From the Archives: Nobody Likes These Charges

Welcome to this week's episode of Angie from the Archives.

We appreciate everyone patiently waiting for some exciting new episodes of Another Not Guilty.

But while you wait, we have remastered some of our first original episodes with better, cleaner audio.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we may have switched podcasting platforms

and everything to do with the fact that we planned this all along.

So, without further ado, enjoy this vintage episode of Another Not Guilty.

He was dating a lady who had two children and was playing father to them, basically.

They were put up to say some stuff that didn't really happen.

He deserves a right to trial.

You don't question that.

Everyone gets a right to trial.

And then there'll be some clown who's like, he's sitting there, he must be guilty.

I'm telling someone you hit me.

Now what?

You're going to get arrested.

You're going to be sitting there.

You're going to take a deal?

You're going to admit you hit me?

No, because I didn't hit you.

Exactly.

Someone's going to say, well, you're sitting here at a defense trial.

You must be guilty.

That's all it takes.

Someone can say something and you can get arrested.

And you're not going to take a deal just because you got arrested, right?

So, just because someone says something doesn't make it true and reasonable.

Welcome to Another Not Guilty.

I'm David.

I'm Nikhil.

We're public defenders here to share the untold stories of the criminal justice system.

Objection.

That assumes there's justice in the system, which there ain't.

I prefer calling it the American criminal system.

Okay.

Stories from the American criminal system from the forbidden point of view, also known

as the point of view of the defense.

These stories are about the many not-guilties we public defenders achieve on a daily basis

in an unjust criminal system with the debt stacked against us.

All right.

Well, hello, everybody.

Welcome to another edition of Not Guilty.

We're lucky to have with us today, Mr. Willis.

Mr. Willis.

Willis.

Willis.

Say hello to everybody, Mr. Willis.

Hello, everybody.

And before we get Mr. Willis again, hello.

My name is David.

And I'm Nikhil.

We are defense attorneys here bringing you the message of the struggle.

But sometimes we prevail as Mr. Willis.

Okay, Mr. Willis.

Yes.

Say hi.

Hi.

My name is Mr. Willis.

I have been fortunate enough to succeed in a trial where my client-

So you got not guilty?

Heard the words not guilty.

I mean, what a glorious feeling.

Woo!

Glorious feeling.

Relieving feeling.

Yeah.

That feels great, hearing a not guilty.

Do you like hearing a not guilty?

You know, it depends.

Depends?

It depends?

Yeah.

On what, Mr. Willis?

As long as not guilty isn't.

Not guilty by itself is great.

Right.

Yeah.

And I love hearing it when the clerk says it.

I know.

As opposed to when I say that arraignment.

Sometimes I'm like, sometimes I'm scared.

I'm like, wait, did you hear a not?

Sometimes they say it fast.

They're like, guilty.

Wait, was there a not in there?

Did you hear a not?

That's funny you say that because that happened in this case.

Oh, really?

Wow.

Right.

Actually, there was a couple of charges, 10 to 2.

And the judge asked, and I had to smash interpreter.

They said not guilty, right?

They said not guilty, right?

Seriously?

So, yeah, I was, it was like six charges.

Got it.

So, let's start at the beginning.

So, let's start at the beginning.

I'll tell you, from the beginning, it was one of the favorites, and I use that sarcastically,

was what we call a PC dump.

You know, private counsel did the preliminary hearing, which is something I hate.

Not being able to have a feel for the case.

Not being able to interview or see the witnesses on the stand.

Right.

So, I had the, it was my day of pickup.

That's my, my good morning.

Welcome to your day.

And the private defense jury just came in and dumped the case.

Well, this case is, yeah.

It was just a pile of paper and stacks sitting on the defense counsel desk, and the clerk was

like, sorry.

That's yours.

That's yours, huh?

So, I, it's like, oh, no problem.

No problem until I saw the charges.

Then you jump, you open the page, and you're like, what is it?

Oh, wow.

Yeah.

What was it?

And a bunch of 288s, which is like six charges.

And what's a 288?

Loot conduct with the minor, but there's also-

And what's a minor in-

In this case, there were two minors.

One was under 14, the other was under 10.

Oh, okay.

And those are two, there's a distinction in the charges between 14 and 10.

Yes, 10 and, and the 10 and 14 seem to be the magic numbers with ages.

I think they just randomly picked those.

I guess that has something to do with the maturity of a child or the vulnerability of a child.

So one was a penetration of a child under 10, which is a potential life case.

The other was a rape of a child under 14.

And then there was a continuous rape of a child under 14, which is a life case as well.

So if there's more than three incidents within a specific amount of time found guilty,

he could be facing life for that as well.

All right.

So you get this, this stack of cases in the morning and then what the client's in custody,

I imagine.

Yes.

Yes.

So Spanish interpreter, have to meet with him and talk to him through a Spanish interpreter.

But fortunately he did speak and understand some English.

So it helped.

We can meet on video conferences and I didn't always have to worry about an interpreter coming

and cause that could be a household.

But I want to say one of the first things that I, I did do, maybe not the first thing,

but one thing I did, I thought was crucial was I saw where the, the, uh, preliminary hearing

was conducted.

And I was familiar with the judge, the court reporter and the bailiff, the clerk in that

courtroom.

So some random morning walk in while I was slow in the court and I started chopping it up with

the clerk, started talking to the bailiff and a court reporter.

And it's like, do you guys remember this case?

And they're like, yes, we do.

And for me, my experience, most court reporters seem to be a little jaded about, uh, defendants

and the bailiffs or officers.

They never seem to be too defendant friendly, but they both remembered and said, yeah, I

don't know about that case.

I think that girl, I think one of those girls was lying.

I don't know about the other one.

So they made me feel like one was, I have an argument.

I could, I could probably win.

If these skeptical people are already kind of leaning towards you, it's right.

And this was, it's weeks, if not months after the prelim.

So it just didn't happen yesterday.

And they remembered it because it's not every day you have, uh, some girls getting up and

testifying about being molested by their stepdad.

So he was not their father.

That was also the thing.

He was dating a lady who had two children who he helped bring over from another country

and was playing father to them basically.

God.

So you want that case?

Yeah.

All right.

I heard you told me about it.

Wait a minute.

Wait a minute.

Was that in character?

No, I'm serious.

I remember the case.

I was like, okay, okay, okay.

So, um, put it over to review a lot of discovery, see what kind of offer they were making,

which was always double digits.

And he was like, I'm not taking it.

And what kind of double digits are we talking about?

I mean, not, I would say, I think the last offer may have been like 14 to 16 years.

Oh, wow.

Okay.

Which, you know, you have a date, but at the same time, if you didn't do anything, that's

a lot of time.

Well, now, what were the girls saying happened?

Well, in the reports.

Okay.

Were the reports consistent?

They did a, they did some sort of like forensic exam on them maybe?

So what happened was there were two girls, one came over first, and she was six at the time.

Surely thereafter, the second daughter came over, she was 10.

And they said that soon after arriving, he started molesting them, touching them, even

having sex with the 10-year-old.

And-

The 14-year-old's saying this.

Yeah.

So this started when she was 10, now she's, she's 16 now by the time we're in trial.

Okay.

Okay.

So 16 and 12, I believe, when we go to trial, there was four years difference.

And as soon as he came over from Guatemala?

He brought them over.

Oh, he brought them over.

Yeah.

It's funny you say Guatemala.

I didn't say that.

Oh, okay.

That's some other story, you guys.

We were talking about Guatemala earlier.

Off, before we recorded.

Okay.

So let's not take any-

It wasn't Guatemala.

Guatemala.

It's one of the many other Spanish-speaking countries we have.

So she's saying that he was raping her pretty much every weekend.

Wow.

And he was, he was gone all throughout the week.

He came home from working throughout the week and would proceed to rape her on the weekends.

In the, in the house that they all lived in.

Right.

And where would the mom be during, during this?

That's-

Somewhere in the house.

Oh.

Maybe in the kitchen.

Got it.

Maybe sleeping.

Okay.

So-

And where, and was there any indication where the sister was during this too?

Uh, so what happened, they had a one bedroom.

They would all be in a bedroom, but then the older one would go sleep in the living room.

He would go out into the living room and allegedly molester or rape her.

Got it.

The younger one indicated that it started, uh, everyone would get up and they would just be

in bed in the morning and he would start.

Pulling her towards her, towards him, rubbing his penis on her butt.

And the initial charges indicated, uh, penetration of the, of the, of the, of the butt.

Wow.

And those got dismissed at the prelim.

Interesting.

It's because storages and matchers know nothing to show that this girl's butt had ever been

tampered with.

Got it.

I believe.

Tampered with.

No breaking and entering.

Not even tampering.

Okay.

So that, those, those never made it to the, uh, the superior court.

So that, that probably-

I would say for the most part, he, uh, he showed the girl.

I mean, I think the girl's just in, he did a job.

Out of confidence.

He, he did enough to show that these girls' story was kind of fishy.

