The State's Response Is In: Why Judge Jean Must Order a New Trial for Daisy Link

The State of Florida filed its response to Daisy Link's Motion for New Trial late Tuesday night. I've spent the last several hours going through every page of these filings. What I found confirms exactly what we've been watching in this case from the beginning: a prosecution more concerned with winning than with truth, a trial marred by prosecutorial missteps, and a verdict that may have been reached by a jury that misunderstood the law.

The hearing that was supposed to happen this Friday got pushed to January 9, 2026. That's when Judge Lody Jean will rule on whether Daisy Link gets a new trial, and possibly when she'll be sentenced if the conviction stands. So we have time to dig into this. And dig we will.

What the State Just Admitted

Buried on page 27 of the State's Response is something remarkable. During closing arguments, prosecutors showed the jury photographs of Daisy Link's home and argued, point blank, that it would be "impossible" for Pedro Jimenez to have reached through a window from outside and unlocked a door to gain entry. They used this to attack the credibility of both Daisy and her mother, who testified that Pedro had broken a window and entered the home that way earlier in the night.

The jury went to deliberate. Within five minutes, they sent out a question asking specifically about whether it was true that someone could have opened the door from outside through a window.

Five minutes.

That tells you exactly how much weight the jury was putting on this issue. And here's what happened next: the State admitted they were wrong. They acknowledged that photographs existed showing a broken window within arm's reach of a door, with cardboard taped over it. Photos they already had in discovery. Photos they apparently never reviewed carefully enough to realize contradicted their own closing argument.

An apology. The prosecutor apologized. But here's the problem: that apology came after 45 to 60 minutes of deliberation had already passed. The damage was done. The jury had been told something false during closing. They were actively questioning it. And by the time they got the correct information, who knows how much of their thinking was already locked in?

The verdict came shortly after the correction.

The State's Response: Blame Everyone But Themselves

Reading through the State's 33-page response is an exercise in watching prosecutors try to have it both ways. On one hand, they minimize the closing argument error as "a small portion" of their overall argument. On the other hand, they spend pages attacking every single defense witness as lacking credibility, combative, and unreliable.

They attack Daisy's niece. Her sister. Her mother. And then they go after her 11-year-old son P.J., claiming he "admitted to being coached by his grandmother." What P.J. actually said, according to the State's own filing, is that his grandmother sometimes reminds him of things that happened because he forgets. The State spins this as "witness tampering" and "coaching."

An eleven-year-old boy. His father is dead. His mother has been in jail for three years. He's living with his grandmother. And the State's theory is that he can't be believed because his grandmother, who wasn't present for certain events, sometimes tells him what happened.

That's a child being raised by family members, trying to piece together the worst night of his life. The State calls it coordination and tampering.

The Story That Keeps Changing (But Not How They Think)

The State hammers relentlessly on what they call Daisy Link's "ever-changing story." They cite her lies to 911 operators. Her lies to first responders. Her different statements in her police interview. Fair enough. She admits she lied initially. The question is why, and what that means.

But here's what caught my attention in the State's Response. They reveal that Daisy gave a new interview for her Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI). And in that interview, according to the State, she told yet another version of events: that Pedro came back to the residence demanding drugs, that he pulled out the firearm, and that they were wrestling on the ground over the gun when it discharged.

The State presents this as evidence of her dishonesty. Another changing story. But think about what this actually means. If the State is right that Daisy keeps changing her story, then they're also admitting she's been consistent about one thing: she has always maintained she was in danger and acted to protect herself. The details shift, but the core claim never changes.

Meanwhile, the State's own theory requires you to believe that a woman who had been pistol-whipped five days earlier, whose attacker was high on cocaine and screaming "do it, I want to die" moments before the shot, simply decided to murder him in cold blood because she was "mad as fuck."

Both sides agree she was angry. But anger and fear aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they usually coexist. Especially when you've spent years being abused.

The Jury Foreman Problem

Here's where this case gets constitutionally serious. After the verdict, the jury foreman gave media interviews. In those interviews, he said something that should trouble anyone who cares about fair trials: "It can't be self-defense if someone is running away."

That statement suggests the jury may have fundamentally misapplied Florida's self-defense law.

Florida law says you can use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. Burglary is a forcible felony. False imprisonment is a forcible felony. If Pedro Jimenez was attempting to break into Daisy's home and barricade himself inside with her children, and Daisy reasonably believed that's what he was doing, then the fact that he was "running" toward the house rather than toward her doesn't mean she can't claim self-defense.

The jury instruction said exactly this. The question is whether the jury understood it. Based on the foreman's statement, they may not have.

The State's Response tries to spin the foreman's interview as proof the jury properly weighed the evidence. But the foreman also said he didn't believe Daisy's claim that Pedro was "attempting to barricade himself inside the home." He believed Pedro was "fleeing from her." That's a factual determination. Fine. But his statement about self-defense and running away suggests the legal analysis that followed may have been flawed.

The Due Process Question

My father was prosecuted twice by the system. Once for protecting attorney-client privilege. Once for helping people understand their constitutional rights from a coffee shop. He taught me that due process isn't just about the final verdict. It's about whether the process that got you there was fair.

A closing argument based on false information that the jury immediately questioned. Evidence that the State already had but apparently never properly reviewed. A jury foreman's statement suggesting possible misapplication of the law. A defendant who has already spent more than three years in jail awaiting trial.

Does that sound like a process we can trust?

Florida courts have been clear: when the State makes prejudicial arguments in closing, the burden shifts to them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error didn't contribute to the verdict. The State's Response spends pages arguing the error was "harmless" and the jury would have convicted anyway.

But they can't know that. No one can. And that's the point. When you poison the process, you don't get to assume the outcome would have been the same.

What Happens January 9th

Judge Lody Jean will hear arguments on the Motion for New Trial. If she grants it, Daisy Link gets a new trial with a new jury. If she denies it, sentencing likely follows, and this case moves to the appellate courts.

I want to be clear about something. I'm not saying Daisy Link is innocent. I'm not saying she's guilty. That's not my job, and it's not yours. A jury already decided, and now we're watching whether that decision stands up to scrutiny.

What I am saying is this: the issues raised in this Motion for New Trial are exactly the kind of issues that matter. The kind my father spent his life fighting for. The kind that determine whether "beyond a reasonable doubt" means something, or whether it's just words prosecutors say before asking for a conviction.

Judge Jean has a decision to make. Does she let this verdict stand despite the prosecution's admitted error during closing? Does she accept the State's argument that it was "harmless"? Or does she have the courage to say that when the State misleads a jury, even unintentionally, a new trial is the only remedy that protects the integrity of the system?

I know what I hope she decides. But more importantly, I hope she decides based on principle, not convenience. Based on what due process requires, not what's easiest.

This is what we do. We watch. We read the actual documents. We hold the system accountable to its own standards. Because justice isn't just about outcomes. Justice is a process.

January 9th. We'll be there.

▶️ WATCH FULL TRIAL COVERAGE Florida v. Daisy Link: Complete Trial Playlist