The Prick Gets Caught in the Zipper …? When the state tries to stitch up a case

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.

So in my opening, I was like, "I want you to keep a tally, members of the jury, of how many celebrities he name drops throughout his testimony." So he gets up there, and within minutes, he's just like, "I know Michael Jackson. I know Madonna. I made jackets."

For Selena in Guns N' Roses. He's sitting right there next to me, and I'm trying to listen to the testimony, and he's kind of nudging me, and I'm just like, "Hey, I'm trying to listen." He's like, "No, no, no, wait. You need to listen to this." And I'm like, "All right, what?" And he's like, "Those jackets, they're not the same." And I'm like, "What are you talking about? They look the same." He's like, "The zipper. Look at the zipper."

Welcome to Another Not Guilty. I'm David Moore, here, along with my fellow public defenders, presenting to you 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.

These stories are about the not-guilties public defenders get on a daily basis.

In an unjust criminal system.

With a deck stacked against us.

Not Guilty.

Okay, welcome to another Not Guilty, everybody.

We got a good podcast today. Good team.

Co-host is Michael, A&G fan favorite. How you doing, Michael?

I'm doing great. Thanks for having me back.

I just came back from vacation, so I'm re-energized, ready to do this.

Oh, perfect. That's perfect.

You guys know Michael. He's co-hosted a lot.

He's also a two-time A&G guest.

First season one, episode seven, "Never Underestimate the Value of a Public Defender."

That's right.

And of course, season two, "A Dual Lost in Translation," right?

That's right.

Same theme for both cases.

Same thing.

Doesn't matter what's going on on the outside, what's going on inside.

Right.

Of your client's head.

So after I put up that episode, though, this last one, "A Dual Lost in Translation," you told me there was a fun fact that we kind of left out of the story.

Yeah, there was a fun fact.

So I started my closing argument in the first half, right before lunch, and it got cut by lunch, and then I had to finish it up after lunch.

So during lunch, I'm just walking around the office when one of my coworkers says, "Oh, you know, Mike, your zipper's down."

And I'm like, "Oh, damn."

I'm like, "I haven't used the bathroom in hours, so I must have been giving my closing argument with the zipper down."

And so I'm just, you know, hoping that no one noticed, you know, when I get right back up there to deliver the second half of my closing.

Right when I start, I get up there, I see one of the female jurors kind of look over to another female juror, and they kind of laugh and they smile at each other and just share a look.

And I'm just thinking the whole time, they must have noticed, they must have been talking about it and seeing if I would notice because, you know, zipper was back up.

But I'd like to think that that had something to do with me winning the case.

Oh, because they were able to pay attention.

When they were laughing, were they looking in the direction of your penis?

No comment.

All right, guys.

I think they were laughing with me, not at me is all I can say about that.

So, all right, A&G fans, if you want to listen to a dual...

Lost in translation.

A dual lost in translation or something like that.

Anyways, go ahead and listen to that.

But picture Michael with his zipper down when he talks about his closing argument.

So that's what's going on.

And then, of course, who commented just now, guys, you guys know Steven.

Are we going to Steven or the Mooch?

Back to the Mooch.

We're going to go Steven now.

The Mooch has been, the Mooch is in semi-retirement right now.

Okay.

We'll see what happens in term two.

Maybe the Mooch makes his comeback.

Right.

You never say never in A&G or in politics or all of the above.

Everybody makes a comeback.

So, guys, we have the Mooch.

He's from season one also, episode 15.

The Mooch is in the details.

Check it out.

He's coming back for a second not guilty to share with us.

He's had other ones since then, but this is when he's going to talk about.

So, go ahead, Mooch.

Tell us about this case.

Okay.

So, this is a recent one.

It's two counts, but pretty much the same thing.

It's a grand theft and commercial burglary.

The amount of items that are taken is quite a sum.

It's somewhere in the neighborhood of about $75,000 to $80,000 worth of goods.

The items in question that were taken were one-of-a-kind collector's leather jackets.

These jackets are kind of famous.

The person who made them is somewhat well known in the fashion industry.

Back in the 90s, he made these leather jackets for a lot of celebrities.

If you go back, you can see from the TV show Martin, the jacket that he wore in the opening credits was designed by the alleged victim in this case.

This guy's designed jackets for Michael Jackson, Madonna, the actress Selena, the many, many athletes.

All the Bulls championships from the 90s, he made them custom-made, these custom-made jackets.

The Lakers from the early 2000s, Kobe, Shaq, Derek Fisher.

You go on the guy's website, and it's covered with him schmoozing on South Beach with all of these guys.

You've done a great job of selling this guy.

This guy sounds really great.

Yeah, I mean, so I'm looking at these jackets, and I'm like, he made one of them.

The jackets that are taken include a jacket that Andrew Dice Clay wore in one of his HBO specials.

Okay, okay.

It was like this python jacket.

He made a jacket for Guns N' Roses.

This jacket for Selena.

It's kind of a black and white checkered jacket.

Maybe he'll make a jacket for you, for getting to knock Yeltsi.

Yeah, I think he and I were not on the best of terms by the end of the trial.

Not speaking anymore.

Not speaking anymore.

So he's an artist.

He's been around, he's in the industry.

And one of his, a couple years ago, he started dabbling in the street art business here in downtown area.

He had an art gallery, and he was in the fashion district, and he was showcasing these different local artists and having art shows,

people coming in drinking and buying, you know, these nice pieces of art.

My client is a young 20-some year old who is an aspiring artist.

He sort of was like a mentee, looked up to the alleged victim as sort of a kind of mentor slash icon in the industry.

An apprenticeship.

It was like, yeah, one would say it as an apprentice.

Exactly.

It was quite the partnership there for a while.

And so my client, as a starving artist at the time, didn't have a steady place to stay.

And he actually was given permission by the alleged victim to stay at the studio.

And he had sort of an area that he, you know, was able to put his stuff in.

He had blankets.

He had a mattress or whatever.

And he was staying there for a couple of months, rent free.

And as far as my client knows, him and this guy are really good, you know, are on good terms.

They're buddies.

And, you know, they just so he's he's living at the studio and learning how to make jackets from one of the premier jacket makers.

Yeah.

Premier jacket makers.

You know, my client, my client designs jackets as well.

He does street art.

You know, he'd come to court sometimes wearing some some pretty wild creative outfits.

I think he had like a like a red fedora with a with a with a feather in at one time during trial.

No, no, no, no.

During one of the pre trials, my judge was like, he doesn't take himself too seriously.

He was commenting after the guy left after the client left and was like, oh, you know, it seems it's quite quite the dandy over there.

And he was impressed by my client's fashion sense.

And I made sure to tell the client before trial, hey, make sure you're a little bit more conservative.

Make sure we don't we don't we don't want any fedoras with with with leather.

Well, you know, you know, you got some color in your dress.

You have some flair.

You have some flair.

You just didn't want to be more have more flair than you.

That was that was my that was the bigger thing is I didn't want him to outshine me either.

