Nothin But A G-Thang – When Knowing the Law Beats Knowing the Lyrics

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. Do you have a Not Guilty story you'd like to share with A&G listeners? Visit our website to submit your info to be a guest. Want to check out our updated new A&G merch? Another great reason to check out our website. That's anothernotguiltypod.com. Now, without further ado, here's this week's episode of Another Not Guilty.

Not only did he not object, but the cop was like, what? Like, I was like, I know. It's an awkward question. Let me ask it again. You just, you didn't make a decision to transport him to a facility described by this Welfare and Institutions Code. And for a second time, he was like, no, I didn't, I didn't do that. And I was like, because he was, you thought he was drunk in public. So you just arrested him. And he was like, yeah, I just arrested him. I was like, because you're trained to arrest him. He was like, yeah, I'm doing my job. Part of me was like, oh, fuck, there it is. This is what I wrote in my fact statement.

This is all in my 1118 motion. So as soon as I got the answers I wanted, I was like, now let's talk about your past.

It's season three of 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.

Rejection. 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 guilty as public defenders get on a daily basis in an unjust criminal system with the deck stacked against us.

Welcome back, everybody, to Another Not Guilty co-hosting today is, you know, well, with the pandemic hitting, you know, Another Not Guilty has been kind of short on the co-host lately.

We got people in quarantine, people unavailable, people have been sick themselves.

And, you know, I had to reach back into the Another Not Guilty archives and find a dope-ass fucking public defender from back in the day when A&G was just starting out.

You guys may remember him as Mr. Willis from episode eight, Nobody Likes These Charges.

Say hello to Eric, everybody. What's up, Eric?

Hello, Eric.

Eric, thanks for co-hosting today.

It's such an honor. I'm flattered. It's a pleasure, despite that awful introduction.

It's good to be lifted from the bottom.

It's good, and, you know, I'm glad you went down there and found me, and here I am, man.

Dusted you off, man.

Very grateful, yes.

This is Mr. Willis. I'm sorry. This is Eric's, this is his comeback, you know.

Hey, this is the thing about public defenders, you know, one man's down, the next one steps up, so.

Show must go on.

I know, and, you know, that's not, that's not, that's not just our office here in Los Angeles.

You know, that's all public defender offices across the nation.

Today's guest, we have a public defender up in Northern California.

His name's Matthew, and he's on the line right now.

What's up, Matthew? How you doing?

Hi, I'm doing great. I'm really happy to be talking to you.

Well, yeah, where are you public defendering these days?

I'm in Nevada County. It includes the Lake Tahoe area.

There's a lot of sort of vacation spots around here, but it'd be hard to call it a metro area because we're a pretty rural spot.

Nevada City. Now, that's kind of a small public defender office, right?

It's very small. Yeah, there's eight attorneys.

But there's some dope-ass defenders up there, right?

It is the densest bench ever.

I am really, really lucky to be working with some incredibly outsized talents.

You guys know Nevada County has also worked with Tamara from Season 3, Episode 13, Black Friday Steals.

Tamara, she's from Nevada County.

So you work with Tamara, huh?

I do. I watched a big portion of that trial from a TV screen in another room because of the COVID restrictions.

We couldn't actually go in to sit in the gallery, so they streamed the whole case in a dark courtroom.

And I sat and watched a big portion of it.

Tamara is one of the most impressive attorneys I've ever seen work.

And I struggle to think of a difficult legal question that I've had that I didn't run by her amongst other people in our office.

So, yeah, I mean, that was a great episode of the show, but it was a cool trial to see happen.

No, she's a boss, man.

That's the impression I got when I talked to her.

She's a boss.

But, Matthew, man, I have a feeling that, you know, some of Tamara may have triggered her way on down to you.

I'm really excited about the episode today.

So thanks for coming on the show.

Yeah, my pleasure.

Now, what makes this episode a little bit unique, guys, is that we have with us the client of the trial.

That's awesome.

Very unique.

Yeah, Matthew, you want to introduce your client to everybody?

Sure, yeah.

I mean, I was really fortunate to be able to represent Rene, and he's on the phone with us now.

He lives in town, and, you know, he's here, Rene.

Rene, how are you doing, buddy?

Hey, good.

Thank you, guys.

Happy to be here.

And kind of going through this pretty amazing story that happened to me, and I had the fortune to work with Matthew.

