3 Strikes And Client Is Still Out - his public defender says, "Not today."

Here at Another Not Guilty, we appreciate your support. Don't forget to subscribe or follow us. And please visit our website at anothernotguiltypod.com. Without further ado, here's this week's episode of Another Not Guilty.

I felt it was a difficult argument to convince a jury of, because it was so kind of complicated. Like, he's guilty of this assault, and then he swung the bat, and then he's not guilty of, and then Saturday night I had the same pain as I did Tuesday.

And I'm like, oh man, this seems serious. So I ended up going to urgent care on Sunday all day. It was just a stressful trial. I felt like it wasn't a very serious crime that occurred. There wasn't, like, injuries. Like I said, this should have been a misdemeanor, yet he was looking at so much, and he was risking so much. And like, yeah, like, I had this. I had to really do a good job.

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. The one that the man doesn't want you to know about. Also known as the point of view of the defense. These stories are about the many not-guilties we public defenders get on a daily basis in an unjust criminal system with a deck stacked against us.

Well, welcome, everybody, for another episode of Not Guilty. Another Not Guilty. Another Not Guilty.

Yeah. What's up, Nikhil? How you doing, buddy? I'm all right, man. Yeah? I haven't been in the trenches like you. I've been hearing some stories.

I've done... It's been March Madness for me. I've done three jury trials in the month of March.

There we go. All types of trials. A little variety. A Not Guilty. A Guilty and a defense win, I would call it.

I'm not guilty on the life charges, and then he goes down on the heavy charges.

Lighter charges.

He went down on the lighter charges, meaning he'll get out one day, you know, within a decade. So that's nice.

At least he won't be in prison for the rest of his life. I don't think... I don't know if our viewers really care about those types of victories, but...

They happen every day.

Right. So...

But today we have, as a guest...

A man who sleeps with the fishes.

Who's...

Luca Brazzi.

Right. Luca, a fellow public defender, probably one of the biggest trial dogs we have in downtown, and I know he was just in a trial.

He's about to start another trial soon, and this last trial, you got... It was, what, Not Guilty on a couple of charges, and then he went down on the lesser charge?

Yeah. He was charged with two strikes, and he had three prior strikes, so it was basically a third strike case. He was looking at life, if convicted of either strike, potentially.

And what were the charges?

It was an ADW assault with a deadly weapon. That was the baseball bat, and then the second charge was intimidating a witness.

Okay. And why don't you give our listeners a little factual background as to... Well, what's the people's case, the version of events?

So basically, this guy, Mr. Fender, he's living... He says he's living in his vehicle at this car wash, and he says he's a security guard there, that he watches over the place at night.

And then my client, Mr. Meadows, comes over and starts calling him a snitch, because Mr. Fender had testified against these other homeless people who were friends with my client.

And so everyone's homeless then, right? Is Mr. Fender homeless?

Yeah, this is like an area that all the homeless people hang out, they all know each other kind of thing.

So a couple months prior, Mr. Fender testified against a bunch of homeless people.

Yeah, there's two guys and a female.

Okay. And then your client, on the night of the incident, runs over to him and calls him a snitch.

Yeah, he calls him a snitch, says, you're a snitch, you know, starts using cuss words, and then starts attacking...

Starts punching Mr. Fender in the face, and then picks up a baseball bat from the ground, and hits him with a baseball bat.

Wait, just a baseball bat just from the ground?

Yeah, so it's... You know, that was the one argument, is that the baseball bat magically appeared on the ground, and he didn't.

He never saw it before that day.

The victim never saw it before that day, right?

Yeah.

Okay, Mr. Fender.

Yeah.

And...

But my client says that it was actually Mr. Fender's baseball bat that he pulled from the car and hit my client first with.

Oh, okay. And so then your... And what's the... Did your client testify?

Yeah, he did.

Okay. And so what's your client's version of events?

Mr. Meadows said that... That he spoke with this... This girl, Nisi, one of the people that Mr. Fender had testified against, and she didn't mention anything about that prior trial. Nothing. My client knew nothing about that. What she did tell my client was that this guy, Mr. Fender, had punched her in her stomach while she was pregnant, and she lost her baby. So my client was pissed because of that and went over to confront him.

And then what happened next?

So he went over there, and he started confronting the guy about it, and Mr. Fender, you know, obviously was talking back to him. So my client got mad and punched him in the face a few times. And that's when Mr. Fender pulled the bat from his car and attacked and hit my client in the top of his head with the bat.

So your client got struck with the bat.

Yes. So he was able to pull the bat from Mr. Fender's arms and just swung at him a few times, barely hit him because he didn't have any injuries, and then dropped the bat and ran away.

And so your client, Mr. Meadows, he admitted that he punched Mr. Fender first?

Yes.

And he was there to confront him about the baby miscarriage?

Yeah, he told the police all this on the video interview at the jail.

Oh, wow. Wow. Okay.

Yeah.

So your client runs away, and then Mr. Fender calls the police, I guess, right?

Yeah, he calls the police, and he gives, like, on the 911 call, he gave, like, a complete different version of the vents.

He told the 911 caller that Mr. Meadows went up to him and said, do you have any money?

And that Mr. Fender said, no, I don't have any, and that he attacked him because he stole money from his vehicle.

Oh, okay, okay.

And then he changed his story.

The next day, the detective said, no, he didn't steal anything.

So he had different versions of events also.

This is, like, in the report.

The police report lays out different versions of events, right?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So the DA knew all this going in, too, that the guy had two different versions.

Right.

And did the victim have a criminal record?

He did have an old criminal record.

I wasn't able to bring it in trial because it was old, but he had the indecent exposure charge in Hollywood back in, like, the 90s.

So he actually had a register as a sex offender.

Everybody was exposing themselves in Hollywood in the 90s, though.

Yeah.

Yeah, that was par for the course.

Yeah.

So, like, none of that came in, though, in the trial.

The jury didn't hear about that.

Okay.

So.

And then your client obviously has two strike, three strike priors, right?

He had three strike priors.

Two were really old.

They were both from 92 when he was younger.

Okay.

And he did, I think, like, some prison time on that.

And then he, you know, just misdemeanors here and there, nothing real serious.

But then he picked up a robbery in 2010 where he did six years.

But he got out somewhere around 2014, but he's been doing well since and staying out of trouble.

Right.

So this is just like a little street justice case, it seems like.

Yeah.

And, you know, the DA took it a lot more seriously than they really should have.

All right.

And we'll get to that in a second.

So you get, obviously, you get the case, right?

Clients in custody.

Yeah.

All right.

And we want to know a little bit about your, what happened when you get the case.

Can you tell us about, you kind of, you prepped that?

What's the, what's the.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, I, I remember I got this case.