That was for sure.

The mooch.

The mooch does not does not take kindly to being upstaged by by client, prosecutor, any of them.

Any of them.

It's your show.

Yes.

I mean, we're here for the clients, but it's your show.

Yes.

I mean, the one thing that that we are that is ingrained into our head is when you walk when we walk into the courtroom, it is our room.

It may not.

It may have the judge's name out there on the on the placard or whatever.

But when we walk in, it becomes our courtroom.

So how did your client end up getting charged with stealing these jackets?

What happened?

So basically the guy the guy comes to his studio one morning and he sees that a large number.

He has an office there in the studio and he notices that several of the jackets are gone somewhere in the neighborhood of like eight or nine of the expensive one of a kind jackets.

Plus, like a bunch of other jackets that are more run of the mill, but like kind of plain jackets that you could use to do artwork on.

So his theory was my client took took these like special ten thousand dollar a piece jackets plus some other jackets.

He claims that they had a falling out that he basically told my client that he had to leave, that the client was none too happy that he was being kicked out and that this was sort of a get revenge type of scheme.

And did your client like keep the keys or have access to the studio still after he was kicked out?

So my client had a key and to get into the studio.

He did.

He also had a key to the office.

There was a dispute as to whether he had a key to the office.

The the alleged victim said he did not have a key to the office.

My client said, yes, I yes, I did.

The reason my client it's might you might sound weird.

Why would you have a key to the guy's office?

The reason was, is that the time that he was staying there was in the in the wintertime.

And the area where he was sleeping normally was a big open area in the studio was very cold.

And so he would go into the guy's office when it was cold at night.

The guy had a space heater in there and that he'd be able to be able to be a lot warmer in the office.

So so that was the reason why he had a key.

But you said there was a falling out.

So that was he kicked out of the studio then when there's a falling out?

Did he have to move out or leave the you know, the victim?

His story was that he just was like, hey, it's time to go.

You're you've been squatting long enough.

You've been bringing girls in here.

You've been sort of taking advantage of my generosity.

So now it's time for you to get out.

Client's version is, look, this dude was kind of trying to use me.

He's not as big of a deal as he used to be.

He is financially desperate.

He's his house is he can't afford to pay his bills.

And he brings in these young artists like me and he kind of tries to use them.

Kind of like a Don King Mike Tyson situation where he brings them in.

He promises them the world.

And once they're sort of under his thumb, then he tries to start exploiting them.

So takes their artwork, takes their artwork is basically like, yeah, you know, so I'll sell your artwork for it from, you know, I'll sell your artwork, except, you know, instead of just like a little percentage, I'm going to basically take the lion's share of the profits.

And so when clients sort of started to realize that, hey, this is this guy's that this dude's kind of a grifter.

This is this guy's scheme that he's running.

I need to get out of here.

Almost like this dude kind of betrayed me.

That was his.

That was his side of the story.

Is there a time period between the theft and the following out?

Was that like a month later?

The next day?

Do we know?

He tries to make it sound like it was all kind of around the same time, like within a few days.

Based on that, you know, it kind of sounds very thin, right?

So what the victim tries to do to try to put, you know, try to put some teeth to it is when he goes to the police, he tells them, hey, I have this video system, the surveillance system inside the studio.

And it shows him breaking into my office, taking the jackets.

Now, obviously, the police and the natural question is, oh, great.

You have it on video.

Show it to us.

And he's like, well, not so fast.

I have I had this video, but my whatever my ring or not my ring, but whatever the Google nest nest.

I knew it was like a four letter thing.

OK, his nest.

He's like my account.

I'm not able to download it.

But trust me, it's on the video.

It shows him.

It's on the cloud somewhere.

It's on the cloud.

It's up there.

Right.

You just have to wait for it to rain.

So the other thing that he he has the one of his employees trusted employee has been designing and sewing the actual jackets for him for 25 years.

He was going through a divorce at the time.

He was also staying at the studio.

He tells the police when they do their investigation.

Oh, yeah.

I was there when he was stealing the jackets.

I saw him do it.

So coincidentally, but he doesn't call the police.

He doesn't call the police.

He doesn't call the owner.

He he the victim.

He he confronts the client according his statement to the police is I confronted the defendant.

The defendant said I have permission to use the to borrow the jackets.

He took him at his word and just sort of left it at that.

And when the the owner comes and is like, hey, what where where my jackets go?

And he's like, oh, well, someone, you know, client said that he had permission.

He's like, no, we didn't.

And he's like, oh, shit.

So go to the police immediately.

That is an up in the air question, because this happened in April.

The detective on the case didn't write a report, didn't speak to the alleged victim for about a month later.

Victim claims that he had been calling the police, going to the police station.

And they're sort of like, eh, like you don't really have enough evidence.

Like we're not really going to do anything.

So all this stuff comes after the first after the fact he brings the the the other guy in afterwards that this didn't happen all at once.

So the incident happens in April.

He he finally contacts and speaks to a detective one for the first time in May.

The his his work, his employee doesn't speak to the police until June.

And then it's after this the this other employee that comes into picture and corroborates him that he that they finally filed the case.

So it's kind of one of those situations where even the D.A.'s office is looking at this and is kind of like on first blush.

This is this doesn't look like we have enough here to to file the case.

We're we're going to hold off here.

And it was kind of like this guy would keep kind of coming back with more and more and more until he finally was like the D.A.'s were like, all right, fine.

We finally have enough.

We'll finally file the case for you.

OK, so the first time he goes down to I think Mike was saying first time he goes to the police.

He just says this guy stole my stuff that you don't have enough this.

So then he comes back again.

And now he has a witness all of a sudden saying that.

Oh, I saw him take the stuff and he said he could borrow it.

Exactly.

And then was there any anything else?

Anything else added to the mix or just that extra fact?

Just that extra witness that came could the extra witness that comes in and sort of confirms the suspicions of the victim.

OK, so then when you get the case, you meet the client.

You kind of told us your client's version a little bit earlier how this guy sort of pimping young young artists.

He just denied it or he said he didn't do it.

Client is I mean comes to me the first time and he's just like, look, I am 100 percent innocent of this.

I did not do this.

This dude is a is a total con artist.

He's ripping off kids.

I have all kinds, you know, he keeps trying to show me his Instagram.

He's like, I had permission to borrow these jackets.

This guy would allow us to borrow the jackets to take to art shows and social events as a way of like promoting his brand and promoting promoting his jackets and what he does.

Your client took the jackets in the timing is different.

The client is like, yes, in the past while I was living there while I was like working under him.

Absolutely.

I would borrow jackets from him.

You know, he would let me borrow jackets as a way of promoting his his brand, but I would always return them.

Oh, something that I that I neglected to say the the only corroboration of the client of any of the jackets being taken the Selena jacket, the black and white checkered one.

I would say somewhere sometime in like June.

So like two months after the theft, somebody that works with the victim calls him.

Is that like some secondhand shop in near the beach and is like, hey, I just saw one of your jackets here.

