The Trial of Andre Abrams

 Table of Contents:

1. Incident Report
2. First Round of Case
3. Second Round of Case
4. The Depositions (Wilbur Perez) (M.E.) (N.B.) (Venus Grant) (A.S.)
5. Nelson Inquiry and Jury Selection
6. The Trial
7. Opening Statements
8. Testimonies (N.B.) (M.E.) (A.S.) (L.S.) (Wilbur Perez) (Jacob Marcotte)
9. Closing Arguments
10. GnvInfo Interview With Andre Abrams
11. The Verdict
12. The Body Worn Camera (BWC) Footage
13. Duval Neighborhood
14. Letters of Support
15. Sentencing
16. Jail conditions
17. Documentation

Incident Report

On November 30, 2021, Gainesville Police Department (GPD) Officers Jacob Marcotte and Wilbur Perez responded to Forest Pines, in the Duval neighborhood, in reference to reports that Andre Abrams was spraying an XM-42 Lite Flamethrower at the three victims (A.S., N.B., and M.E.). 

N.B. and M.E. were 16 at the time of the incident and frequently received rides home from their classmate, A.S., who was 17 at the time. Abrams’ house was located across the street from where they were parked. Perez spoke with A.S. and reported Abrams “sprayed the flames next to her vehicle making it impossible for her to exit out of the driver`s door."

Perez went on to report that Abrams "sprayed the flames higher towards the vehicle. A.S. thought her vehicle caught fire and was in fear of being burned so she jumped over the center console into the passenger's seat, got out of the vehicle, and ran away.”

Perez spoke with N.B. and M.E. who gave similar accounts to A.S. 

M.E. told Perez she believed Abrams would spray the gas tank and that the car would blow up.

Abrams agreed to show Perez and Marcotte surveillance footage of the incident.

Perez reports “In the video, it was clear he was spraying the flame thrower within a few feet of the victim's vehicle. The flames shot out approximately 20 feet. Abrams sprayed the flames multiple times towards the vehicle with the victims inside of it and sprayed the roadway multiple times leaving burn marks within approximately five feet of the vehicle…. We were unable to collect the video surveillance after the wife went inside the residence and would not answer the door."

Abrams was arrested and charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill.

Perez reported that one of the victims told Abrams, “you better not burn up my car,” however; this didn’t come up during the trial or any of the depositions.

Abrams was released two days after his arrest on a $45,000 bond.

First Round of Case

On December 14, 2021, Abrams, represented by private attorney Dean Galigani, pleaded not guilty.

On January 12, 2022, the State Attorney’s Office offered Abrams a plea deal for 1 ½ years in prison followed by two years of probation. Abrams did not take the offer.

On February 7, 2022, the State Attorney’s Office submitted a discovery exhibit of information obtained from the crime scene such as witness statements and items seized.

Between March and May 2022, Abrams had three case management hearings. At his May 17 case management hearing, he scheduled a change of plea hearing for June 21.

On June 17, 2022, Galigani made a continuance motion because he was defending a different client who was alleged to have possessed child sexual abuse material in Marion County.

The motion states as further grounds, “Two months ago counsel for Defendant sent a release and request for mental health records to several providers to present as mitigation at Defendant's sentencing. After contacting Meridian Behavioral Healthcare for a status of the records it was determined that the records were not being sent because the Defendant's signature was illegible on the release. Another release and request were sent to Meridian. Meridian responded that the records request will take up to 30 days.”

On August 9, 2022, Abrams appeared at his change of plea hearing; however, his plea didn’t change, and the hearing was rescheduled for the following month.

On September 13, 2022, Abrams appeared at his change of plea hearing, but it was again rescheduled for the following month.

On October 18, 2022, Abrams appeared at his change of plea hearing, and it was once again rescheduled for the following month.

On November 15, 2022, Abrams appeared at his fourth change of plea hearing and his plea did not change. Instead of rescheduling the change of plea hearing, Galigani scheduled a case management hearing for the following month.

On December 13, 2022, Abrams had a case management hearing where another case management hearing was scheduled for the following month.

On January 17, 2023, Abrams had a case management hearing where Galigani made a motion to appoint mental health expert Jennifer Rohrer to examine Abrams’ competence to proceed. As grounds, the motion states Abrams “was set for a change of plea based on negotiations with the State. When counsel and defendant met to discuss the details of the plea agreement and the rights associated with the plea, it became clear that the defendant could not understand the options associated with entering a plea and/ or going to trial as he often became distracted with stories unrelated to his charges. Counsel discovered that defendant was a client at Meridian Behavioral Healthcare…. Counsel believes that his inability to communicate effectively with the defendant is directly related to his mental health.”

The order was granted by Judge David Kreider.

On February 21, 2023, Abrams had a case management where another case management hearing was scheduled for April.

On April 10, 2023, Rohrer completed Abrams’ psychological evaluation.

On April 11, 2023, Abrams had a case management where another case management hearing was scheduled for the following month.

On April 14, 2023, Galigani made a motion to transfer Abrams’ case to mental health court. The motion states “Dr. Rohrer found the defendant incompetent to proceed and did not meet the criteria for involuntary hospitalization. The State is stipulating to Dr. Rohrer's report as evidence of the defendant's incompetency to proceed.  The State is not opposed to this motion.”  Judge James Colaw granted the motion two weeks later.

On May 11, 2023, Abrams had a case management hearing where his mental health court was scheduled for the following month. YouTuber Blue Steel Audits, who goes by the name “Sterling,” uploaded a video of the hearing on his YouTube channel.

At the hearing, a judicial assistant stated, “We have Andre Abrams, he is on the jail list but I’m not certain that he is in the jail.”

Galigani responded “Mr. Abrams is not in the jail, and he has not been noticed for this court date. That’s my office’s fault…. He had signed a notice, but it was for May 23…. If we could put this on a docket in two weeks judge?”

Judge David Kreider granted Galigani’s request.

On June 12, 2023, Galigani motioned for a continuance on Abrams’ mental health court date. The motion states Abrams “is going to meet with Meridian to formulate a conditional release plan based on a stipulated report finding him incompetent to proceed. [Abrams] will be out of the country on June 15 and is concerned that a Zoom link will not be available to him to appear.” The motion was granted by Judge David Kreider.

On July 13, 2023, Abrams submitted a mental health conditional release plan with Meridian Healthcare.

On August 24, 2023, Judge Kreider found Abrams incompetent to proceed. Kreider released the case for a year while Abrams sought treatment with Meridian.

On January 13, 2024, Abrams sent judicial assistant Debbie Spicy an email that stated “I am asking for records pertaining to a court date in where I was in court around May or June of 2023 and my attorney one Mr. Dean Galigani was not present in court for my hearing. Mr. Kreider said that he had tried to reach Mr. Galigani to no avail. The judge asked the attorney in the Court Building and no one had seen Mr. Galigani.”

Second Round of Case

On January 30, 2024, Judge Kreider found Abrams competent and reopened his case in felony criminal court. Abrams was appointed public defender AuBroncee Martin.

Martin previously ran to be a judge in the eighth judicial circuit but he lost to Judge Sean Brewer.

Abrams had five case management hearings from February through June 2024, and Martin didn’t make any motions.

On June 12, 2024, the victims scheduled to give depositions in Abrams’ case the following month.

On June 14, 2024, Officer Perez, along with GPD Officer Nicholas Domico and Alachua County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) 911 Operator Anthony Russell scheduled to give depositions the following month.

On July 11, 2024, two of the victims, N.B. and M.E. were issued a rule-to-show-cause for not appearing at their scheduled deposition the previous day. Their depositions were rescheduled for the following month. Two of Abrams' neighbors, Venus Grant and Shantrell Hamilton, were scheduled to give depositions on the same day of M.E. and N.B.   

On July 23, 2024, Abrams, N.B. and M.E. appeared at the rule-to-show-cause hearing which Sterling uploaded on YouTube. Judge Kreider scolded M.E. and N.B. for not appearing at their depositions. Kreider said “My choices are I can hold you in jail until you get your deposition taken, I don’t want to do that…. If you don’t show up, I’m not gonna hold another hearing like this, I’m just gonna put an order out for your arrest. If something comes up, make sure you communicate with the attorney Mr. Martin about what’s going on.”

On August 2, 2024, the State Attorney’s Office submitted a discovery exhibit for a new witness (L.S.).

On September 24, 2024, Abrams appeared at his subsequent case management hearing, which Sterling uploaded to YouTube. Martin told Kreider “We still have a few more depositions to take. I would ask the court place us on a case management conference for October 22. I will tell the court, and I apologize Mr. Abrams I probably should’ve made this clear to you earlier, but you did receive my email?”

“Which one,” asked Abrams.

Martin replied, “The one that was sent yesterday.”

Abrams stated he did not receive Martin’s email.

Martin responded “You received a letter which I indicated to you that based on the depositions we’ve taken thus far, the review of the discovery, and a review of the media, that it seems to be in your interest to resolve this case short of trial. Additionally, in the email you forwarded me you mentioned a witness that was not listed, Ms. Pamela Smith. She’s not listed as a state witness and I’m gonna need that information if you believe that person is relevant to this case.”

Abrams said “She will be…. There’s another witness. If you don’t mind me putting that order in, I did put two names on there. Also, you say ‘short of a trial.’  I want a trial…. Do what you gotta do as far as the depositions and then we’ll set it for trial.”

Martin replied, “I don’t mean to ambush you. If you feel that I am I apologize.” Martin addressed Kreider, “Your honor, just for the record…. I still have concerns about [Mr. Abrams] competency.”

“That’s why I asked [Meridian social worker] Ms. Pamela Smith to be here as a witness,” Abrams responded.

Kreider scheduled Abrams’s subsequent case management hearing for November 19.