I, I went to visit him before the preliminary hearing and, you know, I did usually like on

a serious case like this, I would, I would continue it and try to get more information.

But, but I knew it was a weak case for the prosecution.

So I didn't want to continue it that much for my, because, because of my client's issues.

So then you, like.

So we did the prelim pretty quickly after I got the case.

So you could tell from the police report it was weak, right?

And you talked to the client.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I heard my client's version.

I, you know, I saw, I, I reviewed the, the police reports and I just knew right away

that this was a good, that this was a trial case.

So I didn't continue it that much.

Okay.

So you went to the prelim then, right?

Yeah.

I went to the prelim right away.

Like this, like a few days after I got the case.

And did the, did the victim show up for the prelim?

He did.

Mr. Fender.

Wow.

Mr. Fender showed up for prelim.

Yeah.

He showed up for prelim.

Ooh.

So that's good because you get a chance to question him now before trial.

Yeah.

Criminal deposition.

I like to call those.

That's right.

So you got, so what, what, tell me what was his testimony or what was his demeanor like

at prelim?

At prelim, it just, you know, I could tell like this guy was, it was lying here.

I asked him about what he asked on a 911 tape about whether he asked to operate, told

the operator about him asking for money.

He's like, no, I never said that.

So, you know, he's, he already lied under oath right there.

You didn't proceed to bring up the 911 tape during the prelim.

And you just, yeah, I did.

I brought up his statements.

Well, you didn't say on the 911 tape, you said this, you just asked him, did you say

this?

Right?

No, no.

I asked him, uh, did you tell the 911 operator that he was asking for change or money?

Oh, so, so you impeached them right there and they're in the prelim then?

Yeah.

Okay.

I mean, cause sometimes, you know, I feel like sometimes you're like this, if they have

an inconsistent statement, we like to save that for trial as opposed to like reminding

them of their inconsistent statement.

Is there a reason why you went for the impeachment?

Well, yeah, because I, I thought I would be able to negotiate some type of program for my client.

And I thought like by showing that this guy's lying at prelim, I could show it to my DA upstairs

and he's pretty reasonable when he sees stuff like that.

And, um, what, I mean, just to go with that.

So how much time was your client look, he's looking at 25 to life cause it's three strikes

case, right?

Actually, uh, it's 25 plus 25.

So 50 plus the five year prior, she's looking at about 65 to life.

25 plus 25 cause the second, what's the second 25?

The other, the, the, there's, there was two strikes.

The first strike was the assault with a deadly weapon.

Right.

And the second strike was the, um, intimidating a witness.

That's 50 then.

Yeah.

Plus the nickel priors.

Plus, uh, three, five year priors.

Okay.

So 65 and there was a third count.

It was a felony.

Um, it was also intimidating a witness.

Uh, but that was about, um, a statement my client made at the police station in front

of the police officer.

Oh, you'd tell us about that.

So what happened there?

So, yeah.

So basically while the, the, the cop was booking my client, he, he made a threat and saying,

I'm going to send my boys to go to get them now.

And apparently it doesn't, it doesn't have to be conveyed to the person you're threatening

or he doesn't have to hear about it.

So that's a third strike then, right?

That's not a strike.

Criminal threat.

Oh, intimidating witness.

It's, it's yeah.

Threatening a witness.

Wait, that is a strike.

Isn't it?

136.1 B.

No, it's a, it's a, it's penal code 148.

Oh.

148 is a 148.

It's an obstruction.

140, 140, 140A subsection.

140 subdivision A.

Yeah.

So threatening a witness.

Wait, there's intimidating witness and there's threatening witness.

Yeah.

So intimidating witness, you have to convey, you have to convey it to the, to the person being

threatened.

Yeah.

This charge, it's a, you could get, you could tell his grandma and he doesn't have to know

about it or whatever.

You can write it on a, on a piece of paper and mail it to like Japan or something.

Yeah.

And if someone, you know, someone in Japan finds it, yeah, it's, it's ridiculous.

So aggressive.

And yeah.

Is it a felony or a misdemeanor?

It's a felony.

It's a felony.

He's, he's, he's, that's four years in prison.

He could get on that.

That's a ridiculous charge.

I feel like there's some, there's a, I just, I don't know.

I don't know what constitutional issues, but I just seems.

Yeah.

And to me, I felt like that was the toughest part of the case because that statement, I'm going

to send my boys to get on kind of corroborated like what your client's theory is.

No.

What the Mr. Fender said about the intimidating Mr. Fender said when my, when my client was

leaving the scene, um, that he, uh, he basically said, um, I'm going to send my boys to get

you now.

Oh, call the cops.

Okay.

So it's very similar to what he told the police officer at the station.

And you know, a lot of jurors are like, why would the police officer lie about that?

Personally, I think he did make it up because he knew they had a weak case.

This is crazy.

I'm reading the statute right now and it's like, you really just do not have to do it.

I mean, you just write, you can mail it to Japan and that was discovered.

You were guilty of this.

Like, you know, when you're just like expressing, I was expressing frustration the other today

about how a witness is very old in one of my cases and my, you know, I have a great defense

and I think I'm going to go to trial later this month, but I want this witness to, if this

witness dies, this case gets a lot easier.

Right.

And, uh, let's just be honest.

Yes.

As a matter of fact, you know, I don't, I'm not saying I'm going to kill her or I, you know,

she's very old, you know, she might just die of natural causes, but I mean, you know,

that could be interpreted as a one 40, you know, the Calcrum says like, would a reasonable

listener interpret it as a threat.

So obviously like in that circumstance, mail it to Japan probably wouldn't fly, but like

the, you know, the police officer of course was like, Oh, I thought he was serious.

And you know, of course I thought it was a threat.

It was a hundred percent sure, you know, you know, and I, you know, I couldn't typically

in a case like this, I would argue that the police officer was, was making it up, was lying

about it.

Right.

But in this case, I couldn't do that because during my client's interview with the detective

at the station after his arrest, um, the detective asked him about that statement and my client

said that, no, he wasn't saying I'm going to send my boys to get him.

I said, Hey, can you send my boys to go get my stuff that you left on this, at the scene

of arrest?

And he said that to the detective?

Yeah.

He said that in front of the, the, that he said that to the, that story to the detective.

Oh, okay.

So when my client took the stand, when I asked my client about it, my client testified to

that.

Right.

So I couldn't argue if the police officer was making it up because my client sort of admitted

making a similar statement.

So the police officer just missing, misinterpreted what he said.

That's, that's what my client thinks.

I, to be honest, I think my client just said that like, Oh, that's what I thought I said.

I don't think my client really said that.

I think the detective was kind of putting words in his mouth.

Oh, so the client's more like, huh?