She shoots him a text messages, shows him the picture of the jacket.

He's like, oh, that's one of the jackets that was stolen.

And so when he's when when the victim talks to the police, he provides them a picture of the jacket that was recovered.

The police then recover that jacket, put it into evidence.

And he shows them a picture of Selena, the old the pop star from the 90s, wearing that jacket at a concert.

It's like a close up of her.

So and he's like, yes, that's one of the jackets that was stolen.

And the police go.

They recovered.

Hey, this is David.

Hope you're enjoying this podcast.

And if you are, please do us a favor and subscribe to or follow us on whatever podcast platform you listen to.

And don't forget to find another not guilty on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook.

Thanks.

Is there any sort of like pre investigation work you do then?

Yeah.

So the client points me in the direction of two people.

Number one, he says that after he after he moved out, victim had a kind of like a personal assistant that was working for him.

That client knew and was like, hey, this dude, he knows all about victims like shady business practices.

In fact, this guy tried to get the victim, tried to get this personal assistant to basically be a witness against client, even though he wasn't around at the time that the jackets were taken.

Essentially trying to get him to give a false statement to the police.

He's like, here's his name.

Here's his number.

You know, have an investigator interview him.

I do.

This guy has all kinds of amazing juicy stuff all the way like like this guy is buying knockoff fabric from China and selling it like as real Gucci.

He he's like they had these Kobe Bryant jerseys where Kobe signed a certain number of them, but didn't sign all of them for whatever reason.

And was like, hey, can you forge his signature on the rest of them and like running like a Ponzi scheme where he's like getting investors and just like basically stealing their money.

So all kinds of like really salacious stuff, including the guy like complaining about his financial blows and saying like, yeah, like I'm running out of money.

I have to sell my house.

I'm putting my property in my wife's name so that creditors can't come after my property.

So this guy's a fountain of all kinds of dirt.

The second guy, though, the is the employee that originally was going to be providing evidence against my client.

He and the victim after they've been working together for 25 years, they have a falling out.

This guy's that then is like, hey, I want to come clean.

I gave I told the police false information because my boss basically pressured me to do that.

And now I want to tell the truth.

The truth is your client never stole anything.

I did catch him taking jackets at a certain time.

I confronted him.

He said, yes, I have permission.

You can call victim.

The employee calls the victim and is like, yes, absolutely.

He does have permission.

He can take the jackets.

It's no big deal.

At this point, I'm in as good of a position as I could possibly be in.

I've got a guy who's going to dirty up the victim.

And I've got a guy who basically is going to not only dirty him up, but more or less exonerate client and that and back up client side of the story.

OK, so you have a witness that talks about all the financial problems that the victims having.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And then you have the other witness who's sort of flipping and recanting, taking their story back, saying I lied.

Your client really didn't steal them.

So what do you do with that?

About a week before the trial, I tell my D.A. because I subpoena in these two witnesses, even though I know that the prosecutor is going to call the employee because at this point they don't know that he's going to be changing his story.

I tell my D.A. I'm like, look, you guys are going to want to talk to this guy.

He's changing his story.

You may be wanting to reassess whether you want to go forward with this with this case and actually go to trial.

Right. So why why take that approach rather than this surprise them at trial with this information?

So my D.A. and I actually have a really good relationship.

I've been in we've been in the same court for two years and I know that I can trust him to be straight with me and not to like talk to not to try to basically clean up the situation, you know, and try to use this information to kind of pressure this guy into going back to his original story.

Plus, I know that from his perspective, he actually wants to do the right thing and was very much troubled by the fact that this guy was changing his story.

But at the same time, and this is a real flaw here and something that even on a case like this where you have strong evidence that the victim is not telling the truth and was potentially engaging in criminal behavior himself.

He is like, look, unfortunately, because the value of the property that was taken because it's so high, there's nothing I can do.

There's and the and because the quote unquote victim is in court.

He wants to prosecute. He's not backing down.

Essentially, we're letting the victim run the show where we're not using our discretion because the victim wants to go forward.

He's not backing down.

We're pretty much at a we're pretty much letting him dictate what's going to happen.

And that even though we think we have some problems here because this guy is not backing down, we're not going to we're not pumping the brakes.

Wow. So the D.A.'s office is a vehicle for citizen prosecution, really.

They're pretty much like if you have a problem, just give us a call.

We'll prosecute anybody you want. But you just have to come to court and complain about it enough.

Right. If you're willing to come to court and this guy, he comes to court.

He's wearing like this, like really fancy designer suit that fits too tight with like this.

Like he's dressed like you. Yeah.

My suits are not too tight now. My suits, my suits fit very appropriately.

He has this very obnoxious French accent.

He's wearing an ascot.

He's wearing this really, really just goofy, doofus looking belt buckle.

He looks like every negative stereotype that you could ever imagine from of this like hoity toity, highfalutin Frenchman.

Hey, man. He started that stereotype. That's true. He's an original.

That's how long he's been around in the business for.

He's an original. So this is like a few days before the trial starts.

My DA that I'm talking to, he's just the calendar DA.

He's not the one that's going to be trying the case.

They give it to some younger, younger DA, a DA that I've, that I've worked with in the past and have had some degree of success working with in the past.

This DA has catapulted many guests onto our show.

He's right. He is. He's a human catapult.

That's true. If you, if you need to get over into the castle, he will be that human catapult that will get you over the moat over the wall and you can rescue the princess.

So he gets the case. He interviews the, the employee who's, who's changing his story. He provides me a witness statement. The witness statement is identical to the witness statement that I got from my investigator.

What's, and just for a side note, what's your client looking at here? Three years in prison?

Yeah. Three years prison.

Okay.

Background. My client has no record, no record whatsoever at all.

So you're just looking for a dismissal here. You're not looking for any kind of plea bargain?

Oh yeah. Client is, client is adamant from day one. He does not want an offer.

And he'll have to pay back thousands of dollars if he loses.

Right. That's another part of the trial. The, the, the amount of the jackets kept changing at one minute. It was 50,000. Then it was 75. Um, at trial, the highest he finally got up to was about $150,000. I feel like if, if we asked him now, it'd probably be somewhere in the millions, but you never know. Exactly. You can't put a dollar figure on it.

So, so you, you, the new prosecutor that's trying the case gets it. What are you trying to get that dismissal again?

So I talked to, he, you know, he asks me, he's like, what is your client looking for? And I'm just like, it's a dismissal.

Well, so when we get sent out for trial and we have a chambers conference with the judge, me, the DA and the judge, the judge is asking about the case. The DA puts his cards on the table. He's like, look, your honor, I, I'm going to be straight up with you. I do not want to try this case. This is not a good case for us. This is a bad case for us. I don't expect us to win this case.

Um, I, I, I mean, he, he didn't say it, but he almost, he went right up to the edge of, I do not believe this case. I do not believe that we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge is looking at me and he's just like, well, we are client. Can you offer a misdemeanor? He's like, my boss won't let me. I'm like, your honor. I don't even think my client would take a misdemeanor. The judge is just annoyed at this point. He's like, well, you won't offer a misdemeanor. You're unreasonable. Your clients won't accept a misdemeanor.