On October 1, 2024, A.S. scheduled a deposition for the following month, indicating she missed her deposition along with the other victims but under circumstances that didn’t require a rule-to-show-cause at the time.

A.S. would be issued a rule-to-show-cause on November 13, 2024, after missing her rescheduled deposition.

On November 19, 2024, Abrams appeared at his case management hearing, which Sterling uploaded to YouTube. Martin said “We’ve taken most of the depositions. There is one of the alleged victims who did not appear at their last scheduled deposition. We have scheduled a rule-to-show-cause which is on [December 10]. Based on our prior discussions I’m going to ask the court to put us on a pretrial in January for a trial in February, but I do have to remind you [Mr. Abrams.] I know we discussed this, that from a review of the videotape evidence and from my discussions with the alleged victims in this case, proceeding to a trial does not seem to be the wisest course of action. However, it is your decision.”

Abrams said that Pamela Smith still needed to be deposed and that she had “Quite a bit of evidence.”

Martin told Abrams, “Forgive me, I didn’t have that name…. I would ask you to make clear what is exactly this witness is going to say because so far in our private discussions, I hate to do it right here on the record, the only thing that you’ve been able to share with me is that she has a ‘lot of information.’ If you could be specific as to what that would be as soon as you can then we can proceed.”

On December 10, 2024, Abrams and Martin appeared at A.S.’ rule-to-show-cause hearing, which Sterling uploaded to YouTube. A.S. did not show up at the hearing. Kreider implied he’d issue a warrant for A.S.’s arrest but Martin needed proof she was served notice of her deposition.

On January 13, 2025, Abrams appeared at his pre-trial conference, which Sterling uploaded to YouTube. Martin said “Mr. Abrams, we haven’t spoken since the last time we were in court. Do you still want to proceed to a trial?”

“Yes sir,” replied Abrams.

Martin said “I reached out to the witness you indicated you want to speak with. She’s an employee at Meridian and before she can give any information about you or your case, she needs you to sign a waiver…. As far as what she implied, she doesn’t have any factual knowledge about the case that is at hand. I think she may have some information that may serve as mitigation in your case, but I don’t see where she’s gonna be able to offer any testimony to the facts of this case.”

Abrams took the mic and said “One…. Where did you get the evidence and how did you get it? Two, when can we impeach the two victims that you deposed? Third, the one witness purged herself. What phase are we in?  What have these 36 months been about?”

Kreider said “I know you and I have been together in division 5 and you did some conditional release for some mental health issues, and I found you competent to proceed. Understand that it’s up to the state to present the evidence. The state’s witnesses will testify. That’s when your attorney will have an opportunity to impeach them based on what was said in the deposition and other things…. At this point I’m gonna keep you on the trial docket, we’ll see what the witness has to say, and we’ll go from there.”

On January 24, 2025, A.S. scheduled her deposition for the following week.

On January 27, 2025, Abrams appeared at his trial status conference and scheduled jury selection for February 3.

On January 30, 2025, Martin made a motion on Abrams’ behalf to “exclude portions of GPD Officer Perez's body camera video depicting a post-Miranda conversation between the Defendant and Officer Perez, in which the officer provided his opinion regarding the legal and factual conclusions he drew from his observations of surveillance video.”

The motion states “The officer was not present at the time of the incident in question and did not witness the events firsthand. The officer states in the video that his rationale for concluding that the weapon in question placed the alleged victim in reasonable fear was based on the weapon's proximity to the alleged victim. The Defendant disputed that he had any intent to place the alleged victim in fear, which is an essential element of the charged offense.”

On January 31, 2025, Martin made a motion for a continuance on jury selection because he was diagnosed with influenza.  Kreider granted the motion and scheduled Abrams’ jury selection for March 3, 2025.

Abrams appeared at another pretrial conference on February 10, 2025, and then appeared at a trial status conference again on February 24, 2025.

After his trial status conference, Abrams sent judicial assistant Debbie Spivey an email that stated the following:

“I am not prepared to enter into the trial phase and please take notice of my reasons why. Attorney Martin, (1) Has to date only scheduled one consult ever to which I was present and does not answer my emails in ratio as to being received, Attorney Martin can prove no different. (2) Has to date not discussed his or any trial strategy with me. (3) Has not provided an unbiased presentation of myself to the court so far challenging my pleading of not guilty & my intellectualism to do so when it has been established that I am competent. (4) Has not identified to the fact that my warrantless arrest is problematic citing U.S. Const. IV, V & VI violations. (5) Has not challenged as to civil rights violations that have occurred to establish probable cause or challenged probable cause or requested an evidentiary hearing at one of many titled pre-trial court appearances. (6) Has not deposed all victims which is incomplete to date. (7) Has to date has not been honest in the representation of state's evidence to include state's exculpatory evidence exonerating myself. (8) Has established points of leverage tipping the scale for SAO8 prosecutors 4 & 5. Each weighted example can be proven with the last seven videos of my last eight appearances to which I possess and to which I will post links to. (9) Has not to myself; acknowledged any of the evidence I have provided except for Pam Smith, to which I just requested that he only review her notes to support the facts of my case in collusion with all the other direct evidence I have presented him. (10) Has in an email formatted response shown bias and inconsistencies to the fact of he would not make any motion to dismiss but 1/30/2024 entered a motion to exclude the BWC of officer Perez what I view as the primary evidence of the state calling it hearsay all other evidence is hearsay also. (11) Attorney Galigani informed myself of the problems with the state's case and to seek a civil rights attorney and provided me with the state's evidence to show cause. I employed attorney Martin to explore this avenue which he strongly denied. Attorney Martin has insisted that these discrepancies don't exist and will not expand upon them at my asking. (12) Has breached and I am confident will further breach the PDO8 fiduciary responsibilities to me. (13)  I am at this time requesting that Judge Kreider grant me dismissal of my biased Public Defender in the fact of going to trial unprepared and improperly defended citing particulars of Strickland Vs. Washington as I believe this will result in a further violation of U.S. Const. VI. I may answer questions to these allegations you may have via e-mail as I wish to remain silent until after court, please observe my right to silence as such force applied might cause me to self-incriminate without being properly represented.”

The court deemed Abrams’ email a motion for a Nelson inquiry, which a defendant can make when they feel their counsel is ineffective and want them replaced. The Nelson hearing was scheduled for March 3, 2025, the same day as Abrams’ jury selection.

The Depositions

Following his trial, Abrams provided copies of the depositions of 911 operator Anthony Russell, GPD Officer Nicholas Domico, M.E., N.B., and Venus Grant.  The depositions were taken in July and August 2024 during the second round of Abrams’ case.

Domico was deposed because he was called for dispatch to the incident, but it was canceled and he did not respond, so he had no information on the case.

Russell took the 911 call from the incident but didn’t remember anything, so he had no information on the case to offer.

Perez

Martin asked Perez about his involvement in the incident, and he responded “I was dispatched to a call in reference to a subject with a flamethrower and responded and determined that there were three victims and that Mr. Abrams was the one using the flamethrower. I placed him under arrest for the aggravated assault for using the flamethrower towards the three victims.”

Martin asked Perez if he saw Abrams using the flamethrower, and he responded, “I did not.”

Martin asked Perez what evidence he found.

Perez said “There were burn marks in the street and he showed us video surveillance of his door camera. I don't know if it was a door camera or just his surveillance system that he has.  He showed us some of the videos of him using it, and then, he stopped showing us because I assumed that it was because he was kind of incriminating himself at that point because he was in the road near the car with the flamethrower and it was shooting out at the time in the video that I saw.”

Martin asked Perez why he didn’t collect the surveillance footage, and he responded “He wouldn't give it to us, and then, the wife initially said she would give it to us, and then, she went inside, and they ended up closing the doors, not answering us, not responding to us.  So, they didn't give us that video.”

Martin asked, “Did you take any other steps to retrieve this video?”

“I did not,” said Perez. “Usually what happens with most of these cases is once we get it submitted, it goes to detectives.  Detectives do any other follow-up or the state attorney's office do any kind of subpoenas or anything. As the road officer, I didn't complete any kind of subpoenas or anything to try to get the video surveillance…. I believe some of it was also captured on my body camera.”

Martin asked Perez if he reviewed the recording captured on his bodycam, and he said he hadn’t.

Martin asked “Were you able to make a determination as to the timing of this recording?  As in, can you – how do you know that this was the same instance in which you were - you were investigating as far as an agg-assault as opposed to some other time in which he was using it?

“Because he told us that,” said Perez.

Martin asked Perez what exactly Abrams told him.

The transcript indicates Perez began to stumble over his words, stating “He told us that it was - that, that was the time that it happened.  And he was - I believe he was trying to prove the case initially, that he didn't harm them…. Which, he didn't harm them, but it was still a threat to them, and they were in fear.”

Martin asked “Did you explain to him that was what you were investigating? Not an actual touching, but a threat.”

“No,” said Perez.

“You didn't explain that to him?” Martin asked.

Perez said “No” again.

Martin asked Perez if there was any conversation between himself and Abrams.

Perez responded “There was a conversation about the allegations that were made that he was shooting the flamethrower towards them…. Then he made a comment…. He admitted to using the flamethrower…. He talked about his issues with the parking. With them parking where they were parking…. He mentioned the vehicle giving him trouble and it's actually been an ongoing issue in the neighborhood that hes been having with a bunch of the neighbors.  Because I guess across the street, a lot of family would park on the side of the road.  But the thing is there's nothing that's posted there and we've talked to him about it.  You know, there's nothing that we can enforce.  He's not - they're not blocking your driveway.  They're not blocking the street.  They're parked in the grass across the street from your driveway.”

Martin asked Perez if he was involved in the ongoing parking issues and what the specific complaint was.