If I said that it must've been then in the context.

That's what I must've meant.

That's what I must've meant.

Getting my stuff.

Exactly.

Like his baseball bat.

Yeah, exactly.

So I couldn't, I didn't want to really want to argue that.

And I noticed like during, during my closing argument, I noticed that, um, that I lost a

jury on that count and they, they actually hung on that count nine to three for guilt.

So, um, all right, let's back it up a bit there.

So, uh, uh, uh, the prelim, you, you brought it in cause, Oh yeah.

So you're, you impeached cause you're trying to show how the lack of, the lack of credibility

of this witness has.

Cause you, when you go into the superior court, superior court after the preliminary hearing,

you want to negotiate with the DA for a program.

Yes.

And you thought, cause I mean, I'll be honest, like 60 to live, 60 to live program.

That's a big, well, that's a big difference.

Well, I, I have a real, really reasonable DA.

I've had third strike cases dismissed with him because of what I said at prelim and what

I showed him.

But the thing is that was when he used to have an old supervisor.

He has a new supervisor now who is not like, would not even budge her, her last offer was

eight years and she wasn't budging from it.

Okay.

Yeah.

So then you, uh, you did the prelim, you go up to the superior court to try to negotiate

the case, any other work you do on the case?

Did you find a program?

Did you try to get a program?

Yeah.

I mean, I was, there's, you know, the ODR program, um, it's, uh, it's office of diversion

and re-entry.

Yeah.

If you're homeless, you have a mental illness and you have a drug or alcohol program, uh,

problem that you're, you know, they'll accept you.

My client, he, he was at twin towers.

He had a mental health issue.

He's been diagnosed schizophrenic.

So I had all those records, right?

I had him evaluated.

And, uh, did you like, didn't do any investigation in the case?

Interview witnesses?

Yes.

Uh, I did send an investigator out to the, uh, area to look for those three individuals

who Mr. Fender testified against to get their side of the story, uh, specifically the, the

woman who said she was punched in the stomach.

Well, can we ask more questions about this?

So prior to this incident, Mr. Fender is a victim in another case, right?

Yes.

And he says other homeless people attacked him.

Yeah.

Right.

Including this lady who's pregnant.

Yes.

Okay.

And then, but then this lady says...

They robbed him.

He said they robbed the, that they, they attacked him and they took chains from his pockets.

Okay.

Which sounds ridiculous on its face.

I mean...

Yeah.

You know.

His chains from his pockets.

Yeah.

Because that's where you keep your chains.

You don't wear them.

You keep them...

No, change.

Like, pocket change.

Oh, change.

Oh, okay.

My bad.

My bad.

I was like, well...

Yeah, like...

Who's getting their, their herringbone chain in their pocket?

Yeah.

So, so this, this, that part of the story started with Mr. Fender and this female, uh, pregnant,

uh, lady arguing about panhandling.

Okay.

And I guess she was asking him for money, but he actually was...

And then he said he was asking her for money.

And then they got into an argument and she went and got her boyfriend and another dude

to come beat him up.

Right.

And he said during the attack that they started pulling chains from his, from his pockets,

like pocket change, you know, like quarters and dimes and stuff.

And so he, he claimed that, that he was robbed, which sounded very similar to what he first

said in this case.

Do you know the outcome of that, that case?

Uh, yes.

Uh, they all pled to, uh, non-strikes because they're charged.

They all pled to 245A4.

And they got out on probation.

Okay.

Yeah.

And then when did Mr. Fender punch the lady in the stomach then?

Like afterwards?

I mean, he denied it there.

I didn't, I could never find her.

So I don't know if that was true or not.

Okay.

Um, but it allegedly happened sometime after she was released.

Cause he, he testified that he noticed she was pregnant when she was in court, when he

was testifying against her.

Okay.

That he didn't notice she was pregnant before.

Right.

Which, you know, could make sense depending on how much time passed.

And then this lady is friends with your client.

She tells him that.

Yeah.

He punched her and she lost the baby.

So then he goes over and punches him.

Yeah.

So he grabs a bat, swings, your client takes the bat and hits him and then runs or leaves,

I guess.

Yeah.

And he takes off.

Okay.

So that's, that's the gist of the case.

Right.

It's pretty.

And then he, and then as he's leaving, he says, I don't want to bring my boys to come

get you or.

Yeah.

He's, he, he says that as he's leaving, he says, if you call the police, I'm going to

send my boys to get you.

Right.

Which is the intimidating.

Intimidating a witness.

The baseball bats, the ADW.

Yeah.

Or victim of a crime, I guess.

Okay.

Yeah.

It's the same charge as you could add the language.

Okay.

So how, how about this case though?

I mean, it's pretty simple fact pattern and the witnesses, the victim seems pretty not

credible or shaky.

Yeah.

But it is 65 years to life.

How's this, how's this, how are you feeling about this case?

You know, I, like I said, the, I think the hardest part was if, if they believe the police

officer, which nine of them did actually, then they would, they might believe that my client

made that second statement.

Right.

I mean, the first statement about, I'm going to send my boys to, to get you, if you call

the police.

And I was worried they were going to convict him of that count.

Okay.

And he would still be looking at like, uh, 40 to life or whatever.

For conviction of the threatening, threatening a witness.

Yeah.

Because of the strike priors.

Yeah.

Plus the three nickel priors.

And also the, the, the assault with the deadly weapon was, I thought was a difficult

argument because I first had to argue that he's guilty of an assault.

And then there's a, there's a, I guess a cow, a calcrim.

Jury instruction.

Jury instruction.

That, that allows, if you're the initial aggressor and someone uses deadly, sudden, deadly force,

that you're able to return sudden, deadly force to defend yourself.

Okay.

At that point.

So I, if I felt it was a difficult argument to convince a jury of, because it was so kind

of complicated, like he's guilty of this assault and then he swung the bat and then he's not

guilty of, of assault with a deadly weapon.

Um, cause you know, a lot of jurors might be like, Hey, uh, he could have just dropped the

bat and took off as soon as he got in his hand.

Why did he, why did he attack him after, you know, I mean, I thought it was like difficult.

So it was, it was a tough case, you know, based on the circumstances, I thought this probably

sounded more like a misdemeanor.

Like if my client didn't have a record, I can't imagine.

Well, especially with the lack of injuries on the victim.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And the injuries were just like, he, he was claiming that he got beat to, to the point where

he was, he couldn't walk for a week and like, he was just beat eight, hit eight or six or

five or six times with the bat, but there was no bruising.

There was no swelling on his legs.

Right.

Right.

And he only had like a small, um, kind of bump on his right eye, upper eyelid.

Yeah.

That's consistent with someone being punched.

Right.