Well, you know, Rene, you know, typically us lawyers, especially public defenders, we love talking about ourselves, you know, and we love talking about the jury trials we do and what we did to achieve justice.

And the show's kind of about all of us.

But you know what?

We just have been able to pencil in some time for you, since you are the client, and you are what we're all about.

So I'm excited to have you on the show today.

It feels like anyone on the show is going to be happy to be on it.

I mean, it's called a guilty.

So if you're on here, it's going to be like, yeah, this is a good time right here.

So these are the good stories that us public defenders rarely get to tell.

But when we do, man, we enjoy it to the fullest.

So to not only have the defense attorney who has a different type of walk after hearing these type of words and getting these type of results, to have the person who actually experienced it, I feel like it's something, a tremendous treat for everyone.

Not only people listening, but for me to be part of the host right now.

I'm very excited to hear from you, Rene.

So, all right.

So let's just, let's start from the beginning then.

Normally, we start with the charges and the police report.

But since Rene is with us, you know, Rene, why don't you tell us about the incident?

What led to you being, maybe you were arrested, maybe you weren't, but what, like, what happened?

Yes.

So I remember very clearly being on a Friday night, and I was out of work.

I worked pretty early.

I got together with some friends, and we were playing ping pong, having some drinks, and then we went to go to another bar and have another drink.

And on the way, one of my friends, he does jiu-jitsu, and he got all kind of, like, excited and wanted to wrestle a little bit here and there.

And on that trajectory, the sheriffs just went by, and they saw us, and they gave us a warning.

And then, but we were with one of the, the owner of one of the bars, so he talked to them, and everything was fine.

And then we just kept going, kept playing ping pong.

And then at some point, I was like, okay, I'm going to have just one more beer, and I'm going to go home.

And I lived pretty close to town, probably, you know, probably like a six-minute walk.

So I had that beer, and then definitely that beer didn't feel good, and I started walking to my house.

And then on that trajectory, I leaned over this car that belonged to a lady that was just going out from being here at three-fourths.

And then she got pretty alarmed that I was laying on her car, and I was like, I told her, well, I'm drunk, but I'm on my way to my house.

And then she was, she was pretty nice, and she, she helped me, they wanted to go and sit down.

I said, sure, I'll go and sit down.

And I sat down for a minute on the bench, and I didn't know, but she called the cops, and then she called the cops on me, and then they just came.

Rene, Rene, let me just stop you there, just so we make sure we, we heard or understood everything you said so far.

So you were, you were out after work drinking with some coworkers.

One of the coworkers does jiu-jitsu and was doing some moves as you guys were going from one bar to another, which is kind of standard pub crawl type behavior, right?

And then you had another, you have another drink at the bar, and I think you said you were feeling kind of buzzed or drunk.

And then you're walking home, and you took a moment to kind of lean up against a car, because you were under the influence, right?

Is that what you said?

Yeah, correct.

But then this car happens to belong to a lady who was right there.

Yeah, and then after that, she called the cops, and then that, I don't know if I remember correctly, but my arrest was pretty quick.

They just came, they formulated some questions, asked me to stand up, and then just pretty much proceeded to arrest me.

Did, I didn't know if I missed her, I'm sorry, Renee, that you said that you guys got a warning or something earlier when you guys left the first bar?

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Was that, was your, did you guys voluntarily leave that first bar?

Or were you guys nicely asked me?

You left on your own.

Okay.

You left on your own.

Well, let's slide over, and let me talk to Matthew a little bit.

So, Matthew, tell us about the case here.

You got the case, and normally you got the complaint and the police report, right?

So what did it say?

What were the charges?

So the charge was Penal Code 647F, that's public intoxication.

All right, can you tell us about that charge?

It's actually, drunk in public is kind of lay speak, and it's a huge problem for me because it frames a lot of people's understanding of what the law is,

and that framing drunk in public kind of makes it sound like it's a crime to be drunk and be in public, and that's not true.

And anyone who's ever been to a sports game will tell you that.

The balancing test there is that you are so intoxicated.

It becomes a crime when you are so intoxicated that you can no longer reasonably care for your own safety or the safety of others.

And so it's the government's burden to demonstrate facts outside of just the mere intoxication that show that the intoxication level is very extreme or presents some sort of like public safety risk in general.

So it's public intoxication, yeah, but that's only one part of it.

It's really public intoxication to the point that you can't take care of yourself anymore.

And I typically, just about that crime even more generally, I see single count 647Fs kind of frequently.