Perez responded “I don’t remember specifically. I've talked with Mr. Abrams a few times over the years with different issues with different neighbors that he's had.  But I believe that incident and most of the incidents that he complains about is that when he backs out of his property that the vehicle is in the way and that, you know, it's possible that he could strike it and he - he doesn't want them parking there.”

“Is it pretty tight quarters on that road?” Martin asked.

Perez said “I mean, it's just a two-lane - A regular average two-lane street….  If you look in the front of the house where the grass is at, you could see all the grass is pretty much dead right there. What they do is they pull onto the grass across the street from his apartment.”

“Was he trying to show you video surveillance of where they were parking at?” Martin asked.

“No, it was to show me that he wasn't burning them with the flamethrower, pretty much,” said Perez.

Martin asked Perez about the victims and what they told him.

Perez said “Initially she wasn't concerned because he's been known to be out there. We've had multiple 911 calls about him out in the street with the flamethrower, intimidating people and people being scared.  But every other time that we've shown up on scene, nobody wanted to be a victim.  Nobody wanted to come forward.  And of course, when we would show up, he would be inside and there would be no flamethrower.  But there have been videos circulating in the neighborhood of him doing that, going out in the street and just blasting this flamethrower in the street…. So then [one of the victims] says something along the lines of seeing him getting closer to the car.  So she yells out at him, like, you better not burn my car.  And then he was, I guess, at that time spraying it in front of the vehicle, on the ground or next to the vehicle, because the vehicle is parked long ways with the street. He was facing the driver’s side so it was kind of like he was perpendicular to the vehicle. After she told him that, he brought it up and started spraying upwards towards the vehicle.  And to her, it was so close that she thought the vehicle was catching fire.  So, she jumped over the center console to jump out of the passenger side of the vehicle and ran out the door and then took off.”

“Did Mr. Abrams say anything about being aware that the girls were inside of the vehicle?” Martin asked.

Perez said “I'd have to review my body cam, but I want to say that he did say that he knew they were in there.  But he didn't intend on hurting anybody or burning the car or anything and that the reason why he took it out there was because of the parking issue.”

Perez went on to talk more about videos of Abrams using his flamethrower being passed around Duval. “Multiple people had it. I think they sent it to a staff member, but it had been sent to somebody and somebody had recorded it off somebody else's phone…. It was really low quality.  You couldn't identify him in the video…. But everybody knew it was Abrams.

“You said it was sent to a staff member?” Martin asked.

Perez responded, “The Gainesville Housing Authority (GHA), I'm the liaison officer with them, so I work side-by-side with them quite a bit. That’s how I’m familiar with Mr. Abrams. He’s actually been a help to me a lot of times in the neighborhood with issues. He was always one of the people that would call and voice his opinion. If there were issues where people would run - these kids would run by with guns - and he had video surveillance. He would help us with intel. So phenomenal guy for me. I mean, I loved him being out there because he would help us. There's a lot of people out there that are doing things that they shouldn't be doing, and he would help us.  He was a great resource to have out there, so it was sad for me to have to do that. I didn't want to take him to jail, but it's like, come on, man. You leave me no choice, you know? And I know he was upset with me, but-yeah. I got to do my job. I just- I hope the best for him and hope he just learns from his mistakes on this.”

M.E.

Martin asked M.E. to explain what happened on the day of the incident.

M.E. said “It was one day after school. It was me and my cousins [A.S. and N.B.]. I was sitting behind the passenger side. [A.S.] was in the front seat in the driver’s side and [N.B.] was behind the front seat with her back turned toward the door. We were sitting and was talking. A good couple of minutes go by and we just like, feel like heat…. He’d do it pretty often, so we already knew it was [Abrams]…. I just know he was close enough to where you could feel the heat from the car. Before I could get out, [N.B.] had already jumped over me to get out of the car and A.S. went through the driver's seat into the passenger seat and she got out of the car, and then I got out the car last.”

M.E. said she first noticed Abrams when she “felt the heat” and looked up to see “orange go past the car.”

Martin asked M.E. if Abrams was aware she and her friends were in the car.

M.E. said “He knew we was in the car because when we pulled up, he was sitting on his porch like he always do. So she made a U-turn to the driveway, and then, she parked on the side of the house, how we always park and we did not get out the car.  We sat in the car. We was talking.  He was sitting on the porch watching us the whole time.  And I guess he didn't like the way we was parked or anything, so he did that to make us move.”

“Was the car on or off?” Martin asked.

“It was off,” said M.E.

Martin asked, “Was the radio on or off?”

M.E. said, “The radio was off.”

Martin asked, “Do you remember if the windows in the vehicle were up or down?”

M.E. said “The driver's-side window was rolled down.  The window behind the driver's side was rolled up and then I think the other two was rolled up as well.”

Martin asked, “Was Mr. Abrams still shooting the flame, or did he stop once you got out the car?” M.E. said she didn't remember.

M.E. said that Abrams didn’t verbally say anything to her during the incident.

Martin asked M.E. if she had any previous interactions with Abrams.

M.E. said “It was one time, me, my little sister, and my little cousin, we walked through his yard because the house is like right close by each other and if you just walk straight through the houses, then you can walk all the way to my house through the back street.  We walked through his cameras. I guess he seen us. … He grabbed his flamethrower before he came outside and he started spraying the flame at my little cousin and my sister but I was already like in the road. They were walking behind me and I looked and I turned around.  I started recording to make sure I wasn't tripping.  I'm like – ‘he's like aiming that flamethrower at my sister.’ I went in the house and I showed my mom. She didn’t believe me until I showed her."

M.E. said she no longer has the recording due to getting a new phone.

N.B.

Martin asked N.B. to explain what happened on the day of the incident.

N.B. said “We were sitting in the car, because usually after school we just sit in the car and talk, play music and stuff….  [Abrams] didn't like when our neighbors parked in front of our house because he said it kept him from backing out…. [A.S.] was sitting in the front-driver's seat.  She drove us back and forth to school.  I was sitting behind the driver's seat and was sitting on the side of me.  We see him come out with the flamethrower, but we didn't think he was going to blow it our way.  Like, he usually just do it when he wants the kids to get from off the side - like they playing on the side, football and stuff, that's the only time he do it.  He didn't like nobody playing around his house or being near his house, none of that.  We were sitting in the car, and we see him come out.  It looked like he was checking the gas on it or something.  I'm not sure.  Like, he's checking the gas on it, so we see him. I'm scared of him just from like past stuff that happened, so I kept looking at him just to make sure, but, like, I didn't think he was going to do anything, so my attention got off of it when we were like conversating and stuff. Then, only thing I remember is him just shooting the flamethrower and it came like towards the car.  He was standing in the middle of the road when he blew it at us. When he blew it towards the car, I remember like feeling the heat, like, from inside the car.  I remember trying to jump over my cousin and she was trying to get out too, because she was sitting on the other side of me. I was trying to hurry up and jump over her, but she was trying to get out too.  And then A.S., she jumped over from the driver's seat to the passenger seat to get out.”

N.B. said her mom heard her and her friends screaming and contacted the police.

Martin asked N.B. if the car was off and if there was music playing.

N.B. said she couldn’t remember if the car was on or off but that they were listening to music. N.B. said the music was at a low volume because she and her friends were talking.

Martin asked N.B. if the car windows were open or closed.

N.B. said “My window was up, I think A.S.’ passenger window was down.”

Martin asked N.B. if she exited from the passenger side of the vehicle, closer to the house.

N.B. responded “I didn't touch my door just because I felt the heat and I reacted so fast. I was scared, so I jumped over.  I tried to hurry up and get out.”

Martin asked N.B. if Abrams exchanged any words with her.

N.B. said Abrams didn’t say anything to them but that her mom had some words with him immediately following the incident.

Martin asked N.B. if Abrams was aware she and her friends were in the vehicle.

N.B. responded “When we pulled up, he was already on his porch.  He sits on his porch all the time.  He would just sit on his porch, have his phone out, stuff like that.  Hear him having fits in his cameras and stuff.  He seen us pull up and we never got out the car....  When he walked out, he was looking around…. He was looking in the car and stuff.  [A.S.] didn't have tints either…. I probably made eye contact with him a few times because I just kept looking. I was trying to stop looking at him. But he knew we was sitting in the car.”

Martin asked, “When you got out of the vehicle, did he continue to shoot the flamethrower or did he stop?”

N.B. said Abrams stopped shooting once they got out of the car.

Martin asked N.B. for background on previous incidents with Abrams.

N.B. responded, “One time my mom got in an argument with him. I think this was when he first started shooting that flamethrower, and it was about the kids.  It was about the kids because my little brother. [Abrams] used to like to record my little brother, anything he was doing.  I think he had thrown a ball in [Abrams’] yard and he took the ball…. I remember him and my mom getting into it and it was like in the middle of the road.

N.B. described another incident where Abrams backed out of his driveway and hit her family member's vehicle. N.B. said “It was always situations with him. The flamethrower is probably the biggest one. Even our neighbors across the road had problems with him by the flamethrower because they was right next to him and we across from him.”

N.B. told Martin that in 2024 she saw Abrams recording her while at a medical appointment for a family member. “I called my grandma, and I was like, I feel like this man up here recording me, but I can't even see who it is. When she had finally pulled in and I walked by to get in the car, I seen his face.  I seen his face because he had his little visor up.  When I seen his face, I seen it was him.  That was like my first time seeing him since that incident.” 

Venus Grant

Venus Grant is the grandmother of one of the victims and was visiting from out of state during the incident.

Martin asked Grant to explain her involvement in the case.

Grant said “It been going on for a little while.  It seemed like every time I come to town, there's some little junk going on with him and my daughter (victim’s mom). He did it one time when he came out in the yard and was throwing it.”

“Throwing what?  I'm sorry,” said Martin.

“That flamethrower.  Like shooting it,” replied Grant

Martin asked Grant what happened on the day of the incident.