Yeah.

So that was my biggest argument.

It was like, look, my client did punch him.

You see it.

You don't see any evidence for anything else.

And did your client have any injuries?

Yeah.

He claimed he got like a notch in his head later on, but he didn't notice it till a couple

of days after.

Okay.

And you know, thing, it was like supposedly really dark where it happened.

So how long did it take for your client?

How did your client get arrested?

Yeah.

So this is a funny part too.

Um, they knew, he knew, he claimed.

He claimed he didn't know my client, but he knew exactly where he lived.

And this Mr. Fender, who was so scared, actually decides to go out and find him and like walks

down the street, finds him an hour later and calls the police.

And he's on the corner of like Western and somewhere like about like 10 blocks away from where the incident happened.

Okay.

Because that's where my client hangs out.

And, and then the cops show up, arrests, uh, Mr. Meadows.

And you can hear on the body cam, Mr. Fender, like yelling at him from across the street.

Like, I'll see you in court.

You attacked me with the baseball bat.

Yeah.

It's just like nothing.

This guy shows like no fear at all.

Like he's like, shows a lot of like, he's like, this is vindictive.

Yeah, exactly.

I think he's pretty savvy with the criminal justice system.

And this was like the fourth or fifth time he's testified in court against someone.

Wow, dude.

That's that, you know, that's unusual.

And you know, obviously that, that didn't come in.

It's just the fact that he testified in that first case came in.

But he like, I think he testified against one of his prior family members.

Like he's just been.

That didn't get in?

You didn't get to like ask him how many times have you testified in court before?

No, I didn't, I didn't, I didn't want to bring it up because, um.

He's a court certified expert in being a victim.

Yeah.

Like, you know, I don't know.

I didn't think it was necessary.

He, I thought he did enough damage with all the, the lying he did.

All the other lying?

Yeah.

So, uh, so then this case is, it sounds like it's going to go to trial then, right?

You can't, the best you can get is eight years, right?

Yeah.

And were you feeling pretty ready for trial then?

Oh, I was ready.

Yeah.

Okay.

I was ready.

It was just, it was just a stressful trial, um, to deal with because of the, you know,

I felt like it wasn't a very serious crime that, that occurred.

There wasn't like injuries.

This, like I said, this should have been a misdemeanor yet.

He was looking at so much and he was risking so much.

And like, yeah, like I had this, I had to really do a good job to, you know, show this

guy's lying and stuff.

So.

So what, all right.

So let's talk about the trial then.

You get, uh, you get, uh, you get sent to trial, you have a, a judge and a DA, the, the DA

been assigned to the case the whole time or was it just a, whoever luck of the draw DA?

No, no.

Um, this new supervisor on the DA's floor assigns the, the trials to the DA's on the zero

or 10.

Okay.

So he had it about a week before the trial started.

Okay.

So he was somewhat familiar with the case.

And you get sent to trial and, uh, what was your, uh, jury selection like?

Yeah, it's funny.

What happened was we get sent out to trial on a Thursday morning and we just bring in the

juror.

We swear them in and the judge says, well, I have this, uh, I have this meeting or something

in the afternoon.

So we're going to come back Friday and it turns out the, the judge caught a, uh, the

flu or something.

Oh yeah.

And he like made the jury come back on Tuesday and they're already pissed.

Like Friday morning, you could hear them like, are you serious?

We did nothing yesterday and now we're not coming back till Tuesday and it just delayed

the whole thing.

Um, and then we start jury selection on Tuesday and, uh, I started feeling like this stomach

pain and I, you know, and it was crazy.

I didn't know what the hell was going on, but I, I didn't want to continue the case for

whatever reason.

So I was like fighting through it.

And to be honest, like I felt like my jury selection wasn't like spot on.

Right.

But I, I knew I had a good panel overall.

Why?

Just, uh, just based on their, their questioning and, you know, just my feel for, for the jurors.

What was like some of the things they were saying or what was their vibe or energy

like?

Just, just, just, you know, like, like when I was, when I go up in question, like I always

specifically ask about the, like self-defense and things like that.

Right.

And, and, you know, when I explained to them, like the law might say this law might say that,

like, would you be able to fall?

And like, most of them were like, yeah, I could, I can listen to the facts, you know?

And like, you can, you could tell when a juror is being honest and when they're kind of,

you know, cause most, some people are just trying to get on to convict or whatever.

There wasn't many people like that, I felt.

Yeah.

Let's, let's stop that for a second.

Do you think that in your opinion, do you think that there's, there are people who try

to kind of temper what they say so they can get on and convict someone if they're going

to get on the jury?

Yeah.

I think that's the most important thing to look for when you're doing jury selection

or de, or jury de-selection.

Yeah, exactly.

It really should be called jury de-selection because as a defense attorney, you're really

looking for the person who's going to convict your client no matter what you do or say or

what the evidence shows.

And there's a lot of people who are like that.

I, I, I, I've come across jurors I'm skeptic of.

I'm like, well, you're just answering those questions a little too perfectly.

Especially lady who's married to a cop and lives down the street from judges and DAs

and, you know, as a member of mothers against drunk driving, but you totally believe in,

okay, I don't, I don't trust you, you know?

Yeah.

And, and, and, you know, I, their magic words are like, I'll try, I'll try to be fair.

Yeah.

And, you know, and judges usually keep them on, but you know, you, it's using the peremptories

are as important, but, um, like for instance, I had 20 peremptories in this case cause

it's a life case and I think I only used, um, like seven.

Oh wow.

I, I, you typically, I would use like 14 or 15, but I only use seven, which was amazing.

Right.

How many did the DA use?

The DA use probably seven or eight.

Really?

Okay.

Yeah.

And, uh, what about, so during water, you're just looking for self-defense and people can

keep an open mind.

Yeah.

Is that kind of it?

Any other things?

Yeah, that's it.

Cause I knew that, I knew that they, they would know this guy was lying.

Like I thought that, you know, I was pretty confident I was going to be able to show that

cause he just couldn't keep his story straight and he wasn't that, that intelligent enough

to be able to keep like.

So then you did witness credibility to them during Vaudeau, right?

Like how can you tell if someone, can you tell if someone's lying or what were things you

look for?

Inconsistent statements?

I didn't, I didn't think I needed to really go into that because, um, it was going to

be just blatant lying.

Yeah.

Cause you know, every, I think the common person knows when someone's really lying.

Um, you know, if it was a police officer case and I'm, I thought I was going to argue

the police was lying, then yeah, I usually go into that credibility, credibility thing.

Cause a lot of people believe police no matter what.

True.

Yeah.

So wait, so you're telling me that there are jurors who, who are on the juries that want

to convict no matter what, and then they'll believe the police no matter what.