Now you're being unreasonable. Everybody's being unreasonable. And I'm just like, wait, why am I, why am I the villain here? Like if my client's innocent, why should he have to take anything?

Especially on, on shitty evidence that a DA doesn't even think he can prove a case with.

So at this point, the DA's put his cards on the table. He then interviews the victim that night, uh, sends over Dropbox, a link to his audio, uh, statement. And the, and the victim, honestly, in the interview, they talk, he talks to him for about an hour and a half.

The victim sounds like he's high on cocaine. He's talking a mile a minute. He is just grandiose statements. Just like the defendant. He's just a loser. Oh, that, that friend of his that is saying all these bad things about me and saying I'm a shady businessman. That dude's a loser. He's a total, he's a, he, you know, he was an errand boy. He used to get me coffee and shine my shoes.

You know, just like very, just like almost like caricature stuff, like Trump level, like just like insult comic like stuff, but all in a French accent, of course. Um, I, I see the DA the next day and I'm just like, look, man, like, have you talked to your boss? Like I know like in his boss, she, you know, she's kind of, uh, tough on crime. No nonsense. Very McGruff. Take a bite out of crime type cuts. Nobody any break. Doesn't cut anybody a break.

And I'm just like, have you talked to her? Because like, look, I, this is a shit case. I know that, you know, this is a shit case. Why are we wasting our time here? Talk to her and just be like, look, we can't prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. Ethically. We can't proceed on this. Like stand up for what's right here. And he's like, well, what do you expect me to tell her? And I'm like, what I just told you. And he's like, but I can't. And I'm like, why not? And he's like, well, because it's.

It's. And he doesn't really give an answer. He's scared of her. He's scared of her. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. So it just so happens as we're having this conversation, she just so happens to come into court and the DA kind of like is like, hey, there's there.

You can tell her yourself. And she's the kind that she's a she's the type where, like, if you try to, like, talk to her about the case, she gets really defensive and like really aggressive at you. And it's just like comes at you like you're attacking her.

You're attacking her integrity. Right. Attacking the victim. So she looks at me and is just like, I don't see what the problem is.

Like, your client doesn't want anything. And I'm just like, look, like, I don't know how seriously you've looked at this case.

But this is a case where you have some severe problems. The the victim claims that there is a video. The video doesn't exist.

You have no witnesses that back him up. Now, the guy that used to back him up is now recanting and is, in fact, contradicting him in a pretty believable way.

And you have literally no evidence that my client took any of this stuff other than this guy's word and he didn't even witness it.

And he didn't witness it. And what's amazing is when he went to the police, he gave them this one page written statement sort of explaining the facts to them.

And they provided this in the discovery at the bottom of this one page where he describes what was what happened, the falling out, the jackets that were missing the video.

He puts at the bottom. P.S. Here are the altar. Here are alternate suspects. And he lists three other people.

I'm like, you have a guy who is claiming in his letter and in his allegation that my client did this, that it's on video, that he saw my client do this.

But yet in the same written statement, he claims that there's alternative suspects that they need to investigate.

And it's not like he's saying, like, oh, they were acting in a conspiracy.

But like alternate suspects is like these are other people that could have stolen the jackets.

I'm like, this is nonsense. This is asinine.

I'm like, your job is not to prosecute whatever case comes down the pike.

If just because a witness of a victim is is feeling desirous of prosecution,

it's your job to filter out the reliable cases and the and get rid of the unreliable ones

and only try the ones that you genuinely, truthfully believe beyond a reasonable doubt

that you can put it in front of a jury and that 12 people are going to say, yes,

I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant committed these crimes.

I'm like, I don't think that you can objectively say that based on all of the evidence here in this case.

I told her that I said, if I'm wrong, if you honestly believe that you think that you can prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt,

then I'll stop talking to you right now.

I will wait. I will stop wasting my time.

I will stop wasting your time.

We will just try the case.

We know what the result is going to be and we'll be done with it.

But if you agree with me and think that this is not a case that deep down in your heart that you think that you guys can actually prove,

then do what you're supposed to do.

Do what you do.

She doesn't have a heart.

I mean, that was kind of if you in your deep black heart that you have.

Your prosecutorial black heart.

Don't you have to give up your soul to become a manager at the DA's office?

Did she sell her soul to the...

That, apparently, and she's like, look, we ain't dismissing this case.

And I'm like, well, fine, because you ain't getting a conviction.

So we just leave it at that.

Does she laugh at you?

Does she just...

She scoffs.

She's a prolific scoffer.

So now your client has to risk, roll the dice, go into the trial.

Twelve members of the community have to take time off from work and two alternates.

Yeah.

And what is the prosecution risk going into trial?

Zero.

Boom.

Anyways.

No accountability.

No accountability.

That's why they can do that.

The day or two after this case ended, I was speaking to the DA that tried the case.

I was speaking to one of his colleagues outside, and he was like, hey, you just wrapped up trial, right, with my coworker?

And I was like, yeah.

He's like, oh, yeah, man.

All he kept telling us was how shitty of a case it was and how, like, you know, he was so miserable that he had to try the case.

And, like, they kind of...

They say that every time they lose.

But, like, what annoyed me was, like, they thought it was funny.

That, like, ha-ha, I'm in this trial.

It's a really shitty case.

I know I'm going to lose it.

But to me, it's like, what would have happened if it didn't turn out that way?

Would it have been funny if they, would they have been laughing where it was like, ha-ha, we had such a terrible case and unbelievable, the jury came back and actually convicted this guy?

That's a, that's a, what a great joke, you know?

I mean, that would have, no, that would have been funny.

That would have been funny, you know, except not for my client, not for, not for justice.

All right, everybody, thanks for tuning in to part one of this week's episode, The Prick Gets Caught in the Zipper, which was just all the pre-trial stuff.

If you want to hear how the actual jury trial went down in this case, how the mooch destroyed the prick, then you've got to download and listen to part two, which is available now on your favorite podcast medium.

Okay, here it is, as promised, the hysterical and entertaining conclusion to The Prick Gets Caught in the Zipper.

Enjoy.

So what kind of jury are you looking for for this?

Do you even care?

Honestly, there, there, so there, there was one juror who, um, the year before was a police officer and took, took a sabbatical from the force to, to get his criminal justice degree because he wanted to become an FBI agent.

Um, so when I say that I was willing to take any juror, there was a caveat.

I wasn't willing to take that juror.

So, but aside from him, there was also a traffic cop on the, on the jury.

I got rid of him cause I was like, yeah, I mean, you're basically a cop.

So then are you, you're feeling pretty confident then in trial?

Yes.

Going into this trial, you feel very confident.

I feel like I just need to not fuck up.

Okay.

I need to just basically keep my, keep, keep my focus on the big picture.

Don't try to get too cute.

Don't try to get too.

Don't, don't seem too cocky, right?