Grant stated “We heard commotion at the door…. My baby granddaughter, she come running towards the door talking about that man throwing - knocking on [the] door real hard.  Tell me, the man throwing that – shooting that flame sword again.  I said ‘what, she talking about…’ When I came out, he was shooting towards the kids.  Towards my godson’s girlfriend’s car. They all were trying to get out the car.  I was like, ‘why is you shooting that thing at them like that?’  He wasn't saying nothing at the time.  He just started shooting the thing, then went to cursing me out and stuff right there.  I just told them, I said, ‘just call the police on him.’

Martin asked for further clarification.

Grant said “One of the kids got up to open the door and she was banging on the screen door, and she was like ‘that man out there throwing that - shooting that flame sword again’ and I'm like, ‘what?’  When I got up, I tell you, you could see the whole road, like, lighting up.  The kids, the other children in the car, they were trying to get up out the car.”

Grant went on to say “They couldn't get out the car because everybody was trying to hurry up and get out the car while he was shooting the thing at the car…. I'm not sure [if] one side of the door latch didn't open up.  I don't know [if it] was broken on the inside or on the outside.”

Martin asked Grant if Abrams continued shooting the flames after the victims got out of the car. She said that Abrams stopped after they got out.

Martin asked what Abrams did after the victims got out, and Grant replied, “arguing with everybody.”

Martin asked what the argument was about, and Grant said she couldn’t remember.

Martin asked, “Are you aware of any difficulties between your daughter or other neighbors between Mr. Abrams?”

Grant responded “One time [my daughter and Abrams] was friends and I guess she said he tried to talk to her and when she turned him down, everything just went south.  Like he was arguing about cars parking across the road on her side of the property.”

Martin asked Grant why she was arguing with Abrams.

“Because at the time, I was mad,” said Grant.  “That was my grandkids in that car.  They could have caught that car on fire, and they could have - something could have happened to them, serious - got burned up in that car.”

Grant’s deposition was not referenced during the trial. Court documents in Abrams’ case state Grant is on “federal probation for the offense of wire fraud.” Felons can testify in court, but crimes of dishonesty may be brought to light to question their credibility. 

A.S.

On March 19, 2025, Sterling provided a paper copy of A.S.’ deposition, held on January 31, 2025.

Martin asked A.S. to explain what happened on the day of the incident.

A.S. said “We were just sitting in the car….He always came out like with the fire thrower or whatever its called…. He would always come out with it outside and just have it up in the air. But this time he came by the road and started just spraying it by the car…. That’s when we felt the heat. I really don’t know where everybody was at in the car, but I know I was in the driver side and it was facing this way and his house is over here.”

Martin asked A.S. to specify what she meant by “this way.”

A.S. said, “I can’t explain either way but I have a video.”

A.S. said Marcotte and Perez saw the video but that the State Attorney’s Office hadn’t yet seen it. A.S. emailed the video to Martin and Assistant State Attorney Mark Dobo.

Martin asked A.S. if Abrams said anything to her.

A.S. said Abrams didn’t speak to her but that he got into an argument with one of the victim’s moms immediately following the incident.

Martin asked A.S. if she could remember how close the flames got to the vehicle.

A.S. responded, “I don’t think we looked – all we felt was the heat and we ran out of the car.”

Martin asked A.S. if she was aware of Abrams using his flamethrower in the past.

A.S. said “There was a whole post on Facebook. Everybody knew exactly who he was…. He always had the flame. I think he the only person that got it.”

Martin asked if the flames touched or damaged A.S.’s car and she said it did not.

Martin asked A.S. if there was music playing while the victims were conversing in her car and she said music wasn’t playing.

Martin said “Mr. Abrams with the flamethrower on the other occasions, what was he doing with that flamethrower?”

“He’ll usually just have it in the air,” replied A.S.

Martin asked what was different on the date of the incident compared to previous days where Abrams used his flamethrower.

“I mean, the road was burnt,” responded A.S.

A.S. went on to say “Usually he’ll just be throwing it in the air, go back inside and that’s that. We weren’t really paying attention to him. Nobody do. He came out, we didn’t even know that he was out until we felt the fire on – by our face.”

Martin replied, “So as far from your perspective, he wasn’t trying to – he wasn’t like ‘hey, young lady,’”

A.S. said “No. He didn’t say nothing.”

Dobo objected to Martin’s question but said A.S.’s answer still stands.

Martin asked A.S. more about the burn marks.

A.S. said “It looked a little close, but not as close like to the point that my car could have got burnt. But it was close.”

Martin asked A.S. if she knew why Abrams had his flamethrower out.

Dobo objected to the question but still asked A.S. to answer.

A.S. said “I mean, he was just like a nasty person….  The reason he probably did it is because we was parked and we were sitting in the car…. He didn’t like if we would be parked or like sitting in the car on the porch…. Anybody by the grass, boys by his house, that’s when he’ll bring it out.”

Martin asked A.S. to elaborate on why she thought Abrams was a “nasty person.”

A.S. said “You probably can go in Duval and ask somebody. Just be like ‘Do you all know a man with the fire thrower?' They’ll tell you the same thing. That’s just how he is…. I wouldn’t say ‘nasty.’ I would say a ‘mean person.’”

Martin asked A.S. if Abrams was an “Oscar the Grouch type guy.”

A.S. responded, “Uhn-uhn.”

Martin said “Okay. Yeah, I’m dating it…. I guess that’s my childhood right there.”

A.S. said, “I don’t know who that is.”

Martin said he had no further questions but Dobo did.

Dobo asked A.S. to be very specifically clear that she had previously seen Abrams expel his flame prior to the incident. A.S. said she had seen him use the flamethrower in his yard before.

Dobo asked A.S. “When you felt the heat, did you then look and see the flames?"

A.S. said “I don’t think we looked, I think we just jumped out.

Nelson Inquiry and Jury Selection

On March 3, 2025, Abrams appeared at his Nelson Inquiry with Kreider, which Sterling obtained through a public records request.

Abrams told Kreider, “I know there’s a video out there that is an hour, six minutes, and 28 seconds [long]. I read they asked to have a clip of the video without sound. I would object to that and would have the full hour.”

“That was the defenses’ motion,” said Martin. Martin told Kreider, “We have reviewed the video…. The concerning issue to the defense was the body-cam video of the surveillance recording that Mr. Abrams had in his possession at the time. We’ve filed a written objection to that.”

The State Attorney’s Office briefly discussed their motion to allow the jury to view a video demonstration of the flamethrower, and Kreider said Judge Sean Brewer would hear the motion. 

Abrams and his family later told GnvInfo that they did not have previous notification that Brewer would be the judge for his trial. 

Abrams’ motion for a Nelson inquiry was denied by Judge Kreider.

Later in the day, Abrams re appeared for jury selection with Brewer.

Brewer primarily handles civil cases in Baker County and generally doesn’t preside over criminal court. A public records request by Sterling shows Abrams' case was the fifth criminal case presided by Brewer.

Martin told Brewer “There's a body cam video that purports to show the flamethrower in use. There's commentary by a law enforcement officer and we’re asking that commentary not be admitted.” 

Brewer approved the motion after the jury was selected.

The Trial 

Taking his case to trial on March 6, if found guilty of three aggravated assault counts Abrams would be sentenced to a minimum of 33 months in prison and a maximum of 15 years.

The jury had the option to find Abrams guilty of lesser offenses such as assault or improperly exhibiting a weapon. 

Sterling obtained several hours of trial video footage through a public records request, with some parts redacted due to the victims being minors at the time of the incident. 

Before the jury was brought in, Brewer heard the state’s motion from Assistant State Attorney Pamela Goeckel.

Goeckel clarified their motion was for the jury to view “a video clip of the functioning of an operation of the flamethrower conducted by Fire Chief John Adler, as well as photographs that set the scene of where the demonstration took place for the witness to then explain.”

Goeckel said she wasn’t using the full BWC footage but had the full videos in her possession in case she needed it for “cross-examination” or “rebuttal.”

Martin told Brewer “Part of what’s going on in the atmosphere of this case is there’s some ongoing issues between neighbors. We would suggest that any prior bad acts that have not been properly noticed should not be admitted…. They should contain their comments to the facts of this particular case.”

Brewer asked Martin why he hasn’t made any motions relating to his request.

Martin said it was in “an abundance of caution.” 

After a brief recess, the court returned and Brewer called the jury in. The jury swore to give an accurate verdict on the case between the State of Florida and Abrams based on the evidence provided. Jurors are not permitted to conduct outside investigations or obtain any information about the case from maps or news articles, as the court would have no way of verifying the accuracy of the information.

Opening Statements

“I could feel the heat on my face. I thought the car was going to explode. I thought the car was going to catch on fire. Those are the words you’re gonna hear over an over as each victim gets up here,” Goeckel said to the jurors in an attempt to deliver an emotionally impactive opening statement.

Goeckel said the victims were parked at one of their houses in between the street and a dirt patch, across the street from Abrams’ house. Goeckel said “The music was on. They’re enjoying the company of one-another. The driver’s seat window [is] slightly cracked. Out of nowhere, the defendant comes up and shoots his flamethrower directly at the vehicle. All three of them describe the heat that they feel, on top of the fear they were feeling at that time.” 

Goeckel said all three victims had to rush out of the passenger’s side of the vehicle. 

Goeckel said the victims would describe that Abrams “continued to shoot the flames even after they exited the vehicle.” 

During Martin’s opening statement, he said “I like what the prosecutor just shared with you today but this case is more than just about the fear of three teenagers in a car. It’s about the shock, awe, and often emotional rush to judge, when quite frankly you see a flame kind of shoot out of a flamethrower.”

Martin described Duval, where the incident occurred, as a “modest residential neighborhood,” and said, “It’s not unusual [for cars] to park on the street.” 