Tell me that that's what's going on in our, well, it's usually the same type of jurors.

Yeah.

It's usually the same type of juror we're talking about.

That's true.

That's true.

Awesome.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Had to be a little, I throw a little Nikhil sarcasm in there.

Yeah.

Um, cause, cause I know you can't find the perfect juror.

If you're looking for the perfect jurors of defense attorney, you're never going to be able

to.

Yeah.

Or if they're there, they're only until they get, they're going to get kicked off.

They're usually a defense attorney.

Exactly.

They're the ones who are going to be like, you know, I can't be fair in this case because

X, Y, Z or whatever.

So.

So then you, uh, there, so you picked a jury, got it pretty fast.

Yeah.

We picked a jury in, in like a day and a half.

Okay.

And then, um, I, I wasn't feeling well.

What's going on?

You're also battling some personal sickness.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Like I, I, uh, the first day it was Tuesday.

And then that night I had like such like stomach pain that I, I couldn't, I didn't sleep like

maybe like more than 30 minutes that whole night.

Damn.

But I, I did, I came into court cause, uh, you know, I didn't want to call in sick or

whatever.

Cause we had already delayed it a few times and I told the judge, Hey, let's finish picking

a jury this morning and then we'll, we'll come back tomorrow.

So I did that and I was feeling a little better, but I was just dealing with the pain like through

Thursday, through the trial, um, Thursday and Friday.

So the judge was cool though.

He let you pick up, finish picking on Wednesday and then come starting the case.

He was actually surprised that I was there on, on Wednesday.

He thought I was going to call in sick again, but I just, yeah, but he was cool with, with

just doing a half day kind of thing.

And the DA was fine about it also?

Yeah.

Yeah.

The DA was cool.

I mean, he, he, he, he was telling me about some issues he had in a trial before.

Oh, all right.

So he, he understood.

Luca, you know, you're on record saying a DA was cool.

Just, just know that.

Yeah.

I mean, it's going to be forever.

The DA in this case was, he, he was very fair.

Yeah.

I, I just, yeah.

I mean, there is, it happens every once in a while.

They're cool.

I get it.

You know?

Yeah, it does.

It happens.

Um, all right.

So then you got your jury by Wednesday and you come back Thursday for, uh, or evidence,

I guess, opening statements and evidence.

Yeah.

So Thursday's opening statements.

And then, um, Mr. Fender testified.

Were you still sick Wednesday night then?

Yeah, but it wasn't as bad.

Okay.

Um, well, and it was just stomach pain.

I kind of want you to play it up a little bit because it just makes the story that much

cooler.

It got, it got worse, it got worse that weekend.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

So, yeah.

So, so Thursday we do testimony for, and it seemed like the, the more the trial was going,

the better I was feeling.

So I was like, Oh, maybe it's just whatever.

Like nerves or something.

Yeah.

But, um, like I was, I would come in, I was coming in on the weekend for like a couple

hours to work on the case on, on Saturday.

And then Saturday night I had the same pain as I did Tuesday and I'm like, Oh man, this,

this seems serious.

So I ended up going to org, urgent care on Sunday all day.

Um, and luckily I felt like, and I was closing the case on Monday cause we had already finished

all the testimony.

Right.

Well, let's back up.

How was, let's go through the test.

How was the test?

Yeah.

So basically like, like I said, I think I already explained what Mr. Fender testified to.

Um, but yeah, but how did you handle it?

How did you play it up?

The inconsistent, inconsistent statements with the jurors that you're doing?

Yeah.

So, so, uh, basically, um, this was kind of fairly new cause body cams have only been around

a year and this was the first time that I've had a victim on a body cam and his interview

on a body cam.

And, um, I typically don't, uh, send out things that get transcribed.

Right.

Sometimes I like to do it on my own cause it helps me remember and like prepare the

cross-examination.

So basically like the weekend before I had spent all Saturday and Sunday, like transcribing

this body cam video.

So I was able to nitpick certain things and impeach him with it.

And he basically, after my first initial cross of him, he's, he like, he's, he, I got him

to deny a lot of the things that he said on the, he told the officer on the body cam.

Okay.

So like, how'd you, what did you get him to deny?

What was, um, like for instance, um, he, he was saying that he, he told the jury that he

was beaten so bad he couldn't walk for a week.

Okay.

And that, um, that like he got hit really hard with the bat and that he was just holding on

to the steering wheel for dear life.

And my client was just whacking him with the, with the baseball bat.

And like, he was like, uh, you know, helpless at that point.

And it may, he made it seem like this really big deal.

And on the body cam, he was talking to the police officer and being like, well, yeah, he

didn't, he didn't really get to get hit me that hard.

Like he barely hit me cause I was sitting down kind of thing.

And he said it like three or four times.

So I impeached him with that and it made him like, and then, um, another thing, this

was a very interesting part is, uh, I kept, uh, he kept changing the story about the

robbery.

Okay.

So I was telling him how, like on, when he was telling the jury, he's like, no, I told

the detective that I found my money later that I did.

I know it was too dark.

I couldn't see him grab the change yet on the body cam.

He gave specific details as to what he grabbed that he, he, he couldn't grab any more stuff.

He tried to grab more stuff, but he couldn't.

And he took like this many dollar bills and stuff like that.

So he's very specific about what he saw him take, which is a lot.

So he's basically lying to the police.

Not like, Oh, I didn't realize that he, I thought he had taken stuff.

It was just like bullshit, you know?

Um, and when I was asking him about this, this is what I thought I heard is he said, when

I asked him, did you see him grab the change from the floorboard?

I thought I heard Mr. Fender say, Oh, he wasn't grabbing the change.

I saw him grab my bat, but the court reporter, when I asked her to read that back later, she wrote the bat, not my bat.

Right.

But my followup question is, so this was your bat, but my followup question is, so this was your bat.

And he said, no.

And I stopped his cross there because I thought I heard him say he grabbed my bat.

And I'm, I'm pretty sure some of the jurors heard that too, but the court reporter, I think, and you can't really argue with her, the court reporter about that.

You just have to accept what she wrote.

Right.

Um, but you know, I still argued that he kind of admitted the bat was on the floorboard of the car, which would indicate it was his.

So did you ask, did you ask the court reporter to read back that, that statement right then and there, like with him?

Do you like, no, no, for that reason, because if I did that, then, then it would be, it would be the bat.

Yeah.

And you know, then, you know, it wouldn't, my secondary question wouldn't have made sense.

Yeah.

Gotcha.

So it's better.

I thought it was better.

I was like to ask later and then just argue in my closing.

Yeah, totally.

If that's what it said.

And you say, if you didn't hear this, you could read it back or whatever.

Yeah.