When I see single count 647Fs, they tend to be in stacks.

Like one person will have picked up three or four or five different charges for this particular offense because it's very closely associated with homelessness and alcoholism.

And even in the statutory code, like in Penal Code Section 647F, there is a provision for obstructing a sidewalk.

The thinking on the part of the legislature is that they're specifically talking about people who get so drunk that they pass out in like roadways or sidewalks or something like that.

Beyond just the statutory code, you're looking at, you know, did the person vomit on themselves?

Did they know where they were?

Could they tell you what day it was?

Did they, were they urinating or defecating on themselves?

Like were they losing control of their bodily functions?

Could they remain conscious?

Could they stand on their own?

Like those are all kind of factual considerations that you look at when you're, when you're trying to evaluate.

Well, was this person that, you know, just a person who consumed some alcohol, which is a perfectly legal activity, or is this a person who consumed so much alcohol that all of a sudden the elements of this criminal offense are going to apply and they've got some real criminal exposure?

I feel like they, they leave it kind of vague there.

Not only it gives us as defense attorneys room to argue why it's not true, but also makes it easier for an officer to just arrest folks and say, this is why he was too intoxicated.

Oh yeah. And you get impermissible opinion testimony all the time in these types of things where you have an officer who will say, I'm a cop.

I've been a cop for a long time.

I've done all the different cop trainings and they trained me on how to identify a person who's drunk.

I saw this guy. I thought he was drunk.

You should have reached the same conclusion I did.

It's not even independent factual features that you're always fighting against.

You're fighting against the claim of authority on the part of a police officer to basically just render a judgment.

About a person or a situation and then have that judgment be treated as if it were a factual expert opinion by the court or more dangerously by the jury.

Matthew, let me ask you, so the charges drunk in public, what did the police report read?

Based on the police report, it made it sound like there was an intoxicated individual that the cops had had contact with earlier in the evening.

That's the jujitsu wrestling kind of bar hop moment Renee was talking about.

And so they had this initial contact and like less than an hour later, they have this call from a citizen related to, you know, Renee sort of leaning on a car.

And when you read it in the police report, it sounded like this guy who got in a fight earlier couldn't walk or stand and like was falling into cars and messing up the town.

And it was really freaking people out, like particularly the owner of this one car who's parked right outside of the restaurant she was eating in.

So she watched, you know, she watched this whole thing happen, who was so concerned for his safety that she like had to call law enforcement and then the cops show up and they interview him and he can't speak and he can't stand.

So they arrest him and take him to jail.

You know, my initial impression from the police report was like, yeah, it looks like a 647 to me.

I don't know.

You know, like, yeah, inability to stand.

We got, you know, incoherent answers, slurred speech.

There's an admission of drinking.

There's a prior contact in the evening.

Like this is so they're going to be able to show like a pattern of intoxication over time.

Like those are some liabilities.

You know, this might be what I would consider to be like a diversion case or something like that.

A lot of times if a person doesn't have an extensive criminal history or they don't have a lot of intoxication offenses and you just have one, one bad night, you know, there are some diversion options, but they.

Like diversion, like, like, like, you know, do like a AAs for dismissal or something like that.

If only, no, it's a scam.

You got to pay off a private service that the DA contracts with.

So it's like hundreds of dollars in diversion fees and then you got to attend all these classes.

And then if you mess up the classes, the DA can like kind of like up there, go up from their offer by saying, you know, hey, look, you know, we had a starting offer.

It was jail or diversion.

You picked diversion.

You messed it up.

Now there's going to be even more jail as a penalty.

So like diversion, if it was just as simple as like, oh, do a couple of AA classes and stay out of trouble, that would be kind of different.

Diversion here means fees.

It means compliance checks and it potentially means the surrender of, um, the surrender of a known offer for something even more intense.

So it's like, I don't love, it's not like I get a case and I recognize that it's diversion eligible.

And my first instinct is like, oh, we'll just do diversion then.

Like it, it's still a pretty heavy obligation on the client.

So, uh, you know, but it kind of seemed like based on the facts in the police report, that's probably what I was looking at was something likely to go down the diversion route, uh, if necessary.

That was my initial impression.

Well, tell, um, tell us about, uh, meeting Renee then.

Cause you said you, you met him and then you got a different picture or different understanding once you met and spoke with Renee.

Right.

Again, like, I don't know, maybe this is my own, uh, I don't know.