Martin told the jurors they could view pictures to show the car’s back windows were up. Martin said the driver’s side window was “about a quarter of a way down.” 

Martin said the victims “noticed Mr. Abrams was sitting on [his] porch but they didn’t pay him any particular attention at the time.”

Martin told the jury that it would be up to them when viewing the surveillance video to determine if the “flame projected at the vehicle or projected at the ground.” Martin pointed out there were burn marks on the ground and the car had no damage.

Martin told the jurors they’d see “girls leaving the vehicle but won’t see any indication that Mr. Abrams, if that’s who you believe was in the video, chasing the girls.”

Testimonies

N.B.

N.B. took the stand to answer questions from the prosecution and defense.

Goeckel asked N.B. if any of the windows were open and she said she believed the driver's window was.

Goeckel asked N.B. where she was sitting, and she responded the passenger seat.

Goeckel asked N.B. what she and the victims were doing and she said talking and listening to music. N.B. said the music wasn’t loud since they were talking. 

Goeckel asked N.B. if she noticed Abrams prior to the incident. N.B. said she saw Abrams sitting on his porch but they didn’t acknowledge each other. 

Goeckel asked N.B. if she saw Abrams get up from his porch, and N.B. said she had. Goeckel asked what Abrams did, and N.B. replied that he “went inside his house and got the flame thrower.” 

Goeckel asked N.B. what Abrams was doing with the flamethrower when she first noticed it. N.B. said, “He was looking at it, checking it, I'm not really sure.”

“How did you know this was something that could shoot flames out,” Goeckel asked. 

“Objection,” Martin interjected. 

During objections, generally, the attorneys on both sides will engage in a "sidebar" i.e. have a private discussion with the judge while white noise blanks out their conversation.

The conversation cannot be heard in the courtroom, but can be heard in the video of the trial.

Martin’s assistant attorney, Aleksandra Osterman Burgess was worried that Goeckel's question would lead to N.B. talking about previous incidents in the neighborhood where he used the flamethrower.

Goeckel said she wouldn't ask if there’s been any previous incidents, just if N.B. had seen him use the flamethrower before. Brewer accepted Martin’s objection, saying N.B. only knew what Abrams had was a flamethrower because of a “prior bad act.”

Brewer said it was unnecessary for N.B. to explain how she knew it was a flamethrower because she sees it eject flames during the incident. Brewer told Goeckel she could ask “if” N.B. was watching Abrams, but not “why.” 

Goeckel asked N.B. if she was watching Abrams.

N.B. said she wasn’t paying close attention but that she kept looking over at Abrams. 

Goeckel asked what Abrams did next, and N.B. said she saw him “blowing” the flamethrower while “walking out his driveway.” 

“Is he walking towards the road?” asked Goeckel. N.B. said he was.

Goeckel asked what direction Abrams was headed as he was using the flamethrower. 

“It was like one direction. He was kind of just like spraying it,” N.B. replied. 

“What direction were the flames going when he sprayed it?” Goeckel asked.

“Whichever way he turned, he was just like shooting it,” said N.B. 

Goeckel asked N.B. when Abrams sprayed the flames toward the car.

N.B. responded, “When we got out we felt like he’d shot it towards the car.” 

N.B. went on to say she’d seen Abrams use the flamethrower before and Goeckel said “Let me stop you right there. Do you feel like anything significant to make you feel like this flamethrower is being directed at your car?” 

N.B. said she “felt the heat.” 

Goeckel asked if there was any position where the flame was being shot that concerned N.B.

N.B. replied, “Between the driver’s seat and the backseat.” 

“Once he started getting closer to the car, what do you do?” Asked Goeckel. 

N.B. replied “I was kind of already aware he was getting closer so I was just thinking get out…. When he shot it towards the car and I saw flames all I was thinking [about] was getting out of the car.” 

Goeckel asked where there was a transition between Abrams using the flamethrower in his yard and approaching the vehicle.

N.B. said “He was never standing in one spot to shoot. He was always like moving around, making like road trails and stuff. It would get closer and closer…. That’s when I was like ‘Oh no, he might hit the car.’ When he finally did shoot it I felt like it had hit the car because I felt heat.”

Goeckel asked N.B. how she felt.

N.B. said “I was scared for my life…. I didn’t know what was going to happen. When I think about fire and a car, I think about it blowing up. Gas could’ve been on the road still, I didn’t know what was going to happen.”

Goeckel asked N.B. if the driver’s side window appeared to be open, to which Martin objected. The deliberation of this objection is much harder to hear on the video than the previous. 

Brewer overruled Martin’s objection. 

N.B. confirmed the driver’s window was open. 

“Was he walking out of his driveway and into a road as he was using it?” Asked Goeckel.

N.B. said, “Yes ma’am.” 

“That was what I wanted to make sure was very clear,” said Goeckel.

With no further question from Goeckel, Burgess began cross-examining N.B.

Burgess asked N.B. to confirm if she was in the front or the back passenger side of the car. 

N.B. said she was in the front. 

Burgess asked N.B. if she could see how far the flame was to tell how close it was to the vehicle.

N.B. said she could not see how far the flame was from her but “could tell it was close.” 

Burgess asked N.B. if the flamethrower was still in use after she exited the car. 

N.B. said “No ma’am, I don’t remember…. I don’t recall, I believe he stopped after we jumped out of the car.” 

After N.B. was excused, the attorneys had a private conversation with Brewer. Goeckel clarified that it was not her intention for N.B. to bring up seeing Abrams use the flamethrower previously.

M.E. 

M.E., who was seated in the back driver’s side of the car testified next. 

Goeckel asked M.E., “When you drove up did you happen to notice if the defendant was outside?”

“No, he wasn’t,” responded M.E.

“When did you notice the defendant?” Goeckel asked. 

“After it all happened,” said M.E.

Goeckel asked M.E. how she was sitting, and clarified that she didn’t see Abrams because she was sitting with her back on the driver’s side door. 

Upon being asked to explain what happened, M.E. stated “We were just sitting there and then we all just felt heat. Like I said how I was sitting on the door. I felt the heat and when I felt the heat I leaned up…. When we got out of the car we were all just running and screaming.” 

Goeckel asked M.E., “When you leaned up and looked which direction are you looking?”

M.E. replied, “I’m looking towards his house, his direction.” 

Goeckel asked what M.E. saw, and she said Abrams had his back towards the car, with the fire going opposite of the vehicle.

Goeckel asked M.E. why she exited from the passenger side of the vehicle instead of the driver’s side.

“Because he was throwing fire right there,” said M.E.

M.E. said she was worried about the car blowing up because she was sitting near the gas tank. 

Following Goeckel's questions, Burgess began cross-examining M.E. 

Burgess asked M.E. how far down the driver's window was, and she did not know the answer but did remember that it was down in some way. 

Burgess asked M.E. to confirm that Abrams had his back turned to the car and that the vehicle had no damage. M.E. gave the affirmative on both questions. 

In response to Burgess’ cross-examination, Goeckel asked M.E. if Abrams was spraying the flamethrower toward his house.

M.E. stated that Abrams was facing his house when spraying the flames. 

Burgess asked if Abrams was spraying in the air or on the ground, and M.E. confirmed he was spraying on the road.

A.S.

A.S., the driver, was the last victim to testify. 

Goeckel asked A.S. if her window was down, and she responded “I think so because I felt heat.”

Goeckel asked A.S. if she saw Abrams before the incident, and she confirmed she saw him on his porch but that there wasn’t any interaction or acknowledgment. 

Goeckel asked when the next time she noticed Abrams was.

A.S. responded that Abrams was in the grass of his yard with the flamethrower and firing it in the air. 

“What’s the next thing you remember?” Goeckel asked. 

“Feeling heat, and running,” stated A.S. She said she felt the heat from her window

Goeckel asked why A.S. got out from the passenger side of the car instead of the driver's side.

A.S. said “That’s where I felt the heat, on that side…. I know I didn’t look or nothin’, I just ran.” 

Goeckel asked A.S. if she was scared and why, and she responded “Yes…. I really thought the car was on fire or something. I think that’s why we all just ran.”

Burgess began cross-examining A.S. and asked if her car was on or off during the incident. 

A.S. confirmed the engine of the car was turned off. 

Burgess asked how far down A.S.’ window was. 

“It don’t look that much down,” said A.S. after looking at the photo of the car the state submitted into evidence. 

Burgess asked A.S. if music was playing, and she responded that she was sure there wasn’t if the car was turned off. 

L.S.

Following the victims, the state called one of the victim’s cousins, L.S., as a witness, who gave a brief testimony. Unlike with the previous testifiers, Goeckel did not ask L.S. her age during the time of the incident. 

L.S. said, “I was walking back to the house when I heard it and turned around…. He was blowing it like towards her car back and forth."

During L.S.’ cross examination, Burgess asked her how far she was from where she saw Abrams blowing the flames, and she said she could not remember.

Perez

Perez took the stand and stated he’s been employed with GPD for 15 years and currently serves as a patrol officer. 

Before Perez delved into his involvement, Goeckel initiated a private conversation between herself, the other attorneys and Brewer.

Goeckel confirmed with Brewer that the body camera footage to be viewed was edited, and that the jury needed to be notified. 

Brewer then told the jury, “You’re about to view a video recording. The court instructs you that the recording has been edited to eliminate irrelevant portions that would not add to your understanding of the case. The fact the recording has been edited should not concern you in any way and must not impact the way you view and consider this evidence.” 

The clip viewed by the jurors is not displayed at this point in the trial video.

Perez told Goeckel the vehicle was in the same place shown on the video when he arrived to the scene. 

Goeckel asked Perez, “Was this car and the window that was down in this photograph the same car as the one you saw on the surveillance video?”