But, but you're not going to need to read it back because you did hear this.

So, yeah.

So, so I, I, I was just hoping some jurors heard what I heard.

Yeah.

And I, I, I'm pretty sure some of them did.

Got it.

And what about the, did you use the 911 call at all?

Yeah.

I, I, uh, the, the DA actually played the 911 call.

I don't know why.

That's the, the DA has a script.

Yeah.

They put on the same case in every case.

Yeah.

Put on the 911 call.

Check box.

Check the box there.

I mean, is it in the county, the city of the, is it in the county of the, if he, if he wasn't

going to play it, I was, maybe that's why he knew that, that he was trying to get it out

of the way.

I mean, I'm guessing, but you know, I told him that I had already transcribed the 911 call

too.

So I was ready to play either way.

And I was going to, I told him I was going to play it because he was asking if I was objecting

to it.

I'm like, no, I was planning on playing it because it was like great impeachment.

I think that was the best impeachment because he never mentioned snitch or anything like

that in the 911 call.

Right.

And he, you know, he, he said that he was robbed and, uh, oh, there's, there was one

more thing that was important is, um, the, the, I, this is one detail I forgot to mention

when, when, uh, my client, Mr. Meadows, um, supposedly when he, well, Mr. Fender said

that my client said that, uh, when he was walking away and said, I'm going to send my boys to

get you, they put his arm in his back pocket.

Like he had a gun.

Oh, right.

And that, um, that he got really scared and started backing up.

That's what he told the police.

But on the 911 tape, he's, he told, uh, she asked him where the, where Mr. Meadows went.

Right.

And, uh, Mr. Fender told her that he ran away and that I couldn't catch up to him.

Oh.

So my argument was like, look, he's lying about seeing, about thinking there was a gun and

this whole statement, because like, if you, if you really thought someone had a gun, you

wouldn't go chase after him.

Right.

Yeah.

And, you know, a lot of jurors are like shaking their head.

No.

During my closing, like, you gotta be kidding me.

So that, I think that was my strongest argument against the intimidation of a witness, um, you

know, that part.

I think they just, they just, they, they would have to believe this guy, this wit, this victim.

They would have to believe, and they can't believe him because he's lying about everything.

So like, I think that's a, just overall, they can't trust anything this guy says.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And, and, uh, someone, someone asked me, um, if I should even put up my client to, um,

and just argue that, that like, cause you know, that jury instruction that says, if you believe

a significant part of the testimony is not true, you can, you can just discard the whole thing.

Yeah.

But I, I felt like my client needed to go up to tell a story and I, so I can argue the self-defense.

Right.

Because, you know, I felt like my client, I, you know, honestly felt he was telling the

truth about what happened and the jury will understand that.

And obviously they did in this case.

The only thing they probably didn't believe, I guess nine of them was the statement to the

police officer.

So then after Mr. Meadows testified, then, no, I'm sorry, Mr. Fender, after Mr. Fender,

the victim testified, then they, did they put up the cop then to testify?

Yeah.

Yeah.

They, they put up the cop and, um, I didn't really cross him that much.

He, and the cop testifies that the client, uh, Mr. Meadows says, I'm going to get my boys

on him.

Right.

And that's the threat.

Yeah.

And you know, I crossed them because it was strange that like he had the body cam on the

whole time.

My client never made any threats the whole time.

He was, after he was arrested on the way to the station and it's not until he was booked

when the cameras turned off that he allegedly made the statement.

And so I'm like, like you, you can't really trust what the officer is saying.

Right.

So I kind of, you know, the jury kind of, I felt like I lost a lot of jurors on that,

but like, like I said, I knew that was the hardest.

What is the context though?

Like the cop testifies that I, I arrest him, I bring him back to the station, I book him.

And then what, I go interview him and he says it, or as I'm putting him in the cell, he

spontaneously says this.

Exactly.

Like you, you hit the nail on the head right there.

Cause how many police reports have you read with that same exact statement?

I, he spontaneously said, cause the, the, the police officer knows or the cop knows that

if I say spontaneously said, then there's no Miranda issue.

And the statement comes in cause he didn't ever gave my client Miranda at that point.

Yeah.

So it's just, so they always use that magic word spontaneously.

And of course that's exactly what he said in the police report.

Wait, does that correspond to a specific code in the evidence section that they may have

received some specific training on, on how to circumvent our rights?

Right.

Is it?

A defendant's incriminating statement to law enforcement during a custodial interrogation is

inadmissible in court unless his or her Miranda rights were first read to them.

However, if a defendant spontaneously makes an incriminating statement to an officer, that

statement is admissible against them in court, even without having the Miranda rights first

read to them.

How convenient.

Exactly.

So that's why I honestly believed that the cop made up that statement and that my client

just was just kind of explaining me if I said that.

I mean, it's almost like, cause we have the institutional knowledge.

We've seen it happen time and time again.

We know that that's what happened.

And I've seen it in like hundreds of police reports.

That same exact spontaneity said this, like admitting the guilt of the crime, you know?

Well, did you have the jury instruction that says if a defendant's statement is not recorded,

they're not being trusted.

That was my argument.

And I think that's how I convinced like three jurors to vote not guilty on that.

It's just so funny, right?

Cause it's like this, it goes to a testament.

And I think when I, I, I argue in a very different jurisdiction than you do, but I mean, I feel

like I'm always, you know, telling people like, you know, I know it's your core value to believe

police officers always tell the truth that they're always out there to serve and protect.

But to, when you accuse them of lying or telling this, I mean, it just betrays certain people's

core value about what they see police officers as.

And so, I mean, that's a really hard concept for some, a juror to be like, I'm going to

reject everything I believe in and say that this cop is lying, you know?

Um, they just can't, I think people in general, like they have narratives and they, they choose

facts that fit the narrative and they just can't, they can't reconcile those two things.

So, yeah.

And I didn't really vaudeer on an officer credibility.

Right.

So it came back and like, that ends up being a little issue.

Yeah.

Cause I felt like if I, if I did that, I might lose a lot of jurors.

Yeah.

Oh wait.

So that's why you didn't do the, the cop vaudeer or vaudeer with the jurors on cop credibility

cause you thought jurors would speak up and then they would be kicked, right?

Not, yeah, not just on that issue.

And also I might lose jurors who, who might believe a cop yet who would vote not guilty

on my self-defense argument.

Like if I argued that and vaudeer on that, I might lose them.

I might lose credibility in their eyes.

Um, so as a, as a judgment call you made as a trial lawyer, a gut call, right?

Yeah.

Did you talk that out with your peers at all or you just did it?

Yeah.

I, I've talked, I talked to, uh, a few people about that.

Okay.

Yeah.

And people you trust that you, you know, yeah.