But like I said, even the, the bailiff and the Corey Porter thought something was up with

it.

So he did enough to get some counts dismissed, but still, guy was still looking at life.

Also the mom charged him with domestic violence.

In that same case or separately?

Wow.

Same, same.

So he was, so, uh, he was looking at five felonies, I think, domestic violence, three

rapes and a penetration.

Wow.

Something like that.

So we kept, we put it over to review.

I had records, so I would give a, it's unfortunate at times you have to say, I have this, the

CA did his job because he turned over clearly Brady material, which was a DCFS records.

So the way the story came out in my eyes is that this girl came over when she was 10 at

12 years old, the DCFS gets an anonymous call from some neighbors saying the mom is a partying,

doing drugs in front of the children.

Leaving the children home alone at night.

And I don't know, I haven't seen it, but I've heard that the husband is sexually molested

than the oldest daughter.

This is an anonymous call that comes into DCFS?

Right.

So, so it, well, so when you read that, what'd you think?

This is good for your case or not good for your case?

Well, I read it.

I was like, well, nothing.

I mean, I guess what I have to do is what came next is DCFS had to go out and investigate.

Right.

Okay.

So that's what the caller said.

Okay.

So DCFS gets out and says, you know, does mom do drugs?

Does your mom leave your home alone?

And she's, when children are denying it altogether.

Well, what about, uh, the father, stepdad or her boyfriend?

Does he touch you?

No, he would never do anything to hurt us.

He loves us like the children.

We love him like a dad and he would never do anything to hurt us.

So DCFS is like, okay, well, um, we're going to drug test you.

The mom or the parents?

The parents.

Got it.

I want to say the parents, but I clearly he's the dad.

Yeah, stepdad.

Got it.

So the parents will figure it out.

He's like, fine.

You know, for my job, I get drug tested.

We don't do drugs.

It's not a problem.

So they come back and do a random drug test and the mom tests positive for math, for math.

Whoa.

Okay.

Yeah.

For test positive for math.

Father, defendant, negative.

So DCFS is saying, hey, we got to, uh, take the kids away before that.

We got to have it.

We're going to have a hearing.

You have a right to have a hearing.

Yeah.

You can have a hearing to, to keep your kids, but we think we're going to take them away.

And the mom says, take the kids.

She voluntarily gave them away.

Voluntarily gives them away.

She's doing math, man.

She's not interested in keeping the kids.

So the kids are taken out of the home, the kids are taken out of the home and they're

taken out of the home for about four months.

And during those four months, they maintain a relationship with stepdad, miss him.

He's going to visit.

He's working all week, comes home on the weekends.

He goes out and meets with them.

So the fact that the DCFS workers on multiple times inquired about the potential sexual history

and after interviewing the children still felt comfortable that after four months they can

return back to the home made me feel like we got a good case here.

Yeah.

Because.

Because that's their job, right?

I mean, their job is to assess that and to find out if there is this potential danger

of sexual abuse.

And as, I mean, there's some news stories, you know, DCFS workers may, they're human.

They may mess up.

They may miss some things.

And some, some kids have been put in some more unfortunate circumstances and situations

because they didn't do their job properly.

Of course, I didn't think that was the case here.

These were the best DCFS workers that ever graced the planet.

I mean, these children were talking about.

Right.

Children.

These are experts.

Right.

Experts.

Right.

Charged with the defense of children.

That's right.

I got protection.

Yeah.

So I interviewed, I didn't interview any.

I read, I reviewed the records and I tried to get them subpoenaed to come in and testify

about what they did.

So that helped out.

And this was during the same time period that the alleged conduct was going on, right?

And that to me was the biggest key was that as it came out throughout the trial was that

these girls were saying they were getting raped just about every weekend and they never told

anyone.

And so if I can go back to Vardir, which I think was probably the most important part

of this trial, was that anytime you heard these charges, you had people's faces cringing up

and just like disgust and didn't want to, oh, I would see, I can't stand there.

And then you had some grown men.

I'll say one man was like in the 60s, 70s.

And he would be crying about when he was molested, when he was a child.

And you see people get held emotional about their personal experience.

You get people getting emotional about their child or their relative or someone.

So you see these grown folks in tears just reflecting on something that happened decades ago.

And one lady in particular was saying, yeah, me and my sister were molested and we didn't

tell anyone because he threatened to hurt my mom and dad.

And I was like, well, that sucks because that's kind of what these girls are going to say

when they get on the stand.

And that's what they're arguing.

That's why they never told anyone.

And so part of my questioning, if I can go that far, is that you didn't tell anyone because

you were scared that he would harm your sister or he would kill your mom.

So you didn't tell anyone and you made sure not to tell anyone because if you told anyone,

someone could die, you were afraid of that.

Of course, yeah.

So my thinking was if some random person comes to you a day or two after you were supposed

to be getting raped and ask you about it, you would freak out.

Like, how the hell do you know?

How would you come to this?

Because now if you know, then now he may know and now my mom or my sister may die.

Yeah, the danger is real now.

So this is what, on Vardier, you brought this up?

No, not.

But I mean, the Vardier is where I realized that I have, this is going to be an issue because

some lady just said it in open court.

That she was afraid of like someone died.

That's what, that's what I think, like I said, some of these situations are very serious and

tragic and most of these things happen because people don't want to tell because out of fear

that some loved one has been threatened.

So if some person on jury in the Vardier says that, I think that added credibility to their

story.

To any claim of what does happen.

Right.

So I had to counter that.

And I felt by focusing on how serious it was that no one knew because you didn't, you're

afraid to tell anyone that if someone did ask you, you would have some reaction.

And I found it very hard to believe that some 14 year old or 12 year old at the time would

keep a straight face.

Yeah.

And be able to manipulate.

To a DCFS employee.

So, and by the way, those DCF employees did not want to, they were not happy to be up

on the stand.

I mean, like a colleague said, that's like having cops come up, testify for a defendant.

Oh no.

Yeah.

So it was, it was like, ah, come on.

Just, you do your, what's your report?

So, um, back to, uh, how many, um, with Vardier, this was a life case, right?

So you got, you got 20, 20, 20 peremptories.

Normally in a, in a regular family case, you get 10.

What was, did you have, what was your game plan going into Vardier?

Who were you looking for or what were you trying to avoid?

I remember thinking I wanted people who were at least going to be open-minded, who can,

uh, I feel like there's, I feel like there's no ideal juror for us, uh, a rape case.

You know, there's, you know, there, if, if you have a, if you're on, if you're doing

a DUI, you don't want someone who's, uh, been the victim of a drunk driver or mother's

a kid or, you don't, you don't want that obviously.

So you don't want someone who, uh, domestic violence.

You don't want someone who's been a victim of domestic violence.

So for this, it wasn't so much as you don't want someone who's been a victim of being

molested as a child, but you didn't want someone who just looked at it with such disgust that

they couldn't even, even hear someone lying, clearly lying, which is so in one particular,

one thing I had a guy who, uh, said he was a victim of domestic violence by his boyfriend.

And this was a domestic violence case as well.

So, but they also asked, have you ever been a victim of any, any good crimes?

And he said, yeah, I had my car stolen.

And the judge is like, uh, well, did you ever get your car back?

And he's like, pieces of it.

And I was like, okay, this guy's a comedian.

So you, you've been a victim of domestic violence, but you're still able, while we're talking about

a 288 and his child molesting case, you're still able to joke about having your car stolen

and parts of you.

I was like, okay, you, you, you seem to have a, be well grounded.

You seem to be able to look at things for what they are.

So I want to keep, keep you.

I had a lady who had, uh, three children, but I felt like she was someone who was no nonsense.

So she knows her children can lie.

She knows that children can fabricate stuff.

So I feel like in, even in domestic violence cases, you have women up there because women

are going to be able to tell if another woman's lying or not.

And they, and they're going to hold them to some higher standard, probably maybe unfairly,

but not for my client.

All right.

So I wanted people who were, who didn't cringe when they heard the charge, who were able to

talk about, uh, anything open-minded and actually listen.

And did you address like the fragile witnesses?

Cause these are like, maybe like a little girls or a 16 year old, but they're kids.

I mean, what, what I made an issue was I compared it to officers and my client deserved his fair

trial.

And the same way you wouldn't just believe officers because they're wearing a badge.

You can't just believe kids because they're children.

The people have the burden.

And that's one of the things I try to stress in every case.

A fair jury is someone who comes in with a clean slate, no prejudices against my client

or anyone, but also is going to hold the people to their burden.

And just for the audience, let's just make sure they understand that Willis is a renowned,

uh, actually I would say notorious and very proclaimed a jury selector.

Yes.

This is, this is someone, this is someone who I, I think that this is not like I'm having

flashbacks to the training that I attended that he did on voir dire actually.

So, I mean, I, I'm from, and people will say like by the time Willis finishes with the jury

and jury selection, I mean, they're, they're eating out of his hand, you know, they're going

to, they're going to do what he wants.