“Objection,” Martin interjected. The objection was overruled by Brewer. Martin made another objection, which was subsequently overruled by Brewer.

Goeckel asked Perez, “In that video could you determine approximately how far out the flames on the flamethrower were shooting?”

As Perez stated “Yes ma’am,” Martin objected. The attorneys went into a private conversation with Brewer. Martin argued that Perez was not qualified the answer the question, to which Brewer agreed after three minutes of deliberation. 

Goeckel asked Perez, who arrived after the incident, if he could “depict” or “feel” the heat of the flamethrower from the video. 

Perez responded, “No."

After Perez answered, Brewer told Martin “If you have an objection make it.” Despite Perez already answering “no,” Martin objected. Martin said the question was beyond Perez’s scope. Brewer overruled the objection, and Perez answered “no” again. 

After Perez answered a few more questions about the flamethrower, Goeckel initiated another private conversation between the attorneys and Brewer. 

Brewer asked if the flamethrower was attached with propane and if it would be inoperable, as it would be on display in the courtroom. Goeckel said the pilot light wasn’t on but that the flamethrower still had its propane attached. Goeckel confirmed with Brewer that she would predicate the state's evidence.

Brewer temporarily dismissed the jury so the attorneys could argue motions and question more freely. 

Goeckel asked Perez about the weather on the date of the incident, and he responded it was sunny outside. Goeckel asked Perez about the pavement on the road, and he responded it was “somewhat of a gravelly paved surface with the road; asphalt material.” 

Goeckel asked if the quality of the surveillance video viewed by the jury provided a “fair and accurate depiction of the heat you would feel from the flames of the flamethrower,” and received no objection from Martin.

Perez confirmed again that he could not “feel” heat from a video. 

Goeckel then presented the video which showed Fire Chief Adler demonstrating the flamethrower near the GPD Property and Evidence Building. The video depicted five sandbags at five-feet increments to determine the distance the flames could reach. The video depicted the flamethrower having the ability to reach 20-25 feet. 

Martin began cross-examining Perez, and confirmed he was not present in the video at GPD depicting the flamethrower’s usage. Martin asked Perez if he had any knowledge of the wind conditions or temperature at the time of the demonstration, and he confirmed he did not. 

When Martin questioned Perez on the angle of the flamethrower in the demonstration video, he stated, “It was multiple angles.”

Goeckel's assistant attorney, Frank Slavichak, attempted for nearly 30 minutes to convince Brewer that it was necessary for the jury to view the demonstration video. Brewer determined the video would not help the jury in determining the facts of the case and ruled it would not be shown.

After a brief recess, Brewer brought the jury back in to finish Perez’s testimony.

Goeckel asked Perez about the width of the street, and he responded “I would say from one end to the other it’s approximately 15 feet or so.”

Goeckel asked, “Once the defendant stepped from his driveway to the road how much further would he have to go to actually reach the victim’s car?”

“Maybe ten or 15 feet,” responded Perez. Perez said the road was more narrow than the average street but that two cars would be able to pass each other, unless another car was parked in the road.

Martin began cross examining Perez again, saying “You don’t have any personal knowledge of the circumstances, in that you weren’t there when it happened?” 

“Correct,” stated Perez.

Martin had no further questions and sat down. 

Marcotte

Marcotte, who is no longer employed with GPD, stated he was now working for Duval County Public Schools as a school safety officer. 

Marcotte confirmed he collected the flamethrower and submitted it into evidence but didn’t add much, as his testimony was roughly five minutes.

Closing Arguments

Brewer told the jury the prosecution and defense's closing arguments are not evidence but can be used to aid their understanding of the case. 

The Prosecution

Goeckel told the jury “You not only had testimony evidence from the three individuals in the car, you additionally had testimony evidence from [L.S.]… You have surveillance video, you have photographs from the scene that were submitted into evidence and you also have the flamethrower itself. Looking at all these things together leaves one result, that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Goeckel said that M.E. not seeing Abrams shoot the flames was consistent with the other victim’s testimonies as she had her back turned in the vehicle. 

Goeckel stated Abrams' “only intention was to scare” the victims and that he was guilty of all three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 

The Defense

Martin told the jury “We don’t know why he was walking towards the car. We don’t know what was in his mind. We don’t know what purpose was served from him, as you heard, blowing that flamethrower. What we do know is that you cannot presume he is guilty based on the evidence of one of those four elements…. The state has to prove beyond and excluding any reasonable doubt that he committed each and every necessary act that comprises the charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon…. It doesn’t matter if you go ‘You know what, that probably wasn’t the best idea to have a flamethrower in a residential neighborhood. It’s probably not the best idea to have it out there in the middle of the road.’ It doesn’t necessarily or absolutely prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to target [or] threaten those three teenagers.”

Martin went on to say “If a snake kind of crawled across your toes here…. you wouldn’t necessarily take the time to check and see ‘oh wait a minute that’s not a coral snake, that’s a king snake.’ You wouldn’t take that time. You would jump and get out of the way. That’s what the girls did.” 

Martin picked up the flamethrower and showed it to the jury up close, saying “There’s a warning on it…. Is this a weapon? A tool? A toy? One of those things a man going through a midlife crisis might buy? Is that not out the realm of possibility?”

As Martin continued, Goeckel objected to his comments.

Goeckel argued that Martin was acting as if Abrams had testified with his arguments. Brewer granted Goeckel's objection. 

Martin said there was no evidence Abrams was aware the victims were in the car at the time of the incident. Martin said law enforcement witnesses aren’t reliable because they weren’t there at the time. 

Martin told the jury, “What we have here is evidence of what might be considered a less than proven action. Evidence that, at best…. the flamethrower was displayed in a rude or reckless manner, perhaps.”  

Martin pointed out the victim’s have different statements on the music being on or off, as sound would indicate to Abrams people are in the car. 

Martin concluded by stating, “I am by no means unsympathetic to the way those young ladies felt that day. But based on the evidence and the evidence alone that was presented here today it is completely insufficient to find [Abrams] guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.”

After hearing from the prosecution and defense the jurors went into a backroom to deliberate. Jurors were not permitted to take the flamethrower into the deliberation room.

Interview with Andre Abrams

During jury deliberation, Abrams sat down for an interview with GnvInfo outside the courtroom. The interview has been transcribed with some edits, but it can be listened to below. 

Q: You mentioned some civil rights violations over text, tell me about that?

Abrams: There were some civil rights violations in my arrest. I was arrested on my porch. During the arrest, the officer started questioning me without reading me my Miranda Rights. He asked me if I could prove I didn’t try to burn those girls with the flamethrower.

I said I had my tablet, and he could see it on there that I was not trying to burn these girls. Once he did that, then he read me my Miranda Rights. Then he asked if he could look at more video and I said I didn’t want to talk because I’m finna go to jail. The officer said, ‘No no, you’re not gonna go to jail.’  I’m like ‘Okay, you’re reading me my Miranda Rights but I’m not gonna go to jail.’ That led from one thing to another.

Q: How do you feel about the state’s argument for using the video?

Abrams: In a way it’s necessary but what they’re trying to portray me as is wrong. If you have evidence then you present it as such. The way they are presenting it is not right.

Q: How many public defenders have you had in this case?

Abrams: Just one. 

[GPD Officer Wilfredo Perez walks past Abrams and GnvInfo] 

Abrams: That’s the officer right there, who violated my civil rights.

Q: I saw something on the file about a Meridian caseworker speaking, were you able to get her deposition?

Abrams: No. I have her notes, and I have my history with her. For some reason or another, the attorney didn’t get in contact with her when she has some very pertinent information that could help me out. 

Q: What information would she have been able to share with us?

Abrams: The information she’d be able to show is that I contacted GPD, the GHA and the City of Gainesville about ongoing issues in that neighborhood. She documented that. She actually put in there that I had made contact with these people, and nothing was done….

Q: What kind of stuff was documented by the case worker? 

Abrams: The guns, we had a car someone tried to break into and steal out of our yard. We had one guy who tried to break into the house, came in through the back, and was banging on the door trying to get in. They caught him and he had drugs on him and a gun on him. There was an incident where there was a gang fight right in front of the yard and I do have documentation of that. Those are some of the things but there’s 137 reports of gunshots being fired.

Q: How did the girls have anything to do with those reports?

Abrams: I don’t know because like I said, I didn’t see them. They said I did but how can you tell someone what you saw, but [Perez] believed them. This is the same guy that asked me for my security camera at my residence because it was the same place he wanted to watch. I told him I couldn’t do that and after that everything changed….

Q: How do you feel about how your public defender Aubroncee Martin has represented you?

Abrams: I don’t feel good about it. I’ve had him for a year, and I’ve been doing all the reaching out to him. He had me come in his office once out of his own fruition. Every subsequent time I had to track him down right here in this hallway to make him make an appointment for me to come in.…

Q: Were there any previous altercations with the people who’ve taken the stand today?

Abrams: No.

Q: Have you ever met Officer Perez before?

Abrams: Yes.

Q: What circumstances was that?

Abrams: Just coming into the neighborhood and introducing himself. I didn’t have a problem with that. The only issue that I had was that he wanted access to my home security cameras to watch these people who I was arrested for. When I denied the request that’s when the relationship between he and I changed.

Q: Can you tell me what happened on the date of the incident from your point of view?

Abrams: I had just come home from Orlando, and I had been riding a couple of hours. I just wanted to get home and to unwind I came in and entered my house and said, ‘Let me go ahead and use the flamethrower,’ you know?  I went and got it and went outside. It ain’t have much gas in it so I’m like ‘let me go put some more gas in there.’ I went in the house, and I went to put more gas in the flamethrower, I got some water, and I went back outside…. When I first came home the car was further to the north…. When I went in the house and came back out with the flamethrower the car was [in front of the house] and I didn’t see anybody in the car…. I’m like okay, I guess it’s cool, car window was open and car was off. They said they had music on, but I didn’t hear any music…. The car was just sitting there, it wasn’t the first time. But then they get out talking about 'I’ll ‘burn the car’ and stuff like that which was not my intent so that’s where we’re at now.