Maybe I just have my own biases or, you know, over time, like I develop a stereotype or something, but whenever I get clients that have like single count 647 F cases, uh, I typically tend to meet people who are kind of in crisis.

But with Renee, it was like, I was like, Renee's chill.

Like this doesn't strike me as, he doesn't strike me as a person that's who's like, has, is out of control drinking.

He was, you know, um, kind of around my age.

I'm a little bit younger than him, but not by much.

Like we're both in our thirties.

Um, Renee is, you can't tell over the phone, but like, Renee is cool as hell.

He's funny.

He's like, he's like thoughtful, you know, um, we didn't, I didn't know this at the time, but like, it's such a small community that like after the case disposed and we went, you know, we went through all the process.

Like I see Renee around all the time.

We've got friends in common.

Like he, this isn't necessarily somebody in crisis.

This is, there's something else going on here.

Like some, there's something I'm not know, like recognizing about why a person who's capable of comporting themselves so reasonably and basically has no criminal history and, uh, is not struggling with their alcoholism or, or really in, in a moment of, um, you know, pain.

Um, why are they would be picking up a charge that I typically only see applied to people who are like in crisis.

And so I was a little surprised initially at just like how cool he was and how we, we didn't end up needing to talk about rehab.

We didn't end up needing to talk about treatment.

We pretty much just focused on the case.

Matt, would you say that most of those, these types of, these types of cases, you would say they were genuinely, uh, intoxicated.

They, there's a good, uh, intention behind them of maybe giving this person some help.

Cause I've seen my share of 647 S where it's just like person had a beer and gave the officer an attitude.

Oh no, there's a ton of, you know, like I'm not, first of all, let me just be very, very clear.

This charge is bullshit.

I'm not defending 647 F as some sort of like public safety measure.

It's a load of shit.

It's there specifically like one 48 it's there.

And because, uh, one 48 is the resistive struck delay thing.

I don't know, whatever, like, you know, it's, it's one of those super broad, super general charges where all you need is the mere suspicion.

Of alcohol and entitles the police officer because it's a misdemeanor crime to take a part, like happened to Renee to take them into custody, put them into jail and possibly see what else, you know, figure out.

Now we're talking search incident to arrest.

Now we're talking like, you know, what's in your pocket, what's in your car.

Like I see 647 F generally used as a predicate to some, you know, they're hoping they're going to shake something out of your backpack.

So Renee, um, what did you think or feel after you met Matthew for the first time?

Um, I think I felt more confident and reassured, but, uh, it's not a bad thing to, to fight the system or to just stand your ground and just be able to really feel the situation more clearly.

Um, yeah, he definitely, like all through the process, I felt always reassured that things were going to be fine.

It was like a really positive journey.

Like I, I, I, I felt as you know, probably the family, I feel kind of protected.

Matthew, what was the game plan after your first meeting with Renee?

Did, did you, did you know you were going to go to trial right away on this case or were you still trying to maybe think diversion?

So the game plan, um, straight away, I was thinking probably diversion.

Um, uh, DA diversion is at the discretion of the district attorney.

So in our case, diversion wasn't really an option, even though I made a pretty strong argument for it, like kind of throughout the pretrial process.

Uh, and the reason why is because they, the DA would only permit Renee to opt into a diversion program if he stipulated to a restitution amount and paid full restitution.

Let me ask you this then.

So I know you've mentioned there was some letter written by the, uh, by the lady, right?

So what, what, what did this letter say?

So the letter was interesting.

Um, it said a lot of emotional stuff.

It didn't, it wasn't very descriptive in terms of like the, it didn't add facts to the case, uh, or anything like that.

But, you know, basically this woman had, uh, like kind of a tennis ball or like softball size dent in her car.

And this was a new car that she had purchased somewhat recently.

And she was very upset that it was damaged.

And in her opinion, because she had seen Renee kind of leaning on the car.

And just so we're clear when Renee, when Renee describes leaning on the car, what we're talking about is kind of leaning your butt up against a parked car that's right next to the sidewalk.

And like looking at your phone, right?

Like, we're not talking about leaning on the car for support or like falling into it, kind of treating it like you would like a mailbox or like a, you know, a parking meter or something like that.

Just pretty casual in terms of stance.

Renee, how tall are you?

How tall are you, Renee?

Yeah, six foot.

Six foot.

Okay.

Pretty skinny.

