BECKLEY, W.V. (LOOTPRESS) – The jury of the Beckley Travel Lodge murder trial has entered deliberations to determine a verdict following this morning’s closing arguments from both the prosecution and the defense.
Davide Hudson- who has been charged with one count of First-Degree Murder and three counts of Kidnapping- is on trial for the shooting and killing of Amber Meadows, 19, at the Travel Lodge in Beckley in July of 2018.
After running into Meadows and two of her female friends at a Little General Store just after midnight on July 9, Hudson and three other men, all armed, followed the girls to the Travel Lodge where they all got a room. Evidence shows that alcohol and drugs were ingested throughout the night.
It was in this hotel room that the women say the men began to terrorize them, threatening them with guns and that Hudson ultimately took Meadows’ life. It was revealed on the first day of trial that Meadows’ boyfriend owed Hudson money.
In order to receive a verdict of guilty of First-Degree Murder from the jury, Brian Parsons, Raleigh County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, had to prove that the killing of Meadows was intentional, malicious and unlawful.
In his closing arguments, Parsons replayed a video to the jury showing Hudson and Meadows interacting at the Little General Store in Beckley hours before the murder- details that he said could have shown warning signs of what was to come. Parsons pointed out Hudson’s body language, saying that the defendant looked threatening and aggressive. He also highlighted how cognizant Hudson seemed, despite the defense claiming he was too intoxicated to plan Meadows’ murder.
“This is the question you must decide in terms of intention,” Parsons told the jury. “Would you define that this defendant was so hammered, so intoxicated that he didn’t know what he was going to do? That is not reasonable; That is not sufficient evidence…”
After leading the jury through a checklist to determine what is a crime and what is murder, Parsons invoked them to pair the consistencies within the witnesses’ testimonies with the physical evidence presented during trial.
“It links credibility to the testimonies of what happened,” he said. During testimony, the witnesses all mentioned a knob broken off the hotel door, a trip to McDonald’s and a gun with a laser that was pointed at them. On Wednesday, Parsons showed the jury three items found at the crime scene: a broken doorknob, a McDonald’s cup and a gun with a laser on the scope.
“Does this mean that Hudson killed Meadows? It does not,” he said. “But does it add credibility and corroboration of the testimonies of the witnesses? Yes.
“Are there discrepancies in the witnesses’ testimonies? Absolutely. But what matters is are there material differences?”
Reiterating his statement from the first day of trial, Parsons said the following.
“The strong prey upon the weak. You can’t exploit someone who’s stronger than you, so you seek out people like these women. These victims were chosen for their weaknesses.”
Prior to turning the floor over to the defense, Parsons asked the jury not to grant Hudson mercy, which would allow him the possibility of parole after 15 years of incarceration.
“What mercy did he show Amber Meadows?” he asked. “What break did he cut her?”
Like Parsons, Hudson’s attorney, Robert Dunlap, chose to focus on the testimonies of the witnesses; however, he asked the jury to look at the motivations of the individuals.
Dunlap mentioned the two women’s substance abuse issues and that the three other men involved in the case have already taken plea deals and, as part of those deals, had to testify against Hudson.
“Nothing about their cobbled together stories inspire confidence. None of it is sewed and knit together that it goes beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said, pinpointing inconsistencies in what the witnesses say happened in the moments following the shooting, as well as what happened leading up to the shooting.”
“We have no idea what the truth is and, to me, that’s the most troubling thing,” Dunlap told the jury. “Think about what these inconsistencies mean and think about what the motivations are. What lengths would these four folks go to to shift the blame?
“We have a myriad of reasons to think these inconsistencies are grounded in deceit. Why plan something like this and then have people left to tell the tale?”
Parsons was allowed to rebut Dunlap’s arguments and did so saying that, of course, the women’s testimonies don’t line with the men’s. Rather than focus on the shortcoming of the victims, who did nothing illegal, Parsons asked the jury to focus on Hudson, the man charged with murder.
“When you’re 19 years old, you have the luxury of tomorrow,” he said. “It’s that promise of tomorrow when you’re 19 that you just can’t replace in the human experience. I told you this case had more to it than a kidnapping and a murder. It’s a taking. It’s a taking of that tomorrow; it’s a taking of that opportunity
“…Amber Meadows doesn’t have tomorrow because of this man’s choice,” Parsons pointed at Hudson. “I’m glad he’s got a tomorrow. I’m glad he’s got a chance to make his life right. I’m glad he has a chance to talk to his family. Amer doesn’t have that. He chose to take it away.
“It’s time for Mr. Hudson to be held to account for killing Ms. Meadows.”
The jury can either decide to find Hudson guilty or not guilty of the kidnapping charges. Additionally, they can find him guilty or not guilty of the First-Degree Murder charge, or of a lesser murder charge, such as Second-Degree Murder of Voluntary Manslaughter.
Follow Lootpress as this story develops.