Q: How did that, I’m sorry, can you repeat that with the flamethrower and the car, how did that get into you allegedly aiming at them?

Abrams: Like I said, that’s not what my intent was, and I didn’t do that. Like I said, I had my back turned. 

Q: Did you approach the car in any way?

Abrams: Nope I didn’t approach the car.

Q: We’re you just in your yard? 

Abrams: In the yard and in the street. The street is a two-lane narrow [road]…. Like I said, I didn’t see anybody in the car. The car was there directly across the street; they say the car was on the road and off the road halfway; that’s not true. It was all the way on the road.

Q: One of Blue Steel’s friends said you knew something about the Ignite Life Center cases?

Abrams: Yeah, I heard about that, my daughter was arrested, she used to work for that place, well not there. 

Q: Like the Refugio program? 

Abrams: Right. She was arrested but they dropped the charges. 

Q: What’d she get charged with? 

Abrams: Child abuse.

Q: Oh, shit. Was it not legitimate?

Abrams: Right. They arrested her but [the state] didn’t charge her. Now we’re at where we’re at now and I’m just gonna figure out how we’re gonna get past this.

GnvInfo Interview with Andre Abrams

0:00

/596.586667

1×

The Verdict

The jury made a written request from the deliberation room to review the BWC clip they were permitted to see. They replayed the clip twice, with no opposition from the defense or prosecution.

At this point in the trial video, the clip becomes slightly visible, but hard to make out due to its distance from the camera. Zooming in does not greatly assist in viewing the video.

The jury spent roughly an hour deliberating before finding Abrams guilty on three counts of improperly exhibiting a weapon.

Abrams' sentencing was scheduled for the following week.

Abrams was not detained prior to his sentencing due to not having any criminal violations in the nearly four years he’d been out on bond.

The BWC Footage

On March 7, Abrams provided GnvInfo with BWC footage of the entire incident from both Marcotte and Perez’s cameras.

The BWC footage is divided into four videos. The first video is from Perez’s camera from when he arrives till when he leaves, and is one hour and six minutes long. 

The second video, from Marcotte’s camera, begins while he is conversing with Abrams and lasts until the officers begin wrapping up their investigation. It is 35 minutes long. 

The third video, from Marcotte’s camera, is eight minutes long and shows him speaking with neighbors about filling out a sworn statement.

The fourth video, from Marcotte’s camera, is only three minutes long and shows him discussing the incident and joking about the situation with other GPD employees. 

Shortly after Marcotte arrived on the scene he walked over to the victims and neighbors.

One of the adults told A.S. to tell Marcotte what happened, and she said “Okay so we was sitting in the car. We always sit right here every day after school. He gonna come out here and he seen us in the car cause the windows down and all we do is see the flame, I couldn’t even get out my driver’s spot, I had to crawl out the seat and ran cause I thought I was on fire for real though.”

The mother of one of the victims pulled Marcotte over to the side and said they’d been having problems with Abrams for a few months because of his complaints regarding street parking. She said he would blow the flamethrower to scare people off from parking.

The woman told Marcotte “One day we saw him running out the door real fast. I got the video. He chased a boy, a young boy with the flamethrower. He actually stayed in the house right here…. Then one day it went viral, Jax news hit me up…. [They asked to talk ] and I said ‘no’ because I’m on housing and I didn’t know if it would affect my housing because he shot it straight towards my house one day.”

The woman said the previous two months were quiet until the moment her daughter ran in the house screaming that Abrams was shooting fire at the car. The woman said, “We hear the kids laughing but we see all them jumping out the car.”  She said Abrams had already been told by police that street parking was permitted.

Marcotte walked over to Abrams and asked what was going on.

Abrams said “Let me tell you something. I try and be as respectful as I possibly can, always have been. I don’t know how long you’ve been on the force here at GPD but you can go way back and see I don’t cause no type of problems…. I live here, they live there. I try to be respectful with my neighbors. See this driveway here that we’re standing at right now, well they have a driveway also. When myself, my family, or my guests come over I like to make sure they don’t impede the driveway of the neighbors. Every day they say they park but they didn’t, its only when they wanna be buttholes, I’m putting it to you just like that…. This has been going on for years. This has been going on since before they moved. They said they gonna call GPD, no problem, go ahead and call them. This is a flamethrower, it’s not illegal.”

As Abrams was speaking Perez arrived on the scene. 

Marcotte told Perez he was still trying to figure out what happened. Perez went to speak with the victims and bystanders while Marcotte continued speaking with Abrams.

Abrams told Marcotte that Perez “knows about the whole thing,” and that he’d previously shared videos with him of both him and his neighbors. Perez previously mentioned in his deposition that Abrams would allow him to view his surveillance to assist with criminal investigations. 

Abrams said he was worried about his family having to go to the emergency room and not being able to back out of their driveway, saying it's happened before. Abrams told Marcotte that one of his granddaughters passed away recently.

Abrams said “It’s a long-term thing and it has to stop. One way or another, it has to stop.”

Marcotte asked Abrams if he previously used the flamethrower. He said he owned it prior to his neighbors moving across the street. Marcotte asked what the flamethrower was for, and Abrams replied “It’s a toy. I just like having it.”

Marcotte asked how long the flamethrower shot and Abrams said it depends on the type of gas used. Abrams said the flames could reach from where he is standing to a mailbox that appears roughly 20 feet away.

Abrams recalled a time when some kids related to the victims threw rocks at his residence and he tried to talk to one of their parental guardians. Abrams said the parental guardian said she would take care of it but then forgot.

Abrams told Marcotte that parking issues had been an ongoing problem in the neighborhood and that he had contacted the GHA and GPD about the issue.

Marcotte said, “It’s kind of in the roadway so I don’t know if there’s much. If it’s blocking your driveway, we should be able to write a ticket, but here is the problem. I don’t know, I’m not good with writing parking tickets, that's not my forte. There are people that know the laws better than me so they’d probably be able to help you out better. But as far as this [flamethrower], this could technically be considered a deadly weapon."

Abrams responded, “Could be.”

Marcotte asked what would be the bigger issue, pointing a weapon at someone or parking in someone’s driveway illegally.

Abrams replied, “Respect. Being respectful to your neighbors; that’s the biggest issue.

Marcotte said “You’re not gonna be able to get your point across when you light somebody on fire and now you go to jail.”

Marcotte said all the neighbors were expecting Abrams to go to jail and stated the ash marks on the ground were a “little excessive.”

Abrams said “If you look at my stains they’re not even half way down the road…. No one got burnt.”

Marcotte said, “It would be more understandable if that thing didn’t shoot from here to the mailbox.”

“With napalm,” replied Abrams

“I don’t know what’s in that thing,” said Marcotte.

Abrams said it was regular gas.

Meanwhile, while Perez was speaking to the neighbors, he told them “I know that [Abrams] has used it and that this is not the first time he has used it, but I need to speak to whoever felt like he was coming after them.”

Perez took A.S. over to the side to speak with her after learning she was the driver.

Perez asked A.S. if she was in fear of being burned by Abrams, and A.S. said she was. A.S. said, “I thought he was gonna burn me, I thought the car was on fire.”

Perez then spoke with N.B. who said “I seen it first, he finna blow that thing. When we see it we know what it is….  I opened my door at first cause I didn’t think he was gonna blow it as close as he did.” N.B. said she felt like Abrams was trying to burn them and said she was scared.

Perez then spoke with M.E. Referring to the car, M.E. said Abrams “started flaming it.” She said she got up in fear the flames would hit the gas tank and cause the car to explode. M.E. said she believed Abrams wanted to burn her and was in fear he would do so.

Perez circled back with Marcotte and walked with Abrams to his residence to view the surveillance footage. 

Abrams was not read his Miranda Rights until after he already had been questioned by Marcotte and agreed to show the surveillance footage.

Perez read Abrams his rights while his wife got his iPad with the surveillance footage.

Abrams took Perez reading his Miranda Rights as indication he was about to be arrested.

Perez said, “I didn’t say you were going to jail.”

Abrams showed Perez footage of himself blowing his flamethrower in various locations around his yard. Perez continually requested to see a specific video before taking hold of the iPad to view it. Zooming in on the iPad shows the following:

Abrams told Perez “I’m not by the car,” and Perez said “You’re spraying right by the car.” Abrams said “If I wanted to burn the car I would burn the car.”

As Abrams was being arrested, he asked one of his family members to get his flamethrower. Perez told him it was evidence.

Perez told Marcotte to take pictures showing how close the ash marks were to the car.

Perez spoke with the neighbors again and referenced a previous appointment he had with a woman (Angela) in the neighborhood and Abrams about their disagreements. 

One of the victims’ moms said Angela canceled the appointment because Abrams apologized and nothing happened until that day.

One of the neighborhood children asked Perez what would happen if Abrams let a kid use the flamethrower, and the victim’s mom said “we don’t got nothing to do with that.”

While in the car, Perez said to Abrams, “You said you weren’t trying to burn them, so what were you trying to do? Truthly, come on now, be real with me.”

Abrams said he’d already been honest, referencing his previous reports to the GHA and meetings with Perez.

Perez asked what Abrams’ goal was when using the flamethrower.

Abrams said “I bought it to use it…. It was not towards any human…. I’m just over here with my flamethrower."

Abrams told Perez the neighbors would frequently park in his driveway making it difficult to back out, and Perez said they were still legally parked.