He, he's like a, he's like a conductor of an orchestra and they're going to go in the

direction that he leads them.

I just, you know, I have to put that out there.

Yeah, that's a, it's a great fable or what about puppet master?

Ooh, that'd be good.

Well, that's that, that goes more to the, that's the, the, the, the negative stereos that we

have as a defense attorney.

So I want to stay away from the puppet master.

Um, I like to think it's about, uh, not being a lawyer being, I think it's about being a

person.

I think, I think our society puts a lot on the, we get a lot of credit for being lawyers.

They're like, Oh, I'm gonna listen to him.

He's a lawyer.

And it's like, I just, I'm just a regular guy.

I just took the bar and pass.

That's all.

So they can let me speak to you guys.

Let me represent people.

But if you talk to people on a level that they understand, instead of trying to sound like

a lawyer and let me sound like I know all these big words and stuff, I think that's where

you can lose people.

And in this case was something where I stressed, you know, they still have the burden just because

these kids get up here and they're going to cry.

That doesn't mean you believe them.

They have to be consistent.

They have to be credible.

They have to be reliable.

And if those factors, if they don't have that, then the people aren't meeting their burden.

And people would say, you know, these charges are just so sad.

I was like, you know, no one likes these charges.

Everyone hates these charges.

These are not fans' favorites.

These are not fan-favorite charges.

You know who hates these charges more than anyone?

My guy over there.

That guy.

You think he likes these charges?

He's the one sitting there facing these.

And I think people understand, okay, yeah.

You know, no one likes these charges.

He's entitled to his charges.

Did you point to him or walk over and put your hand on his shoulder?

I pointed to him as I was standing in front of the witness stand.

Wait, you didn't want to touch your client?

No, I touched him quite a bit above the shoulders, of course.

But, yeah, whenever I get a chance to, I always walk over, put my arm around him, say his first name, like he was my boy.

This is my buddy right here.

He deserves a right to trial.

You don't question that.

Everyone gets a right to trial.

You're mad at him because he's exercising his constitutional rights?

Come on now.

You can't do that.

And then there would be some clown who's like, he's sitting there.

He must be guilty.

Yeah, yeah.

I always hate that guy.

You know what?

I'm telling someone you hit me.

Now what?

You're going to get arrested.

You're going to be sitting there.

You're going to take a deal?

You're going to admit you hit me?

No, because I didn't hit you.

Exactly.

So you're going to have to be sitting here at a defense table during a trial.

And someone's going to say, well, you're sitting here at a defense trial.

You must be guilty.

And I had other jurors sitting there like, oh, yeah, that guy just doesn't get it.

Oh, wow.

These people are with me.

Yeah, they're feeling me.

They're feeling me.

How do you respond to this guy?

Well, the prosecutor wouldn't even bring the case if they didn't have the evidence.

So that's why, you know, so you must be guilty.

No, that's two different things.

That's two different things than what?

People make their, police make a report.

That's enough to get you arrested.

That's enough to get you arrested.

You agree to that.

That's all it takes.

Someone can say something and you can get arrested.

And you're not going to take a deal just because you got arrested, right?

So you got someone saying something.

That's enough to get arrested.

But that's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

How was the, what was the prosecutor's Vardier like?

One of my favorite things is the prosecutor said, just because you say something, just because

someone says something, doesn't make it true and reasonable.

Oh, and you're trying to like point, trying to make an accusation at you?

I don't know what the hell she was talking about.

Oh, okay.

But I use that phrase every time I got up for my next Vardier.

Wow, they just gave you a defense right there.

And so the thing is, we're talking about when you got 20 Vardiers, I mean, motherfuckers

are getting kicked.

No, they're getting kicked.

So, all right, you can go.

I didn't like the way you cringed when someone, you can go.

So, when you get down to the traditional six pack, where after seven people out of the

18, you have to put up seven more.

Is that fair enough for your audience?

Yeah, that's not big.

So, I get up to speak again.

And I said, I have to say what the DA said.

I hope you all guys remember that.

Just because someone says something doesn't make it true and reasonable.

I can't stress that enough.

I agree with her 100%.

And so, every time I got up, I said that.

And so, I don't know where she was going with that.

Did the DA counter with, well, I mean, but if, you know, if they seem pretty consistent.

No, I don't think she had it.

She had no idea.

She had to keep going with it.

She didn't like try to counter it?

I don't think she repeated it again.

But I said it about three more times in the Vardier.

And I think I said in closing, I think she was trying to say one of her Vardiers was about

a boxing match.

There's a guy in red shorts, guy in green shorts.

And the guy in red shorts knocks down the guy in green shorts.

And you ask someone afterwards, how many times did he hit him?

And the guy says, oh, he hit him three times and he fell down.

Then someone else says, he didn't want to knock him down.

And they may be different on how many times he got hit, but they'll all agree that he knocked

him down.

So, okay, I see what she's trying to say.

So, I'm sorry if I jump around here, but in closing, I said, we're not talking about how

many times the person was hit.

In this case, I wasn't talking about how many times he may have penetrated.

I'm asking, where did it happen?

Now, if I ask you where it happened once, you say the fight happened at Staples.

I'm going to ask you another.

You say it happened at the Forum in Inglewood.

That's not reliable.

That's not credible.

It's not consistent.

So, you can't even tell me where the fight took place.

How do I believe you about anything you have to say?

Which is what the whole case is about.

That was your closing?

I did mention that in the closing.

Okay.

So, how long was jury selection?

One week.

Took one week to pick a jury.

Is that normal?

But, I will say there were half days.

Okay.

So, but.

How many panels did you burn?

That's a great question.

Did you have to get a second?

You probably had to get a second one, right?

I think we did have to get a second one.

I think we did have to get a second one.

But, I don't think I used more than.

I think I used over 10 peremptories.

Okay.

And, with the panel, you get what?

50 jurors?

Or 60?

Is it 60?

I think we had.

It's 60.

We have our statistician back there.

It's 60.

Nodding our head.

So, we also had, not only did I use a lot of peremptories, but we had a lot of people

kick for cause.

Okay.

Because they just would start crying.

Yeah.

This charge especially gets a lot of kicks for cause.

So.

Did the judge, was the judge female right in this case?

Talk a little bit.

Because, you know, you're talking about voir dire.

And, I say, in my experience, a lot of, some, at least more conservative judges are a little

bit more like, you got up and just made a statement or start talking about something.

They'd be like, whoa, whoa, whoa.

This is not a question.

You know, they cut you off of voir dire.

Were you able to voir dire the way you wanted to voir dire?

Yes.

That stage was mine.

There we go.

And, uh, yeah, I don't recall it really in interruption from the judge or the DA.

I think, I like to think they both were just as in, uh, you know.

Yeah.

Oh, the fable of master.

And they were like, wow.

And they heard, uh, this is on stage taking notes.

I'm running with that.

I'm running with that.

So, all right.

So, then you, you get your jury, um, and I guess it's time to roll out the, or there's

opening statements, but it's time to roll out the evidence, right?

How did the trial go?

Well, I got to say, there was a lot of arguing in the, in the.

Sidebar?

In the chambers about what evidence should come in.

Okay.

So, 402s.

Yeah.

Because it was pretty big.

What happens is, and I don't know if a lot of people knew, I don't think I knew this,

but SIGIS, Special Immigration.

Juvenile Status.

Yes.

Yes.

So, what happens is, as we talked about earlier, why this mom voluntarily gave up her children,

what happens is that these two children who came over, uh, not in the most legal fashion,

I would say, courtesy of my client, who's a big sponsor of that financially, they're not

here legally.

However, if they are victims of neglect.

Or abuse.

Or abuse.

Yeah.

They, and then they're taken from the home and become.

Wards of the state.

Thank you.

They can then become legally, they can have green card.

Yeah, it's legal residents.

Legal residents potentially get a green card.

Yeah.

So, what happens is, in the example, the anonymous phone call turns out to be a neighbor, a friend.

Oh, someone they knew.

According to the, the mom, she believes the person who was smoking meth with her.

Oh, wow.

Now, the mom says she never did drugs.

The first time she did drugs was after the DCFS employee came and told her we're going

to drug test her.

Sucks.

She did it for her children.

Or she said, I'm going to be positive when you test me again.

So, when my children are taken from me, because of my neglect, they would be put in the home

for three, four months, come back home, and be here legally.

There we go.

I mean, that's why it was voluntary, too.

Just like, here you go.

Right.

Now, the crazy thing that I, I'm trying to argue, the mom knew this, because none of these

allegations came out until the children were able to fly back home.

First time they've ever been on a plane, because they didn't come here by a plane.

Yeah.

They fly back home, not to Guatemala, to another Spanish-speaking place south of here.

And they spend the summer back home, visiting old relatives and seeing family and friends.

And the mom can't go.

So, wait.

I think I don't.

All right.

So, the mom voluntarily gives up the kids.

Right.

And then, she's a good mom, so she smokes meth.

And then, the kids go fly back to the country.

