game” in his closing remarks and made a major error by capitalizing on the defense’s assertion that Miu was standing his ground. ****.

He claimed that Anderson skillfully turned Miu’s “levels of anger” into the defense’s “scale of fear” catchphrase. ****.

Conclusions from the defense.

Corey Chirafisi, the defense lawyer, started his closing arguments by summarizing what happened on the day of the stabbings using the Jawahn Cockfield video that was played multiple times in court.

“Jawahn Cockfield, the ringleader, and a bunch of inebriated teenagers saw an opportunity to torment a man who was by himself on July 30, 2022,” Chirafisi said. They made fun of him and called him derogatory terms like “rapist,” “pedophile,” and “predator.”. They had no justification for doing this. “.

Chirafisi emphasized that Miu was being harassed by “13 against one.”.

“They got in his face and cursed, screamed, and called him derogatory names. As soon as they touched him, the six people in the group braved themselves. The six of them showed courage to the extent that they circled him and began making fun of him, according to Chirafisi. “They treat a man in this way who has done them nothing, nothing at all. Then, they strike when Mr. Miu tries to put some distance between him and Madison Coen. They give him a punch. They exert pressure on him. They give him a smack. Once more, they struck him. He is choked by them. From every angle. Furthermore, Nic Miu defends herself. ****.

The defense outlined four points for the jury to remember: Miu had no obligation to retreat; Miu’s beliefs should be taken into consideration rather than his actions; the concept of “provocation”; and Miu “doesn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn’t act in self-defense.”. [The state must] provide evidence that his beliefs were irrational. ****.

Chirafisi then turned his attention to the footage of the stabbings, including their prelude and aftermath. In their testimony, the teenagers seemed scared, so he asked the jury to consider that.

He claimed that they weren’t scared and were just curious to see how things would work out. I think Jawan Cockfield put it best. “It’s for the tradition.”. He desired for it to be visible to a wider audience online. “.

The boys “pretty much invented” their claim that Miu was looking for young girls, Chirafisi added in her jury instructions.

“Everyone who talks to the police gives the same account of what went down: zero. Zero told the police that he was searching for young girls,” Chirafisi stated.

The defense persisted in rehashing the footage, asserting that Miu was “uncomfortable” and that the boys were the aggressors. He also emphasized that Miu was told, “You have ten seconds,” by someone in the group, as heard in the video. “.

“What typically happens after someone tells you that you have 10 seconds in your day-to-day experiences?” Chirafisi posed. After then, nothing positive is anticipated. Considering our experiences as adults, it makes sense to interpret that as a threat. ****.

According to Chirafisi, Schuman was left “holding the bag” because none of his friends acknowledged having said this. “.

He remarked, “They’re saying it’s the one person who isn’t here.”.

Then, Chirafisi tried to undermine the story that Miu punched Coen to start the chaos by emphasizing the lack of photographic or tangible proof of a facial injury.

Then, Chirafisi moved to the part of the video when the actual stabbing occurred.

He claimed, “I didn’t see what happened the first time I watched it.”. I saw nothing of him grabbing a knife. Some of those folks may not have been hurt, in my opinion.

“It’s important to view those 14 seconds from Nic Miu’s perspective while he stood in the river,” he continued. “He doesn’t have to believe what he said yesterday about believing he was going to die. It is only necessary for him to have faith that he will sustain severe physical harm. “.

Before offering his verdict, Chirafisi encouraged the jury to make their own deductions from the footage.

He informed the jurors that Miu would not be found guilty if they found that “his beliefs were reasonable,” “he believed there was an imminent unlawful interference with his person,” and “if he believed the amount of force he used was necessary to terminate that interference.”. ****.

A jury must “watch that video and say that Miu’s mental purpose is to kill Isaac Schuman,” Chirafisi emphasized, in order for them to find Miu guilty of the homicide charge. ****.

Miu’s acknowledged lies about how he obtained the knife used in the stabbings were briefly addressed by the defense, which claimed that despite Miu’s fabrications of specifics, he never wavered in his claim of self-defense.