Perez debated Abrams over the charges while driving him to the police station. Abrams said he did not know people were in the car. Perez said he would’ve, stating one of the victims had her window down and said “What are you gonna do, burn my car.” Abrams said “I didn’t threaten anybody…. The evidence will speak for itself.” 

Later that day, Marcotte joked about the incident with his fellow GPD employees. Marcotte was previously disciplined for crashing his patrol vehicle.

Duval Neighborhood

Throughout his case, Abrams frequently mentions problems in Duval neighborhood where he resided at the time of the incident, stating issues have gone ignored by the GHA.

On April 29, 2019, Therris Conney broke into Abrams’ storage room while he was running from the police. Abrams appeared as a witness in the case and Conney was found guilty of trespassing, possession of a weapon as a convicted felon, and marijuana possession with intent to sell.

On October 12, 2021, Abrams was required to answer a subpoena to appear as a witness in Micha’el Mccloud’s attempted murder case.

According to a GPD map of the Duval neighborhood, there have been dozens of gang related incidents in the area.

Letters of Support

Judge Brewer received several letters from Abrams’ family and fellow congregants at University City Church of Christ.

University City Church of Christ member Larry Jones wrote “Mr. Abrams attends services faithfully and is conscientious and courteous in assisting people according to their needs. When assigned, Mr. Abrams participates in the assembly with appropriate comments and offering prayers at designated times. Mr. Abrams demonstrates his faith as a Christian man in every role I have seen him perform.”

University City Church of Christ Elder John Bella wrote “Andre's leadership and experience have served to raise several sons as successful fruitful steadfast Christian leaders participating and leading in our high school youth groups and college ministry camps, worship assemblies, and outreach in this community and statewide retreats.”

One of Abrams’ sons, Alandre Abrams wrote “The good moments are often centered around the support my father provided for our family. He worked hard to ensure we had what we needed and made many sacrifices to make sure we were taken care of. I remember him taking me to and from school and work, even when it was inconvenient for him. He was always there when I needed to learn something new, whether it was about life, work, or how to drive. His guidance during these moments helped me grow into the person I am today. On the other hand, like any family, we had our challenges. It wasn't always easy, and there were tough moments where things were difficult. However, my father's decision to seek help and confront his past shows great strength. It is something that I respect and admire. It took a lot of courage for him to reach out for help so that he could understand and heal from his own childhood experiences. This decision has had a positive impact on our family, and it has allowed us to have more open and honest conversations about our experiences and growth. I also want to highlight that despite the challenges, my father's commitment to supporting our family never wavered. His effort to make sure I had the tools to succeed-whether it was helping me with my education or teaching me how to drive-was invaluable. I am proud to say that I graduated, and I know that much of that success was due to the stability and support he provided."

Andre Abrams’ wife wrote “He has been the strength and protector of our family. He has always been committed to our family even through his darkness of his childhood. My husband, Andre, put his all into making sure our family stayed safe and secured in our home. He is not the person that the state tried to portray him to be, in fact he always wanted safety for his family.”

Sentencing

Andre Abrams appeared for his sentencing on the morning of March 14, 2025. 

Brewer stated he was legally required to disregard Andre Abrams second and third count of improperly exhibiting a weapon, and only sentencing him on one count, as he could not be sentenced on one count for one incident. 

Martin said the events that transpired on November 30, 2021, aren’t indicative of who Andre Abrams is as a person. Martin emphasized Andre Abrams' mental health at the time of the incident and pointed out how several people came out in support of him.

Andre Abrams’ (who moved after the incident) neighbor Laurence Thompson said Andre Abrams is like a brother to him. Thompson said he’s never seen Andre Abrams be violent and pointed out that he takes good care of his kids and is currently working on getting a college degree.

Alandre Abrams told Brewer “growing up in my family our golden rule was ‘respect and preservation of yourself and others.’ That actually meant something growing up in my family and the community we were living in at the time…. It was instilled in my family to respect yourself, respect others, and preserve your peace, safety and wellbeing and that was something that was tested every day, every week, every month in Duval Heights. That included and extended to our neighbors [living at the incident location across the street.]…. We were under constant stress and basically having to keep our head on a swivel due to the well known and rampant criminal activity in that neighborhood, whether it be gun violence, drug related incidents, break ins, attempted carjackings, things of that nature…. The truth of the matter is this case isn’t just someone who decided one day to be terrorizing this neighborhood and causing more trouble. We went through the necessary steps to alleviate this stress we were going through at the time in that neighborhood and it fell on deaf ears.”

Brewer responded saying “I don’t know what you’re talking about because that never came before the jury. I need you to explain what the neighborhood dispute was if you wish because when you refer to it I don’t know anything about it."

Alandre Abrams said “The stress that I’m referring to is the constant lack of respect and/or semi-aggression whenever we’d ask ‘Can you respect the space we all share.’ That wasn’t reciprocated…. The necessary steps were taken to, in a sense, prevent the things that happened that day. Due to the inaction by GPD and the GHA my father, Andre Abrams Sr. thought that was the last option unfortunately.” 

University City Church of Christ member Jeff Waters said Andre Abrams has led the church in prayer and is a positive influence on the congregation. Waters said “We’ve all made mistakes and it’s likely Andre had a lapse in judgement…. While he has publicly asked the church family for prayers during this challenging time he continues to serve others and maintain a positive attitude which I believe reflects well on his character.”

University City Church of Christ Elder Steve Holloway said Andre Abrams serves as a greeter and usher at the church. Holloway said Andre Abrams “is the first smile everyone sees as they go into worship on Sunday mornings."

Holloway said that Andre Abrams’ church and his family need him.

Martin emphasized Andre Abrams’ mental health at the time of the incident and said the court allowing him to be released shows he’s not a danger.

Martin pointed out that Andre Abrams has not reoffended, has no felony convictions, and most recent misdemeanor conviction was over two decades ago. 

Andre Abrams took the stand and said he regretted his actions on the day of the incident and wished he used better judgement.

Andre Abrams said “I want the court to see who I am and what I can do…. The positivity I can bring to my family and the church.”

None of the victims were present for Andre Abrams' sentencing; however, Goeckel said she spoke with N.B. and that she said she felt jail time would be appropriate.

Goeckel said N.B. wanted to let the court know “at the time she was living across from Mr. [Andre] Abrams, based on his prior behavior and use of the flamethrower in the neighborhood, she was told by her mother and her grandmother ‘don’t talk to him. Don’t look at him wrong.’ Because they knew that he had this flamethrower that he would use if she felt the need to do it because she had seen him use it before for other non-criminal activity.” 

Brewer said he’d consider N.B. asking for jail time but was disregarding allegations of previous flamethrower incidents or parking disputes because it did not come up during the trial. 

Brewer told Andre Abrams, “I saw a video of you with the flamethrower pointing toward the car…. You were looking for trouble.” Brewer acknowledged the support Andre Abrams received and said, “Two things can be true at the same time.”

Brewer gave Andre Abrams to the maximum sentence, 364 days in jail. Andre Abrams gave his wife a hug and said goodbye to his friends and family before being detained in handcuffs.

Outside of the courtroom, Martin addressed the roughly 20 people who showed up in support for Andre Abrams.

Before speaking, Martin asked Sterling “You’re not recording this are you?”

Sterling responded, “There’s no recording in the courthouse, correct?”

“Boom, there we go,” said Martin.

GnvInfo was recording but Martin was not informed of this.

Secret recording of Martin addressing Abrams' friends and family by GnvInfo

0:00

/373.55102

1×

Martin said, “I will explore what avenues we have for any sort of appeal.”

Sterling asked how long the appeal process would take.

Martin responded, “Appeals take a while,” and didn’t give an exact date.

Sterling said, “We wanna nail that down.”

Martin said, “There is very little room for appeals on sentencing…. By the time it makes its way up there he could very well be finished with his sentence.”

Sterling told Martin “[Andre Abrams’] wife would like you to start the appeal process.”

Martin continued stating he would “explore options,” but did not specifically state he would file an appeal for Andre Abrams.

Jail conditions

GnvInfo spoke with Andre Abrams over phone from the ACSO jail. 

Andre Abrams said the ACSO Jail has mold, water leaks, broken toilets, and a lot of young kids with something they want to prove. 

Andre Abrams said that two of the toilets are broken and there’s only seven left for the entire jail population. 

Despite the conditions, Andre Abrams attitude appears positive and he said he spends a lot of time reading his Bible. 

Andre Abrams said Martin told him Brewer would not give him any jail time, let alone the maximum sentence. Andre Abrams criticized Martin for not arguing against the jury seeing a short and muted clip of the BWC. He said either all of the BWC footage should've been shown, or none of it should've been shown.

Andre Abrams criticized Brewer’s judgement, saying something along the lines of “You’re gonna give me a year in jail for something that happened four years ago when I couldn’t even see they were in the car.” 

Andre Abrams said he believes something happened behind closed doors in the courtroom due to Brewer switching places with Kreider at the last minute.

When Lonnie Scott was still the chief of police in Gainesville, Andre Abrams stated he would stand in front of GPD Headquarters with a sign that read, "Fire the Chief." He said he's raised his voice against corruption in GPD and believes it had an influence on the outcome of his case.

Andre Abrams said he's been able to enroll in courses at the jail and is working to become a paralegal so he can help people effected by the criminal justice system and corruption in the City of Gainesville.

Andre Abrams has thought about going for a resentencing hearing but said he'd rather not because he'd have Brewer as a judge again.

Andre Abrams deadline for an appeal is April 13.

Andre Abrams said Martin will submit a letter of appeal on his behalf on April 11.

GnvInfo is accepting donations

Gainesville Public Information Services operated for over a year without funding. The goals of this publication are not for financial gain, but donations are now being accepted to help with the contin

Buy Me a Coffee

Documentation

Depositions

Trial Documents:

Character Letters

Other Court Documents