Exactly.

Exactly.

Don't, don't get ahead of myself.

Just remember that.

Don't be thinking about the podcast you're going to be on.

Don't.

Don't.

Not, don't work on my, don't work on the one liners that I'm going to use.

Yeah.

You know, it's, it's all, it's, I'm, I'm, the mooch is strictly business at this point.

In fact, the mooch is what I, you know, that weekend, what I tried to do as I was preparing

my cross-examination was sort of kind of method act and think about like just how angry I was

at the, at the victim for like almost putting myself in my client's shoes and like how much,

just how angry I would be at this guy for what he's doing to him, what he's putting him through.

So that like when I eventually got up there to start crossing him, um, that it was going

to come across almost visceral where like I really wanted to like attack into this guy.

And by the time it rolled around and I was up there to cross-examine him, um, like there

was definitely some anger going through my veins.

The one thing I'll say about opening statement for me is I am the type that I, in my opening

statement, I like to lay out my entire case.

Right.

The whole thing.

Um, you know, a lot of, a lot of defense lawyers, they like to try to keep their cards

close to the vest, keep an open mind, listen to both sides of the story.

At the end of the case, you'll have reasonable doubt.

For me, I opening statement is the time that the jury is most willing to sort of give you

a chance to tell your side of the story in a, in an unvarnished, uninterrupted way.

So I went up there and very much was like, look, this so-called victim is motivated by money.

He's here because he's not as, he's, he's not as rich as he wants you to believe he is.

He was pimping out these kids.

My client was one of them.

And his claim here in this case is not only not true, but what some of the things he's

going to tell you are going to be lies.

Um, and you're going to hear that he tried to basically put other people up to testifying

on his behalf and give false evidence to the police to back him up.

So as I'm saying all this, of course, like the juror's eyes start to get pretty big and

they're just like, Oh, like these are, you know, I wonder if the prosecutor was just like

nodding along with you.

Like, yep, yep.

Pretty much.

That's what happened.

So then what, you know, so what was the prosecution's opening statement then?

How do you kind of just gloss over some glaring facts that he knew were like, he kind of was

just like, well, there's this employee who's going to back up the victim and you're going

to hear that like, yeah, his story's kind of changing right now, but like, that's just

because he got fired and he no longer likes the victim anymore.

Um, but yeah, like you can, you should believe him then, even though we're telling you he's

a liar now.

I'm like, yeah, it really, really, really, really persuasive, really convincing that

yeah, believe, believe the guy that we're calling a liar.

Was the prosecutor's hands in his pockets when he did it?

Was he like looking at the ground and kicking it and stuff?

He, he was definitely, um, yeah, it was definitely an aw shucks thing.

Um, and so he was very sheepish.

Uh, so he, he finishes his opening.

I do mine.

The jury is pretty much already like, what the fuck is going on here?

So Pepe Le Pew comes in, he's got, he's got the, he's got the tight suit on.

He's got the ascot.

He's got these designer shoes on.

And it was funny in my opening cause, uh, he, in, in the preliminary hearing, he was

name dropping, like all the famous celebrities and stuff.

So in my opening, I was like, I want you to keep a tally members of the jury of how many

celebrities he name drops throughout his testimony.

How many times he reminds people, he reminds us of how he's very successful, how he drives

a Bentley, how he has a house in Beverly Hills.

So he gets up there and within minutes, he's just like, I have been very successful.

And, uh, I know, I know Michael Jackson.

I know Madonna.

I made jackets for Selena and Guns N' Roses and Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal.

I, I, I, I'm, I'm an icon in the field and I'm just like, I'm just like looking at the

jury and the jury is like already just like, it was almost like they were throwing up in

their mouths.

They, they're, they're, they're, they're just revolted by him, um, already.

Does he, does he get emotional?

How does, how does he come off?

He actually is, is relatively, um, tame on direct examination.

Okay.

During the direct examination, he is testifying about one of the, the jacket that was recovered,

the black and white checkered Selena jacket.

And, and remind me again, what, how was this jacket recovered?

It's at like a pawn shop.

Oh, okay.

Um, and they're showing the picture of the jacket that was recovered and they're showing

a picture of Selena wearing the jacket back in the nineties.

And to be clear, not Jennifer Lopez, but Selena.

The real, the real Selena, the real, the real singer.

Right.

So, and like my client, he's sitting right there next to me and I'm trying to listen to

the testimony and he's kind of nudging me and I'm just like, Hey, I'm trying to listen.

He's like, no, no, no, wait, you need to listen to this.

And I'm like, all right, what?

And he's like, those jackets, they're not the same.

And I'm like, well, what are you talking about?

They look, they look the same.

They're, they're black and white.

They're checkered, whatever.

He's like the zipper, look at the zipper.

Um, and it's like one of those zippers kind of like on the, kind of, uh, like on the side

of the jacket, like where you would put your hands, um, as pockets or like, yeah, just like

the pockets.

Uh, the, the zipper is red.

It's kind of like, there's like a, it's kind of like a red outline zipper.

And so, so, so it sticks out.

It's prominent.

And on the jacket, on one of the pictures, the picture of Selena, the top of the zipper,

it ends on a white square, but on the jacket that is in the picture of, that was recovered,

it ends on a black square.

He notices that.

Wow.

It's amazing.

It's like the movie Legally Blonde.

You should notice it's like the shoes.

The mooch doesn't have time for such trivial, such trivial, uh, popcorn, popcorn flicks.

You know what the title of this episode is going to be?

Legally Mooch.

The mooch is offended already.

Um, so you, you, you have that dream of, of having that moment in a trial where the Perry

Mason moment, um, the, the, the, that everybody never in like, they tell you in law school,

they'll tell you at any legal conference or whether that those things, they never happen.

Right.

So they finished the direct examination.

I can tell you with, within a billionth of a second of when the prosecutor said no further

questions, I was, my ass was out of my seat so fast with those fucking pictures of that,

of that, of that Selena jacket.

And I was like a kid going to Disneyland for the first time.

I was so excited to start this cross-examination.

So go ahead.

How'd you set it up?

Or what'd you do?

So I'm just like, sir, you, I'm like, you just told us that this is a one of a kind jacket

that there has never been a second one ever made that these two jackets in this picture

are the same jacket.

Identical, right?

Yes.

I'm like, okay, great.

We're on the same page.

I'm like, I want you to take a look at this zipper on exhibit number eight, the picture

of Selena.

Where did, what color, what color square does that zipper end?

And I'm pointing at it.

And he's like, and you have it up on the Elmo.

I have it up on the overhead projector so everybody can see it.

The jury can see it.

He can see it.

The judge can see it.

You know, it is like, and it is undeniable.

It is zoomed in.

Everybody can see it's white.

I'm like, all right, remember it's white.

Then I take the, I take the, I take it off.

I put the next picture on.

I'm like, same jacket, right?

Not, not a different one.

Same jacket.

All right.

Make it just making sure.

Um, what color is that square that it ends on?