All right.

Let me say, I did skip something.

I think the way it came out, according to her, now, obviously, drug users deny all the time.

But she was like, I've never done it.

I did after the DCFS worker came.

So, my argument was, she wanted to test positive.

So that she can get.

So, the children will be taken from her.

And they got put into a foster home for four months.

That's how they became wards of the state.

So, during that time, client and mom would visit.

Mom completed all her drug classes and parenting classes, did everything she was supposed to do,

stayed out of trouble.

Children are interviewed.

They want to go back home to my client and their mom.

They come back home.

They stay there for another year, where apparently and allegedly, he starts raping them again.

And then, after a year, he buys them a ticket back home to visit family.

And while they're at home visiting family, he and his wife, the mom, get into an argument where he says something about having sex with Ola's daughter.

Mom calls down and speaks with her aunt, says she never talks to the kids about it.

And they come up with their story about how he was touching them.

And when they come back, she's already told the police.

So, she takes them, does a report.

So, now she's cooperating.

So, here's the thing about SIGS, the SIGS special immigration juvenile.

Juvenal status.

You can never petition for your parents to get legal status.

Any other time, any other situation, if you're here legally, then you get to petition for relatives to come in.

You can never petition for the mom who neglected you to come in to be legal.

The judge would not let me bring that up because I didn't have the mom saying that's why I did it.

So, there were some big heated arguments like this is circumstantial.

So, I mean, when someone goes into the store and steals something, they never say, yeah, I went in and take it.

You say, based upon the circumstances, you must have committed a burglary.

So, I don't have anyone saying, yeah, she told me she knew about this.

But based upon the circumstances, I think that's fair to argue.

So, she seemed to be okay with it.

I mentioned it in an opening.

And I was not allowed to talk about it.

So, you got a little nugget.

You got a little nugget in, but you didn't get to get the whole thing out.

I wasn't able to explore it at all.

So, I get it.

I get it.

So, I guess what he's trying to say is that she learned that if their kids got that status based on her smoking meth, then she would never get legal status.

But if it was because of the third party or his client that caused the sexual abuse or any abuse, then he was the reason why they were taken out of the home.

Okay.

Then she could be petitioned to also get legal status.

So, she had a clue.

I mean, it's establishing this motive.

And that's why, I mean, that's also why there was a domestic violence charge then too, right?

I believe so.

So, she's a victim now.

You've got an issue right there then too.

Right.

If she's a victim.

Now, so you throw it all on the wall.

My children are victims of sexual abuse, then I'm…

Also, domestic violence.

And if I'm a victim of domestic violence, then I can get my legal status here.

And the judge would not let you bring that into evidence?

Question.

Because you could improve if she knew…

She seemed like it at first.

Right.

Because you could improve if she knew that that's the status.

Even though they've been in the system a year before the sexual charge allegations came about, right?

Right.

Like, the whole, like, them going into foster care.

That was like a year ago before the sexual abuse allegations arose, right?

Right.

So, she could have obviously been educated then.

Well, it's kind of absurd.

Because what way would you be able to ever prove that she knew unless you, like, she consulted with a lawyer that would be privileged, right?

Then, I mean, that someone told her this or she read a book or…

Right.

And here's my other argument is that when she was to find out, when she found out that this was supposed to have happened, the first call wasn't to the police.

It was to the social worker who helped her children get legal status.

Oh, interesting.

So, he was talking to these kids, trying to help the mom reunite with her family.

Okay.

He was being the good guy.

Yeah.

He also testified.

Oh, we're going to get into that.

Yeah, that was a…

So, the judge didn't allow in that.

Anything else about 402s?

It was in, came in, didn't come in?

Well, I will just say that at some point, I would walk out of chambers and people were in the courtroom like, was that you and the judge yelling back there?

Because we were loud and it was almost like a foreplay.

We both just enjoyed yelling at each other and having an argument.

What pissed me off is the DA didn't have to say anything.

Oh, really?

The judge was doing the job for her.

And the DA told me that she was like, good point, Willis.

Good point, judge.

Oh.

That's a good point, Willis.

That's a good point, judge.

Didn't have to say anything.

Just kind of being the role of the judge kind of almost.

Right.

And so, I think the biggest 402 was trying to get in the immigration issue.

They had some text messages that I believe were taken out of context that I ended up using to turn in my favor as well.

But I think that was the biggest 402 because it seemed like she was going to let me, which is why I was able to say it in my opening.

And then later shut me down where I couldn't mention anything about their legal status.

So, all right.

So, then I guess the first witness is the 16-year-old?

Yes.

And she's all over the place.

Just cut to it.

So, she, of course, she's saying this happened, that happened, and telling her story.

And my cross-examination, if I can get to that, was I have the transcript from the preliminary hearing, I have the transcripts from the interview with the officers, and I have my notes from what you just testified to about what happened and where it happened.

And she went from the first time it happened that he touched me was on the couch, and I kicked him off and nothing.

He didn't do anything to me.

But in the prelim, the first time he ever touched you was in the bedroom, and you guys actually had sex.

And then, in the officer's statement, the first time he did it was on the couch in the living room.

And so, my argument, back to what the voir dire was, is that you remember the first time, no matter what, because your life's changed after that.

And so, when the first time happened, you said it was here, you said it was here, you said it was here, you said this happened.

You gave a lot of different stories.

Yeah, so I figured if they believed her, it happened once, it happened continuously, and this man was going down.

So, I had to attack the first time.

You got to remember the first time.

And he told me, he was trying to teach her to drive, and he would drive, he was a truck driver.

And so, she would be out on the road with him all along.

Never heard anything happen, so I felt very comfortable asking a question I didn't know the answer to, because I thought I knew the answer.

I was like, so you'd be out on the road with him, and nothing happened, right?

Yes.

Oh, something happened.

Whoa!

Something did happen.

You ever tell anyone about that?

No.

Not the DCFS, not the cops, not the prelim.

So, this is for the first time now, she's bringing up another incident.

Right, so what happened?

Did you guys actually have sex?

No, he just touched me and this and that, and I stopped him.

Okay.

Then on redirect, the DA asked about it.

All of a sudden, no, we pulled off to the side, we got into the back of the truck, and we had full-on sex.

Oh, wow.

Wow.

Okay.

Oh, because you were such an evil questioner, and then when the DA must have got up there, she must have been, like, real soft and, like, polite and warm and comforting, and that's what really got her to tell the truth.

Is that what happened?

Yeah, well, I think what happens is a lot of these people look at the district attorney, like, to guide them for how am I supposed to answer these questions.

And if you're asking me a question, I'm supposed to say yeah to you.

Yes, too.

I think she just started writing that.

That's the yes person.

You're the no person.

Right.

And so the question you're asking me is that, did we have sex?

Yes, we had sex.

Well, can you tell more happened?

Ah, yeah, I guess I got to tell you where it happened.

It happened in the back of the truck, and we did it this way and that way, and it's like, okay, wait, but you never told anyone that.

You never did this.

Yeah.

So to me, I thought people started believing, okay, this story is just getting, that fish is getting bigger and bigger.

So the 16-year-old, you tacked the first time with her consistently.

Oh, yeah.

So with the 16-year-old, it was more just pointing out, okay, you said this, you agree you said that before.

Do you remember saying this?

Yeah.

Now, you understand that those things are inconsistent.

Maybe that's argumentative, but we're sitting there looking at it, and she had to say, yeah, those aren't.

And I was like, yeah, okay, I'm not being mean.

I'm not going to tear you down.

Yeah.

I'm just pointing out you said it this day, you said it this day, you said it that day, and then you said this.

So I'm trying to understand.

Also, you got to be a nice guy.

You can't just get up and cut up the 16-year-old girl.

The 16-year-old, yeah.

So I never, I was saying it's the only time that I've done a cross-examination from my desk outside of a preliminary hearing.

I just sat at the table because I had these books and didn't want to seem intimidating and like, let's just have a conversation.

And she went along with it.

She, and just to answer the questions, I want to say honestly, which is like, yeah, I'm asking questions once you answer honestly.

That's a great strategy, by the way.

It's showing you inconsistent, but we're going to just have a conversation.

So the younger girl was more animated and even liked me more, I thought, because she had nothing to, she's like, her story just got more favorable every time she spoke.

For you?

Because she went from the guy penetrating her booty 50 times to that never happening to, oh, he never even penetrated the vagina.

And then the next day or later, he was outside the lips and maybe touched some.

Like, damn, they're trying to find penetration by just basically touching.

Crossing the plane.

Yeah.

So, so you go and went after her with the same type of, but her inconsistencies were even more dramatic because she was.

Right.

Yeah.

She couldn't, it just didn't make sense.

What she was saying is like, they were laying in bed.

I didn't even mention like, wow, we went from, you went from saying he was penetrating your booty to now he's not even penetrating your vagina with a finger.

So we're just going to go with that because you seem like a cool girl just trying to tell a story and go along with what's going on.

So.