Yeah, six foot, probably 170.

You know what I mean?

Like not, not a bodybuilder.

Um, you know, not somebody who, who's near leaning on a car to check their phone is going to dent it.

Did you, did you guys compare Renee's left butt cheek to the dent in the car?

See if they line up or we only had a photograph, we had a photograph of the, uh, of the alleged damage and the photograph was itself, uh, a screen grab off the body cam video.

So it was pretty hard to correlate anything related to Renee's actions to this actual event.

That's kind of, so that's kind of lame though, that they wanted you to pay restitution.

It's not like they charged vandalism, right?

I mean, she's, she's not a victim in the case.

Yeah.

Basically, you know, the DA was taking the position that like, you know, the fat, the mere fact of a criminal prosecution was just a good enough reason to circumvent the civil process and just put money in this person's pocket.

And I, and what, when I'm, you know, another detail here is that part of this letter was a, uh, break bill breakdown from like an auto mechanic.

Um, I don't think they actually got it repaired.

I think it was a bid, uh, but it was like over $2,000, you know?

And it was like, so this was not like an insignificant amount of money.

It was like pretty serious, pretty serious cash they wanted off of them.

And I felt like the whole time that this was just a shakedown.

They were just charging them with this bullshit charge, uh, to try to shake them down for cash because they knew this lady's never going to be able to make a small claims judgment.

It's not even enough to get into civil court and like, you know, they just wanted money for a member of the community who felt, you know, like wronged by the dent in her car and just kind of pointed the finger at the person that she saw leaning on it as if the mere fact of leaning on the car could in any way cause this damage, which like is impossible.

So it, it was very frustrating for me to feel like that the sticking point in a case wasn't related to the evidence.

It wasn't related to the instruction.

It wasn't even related to the, you know, the underlying threat of the charge or some public safety concern or something like that.

It was pretty much just a cash grab.

Tell us about the development of the defense.

Like what, what's the defense in this case?

Rene was not too intoxicated for he wasn't a public risk or risked himself.

That's the defense, right?

Yeah, that's, that, that was the principal defense.

You know, the big turning point was really getting the body cam, which there was a bit of delay on.

But when I eventually was able to see and review the body cam, to me, it felt like there was now a racial dimension that was at play.

You know, this is a very, very, very white community.

Rene is from Columbia.

Am I correct about that, Rene?

Oh, right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And like, uh, you know, the, everyone involved from the police officer to, I guess you could say the complaining witness, although she wasn't really, um, everyone is white.

And to me, I mean, like I live in this community too.

I live in a downtown area.

I've walked from my house to the downtown area and back.

I've seen drunk people.

I do not see white members in my community getting the level of scrutiny placed on them for completely consistent activity, as I saw here.

And the visual of it was striking to me because I was like, now we're dealing with dimensions that are beyond just, um, the allegations in the police report.

We're dealing with like a sort of cultural and social dimension on top of that, that is coloring the conclusions of the officers.

And that I believe I can probably make something out of it, a trial.

What does the body cam show then?

Like, what do you see then?

The cops get out, look, they put, they roll up, they get out of the car.

And like, was it, they talked to the lady first in there, or did they go to Renee, handcuff them, then talk to the lady?

No, no, they had, um, yeah, they had Renee seated on the bench.

Um, I should point out this happened in front of the district attorney's office.

So the entire, which is down the street from my office.

So like the whole body cam is this area that I'm very familiar with.

And, uh, so he's seated on a bench outside the DA's office.

Um, the complaining witnesses is standing maybe like 15 or 20 feet away.

And so they've got like an officer just kind of looking at him, but not to speaking with him while the second officer primarily conducts a interview with the complaining witness.

And the second, the, the principal arresting officer here is a trainee.

And so his supervisor is like the guy just sort of watching everything go down.

And he's not giving a lot of comment.

Uh, but after the, uh, officer, after the arresting officer conducts the complaining witness interview, kind of turns to the training officer and was like, so what do I do now?

You know, like, what do you think?

And they have a whole conversation about whether or not they have a vandalism case.

And the cops are talking to themselves, it's on the, talking to each other, it's on the body cam, which is like, I don't know, man, we don't have the malicious intent, but we got the damage to the vehicle.

And then they say, maybe we can get them on a 647F.

And so they're, they're sort of like gaming out their strategy.

And then once they come up with a plan, they want to arrest him for this drunken public offense.