The guy looks at it and he's like, uh, I don't know.

I'm like, what do you mean you don't know?

You could become colorblind all of a sudden.

Like, what the fuck?

Um, and he, I'm like, it's black, isn't it?

And he's like, maybe I'm like, what is it?

Maybe like, what does maybe mean?

It's black.

Like, I'm like looking at the judge.

I'm like about to ask him to take judicial notice.

The jury's looking at it and I'm like, sir, yes or no.

Is that square black?

He's like, yes, but I can explain.

And I'm just like, no, you don't get to explain.

And he, so he turns to the judge and he's like, judge, I need to be allowed to be explained.

This is this.

I need to be allowed to explain.

This is ridiculous.

Um, the judge is like, counsel's right.

You don't get to explain.

The jury is just like, oh my gosh, they're different.

It's not the same jacket.

Um, so I'm just like, so that jacket that you claim was Selena's is actually a fraud, isn't

it?

No.

It's, he's like, no, it's not.

It's the same jacket.

And I'm like, okay.

The next thing that we decided to go into was his finances.

So he denied that he was in any financial difficulty.

But a few nights earlier, I had his address from the police reports.

And just as a matter of curiosity, I Googled his, his address and, uh, the address came back

from a website, uh, from Zillow.

And it said that the house was foreclosed last year.

And I'm just like, what are the fucking odds now?

It's too short notice for me to get any sort of like certified record from like the recorder's

office or anything like that.

So my only ability to really, to really go into this evidence is just me basically bluff,

not really bluffing him, but like asking him questions about it.

And if he denies it, I'm sort of stuck.

You holding the paper, print out?

Oh, I printed it out.

I got the, I, I, I basically like, I have the date.

I have the amount that it sold for at auction, the amount that he was behind on his mortgage.

So I'm ready.

So I'm just like, isn't it true that your house got foreclosed on last year?

Um, you say that you're not in financial problems.

Isn't it true that your house got foreclosed on?

Absolutely not.

You're, that's ridiculous.

You're being, you're being absurd.

I'm like, really?

I'm being absurd.

So it's your testimony that the following, that you are, that, that as of December of 2018,

you were not $114,035 and 75 cents.

That included the cents in there.

That included the cents.

Um, you were not that amount behind on your mortgage payments.

The jury at this point is like laughing.

Um, and he's like, no, you need to get your facts right.

And I'm like, isn't it true that your house was actually sold at auction in, and I give

the address of the, of where the auction was held and when it was, where it was sold, how

much it sold for.

I'm like, so you're telling me that it wasn't sold at that auction, at that date, at that

price.

None of that is, I'm just making all that up out of thin air.

And he's like, yep, all of that stuff.

You're just making it up.

I'm like, sure I am.

So at this point, I've pretty much hit him with a one-two punch.

The jury thinks that he's a fraud and they think that he's not as rich as he really is.

And even at this point, you have all the credibility in the world.

You told them exactly what was going to happen.

It's come true through the testimony.

So you have credibility.

So they, they know you're not making this stuff up.

So the next sort of unusual moment in the cross-examination of this guy is a set of text messages.

He was able to dredge up the messages between him and my client back around the time that this

happened.

His text message, it's funny because, you know, this guy's like in his 60s, my guy's, my client's

in his 20s.

And you would, you would think that my client, the way that he talks and his text messages,

how professional and reasonable and everything that he sounds like, that he's the older person

and that this guy is sort of the juvenile huckster.

Cause he's like, you know, give me back, give me back my property or I'm calling the police.

This is not a joke.

Like large, like, large, like all these like exclamation points.

And my client is like, you know, Mr. So-and-so, you know that I didn't set, I didn't take your,

your stuff.

It's really unfortunate that you're behaving this way.

I really looked up to you as a mentor and it really disappoints me that our relationship

ended this way.

I, I, I wish you enough, I wish you all the best.

And just like, basically the exact thing that you would expect an innocent person to say

when being accused of something like this.

So about a month later, my client actually reaches out to him and like sort of extends

an olive branch and is like, Hey, I had this business opportunity.

Can we let bygones be bygones?

I'm willing to sort of, you know, cut you in on this deal that I'm trying to work out.

The guy's like, yeah, I'll be a part of it when you give me my jackets back.

And he's like, all right, we're going back to this again.

All right.

Again.

So he's like, I didn't take your jackets, blah, blah, blah.

So the text message that the guy sent that where he's accusing my client of stealing the

jackets, you know, on, on, on a text message, how you can like sort of press on it and a

list of options or how you can sort of comment on it with like an exclamation point or with

a thumbs up or a thumbs down or a ha ha.

So next to it is a ha ha.

And his testimony on direct was that my client is the one that did the ha ha as a way of like

sort of taunting him.

On which comment?

The comment of you stole my jackets.

Give me back my jacket.

And my client supposedly clicks on it and is like, ha ha, as in like, almost like, fuck

you.

I have your jackets.

Kiss my ass.

But my client, again, the person who's actually doing the real legal work here, my client kind

of nudges me and is like, hey, I didn't write that.

He did it himself.

Me being not the most technically savvy person, I'm like, what are you talking about?

You can't ha ha your own message.

That's ridiculous.

And I'm just like, he's like, no, you can.

Like, I'll show you.

And like, so we like, we take my phone and like, he does a little experiment, like during

one of the recesses.

And I'm just like, well, sure enough, I guess you can ha ha your own fucking message.

You just be a narcissist like that.

Right.

Exactly.

Which I'm sure you do now with all your messages.

All of them.

Oh, it's like, it's like, it's like liking your own messages.

It's like, of course, of course I'm going to like it.

It's my message.

And the reason that you can, the way that you can tell is that the color of the message

is, depending on who sends it, the message is in a different color.

So if you send a message to another iPhone, it's blue.

If you send it to a non-iPhone, it's green.

All of the messages that come from someone else are gray.

So the message that he is sending, that he ha ha'd, if it was my client that did it, it

would be gray.

But because it was him that did it, to his own message, the ha ha was in blue.

So I'm just like, all right, I got some young people on the jury.

They're going to get this.

So I'm, I, I remember, I actually think I might've went up to you.

I might've went up to a couple other people and I'm just like, how am I going to like show

this to the jury?

Like, do I need to get an investigator?

Do I need to like do like a demonstration?

Like, how am I like an experiment?

How the hell am I going to do this?

And I think, I think you were just sort of like, you know what, just, just fucking do

it.

Just like do it right there.

And maybe he'll like, maybe he'll walk into it and he'll want to do a demonstration.

And I'm like, all right, let's see what happens.

So that's what I do.

I lay the foundation about like the different colors and who sends what, what color they're

supposed to be.

And the DA is sort of like, the DA doesn't really know where I'm going.

The judge, he sure as hell doesn't know where I'm going.

He finally like kind of interrupts me and he's like, counsel, what's your point?

And I'm like, you know what, your honor?

I'll get to my, I'll tell you what my point is, sir.

Let's be, let's just, let's cut to the, let's cut to the chase.

