Defense scores a win during hearing in suitcase murder case
Inset left to right: Jason Chen (Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office) and Jasmine Pace (Dade County Sheriff’s Office). Background: Chen attends a pre-trial hearing on Jan. 2, 2025, in Chattanooga, Tenn. (Law&Crime).
Several new details were revealed about a high-profile Tennessee murder investigation and case during a motions hearing on Thursday.
Jason Chen, 24, stands accused of one murder in the first degree over the death of 22-year-old Jasmine “Jazzy” Pace.
The defendant and the victim were dating when Pace disappeared. She was last seen alive by her family on Nov. 22, 2022. By the end of that month, Chen was charged with her murder. On Dec. 1, 2022, Pace’s body was found wrapped in a garbage bag and stuffed inside of a suitcase near Suck Creek Road in a rural part of Chattanooga. Police said the young woman was handcuffed, and both of her ankles were bound to her right wrist. She had been stabbed some 60 times.
In one key motion that took up a substantial amount of time during Thursday’s proceedings, the defense moved to exclude a lengthy video culled from body-worn camera footage of a warrant-authorized search that resulted in Chen being led away in handcuffs.
“This video should not be admissible at trial for a variety of reasons,” Chen’s defense attorney argued. The video shows the defendant “in the state of undress. There is no Miranda warning. It is questionable whether these are voluntary statements to law enforcement. Law enforcement is using my client as a translator to communicate to my client’s parents that they have a search warrant and they’re coming in.”
Chen’s attorney went on to repeatedly criticize law enforcement for the arrest under the circumstances of executing a search warrant. He said that “the most important thing is the placing of handcuffs.” The lawyer argued that images — of his client being placed in handcuffs — served no probative value but, rather, was unfair and prejudicial.
The defense attorney also invoked language barrier issues implicated by the video of the search and subsequent arrest.
Hamilton County Criminal Court Judge Boyd M. Patterson, for his part, was somewhat amenable to the defense’s arguments.
“This seems like there is a legal discussion going on,” the judge said. “Mr. Chen asks about cause, he wants details about it, the fact that he is speaking in Mandarin to his parents. I’m a little concerned if I don’t know what that translates into. And there may be a juror who thinks they might know a little Mandarin enough to maybe make a mistaken interpretation about what was going on.”
The state, oppositely, argued the video was relevant because it acted as a form of identification that placed the defendant at the location that was searched. The prosecution also said Chen’s “demeanor” during the encounter should be considered by the jury.
Additionally, the state said the video showed Chen wearing a “particular article of clothing” — a reference to his red hat seen in the footage. That hat, the prosecutor said, would “be seen throughout numerous other recordings of other locations on different days.”
“That is highly, highly relevant,” the prosecutor argued. “Highly probative.”
Chen’s defense attorney shot back to directly rubbish those arguments.
“The state wants to introduce this because they want the jury to see the defendant arrested, placed in handcuffs and transported to, well eventually, to the jail,” the defense attorney said. “What does that give the impression of? It gives the impression of guilt. Watching someone get arrested and placed in the back of a cop car gives the jury the impression of guilt. That’s why it’s an unfair prejudice. There was nothing said — at least known today — that was incriminating whatsoever. There is no probative value to that video whatsoever.”
The alleged killer’s lawyer went on to criticize the demeanor argument as of “marginal probative value.” He asked out loud what showing the defendant “calm six days after” Pace’s death was supposed to show.
“What type of demeanor is he supposed to have?” the defense attorney demanded.
In the end, the judge parceled out wins for both sides on the poorly-lit and oftentimes hard to make out body-worn camera footage.
“This what I’d like to do,” Patterson said. “I do think that there is danger of unfair prejudice in that video. What I’d like to do, general, is if you could give, provide, a 30-second clip of what you think captures a demeanor in your interaction — with the red hat, obviously, in the place to be searched. And, I think that’s pretty much as far as I’m comfortable going with this video. I do think there’s a danger of unfair substantial danger of unfair prejudice for some of this video.”
Ultimately, the prosecution was ordered to edit the footage down and resubmit the shorter video. Based on the content of those resulting edits, the judge will then issue a final ruling.
Various other motions were dispensed with on Thursday.
Patterson also overruled a defense motion to refrain from referring to Pace as a “victim” during the trial. Additionally, the judge overruled a defense motion to suppress an illustration created by a state medical professional. That illustration is a composite using various photographs, of various angles, of the suitcase in which Pace was found. The composite that results is an image that shows “coloration” where the handcuffs can be seen pushing through the fabric.
Jury selection will begin next Wednesday. Trial in the case is slated to begin in earnest on Jan. 13.