Well, did the prosecutor then try to get her to say anything after your, after your cross?

Now, I want to say the prosecutor may ask a question.

Did you say this to this officer?

And she said, no.

And we just let it go.

And that's why I'm not even going to go.

The fact that you just denied is good enough for me and we don't need to open that can of worms at all.

Oh, wow.

That was pretty easy then.

That was.

Yeah.

I'm making it sound easy now, but man, that was a bitch.

Then the mom got on the stand.

Oh.

With her crocodile tears and how everything went down.

And she was just all over the place as well.

Did she need an interpreter?

She did.

And I will say this.

I got to give the shout out to the prosecutor because I think I was the only person in there who didn't understand Spanish.

Okay.

So it sucks to say, you ask a question and the Spanish speaker is saying it.

And before the interpreter can interpret it, the DA objects.

Ha ha.

And she knows what happened or what said.

So I had to say, you know, can we approach?

Your honor, I don't think it's fair.

Obviously, I don't.

You know, we need to know what she says before the objection is lost.

And the DA's like, okay, you're right.

It was also.

Did you just spoke Spanish too?

No.

Okay.

No, but we had about six jurors who did.

And so they're hearing the answers to this stuff.

Yeah.

And one of my favorite parts was my guys on the stand testifying about what the worker did as some toothpick factory or something like that.

The interpreter didn't know how to interpret toothpicks or something like that.

And so she's looking at the other interpreter and I hear about four jurors say toothpicks.

Okay.

They're with me.

They're listening.

They're all on board here.

They were like, yeah, okay.

But I thought that was a big deal because, I mean, I felt like such a disadvantage when everyone's speaking and hearing everything.

And I'm like, I don't know what.

What's going on?

And objections sustained.

I'm like, but what did they just say?

I need to know what they just said.

So the DA was fair enough to say, okay, I'll wait for the interpretation is said so everyone can understand for the record.

Then I'll make my objection.

I thought that was pretty big as well.

But the mom was all over the place.

Like I said, she said that she didn't do drugs and she did.

And the only time she did do drugs with her friend who she believed may have called, did the anonymous phone call.

So how did you, let me ask you this.

Do you ask, do you play the call for her and then say, do you know who that is?

Or did you just ask her?

Right.

There was no phone call.

And did you know that?

Is this another one of those questions you didn't know the answer to?

Right.

It kind of led to it because I believe that anonymous phone call was done with the whole setup of this is how you get your children here legally.

Yeah.

And let's, let's smoke meth as we talk about it.

A lot.

And make this happen.

Got it.

Now my client did say she, he did start to know that she started to use.

So.

I, it sounds like, I mean, was this a guy also they called?

No.

Oh, it was a girl.

No.

Right.

I believe it was.

Her friend that's a girl.

Yeah.

Well, that doesn't also foreclose any sexual relationship.

Her and a girl kicking it, saying this is how you get your children here legally.

You got to get your children taken away from you and, and maybe even say, I know we don't want to do it to your boyfriend because he's such a great dad.

But if, if they say he touched them, yeah, that might get them here legally too.

So that's why I think the call ended with, oh, I haven't seen anything.

I don't know, but I've heard.

Maybe.

He was touching them.

It's like, oh, wow.

That was just thrown in at the end.

Yeah, it's like a real, it seems like a very meth-y line of thinking there, right?

Like a real tweaker.

Like.

Well, they were, they had, I think, I think, I don't know this from personal experience, but when you find out that you can stay in this country legally, if you are a victim of a crime, or children are here victims of some type of neglect, word gets around.

And, and I mean, this is a hell of a tangent, but, um, I used to work in this community that was a pretty Jewish community with the, the.

Orthodox Jews.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

Got you.

And, um, that's when I found out about the stereotypes, like, oh, okay, I didn't know the stereotype, I never understood, like, the Jewish stereotype with, uh, money.

Oh, got you.

And negotiating.

And so they would want to rent cars for dirt cheap.

And you think, okay, you give it to this person.

Man, that whole community knew about it.

They took that information back and they showed, they told everybody.

So everyone wanted to get a car rental for as cheap as possible.

They would come and say, you did this for my friend, you did this for my friend.

So I thought, that's kind of how this thing started happening.

Like, hey, you want your children to be here legally.

You probably heard, I mean, word does get around.

Yeah, and so you start, you start sharing that story.

So I think, I, I imagine that's kind of how it started going down.

And, uh, that's why they were telling these stories.

So if I can go to, uh, after the mom.

Yeah, who's, uh, next piece of evidence.

The SART nurse who was saying, oh, yeah, this is all consistent.

Consistent, huh?

Right.

Physical evidence consistent.

Consistent with what?

Now, here's the thing that I, I got to say about, uh, the job.

I remember I talked to the bailiff about what they thought.

I talked to the Corey Porter.

I called some expert and Lay's like, I'm getting ready to get on a plane.

I said, I just need you to answer a few questions.

If you don't mind, just help me out.

I got this, uh, report that's supposed to happen after a year after that last incident.

And the expert's like, well, congratulations.

I was like, what do you mean?

She's like, what?

They can't, can't tell anything after a year.

It's like, okay.

So this is what the information they're saying.

She's like, yeah, I don't even, I've never heard of that.

That doesn't make sense.

That's nothing.

So what's the, what's the SART nurse anyways?

What's that stand for?

Well, what's their job?

Sexual assault response team.

Sexual assault.

Okay.

And what's their job?

Uh, they take the report of someone saying they were raped, document what they're saying

happened and looking for any physical evidence to support their story.

Is that fair to say?

That is very.

Is it done in a forensic type setting or?

You go to the doctor's office.

It's the doctor's office.

I believe it's usually done in a hospital.

In a hospital.

Uh-huh.

Yeah.

I think those are two separate, you know, it's not just like some guy's office in some

office park.

It's like, usually it's like.

Well, some hospital, you go to the doctor.

Like a sterilized environment.

It's not some, it's not some white van.

You know?

Mobile.

Mobile van down.

They just put your feet up in the stirrups and they just check you out.

No, they take photographs.

They're supposed to do DNA swabs, right?

So you wanted an expert to counter this piece of evidence.

I just want an expert to know like.

What are they saying?

Can I just, is there anything?

Because I believe everyone, it seemed to be common knowledge outside of me is that you

can't, you can't prove anything that happened a year ago and say that this guy did that.

Now, if the 10 year old came in with the tempered booty, then you might be able to say, yeah,

that happened.

But there's nothing with no physical evidence on the, the 10 year old, the younger girl and

the older girl.

She had sex.

Oh, so she was sexually active outside of this relation, alleged, alleged relationship with

her stepdad.

According to, well, how, was that actual, did she admit?

She admitted that to probably the SART nurse.

No.

She did not.

How do you know the sixth year old was sexually active?

She was 16.

So you just inferred.

And she knew a lot about sexual activity?

She had been out of the country back, back home.

Oh, where is she?

She was the American who came back and was chilling.

Gotcha.

So she came back.

I mean, but there's, there's nothing to tell.

Now there was evidence that another relative had, older guy had stayed with them for one

set for a week, one set for a month, one set for three months.

And my guy's like, that dude was staying there for like a year.

So, I mean, they're all just kind of like downplaying that this other guy, older relative

was there during this time and bounced when, uh, things started getting crazy.

And who, who is this guy?

Right.

That's what, that's all I need to do.

That's all you got to throw out there.

That's all I need to do to think.

Who's this guy?

Yeah.

Some guy who they can't consistently say how long he lived with them.

So one thing about this, uh, SART nurse was like, oh, it matched up with this.

So everything you're going off of is what this girl told you.

Yeah.

So outside of her story, could you tell it?

No, there was no physical evidence to corroborate her story.

So you can't tell.

And they came back.

She said, if it had been a year, you can tell as a month, you can tell what about a week?

She's like, well, maybe you could still see something from a week if it happened a week

before.

So that's interesting because she came back from where she was visiting and was home for a

week before she saw the SART nurse.

So you can't tell anything.

And so the SART nurse kept using the word trauma.

So the vagina had trauma, this and trauma, that.

And I finally was like, okay, when you say trauma, you're just saying it's just not completely

normal as it was.

There's nothing really traumatic about it.

And she's like, yeah.

And the jury seemed like, oh, oh, okay.

Yeah.

That word trauma just had everyone thinking she was just abused.

There's certain medical terms that like, like blunt force, like when someone expert says

blunt force trauma, that's really just any sort of pressure.

Any pressure.

Pressure.

Yeah.

Just like touching your head.

Wow.

Blunt.

You know, you must have been really knocked the fuck out.

Yeah.

That's what it sounds like.

I know.

I bumped my head.

As a defense attorney, we have to like tackle these phrases in our, and when we cross

examine.

So you had to, you had to like address trauma.

So you're using, they're going with trauma.

Right.

And they're going with the word consistent also.

Didn't they say it was consistent with what she said?

Right.

Right.

Right.

I mean, you're just based upon this girl lying.

Yeah.