You ha ha'd your own message, didn't you?

At that point, the jury is just busting out laughing and the, and the guy gives about

the worst answer that you could possibly give.

He's like, I don't even know how to ha ha a message.

I know how to do a thumbs up, a thumbs down, but I don't know how to do a ha ha.

I just learned how to do this a couple of months ago.

And I'm like, but they're all together.

Like you can't learn how to do one of them, but not the others.

They're all there.

It's like saying that, like, you only know how to do certain emojis.

They're all there.

Like, you just, you just, you just pick.

I don't even know how to do winky face.

Like, you don't know how to do doo doo face.

You just pick one.

They're all there.

So the jury at this point is, some of them are laughing.

Some of them are just like, this is ridiculous.

The last gem from the cross-examination is when I confront him about the alternative suspects that he lists in his written statement that he gave to the police.

So I'm like, sir, you, I'm like, you claim that you saw my client do this on video, but yet you give alternate suspects.

How does that make sense?

I just leave it open because I'm just, and he's like, well, I didn't write that.

I'm like, huh?

He's like, I didn't write that.

I'm like, but, and like, he's already confirmed previously in his testimony that he wrote this statement and everything else above it is, is, is all of his, is, is, is his stuff.

I'm like, but you've told us that this is your statement.

He's like, no, I didn't.

He's like, the police wrote that.

I'm like, but it's written in first person.

The first line of it is, hello, my name is dot, dot, dot, dot.

I'm like, you're telling me the police wrote a, wrote out a witness statement in first person from your perspective?

I'm like, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in the world.

Like, I don't, that doesn't make any sense.

And he just like shrugs and he's like, I don't know what to tell you.

And I'm like, okay.

And it's one of those things where deep down I'm like kind of laughing at this point because I know what, in my opinion, I'm like, all right, this case is, I'm in good shape right now.

The jury's with me.

They see what's going on.

But in a way, I'm also like, the anger inside of me is also kind of building because like this dude is coming in here with this story and he, I mean, he clearly wasn't prepared to be questioned, to have his story challenged.

Um, and he just, I think it was one of those things where like this dude has probably gotten away with bullshitting his entire life, um, and getting away with it because in real life, there's plenty of people out there that just can get away with just being a bullshitter.

Um, and just being able to, you know, and when they get confronted on their shit, they just lie even more and they get away with it.

And this is one of those rare situations in a trial where you're in front of a room full of strangers, where you have a judge who's enforcing rules that you have to answer questions.

And the guy, and the guy is basically like, you can't just walk away and be like, I'm done answering your questions.

Go fuck yourself.

This is the first time in this guy's 60 plus years of, of, of living where,

that he's finally being caught out on his bullshit and the tone that he took to me and the change in demeanor from direct across was, I mean, there were times where he was just getting so angry with me.

And as the angrier he got, the more that I would just sort of like give him sort of a smile and kind of like laugh in his face here and there.

And he would try to ask questions to me and be like, why are you laughing?

What's so funny?

Why do you like, why do you keep doing that?

And the judge knowing that basically knowing that this guy's full of shit would just be like, sir, you don't get to ask him questions.

You, you know, you don't get to, you know, you're the one on the witness stand.

You're the one, you're the one that has to answer questions.

You don't get to ask questions.

You don't get to, you don't get to question him.

And in fact, the judge at one point was getting so angry at him because he would try to, he would try to talk even when he wasn't being asked questions that he was like, you know, my wife tells me that the only time that anybody ever pays attention to what I say and listens to me is when I'm at work, you know, but now here I'm at work.

And now I've got a witness who won't even listen to me and follow my instructions.

He's like, I feel like I'm talking to one of my grandkids here.

The judge, wait, the judge said that?

The judge says this to the witness in front of the jury and call it basically calls him a child.

Whoa.

And by the time I get finished, I'm just like, can we, can we do closing arguments right now?

Like, do I can, like, can we, do we even have to call the second witness, the one that's going to recant?

So, so what happens with the second witness, the, the, the former employee?

The guy, he calls up the guy, the guy, the guy recants his story or he says, look, the guy, the client had permission.

He was allowed to take the jackets.

Now, the only thing that was tricky about it was there was a written statement.

It's written in English and this guy's speaking in Spanish, but he's saying, I didn't write this statement.

Somebody wrote it for me.

I just signed my name.

Is this the one that was given to the police?

Yes.

There's a, yeah, there's a written statement that is being attributed to this, this employee.

And, and basically the, the DA's theory is that he actually wrote this and he's just lying about not really being able to speak English that well.

So, he takes a, I would say.

Very strong stance.

It's a little bit of a risky, risky proposition of basically trying to.

He's just going for it.

Shame this guy and claim that this dude is like pretending not to, not to understand English.

Does he have an interpreter?

He's using an interpreter in trial.

So, there's a, wait.

So, there's a statement, not from the police though, just a written statement by some citizen.

Handwritten.

It's on a police form though.

In English.

It's in English.

That the, this witness signs in it.

And the English statement says that a client, I guess, took the jackets, right?

Essentially.

Yes.

Okay.

And then now he's coming to court and saying, I only speak Spanish and there's a Spanish interpreter, right?

Yes.

Okay.

And I didn't write that.

And I didn't write that.

And, and when, and when asked like, well, why didn't you try to explain to the, when he, when they asked him, why didn't you try to explain to the detective who was there that like, you know, be more specific, like, or like say certain, like, like explain why that this, that your boss is like pressuring you or whatever.

He's like, well, the detective was also pressuring me.

She kept telling me, hey, hurry up.

I have a wedding to go to.

And that comes out in testimony.

And the fucking jury is cracking up again because it's like, who can make this up?

And then they actually called the detective and they actually had a wedding.

Even on the stand, she kind of seemed like she was in a hurry to go somewhere.

So I didn't ask her about the wedding or how it was or anything, but I definitely mentioned it in closing argument.

But did she like just, was she short with the answers then?

Well, I asked her, I was like, did he write this statement or did somebody write it for him?

And she said, I don't remember.

Perfect.

I was like, did you record, did you record this interview of this witness?

She's like, no.

I'm like, don't you think that might have been helpful for you to be able to remember if he wrote this statement out or if somebody was writing it for him?

And she's like, nope, I don't think that would have been helpful.

I'm like, okay, well, that's nice.

You're an idiot.

So.

Nope.

Even in this moment.

No, I don't think it'd be helpful.

No, it wouldn't be helpful.

So I'm just like, all right, you're like just worthless.

So, okay.

So the evidence so far for the people is the complaining witness, the recanting, recanting witness, the detective, anybody else?

Right.

You've got the lying Frenchman.

You've got the guy who's pretending to speak Spanish.

And you've got, um, the maid of honor, um, they all walk into a bar, detective, detective maid of honor.

Um, and, um, so they're, they're about to, so they wrap up the, it's like right around noontime.

So expectation is that I'm going to call my, the personal assistant at one 30 and, and, and have him start testifying.