I mean, I, I always like to talk about my, my trials before I go and get advice because

you know, you can't, you can't know everything obviously.

Right.

Well, cause I, I mean, I know you didn't stop by my office and talk about it.

Well, I was about to say, I think I did.

Really?

Did we talk about it?

You're right.

We did talk about it.

Hey, what did I tell you?

Huh?

What did I tell you?

Yeah.

I remember you and Jimmy specifically, I think we talked about it before.

That's right.

That's right.

Um, I think it was the morning of actually of the, yeah, that's right.

That's the nice thing about the office is just people are just always somebody around

and you can kind of like, yeah, bounce, you know, bounce ideas off of.

No.

And it helps you, you kind of think of, of different arguments too.

It kind of like gets you thinking in a different way when you have someone else's perspective

on something.

Or if you could just hear what your own thoughts sound like when you say, yeah, exactly.

Yeah, I agree.

Uh, so then you, you didn't even really cross the cop then that much.

Just kind of like, Hey, uh, the video whole time, nothing.

And then boom, magically spontaneous.

Yeah.

And I'm like, did you, did you review the body cam before you wrote your report?

And he's like, no.

And, and then, um, then, then I asked him, um, did you review the body cam before he testified?

He said, no.

I'm like, look.

And then I'm like, have you ever like left your body cam on and when going into the station

and it was on the whole time?

And he's like, yeah, sometimes I might forget to turn it off because he knew he didn't review

it.

And I might have, he didn't know if I had the whole, the whole scene on video or not.

So he got scared and kind of like backtracked and said that, but obviously I didn't have

that booking part on the video.

I knew that.

Yeah.

So I, you know, I argued like, look, this guy's lazy.

He doesn't, he didn't even like check his body cam before he testified.

And then the DA on, on redirect was like, Oh, um, so you didn't review the body cam before

you wrote the report.

Can you do that?

And he's like, actually we can, I could review it on my cell phone on editing.

Evidence.com or something.

So like it made the, you know, and like, he was like, Oh, okay.

But like, I argue like, look, this guy's lazy.

You can't like, they haven't proven this to be on a reasonable odds.

Like just based on his memory, he didn't even check to make sure that was the right statement

that, that he heard.

By the way, uh, for those of you who are listening, there really is a thing called evidence.com

that, uh, yeah, this police department uses.

Yeah.

That we don't have access to a topic for another day, another day, you know?

Swipe left on some evidence, swipe right on other evidence, mix and match, whatever you

need for your case.

You can download any piece of evidence that you need.

Oh, order and ships and arrives in a day.

Let me move on from that.

So, and then after the police officer, did the DA put up any other witnesses?

Uh, that was it.

And, uh, they didn't put on the detective or my client's statement in their opening case,

but, uh,

Your client's statement of what?

My client's, uh, video, the state, the statement to the detective.

Okay.

So like, cause he did admit punching the guy.

Right.

So he didn't, he didn't want to bring any of that in.

Um, but I had already told him that my client was probably testifying.

I mean, I was pretty confident he was from the beginning.

Cause he, he, he, he's a, he seems like he's a nice guy.

Right.

My client.

He's an older gentleman.

He's very nice guy.

Um, you know, I knew he was going to do well in the stand.

So I knew that he should probably take the stand.

So the DA wasn't going to bring that in.

And if they did, I probably, he probably didn't even need to testify because his whole statement

was there and it was exactly what I was going to argue anyway.

Okay.

Um, is this on Friday now your client's testifying?

Yeah.

He, he started testifying on Friday morning and we went through the morning and we finished

in the afternoon and then they put on the detective as rebuttal.

Wait, how was the DA's crossover client?

It was good.

Um, I was going to say my, Luca, you are now here on record saying the DA did good.

Yeah, he did.

In the trial.

He did.

And, uh, this is early, earlier he said it was cool.

Yeah.

Cool.

Did I swear an oath?

I don't know.

Am I supposed to say?

It's not what this podcast is about here.

Okay.

Just.

Yes.

So, um, so yeah, I mean, my client kind of changed the story a little bit, um, because

he said like in the video interview to the detective, he said that he, uh, when, when Mr.

Fenders, um, talked back at him, he snapped and started punching him.

And on the stand, he said that he saw him grabbing the bat and while he was, and then started punching

him after that.

So I didn't want to, I felt like it wasn't inconsistent that much because you don't know

if he saw him grabbing the bat while he was walking over towards him to hit him.

Right.

Versus, oh, I saw him grab the bat and I hit him for that reason.

Cause my client never said that specifically.

Okay.

He just said, while I was going over, I saw him reaching for the bat or something chrome.

So I was, I, I didn't want to argue, oh, he's not guilty on anything.

I still argue to the jury that he's guilty of the salt because of what he told the detective

in the video.

And did the DA pick up on that in his, in his cross?

Yeah.

That's, that's what I was trying to get to.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

So he was able, he did a good job in getting that out.

Okay.

Trying to show, but then I, you know, in my closing, I argued it wasn't really that inconsistent

because of what I just said, you know?

Right.

So other than that, my client did good.

He is, it's a story I already said.

Um, yeah, nothing really changed that much.

He never told a detective that he got hit in the head, but he had, um, when he testified,

he had a good reason for that.

He said that he didn't notice the, the mark on his head until two days later when he was

combing his hair.

Right.

And, um, in, in closing the DA argued like, oh, how could you not notice you were hitting

the head?

And I'm like, look, my client was in jail for two days.

It's not like he has a mirror in the bathroom or something.

He'd go check his head or whatever.

It's not, you know, you got to think of the situation and like, look, things happen so

fast.

Sometimes you, you don't really remember where you're hit or whatever.

You're just, I'll just say every time I've been in many fights and many of the fights

I've been in, you know, it's when I'm stroking my head, like, wait, wait, there's, I have

a knot in the back of my head right now.

Yeah, exactly.

You just don't always see it right away.

Yeah.

It's not, it wasn't the worst fact in the world.

It wasn't great for me, but it was something I could, you know, argue, like you just said,

like you don't, when you're in a fight, you don't remember exact, every exact spot at that

moment where you were hit, you know?

And then after your client testified, that was, that was your case, that's it?

You put anything else up?

No, I didn't put anyone else up.

They put the detective for rebuttal.

Okay.

And the detective did the inconsistent statements or?

Yeah.

When that was on Monday or?

That was on, on the same, same Friday afternoon.

Friday afternoon.

Okay.

So you, then you spent the weekend and you got sicker over the weekend.

So yeah, so that, oh, I'm sorry.

He didn't put the detective on rebuttal.

I'm sorry.

He played the video.

Right.

With the detective when my client was on cross.