“You don’t get to decide this case based on sympathy,” Chirafisi said, acknowledging that the jury should feel sympathy for Schuman’s family. That’s what the judge says. Facts and evidence are the basis for your decision in this case. “.”.

Chirafisi emphasized once more that the state must “prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s not self-defense.”. “.”.

In case you think it was self-defense and you have those verdict forms, he is not guilty when you return there. He’s not guilty if you think it was likely self-defense. He’s not guilty if you think it was possibly self-defense,” Chirafisi stated. “If you think it might not be, then don’t feel guilty. Not guilty if you think it’s not likely self-defense. A finding of not guilty would be necessary in light of all those factors. “.”.

Case sent to jury after rebuttal from the prosecution.

Rebuking Miu as a “skilled and prolific liar,” Assistant District Attorney Brian Smestad delivered the argument on Wednesday afternoon. ****.

He said that Miu lied to the police about “all kinds of crazy things. Strange things. “.

Smestad questioned why the man would claim that the boys had pulled down his pants. It seemed like a strange lie to make up. He claimed that after fabricating a lengthy tale for his friends and the police, Miu stood up and claimed he had no memory of anything.

Smestad continued, saying that there had never been an explanation provided to the jury as to why Miu had initially approached the boys.

Instead of believing the “narrative” that Miu was 13 against 1 and was confronted by two girls while everyone else was in the background, he urged the jury to reject it. After hitting Madison Coen, Miu was confronted by Dante Carlson and then A. I. J. Martin, resulting in a 2-versus-1 fight. Following Tony Carlson’s intervention to break up the altercation, Smestad claimed that Miu “chose more violence after that part of the fight was done.”. ****.

Every time, Smestad claimed, “he chose violence.”. Martin did not have a weapon, and he did not give a reason for stabbing Ryhley Mattison, the statement read.

Smestad claimed, “He just walked over and stabbed her.”. Smestad maintained that Mattison, who weighed about 110 pounds at the time, was only angry because she had touched him. “.

Miu reportedly had four hours to “concoct” a story to give the police, according to Smestad. He reiterated that although Miu was intelligent (he was a mechanical engineer), he purposefully spent time crafting a narrative to “convince” others that he acted in self-defense.

“We know he lied about all of it,” Smestad said.

Smestad told the jury, “You have my complete trust. I know you’re going to find this man guilty on a fair charge and bring justice to Isaac Schuman and all the others he wronged.”. “.

Judge Waterman gave instructions to the jury and turned the case over to them after Smestad departed the witness stand.

Review of Day 7.

Prior to the fatal knife attack, Miu told the court during his Tuesday stand-in.

On camera that day, there is an altercation that turns violent between Miu, some teens, and some men and women in their 20s.

Before members of both groups attacked him, according to Miu, the teenagers harassed him.

RELATED: Body camera video of Nicolae Miu’s arrest shown during day 4 of Apple River stabbing trial.

Miu scared the children, according to the prosecution, but she went too far by staying.

On Tuesday, Miu acknowledged that he pulled out his knife prior to receiving a punch.

Miu remarked, “I was starting to feel afraid.”.

Defense attorney Aaron Nelson questioned, “What was it about that moment where everybody is that made you so fearful that you took out your knife?”.

Miu remarked, “I was surrounded, they were yelling, and they had just pushed me.”.

Following Miu’s arrest, the police informed her that someone had passed away. Next he asked the police if two of the teens were involved in the fatal stabbing.

After grabbing one of the boys’ arms and stabbing him with his knife, Miu later told the police that two of the teenagers had knives.

“I lied,” Miu admitted. “About the knife, I lied completely. “.

READ MORE: “I feared for my life” is a clip from Nicolae Miu’s police interview that was played during the Apple River stabbing trial.

Miu did not help himself in the end, according to Tamburino, despite the fact that he successfully communicated his fear to the jury.

“I believe the defense has had the better of this trial for the most part, but that changed (on Tuesday),” Tamburino stated. “The memory loss and the fact that he acknowledged lying to the police will be difficult for him. His account to the police differs significantly from his testimony on the stand, and he was unable to provide a convincing reason for the difference. ****.

scroll to top