This is, I believe a Monday.

And they're, and the, and the judge is like, all right, well, we'll commence it.

We'll commence with defense case at one 30.

And I say nothing.

Now it's, this is a Monday.

I know already over that weekend, I've already made the decision.

I ain't calling any witnesses.

So we get there at one 30 and the DA is like, oh, I, um, I ran your witnesses, uh, name and date of birth and he has a criminal history and I'm going to use it to impeach him.

I'm like, oh, really?

I'm like, gosh, that's, that's rough.

Um, I got bad news, bro.

Uh, I ain't calling him.

Uh, I'm ready to close.

And he's like, wait, you're, you're not calling any witnesses.

I'm like, nah, man, I'm, I'm, we're, we're closing this afternoon.

And he's like, but I'm not ready.

I'm like, well, you're gonna have to tell the judge that.

So the judge, let me just make this experience shittier for you, you know, judge comes out and he's like, and he, and he, and the judge is like, he's sort of this old curmudgeony type.

He, he, he, he wanted this thing done yesterday.

And so I'm like, your honor, I have really good news.

I'm ready to close.

We're not calling any witnesses.

So he's like, oh, great.

First good news.

I've heard, I've heard this whole fucking trial.

Um, the DA is like, actually, your honor, I'm asking to go dark and, uh, and, and I need, I need time to prep my closing.

Can we do that?

Can, uh, can we go home early today and, and close, do closing arguments tomorrow?

The judge is like, are you fucking kidding me?

He's like, I'll give you a half an hour.

We're closing this afternoon.

So we take it half.

So he, he brings the jury in and the jury's like, and the jury's like super excited.

They're like, oh, we're, we're ready to go.

We're going to close.

And he's like, um, but the attorneys need time to prep their closings.

So we're going to come back in 30 minutes.

They're just like, oh, these motherfuckers.

So, um, so he takes a half an hour.

He tries to work on a PowerPoint.

Oh, come on.

Jeez.

You know.

Use your time wisely.

He comes back.

Um, we do our closing argue, you know, he does his closing argument.

Um, most of my closing, um, was just sort of, uh, you know, I tried to just kind of keep

it to the point.

Like, look, this guy at the end of the day, you have to believe him beyond a reasonable

doubt in order for my client to be guilty.

And you have to ask yourself, does he have anything to back up what he's claiming?

The answer is no, he has nothing.

I kept it pretty, I kept it pretty matter of fact, pretty sort of just by the book.

And there was nothing, nothing, no real hellfire and brimstone moments until the end where I

was just like, you know, like, you know, the more I think about this case and I sort of,

I get up on the soapbox and I'm just like, you know, I've been doing this for, for, for

long enough where I can tell you that there are true victims out there.

People who are the victims of, of bad crimes who have terrible things done to them.

They're injured severely.

They're traumatized.

They lose their prized possessions.

I'm like, but this guy, he ain't one of them.

This dude is not a victim.

And the fact that he's coming in here claiming to be one when it's so obvious that he's lying,

it is, it's infuriating.

It is a travesty of justice.

It is the exact opposite of what this system is supposed to be doing, which is doing justice,

giving justice to victims and, and making sure that people are held accountable.

But you as the jury, thankfully can write this wrong and more or less hold the victim, the

alleged victim, the so-called victim accountable, hold him accountable by saying, you are a fraud.

You are a liar.

You have wasted our time.

And so we're going to come back, you know, with, with great vengeance and furious anger and

tell you, this kid is not guilty and you get nothing, zero dollars, zilch.

You wanted 75,000, you get zero.

So we finish up and, you know, they, they, they, they're out for, they're out for about an hour.

You know, he, he's acquitted on the, on the two charges.

You know, client was very happy.

The personal assistant was very happy.

Family was very happy.

You know, it was, it was, it was a story that, that, that had, that had the correct outcome,

but it really kind of comes back to that conversation that I had with the DA supervisor where, I mean,

this, this trial took a week and a half and it was something where from before it even started,

you have the, the prosecutor who's got basically, whose, whose name is on this trial representing,

I mean, you know, the state of California telling the judge in chambers in confidence that I don't believe this case.

I don't believe that we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm literally only trying this case because my boss is forcing me to.

And God forbid, if this, if we get some whack job jury that finds him guilty on a case that I don't believe in,

that I don't believe that we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt,

that would ruin my client's entire life.

He would, I mean, because who wants to do, who wants to do business with a guy who's, who's a convicted thief?

Because as, as confident as maybe you can be, or as how good his evidence looks, there's always a shot.

There's always a chance based off the, the types of jurors that are out there that you could have had like a really bad jury.

Sure.

And they could have convicted this guy.

No doubt about it.

No doubt about it.

Like there's, there's no such thing as a slam dunk case.

There's no sure when there's no 100% guarantee.

Never, never.

It's never an easy thing to go into a trial like that, where you have an expectation of, of prevailing.

And if you don't, for a kid who's got no record, who's got a promising career ahead of him,

you know, this is a, this could be a turning point that sends him from, you know, from, from going in an ascending direction

to plummeting in a way that he never recovers from.

Whereas on the flip side, if the prosecutor goes out there, does a shitty job, gets an acquittal in an hour,

from his perspective, it's like, oh, well, no skin off my back.

I can laugh with my colleagues about it, you know, the next day and be like, yeah, man, really sucked having to try that case.

What a really, you know, what a, what, you know, what a bummer that, uh, that I had to be bothered with this case for a week and a half.

You know, it was something that was so minor and insignificant of a event in his life.

Whereas for the client, I mean, this was his entire future on the line.

We'll, we'll never know just how close he was to having that future at risk, in jeopardy, uh, and ruined in the hands of, of a jury who was being asked to decide a case that the prosecutor didn't even believe in.

Sometimes, sometimes the right thing to do is to look a victim in the eye and say, you know what, sir, I think you're full of shit.

And I'm not, and I'm not putting my name, I'm not putting my name on this case because I have too much integrity.

That would have been the, that would have been the just thing to do in this case.

And it's a shame that they didn't do it.

Um, and what's a bigger shame is that that is that that supervisor will never even, will never be held accountable for this.

We'll never have to think twice about the fact that she put, put this young man through this.

Um, and I can guarantee you, she's probably done it time and time again since this, since this trial has happened.

And there's nothing that anybody unfortunately has done or as far as I can tell can do to hold her accountable because of the power that she wields as a prosecutor, um, who oversees people that unfortunately she has scared so much that they are unwilling to stand up to her and tell her what you're asking me to do is wrong and I'm not going to do this.

Well, Mooch, well said.

Appreciate it.

Very well said.

Thanks for coming on the show today, sharing your story.

And, uh, last I heard that, that supervisor is still in business, still, uh, making shitty calls.

So I'm sure we'll have you back soon.

Oh, I can't wait.

I can't wait.

Um, you know, the Mooch is always ready, uh, is always ready to go round three.

So can't wait for it.

All right.

Well, thanks, buddy.

Thanks.

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.