And then he put the officer, the same officer who made the statement back on as rebuttal and

just asked him, are you sure he made the statement?

He said yes.

And that was it.

Okay.

So the evidence is done right before the weekend, right?

Yeah.

And you've got closing arguments for Monday.

Monday.

So I, I knew I wanted to go in on Saturday, um, to, uh, to write up the, uh, the, my closing

argument.

Okay.

Um, and then, you know, watch some college basketball later that day or whatever.

Okay.

Some good games that afternoon.

All right.

Um, so I went in like, I think nine and like a couple, a couple hours or so.

And I, I, I, I did my whole PowerPoint and I finished it pretty much.

And I just had a few things to do.

Um, you know, on Sunday.

Yeah.

So then, you know, I, I, I, I went to bed and I had the, I had the same stomach issue

as I did that Tuesday.

Okay.

And it was so bad.

I like, I'm like, I woke up.

I'm like, if I'm not feeling better, I'm, I gotta go to the doctor.

So I ended up going to urgent care all day on Sunday thinking like, Oh, they're just going

to give me some like medicine.

I'll be fine.

Ended up like having to do like a CT scan that day and all kinds of stuff.

Luckily, everything turned out normal.

Right.

And it was probably just stress from the trial and all this, who knows what else.

But, um, like I was thinking in my head while I was waiting for the CT scan results, like

if they tell me I have like to do an emergency procedure, I'm thinking like, can I just wait

till tomorrow afternoon, close the case tomorrow?

And then like, like I was thinking in my head out of what am I going to do right now?

You know, but luckily like it was fine and I just went and finished.

Okay.

Cause it would have been a mistrial otherwise.

Yeah.

And you already got this guy lying on so many things.

Exactly.

Yeah.

I didn't want to, you don't want to let a little tummy ache in a way.

Yeah, exactly.

Exactly.

Well, you know, that's one way to say it.

Or we can say that, that Luca brave through serious, you know, bodily harm and like, put

his own health at risk.

I mean, that's the kind of stuff that we're putting on the line here, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm like, yeah, doctor's always talking about life and death.

I mean, that's the kind of stuff we're dealing with too, you know?

Right.

Yeah.

And like, I, just as perspective, I go to the doctor like once a year for a checkup.

That's it.

I never go to the doctor.

Oh yeah.

This guy's not a tummy ache, you know, kind of going to the doctor kind of guy.

He's a machine.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

So, um, how long was the jury out on your case?

They, uh, they, we closed on, um, I think we started at, we started instructions in

the morning.

The DA did their first closing in the morning.

I did my closing and then they did their rebuttal.

And I think they got the case around three, three 30 and they were only out like 30, 45

minutes the first day.

And then they came back, um, right after lunch with the verdict.

Oh, uh, the next day.

Okay.

So they're, they're out like about three and a half hours, four hours total.

Okay.

Well, and the verdicts was not guilty on ADW, saw the deadly weapon two at a bat, baseball

bat, not guilty on the ADW, not guilty on intimidating a witness.

And then they couldn't reach a decision on count three, which was the statement to the police

officer at the booking.

It was nine to three, four guilt, huh?

Four guilt.

The one 48.

Yeah.

The one 40 subdivision.

Yeah.

And they found them guilty of the lesser included first assault instead of the ADW for punching

the guy.

Yeah.

For punching the guy that I, I basically conceded that in my argument.

Right.

Um, okay.

So, which is a misdemeanor.

It has like a max of six months.

So got it.

So then you come, so then what happens on the, the hung count?

What's the, that's it dismissed?

Is it, he ended up pleading to a felony, but it's not a strike and he's, he just needs

to check.

He doesn't have to do anything.

So check in once a month and add some kiosk or something.

It's not even a big deal.

Yeah.

Nice.

Felony for, for just spontaneously saying something to a cop as he's being put in jail.

That inculpates him.

The other person doesn't even have to hear.

Apparently he never even knew about it.

Interesting.

All right.

That's a, but other, otherwise he would have had to wait 60 days for his retrial.

So.

All right.

Well, good job, man.

Thanks for hanging in tough there.

Yeah.

Do your tummy ache.

Right.

You know, getting, getting another, not guilty, another, not guilty.

Mr.

Luco gets not guilty all the time.

He's in trial all the time.

Most serious cases.

And he's always, uh, killing it.

But, um, do you have any more questions about the trial itself?

Anything, anything you want to add or left out?

Sure.

Uh, may your first child be a masculine child.

Snuck it in there.

And, uh, we, uh, we, uh, we, uh, we always ask this, we want to know, why did, why did you

become a public defender?

Um, I, uh, I actually, when I joined law school, I didn't want to do criminal.

That was the last thing I thought I was going to end up doing.

Um, so I clerked at the, uh, civil attorney's office in San Diego, but I, I wanted to get

more trial experience cause I took a mock trial class and I did this like mock trial in front

of a fake jury.

And I like knew this is what I want to do the rest of my life.

And, uh, I just joined the public defender's office on, on a whim advice from some, uh, other

person I worked with at the civil attorney's office.

Cause she's like, Oh, if you want trial experience, try them.

And I'm like, all right.

So, uh, I, uh, applied for the law clerk position and it was like, like from the first day I

knew this, this was it.

Yeah.

Nice.

And they said public defender, not DA for trial experience.

Well, she said either one.

Um, but the DA would only take people in the top 50% of law school and I never went to class.

So I didn't really have a choice in the matter.

Guys, you were like, listen, I'm a delinquent.

I'm going to represent some delinquents.

Yeah.

But knowing, knowing me, I would have never been a DA, even if I had started there, there's

no way I could have done that just, just based on what I saw in the criminal justice system

after, cause I didn't know anything about it before I joined the public defender's office.

And then now that you've been in it for what?

10, 11 years now.

Yeah.

I mean, if you include, if you include my local position now, 12, 13 years.

Right.

You made the right choice.

Yeah.

No, I, this is what I do the rest of my life.

So I'm not going to change.

There we go.

Nice.

And, uh, thanks for doing what you do, man.

Right.

Thanks for being on the show, Luko.

You were awesome.

Um, let's have you back again after this next trial.

You're starting one, what, next Monday, next week?

You got another one coming up?

Yeah.

No pressure, I guess.

Right.

Well, as we all know, that's going to be the, it's not called guilty, is it?

That's a sneaky thought in everybody's mind.

You got to get back on the show, right?

Right.

You forgot if you're waiting for yourself or your client, you got to get back on the show.

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

Shout out to Daniel Mark, creator of A&G's original theme music, and our audio engineer,

Chris Adams.

And guess what?

We have another Not Guilty story coming your way next week, because we public defenders fight

injustice every single day in the American criminal system.