That's it.

You don't know if she's telling you the truth or anything like that.

So if this girl is completely lying to you, you don't know.

You're just going off her story.

Yeah.

And the trauma.

And I thought it was another key when the whole jury seemed to, oh, okay.

Okay.

Like we're sitting here thinking trauma means that she was just really abused when it means

that no, she may have had sex at some point.

Yeah.

So I thought that was a big thing.

But, uh, okay.

So then SART nurse testified that people put on any other evidence beside that then?

No, I believe that the three, the three alleged victims and the SART nurse.

Oh, and no police?

No inconsistent statements to say the girl said this or probably didn't want to.

No police officer.

I think, I think they did put it to officer.

He would have been just saying, well, she told me this and it would have been different

from.

Yeah.

We didn't want to build on the inconsistence.

And I was very close to calling him.

Wow.

I was, I was very close.

I made sure the DA kept him around.

Cause I was like, I think I'm going to, cause yeah, you heard all that stuff she's saying.

It's different.

Let me ask you, did they, I mean, most cases like this, there probably is an IO.

Was there an IO signed to this case?

Yeah.

He was sitting there.

The whole time?

The whole time.

Got it.

Okay.

And for people, our listeners, an IO is an investigating officer that pretty much is

just assigned.

Um, the, the law allows the police to, uh, to sit in on trials, even though they're not

lawyers, they get to sit right next to the prosecutor.

Yeah.

The investigator that gets all the evidence ready for the prosecutor gets to sit there

and assist them.

He coordinates the witnesses and, you know, make sure the DA knows exactly what to ask.

Make sure you don't miss.

Make sure you ask this.

Make sure you ask that.

Don't forget this.

And then they get to listen to the whole.

It's fair.

Yeah.

It's totally fair.

Yeah.

They get a, they get a professional witness that investigated the case that gets to sit

next to the lawyer in the trial.

And, and, and, and the, and their defense, cause that's what I do.

Yeah.

A defense.

Is that they do have the burden and it's a pretty high burden.

They have the burden in a philosophical sense, but okay.

But if you really want to break it down, how high that burden is, it's pretty fucking

high.

It's up here by the American flag, man.

Up there.

That's what I like to say.

Not down here by my shoes.

When Willis is in trial, it's a high burden.

Yeah.

It's a high burden.

Hey man, that's how you, that's how you get a fair jury.

You want to be a fair jury?

Yeah.

Come in with a clean slate and make sure you hold these people to this high ass burden.

Yeah.

Beyond any.

Be a snooty ass person.

Yeah.

It's not good enough.

Oh man.

I like that.

I like that.

You got to be snooty.

You got to be like just stuck up.

You got to be stuck up.

You got to be willing to turn back and say, this food's not good enough.

I want to return my plate.

The steak is too, it's good.

It's well done.

I asked for medium rare.

Yeah.

That's not medium rare.

Are you the kind of person that does that?

I think I got a new question right here.

Yeah.

There you go.

I think I got that.

I think the person that returns, return food.

When you order food and they, they give you your order wrong, do you just take it

and be like, well, I don't want to cause a problem or do you fucking send it back?

Do you let them know there's a burden to satisfy you as a customer?

I'm paying you some money and your obligation is to provide me.

I ordered a cheeseburger and fries and you gave me a steak sandwich and a salad.

That's not what the order was.

That's not what the meant was advertised.

That's funny.

It may be good, but it's not what you advertise.

I like that even better.

Hey, you got the burger?

Yeah.

Yeah.

You got the buns.

Not close enough.

But there's no damn cheese.

Yeah.

And your honey is like, no, no, don't make a scene.

Don't make a scene.

Let's just eat it.

Just eat it.

No, let's not cause a disturbance.

Do you take three bites or do you take one?

Yeah.

Or do you just look at it?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Anyway.

So now did you put on, you put on a, I know you said your client testified, so you definitely

put on the case.

Besides your client, did anybody else testify?

Yes.

As a matter of fact, before my client testified, I did call the DCFS workers.

Oh yeah.

Those motherfuckers, man.

How many DCFS workers did you call?

I had three come.

One, the first one came, honored the subpoena.

I said, okay, you're cool.

Okay, I'm sorry we couldn't get you there.

You got to come back tomorrow.

And left, didn't come back.

No.

But the other one who I subpoenaed came in, said, oh, you did this, you did that.

What's your job?

Oh, I have a, I have to interview the kids.

I have to do all this and make sure because my report goes to the judge and the judge decides

what should happen with the children.

Oh, so your, your job is hella serious.

This is very important.

You got to be on point because the judge is going to look at your report and decide where

these kids just stay or go or something.

So you got to make sure you're doing a hell of a job.

Yeah.

Okay.

And, uh, do you ever interview children?

You're training how to interview.

Yeah.

Do you, how do you know if someone's lying?

Well, they look away.

They, the eye contact, they stutter, they don't send, um, when you interviewed these

kids, where'd you interview them in a room alone?

How far away from you?

Oh, we're like two feet away from each other.

So if they were to avoid eye contact or study, you'd be able to see that.

Right.

Did any of that happen here?

No, I don't recall.

Well, if it did, you would put in your report, right?

Right.

Is that in your report?

No.

Cause you want the judge to see this, right?

And you didn't put that in the report.

So the judge wouldn't see it because it didn't happen.

Is that fair to say?

Yeah.

They were hella reluctant to answer.

And it was almost like, uh, I went to say, your honor, please allow me to treat this

person as a hostile.

I always want, I've seen that on TV and they was like pulling teeth, but.

So you brought, you, you called them to testify to what, that the girls did not mention sexual

abuse.

Right.

You, uh.

But did they ask the girls about sexual abuse?

Yes.

Because the, the last met, the met call with the guy saying, maybe I heard something.

This could be a fact that these kids might have been touched by their dad.

But also they, they, uh, not only for them to say that we asked the girls about him, they

denied it, but they also professed their love for him.

Oh.

So like, yeah, he treated us like our children.

We called him daddy.

He would never do anything to hurt us.

So you interviewed these girls and you wanted them, you felt it was okay for them to go back.

Well, I don't remember saying that.

Well, you might have, we go to your report, you interview your report.

Your, your memories are fresh.

Yeah.

You said that, huh?

So yeah, you, you, you did your job.

You made this report because everything was fine.

So my argument was these girls couldn't keep, I don't think they could fool a DCFS worker

being caught off guard, being asked about this stuff for the first time.

And if it was so bad, they were afraid for their mom when there was no proof of any domestic

violence.

Cause she, the children trying to say that he's beating her from day one.

The mom was like, nah, we had one incident where he, I'm sorry that, uh, he threw soup up

my feet.

Oh wow.

Because he didn't like how I cooked and jurors laughed.

I was like, oh man, these jurors are cool as fuck.

And so it was like, okay, the children are making up the domestic violence.

The mom's saying none of that happened.

And they're just, the fish is getting bigger, man.

And so, uh, DCFS was just saying, nah, this, these kids seem to be good and they seem to

be fit to go home and the family was good.

They seemed comfortable.

So we let them go back home.

And then he said the, the rape started again.

And then he moved into a bigger house.

So as long as they wouldn't, they went from a one bedroom to a two bedroom to a big ass house.

And this dude was just taking care of him, working his ass off.

And the jurors like it, he was the most credible witness.

He was the only person.

Now, I know this might mess up the story, but he did say that at some point he, uh, when

she was fighting and yelling and being drunk and having a fit and she, he went following

her like, what are you doing?

He was lifting off the ground.

He pulled her by her hair like to get up.

She went dead weight and he let her go.

Oh, this is him and the, the, the mom.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

So that's why I was, I would say that he basically admitted to a battery.

Got it.

So there was a, uh, the lesser domestic violence was reduced.

The jury found him, uh, domestic violence.

So I think, I don't know if it was clear for me.

So the mom testified the domestic violence was when he did what to her?

Through a soup.

Through a soup.

Or no, that's what the girl said he did.

She, she, the mom was saying that he said, I don't cook.

I need to learn to do more than hamburgers and pizza.

Uh-huh.

And the jurors were just like, you know, wow.

You know.

And you just do soup.

You guys have an argument.

And you threw soup at your feet and the DA was like, was it hot soup?

No, it wasn't.

Scalding hot.

Third degree burns.

She was like, no, it wasn't hot soup.

Let me see your feet.

Yeah.

That's what killed me.

I was like, yeah, that sound bad if he threw fucking hot soup on her face.

But did he throw it at you, Ed, landed by my feet?

Was it soup hot?

No.

It's like, what the hell?

So it was misdemeanor domestic violence.

No, no.

It was felony domestic violence because she's saying that he beat her and bruised her.

And she had a picture on the computer that she had taken.

And it was like, we can't even tell when this picture was taken.

Oh, there's other things she said.

My older daughter took the picture.

The older daughter testified.

She's like, no, I don't have that Nintendo thing to take the picture.

It must have been my younger daughter.

It must have been my sister.

Oh, and so nobody could say it when they took the picture.

My sister was like, nah, I ain't taking pictures.

I don't remember taking her pictures.

And then the mom was like, I'm not sure which daughter took the picture.

I'm like, we don't know if you made these pictures up through some Photoshop shit.

Yeah.

And so they had pictures of her with bruises on her eyes that the jury saw.

And I guess they didn't believe it.

And so she was saying when they got to this house, he had punched her and kicked her and

did all this stuff.

He got up and said, that's not how it happened.

This is what happened.

And then part of that, of his admission, he said that she was drunk and crazy on the ground.

So he pulled her up by the hair?

Right.

Like she was on the floor, on the ground.

And he was like picking her up, like, get up.

And he grabbed her by her hair, like, to get up.

And she just went dead weight and he let her go.

And the jurors convicted him of?

The misdemeanor battery.

Domestic battery.

Right.

Which I was kind of like, dude, he's been in for a year.

Well, I mean, it's not rare, but it doesn't always happen that our clients testify.

So he testified.

Tell me a little bit about DA's cross of your client.

You know what?

I remember I thought it was kind of dirty that she was trying to say, you think one sister

is pretty?

And you thought one was like a boy.

And you found them attractive.

And he's like, they're beautiful.

They're beautiful.

Those are my daughters.

They're very attractive.

They're very beautiful.

But she was trying to make it seem like you're attracted to them, as opposed to them being

attractive.

So he kept trying to say, and she was trying to say, because he's like, oh, this one, she's

like my son.

She's always dirty.

Always running around.

And this one's the pretty one, the princess.

So she's like, so you thought one was pretty than the other?

No.

I didn't think that.

They're my daughters, basically.

Right.

I mean, he was very genuine and like.

And the DA's trying to go dirty.

He's like, no, I'm not attracted to them.

These are my, these are little girls.

These are my daughters.

They're both pretty in their own way.

That means she didn't have much of a case then.

No, her cross-examination was, was kind of reaching, hoping to get him confused or caught

up in some stuff.

And your client's testimony essentially was, hey, I've never touched these girls.

I just supported them.

I love them.

I care.

I do this.

I do that with them.

They're, I don't know where this is coming from.

And that's what the girls had told DCFS as well.

I mean, that's really props to your client to keep that kind of composure on the stand,

given that, I mean, I'd, if I was in the same shoes and they were accusing me of, you

know, sexual perversion or abuse or whatever, I'd just be like, I'd be like, fuck these

girls, you know?

Like, I mean, it's hard to be like, I love these kids.

I mean, I'm not a parent.

Maybe that's part of it.

But like, you know, to say, you know, you are, you're accusing me of this and I still

love you and I still get it.

And I find you beautiful.

And you know what?

The thing was, I believe he felt that he felt sorry for them.

Because they've been put up to this.

They've been put up to it.

And he's like, I'm not blaming them because I know they're just following whatever the

mom is making them say or the family members back home.

But I love them.

I treated them well.

Those are my daughters.

I found them both.

They're both pretty.

They're both smart.

Now, he had said one was smart.

One wasn't as smart.

So she's a dumb little kid or whatnot.

And she was trying to make it.

He was trying to pit him, I guess, trying to piss him off.

And he just wouldn't go for that.

Yeah.

Any other evidence come in the trial or anything unusual?

Anything?

Damn, I did just have something.

One thing.

Oh, he had sent a message.

He left a voice message like, if you tell him I did this, I'm going to tell him that you

knew about it.

And yeah, you knew about me and the oldest daughter having sex for the last six months.

And you knew about it.

And I'm going to hire Michael Jackson's attorney.

He sent that message to the mom?

Yeah.

Like a letter?

Voicemail.

Voicemail.

Voice message?

So they played it in court.

And so I remember across examination, I had a three-inch stack of transcripts of his voicemails,

text messages.

And so I asked the mom, like, so he sent a lot of messages.

He did a lot of messages.

And I held up the book so the jury could see it.

And I argued, this is the only thing, out of all this stuff, this is the only part you

get.

You take something out of context.

But let's look at what he said.

He said he was having sex with her for the last six months.

We know that wasn't true because she wasn't even in the country.

And he's basically saying, if you want to lie on me, I'm going to lie on you.

And he says he's hiring Michael Jackson's attorney.

I'm not Michael Jackson's attorney.

You all know I'm not Michael Jackson's attorney.

Now, the best part of that is when I was speaking to the jury, like, I didn't know.

Were you Michael Jackson's attorney?

Nah, man.

Nah.

But I picked a great jury.

That's a criminal.

Yeah, the jury says, so are you private?

I'm like, nah, nah.

You're a public defender?

Public defender?

My fellow defender.

Good job.

So what was the jury verdicts then?

They were hung.

On everything?

On everything?

No.

Okay, so two counts.

Break it down.

Break it down for us.

They were hung on two counts, not guilty, and they reached a verdict.

On the domestic violence.

Right.

So they reached a verdict on two or three.

You said there were six counts.

The domestic violence was reduced to the-

All the sex charges were not guilty?

No.

Two of them were hung.

The penetration of the girl under 10.

Okay.

And the rape.

Really?

So what was the count, the split?

10 to 2.

So two people believed-

So they put out in the note, we have a difficulty.

Two people aren't-

Deliberating.

Basically, we need more.

And the judge made us re-argue.

Yeah, I left that part out.

Shut up.

Yeah, yeah.

I left that part out.

Well, I didn't even know that this happened.

So we don't know which way it's going.

It's 10 to 2.

He said, what else do you guys need?

Well, we need to know reasonable doubt.

And it's like, read them this instruction, judge.

He said, okay, you need more argument for reasonable doubt or this and that.

Okay.

We're going to have counsel argue again.

Wow.

That's unusual because usually it's just, right, just reading the instructions or read back of testimony.

And they came out, said that we have a count, 10 to 2, and is there anything else, anything else?

And someone said, okay, yeah.

So the judge sent them back again.

So it's like, fuck, I was happy to hang it, 10 to 2, which I don't even know what it was for.

So then after they went back, deliberated some more, they came back, said, what do you have?

Said, we still need more.

The judge said, we'll help to have them re-argue.

I don't know about that.

And so the judge said, we're going to do this again.

We're going to argue.

And I said, we don't need to argue.

Just read reasonable doubt.

The judge says, you know, Willis, if you don't want to argue, you don't have to argue.

Just five minutes, the people can do theirs.

If you don't want to do it, that's fine.

It's kind of a gauntlet.

So I said, all right.

And I got up and said, reasonable doubt varies from person to person.

Oh, in my closing, let me say this, is that I said, I'm not asking about how many punches was taken.

I'm not asking, they said at the wedding, we're not asking how they cut the cake.

I'm asking where the wedding took place.

I'm asking where the fight took place.

I'm not asking what time was the penetration.

If you don't remember the first time, whether it's good or bad, we always remember the first time, no matter what.

If you liked it, you remember.

If you hate it, you remember the first time.

That doesn't change.

You remember that story.

I'm not asking all the details of where and how many times.

I just wanted to know where the first time was and we couldn't get that right.

Now, it's a reasonable doubt that could vary from person to person.

If you think you have a reasonable doubt, you have a reasonable doubt.

And it's okay.

You don't have to change because I'll take two people right now.

Like, because we're talking about life.

Because you didn't know.

You didn't know at the time if it was two for not guilty or ten for not guilty.

So, you were like, worst case scenario right now, I only got two people on this.

Stick to your guns, people.

Yeah.

Remember, we talked about that in Vardir.

Are you going to be sticking to your vote?

Because he's entitled to your individual vote.

Are you going to send that steak sandwich back?

And they went back and came back and said, well, it's 10 to 2 and 11 to 1.

And they're like, no, no, no.

That's not right.

That's not right.

Oh, I got some vocals.

And then the guy's like, well, your honor, I thought it was 10 to 2 and 1 was 11 to 1

because someone said, not guilty, even innocent.

And I was like, wait, what the fuck?

Who says that?

Just sends them back again.

Recount.

So, it's like the third or fourth time that I thought we were about to hear the verdict

and maybe hang it.

And each time they go back, you're scared that they're going to come back and switch.

Do you think the judge wants a guilty verdict?

Do you feel like the judge wanted a guilty verdict?

I like to think judges just want verdict.

And anytime you got 10 to 2 and they're wavering, it's usually because 10 people are saying guilty

and two people are holding out.

So, I think, in this case, the judge was like, dude, try to figure out and get the guilty.

And then when they came out again, they was like, okay, we can't reach it.

We got verdicts on these, but not on these counts.

And I was like, okay, these are the life counts.

I'm cool with two people.

And then when she asked what were the votes for, 10 for not guilty.

Oh.

And two for guilty.

Oh, yeah.

They're like, well, it's just changed the whole paradigm.

They're like, wait, what the hell's going on?

The whole room seemed to have a fresher scent.

I was like, wait, what's going on here?

And they start reading the verdicts.

And the clerk said, and I was going down the list.

And I must have miscounted because when the clerk said guilty, I just dropped.

Because I knew, I didn't want to get excited because I felt like any one of these can be, this dude's going to be fucked.

One strike life, yeah.

He's like, okay, not guilty.

I was like, okay.

Guilty.

I was like, shit.

Guilty on 243E1.

I was like, wait, what?

And then not guilty.

And I was just sitting there.

I was like, okay.

Turned the interpreter.

I said, they said not guilty, right?

I said, yes, Mr.

Yes, yes, sir.

Yes, sir, Willis.

Yes, Mr. Willis.

Mr. Willis, yeah.

What are you talking about?

Yeah, I'm sorry.

After the jurors, they're like, we were looking at you and we were wondering what was wrong.

Because you got the night guilty, but you still seem so.

Distraught.

Yeah, and I was like, yeah, I wasn't sure.

So you talked to the jurors afterwards?

Talked to them for about an hour and a half.

Wow.

As long as they ever had.

Prosecutor there too?

No.

Just you, okay.

Right.

And out of the 12, I want to say even the alternate, maybe had an alternate, the only one who didn't

stay was the older ex-cop who I thought was the retired Latino dude who would be able to

say, okay, yeah.

And everyone was, and they were asking, why'd you keep him?

That guy was an ass.

Oh, right.

And he was, so he must have been one of the guilty folks.

He was only, yeah.

And the other guilty was some engineer who was like, yeah, I wasn't sure about this and

that, but he was able to look me in the eyes and tell me this is what I was kind of caught

So he'd be able to articulate exactly.

So wait, so the engineer voted guilty even though he had problems with the case?

Yeah.

Did you ask him why he voted guilty still?

He said, I just felt like I believed her.

I believed this one.

I believed that one.

And I was like, okay.

I didn't really care to hear from you anymore.

Yeah.

But I thank you for staying and telling me as a man.

But everyone was like, yeah, you did a great job.

As a man.

The other dude left like.

Yeah.

That's a bitch man move, right?

Especially if you're a former police officer.

It's like, you know exactly what you did.

You're biased, right?

If you really believe in it.

A former police officer.

First of all, I'm, yeah.

If you're a police officer.

He was somehow, I think he was some, I wouldn't say he was retired.

Kyle, yeah.

And they were like, why'd you keep him?

What you ran out of, you couldn't kick anymore?

And I was like, God damn it.

My stepdad.

I just completely misread that.

My stepdad is a police officer, detective, retired now.

But like, anytime we would go anywhere, like, he'd be like.

If we sat in the movies, you know, like you sit next to other families.

And if he was on the end of our family and then there was like a little girl next to him.

He'd be like, switch seats, switch seats.

I am not sitting next to this little girl.

I know that a case can happen anytime you avoid little girls.

Like.

Like a plague, you know.

You don't get on the elevator.

Nope.

If you sit on a little girl in the elevator, get off that shit.

You never know, man.

Like I said, someone's word is enough to get you arrested.

Doesn't need to have any evidence behind it.

Did you get any other insight from the jury that you found was helpful or particularly insightful on the case?

I will say that they, they just thought the people's witnesses were incredible.

They thought the most credible witness was the defendant.

And he seemed very sincere.

And I wish I could say it was my preparation for him.

But my, I think my best way of preparing is like, just tell the truth.

We don't have to shape anything.

Just tell your story.

Well, by the time the trial starts, you've spent a considerable amount of time with your client.

You got to know him.

Well, what I like to do is I, I do my opening.

I mean, I've, I talked to him about what the case is.

And it's mostly about what the evidence they're going to put up.

Because if he gets up there and he sounds too rehearsed.

Yeah.

I don't think that's going to be good.

So I'll do my opening to him, summarizing his version of events and say, is that accurate?

Yeah.

Then I do my opening.

I sit down next to him.

Is that right?

Let's say everything right?

Okay.

This is evidence throughout the, throughout every break.

Before lunch, I would go back there and try to spend time with him and kind of recap things

and kind of give an idea of what the, what we're about to do.

And I told him, they're going to deliberate this long, probably come back, and I think

you're going to be going home on this day.

And it's pretty much what happened.

He spent one year in custody to the day.

So let me ask you this also.

Generally, when they hang, the DAs can just, you know, they get to go again, right?

Well, why not in this case?

Why didn't they go again?

Well, this happened before lunch and I spent, and the DA said, well, we want to talk about

it.

And I told the judge, I was like, I know, you know, you can do this on your own.

They're not going to put up any more evidence.

They put up all their evidence.

They shot all their bullets.

They have nothing left.

You can decide the case.

She said, I know what I can do, but we'll meet after lunch and see what the district attorney

has to say.

And I think they came back because there was nothing else to add.

They put up everything they had.

There was no other witnesses.

There was no other evidence and he had 10 people saying no.

So he kicked it and that dude was out three hours later.

What was the posture before the case?

Like, was there any negotiations or was your straight just, this is a trial.

There's a life case.

We're not, it was your client.

Was there something your client was willing to take to settle the case?

Was the DA offering something?

They were off, I believe it was like 14 to 16 years.

Yeah, 14 to 16 years.

Talk about earlier.

And he's like, nah, it's too much time.

And you have to register for the rest of your life?

Nah.

Yeah.

I'm doing that.

So it wasn't a case where it's like a good negotiation and we could walk away this and

everyone would be happy.

He's like, nah, I'm either, I'm going to life or I'm walking out of here, but nothing between.

Why was your client in custody for you?

What were you waiving time on?

Or was the private counsel do that?

Like what was the investigation that was needed or the DCFS records?

Well, yeah, it was some records to review just to get on point with that as for, am I going

to call these people?

Can I find them?

What's the reason why they're, had to find out what Sigis was?

Yeah.

Had to find out, had some help from paralegals.

Had to go look at the DCFS case.

Go some records downtown.

Downtown anywhere America.

Yeah.

I got you.

Downtown.

Where they keep all the records, man.

I got you.

I got you.

All right.

But I did hear them say not guilty.

Yeah.

On a couple of counts.

And you, oh, in your closing argument, did you do the theme from Baudier about you who

bleached somebody or what was that thing that the prosecutor said?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Just because they said it doesn't make it reasonable and true.

That was a big hit.

The credibility.

That was a big hit.

Like the jurors responded.

You can't just because they got up and said something, you still remember you said you

would hold them to that burden.

Just because the kids are saying it, that doesn't make it true.

That's what the DA told you.

I agree with that.

I don't know how.

I think I can wrap this up just as awkwardly as we started.

There we go.

Good job.

Thank you, fellow defender.

Thank you, Willis.

Defender Willis.

Yeah.

I appreciate your time.

It's a great not guilty.

Yeah.

And then a couple of hangs there.

Yeah.

On the right side there.

Yeah, I walked out.

Love to have you back, man.

And the next time you get a walk like that, man.

I don't know if I'll ever have one like that again.

Yeah, right.

It's one of those specials.

Are you going to have an engineer on your case in the future?

Or maybe you don't vibe with engineers.

You know what?

The crazy thing is a colleague told me, you left an engineer on?

No.

Never leave on an engineer.

And I was like, no, this one was cool.

No, but you know, people say that.

But I like to keep engineers on my jurors because I feel like sometimes if I'm making

a technical argument about the burden, reasonable doubt, you know, they're like, my dad's an

engineer.

I feel like I can pitch him that hard.

He's like, well, yeah, they didn't technically meet their burden.

And you can pitch that, that like.

I think that's what I thought.

Yeah.

But when the guy told me.

He just believed him.

You should have kept an engineer.

And then the one of the guilties was engineer.

I was like, God damn, this dude was right.

I think you only keep engineers if you're dealing with some computers.

Computer, yes.

The DUI machine.

The ECIR machine.

If they don't do the weight.

The engineer's like, you can't, you can't do that.

That doesn't matter.

You didn't do it right.

It's not valid.

Do you know who was a good juror in the sex case I brought up earlier was this lady was,

had two stepkids, but she wasn't a mom herself.

And she had called the police on her own stepkids.

And I was like, this lady doesn't like children.

You can stay on this sex abuse case.

Wow.

Wow.

Yeah.

I don't know why the prosecutor kept her.

I was like.

Did you ask her any questions?

No, I was just, it was like a, it was a in chamber.

She didn't want the whole other jurors to know.

She called the police.

So she's like, she's.

Yeah, that's enough.

I called the police.

I'm a piece of shit.

We won't talk to you anymore.

I have no questions, your honor.

Nothing.

Nothing.

Let's keep her on this.

No questions at all.

Well, thanks for being on the, on the show.

Thanks for tuning in to this week's episode of Another Not Guilty.

Shout out to Daniel Mark, original A&G theme music composer, and Mike Grimm for the remix.

And guess what?

We'll be back in two weeks with another Not Guilty, straight from the trenches.

We'll be back in two weeks with another Not Guilty, straight from the trenches.