Um, then they turn their attention to Renee and they have an incredibly brief interview.

Well, yeah.

So it sounds like, it sounds like the, the lady called, she complained about her car.

The cops couldn't arrest them for vandalism.

So they said, we'll just say he's drunk in public.

And that way we can course him into paying for the damage to the car.

We'll just use the legal system when you're right, Matthew, it should be the civil system.

This is not a crime.

It's just an accident.

If that really is Renee's butt cheek imprint in the car, but we haven't established that yet.

So, yeah.

I mean, basically they weren't that express about it, but like, there's a lot of speaking sort of between the lines and, um, you know, as a person that like works in the legal system, like I knew exactly what they were strategizing right there.

You know what I mean?

Like they didn't have to come right out and say, Oh, if we just charge him with drunk in public, then he'll be liable for this damage amount.

But that was the strong implication was that they needed to arrest him for something.

Either because they wanted, you know, this restitution thing to hang over him, or they just wanted to mollify this lady who was pissed.

And so they just needed to cook up some reason to take him to jail.

And then just in terms of selling the case of the DA was like, uh, Renee can have diversion, do the alcohol program, all that if he pays for the cart, the damage to the car.

Right.

Yeah.

And it was, I think the starting offer was like, starting offer was just pleaded account.

Um, he would have, because of his two days in custody, um, cause he went in on day one and then was released on day two.

He was in for two days, which qualifies him for conduct credit, blah, blah, blah.

So it's like, he would have been basically time served on his jail sentence.

He might've had like, I think the starting offer was five days.

So he would have one day on work project, basically picking up trash in the car, in the park, two years of summary court probation, standard fines and fees, uh, and restitution reserved.

You know, that was their starting offer.

I was kind of like, what are you talking about?

This is a single counter 647F, no criminal histories, diversion, this is a diversion case.

And they, they kind of came around and were like, okay, you know, diversion's fine.

Um, but he's got to do a bunch of extra community service and we're going to put them on a long diversion period.

And he's got to stipulate to the restitution amount.

Basically wave his right to the hearing on the amount and just stipulate.

I owe whatever this lady says I owe without any court process or hearing into it.

And then they would offer him diversion.

So it was like they were horse trading the conviction.

Well, let's, uh, yeah, let's get to the trial then.

Is there, um, Matthew, what type of work do you have to do to get ready for trial in this case?

Okay.

So there was a pretty seismic, like we've been talking about this.

Like this is just some sort of straight elemental defense.

Um, that's actually not what happened.

Uh, there was a pretty big, yeah.

There was a pretty big turning point in the case because like, I mean, up until this point,

like negotiations had broken down, you know, it took me a while to get review discovery with

all that's finally done.

So now we're at the point where it's decision time and like, you know, um, I was ready to

go into it just being like, this case is trash.

I'm going to prove it's trash.

You know, you can't prove this happened.

Like we're going to, we're going to do it.

And, um, there's liabilities to that.

Right.

Because like, you know, cases go sideways on you, uh, you know, like the cop could come

and testify differently than he put in his report.

And I'm like trying to impeach him with his report, but the jury could buy it anyway.

Like there, there are liabilities with a straight fact defense where you've got a charge that's

so broad that it could cut kind of in unexpected directions.

And so I talked this over with my immediate supervisor and like personal savior, Susan left.

And, um, pretty much my like right at eye, like, uh, child, you know, colleague, uh, Haley

Dewey in my office, the two of them were absolutely instrumental.

And like Susan, who is, I don't remember what she's going to be, if I say it and I get it

wrong, she might be mad, but she filed something like 168 motions last year.

Like Susan, like, and, and like by comparison, I think I filed like 29, you know, like Susan

litigates the living shit out of things.

And she's always glomming on to these like technical issues.

And sometimes she has these successes that like, I would be a doubter.

I'd be like, I don't think that's going to work, Susan.

And then she pulls off this incredible shit in court.

And so she really was like, well, have you considered 647 G of the penal code?

And if you're following, you know, 647 G immediately follows 647 F.

And I was kind of like, no, you know, I hadn't really looked in other sections of the penal

code.

Like I didn't really look at that.

And if you read it, it's kind of convoluted.

Like the section of the penal code basically says, if you're arrested for a public intoxication

violation, the cops have to make a determination about the reasonability of transporting you

to a drunk tank or a alcohol treatment center that is, you know, as described by welfare and

institutions code, something, something, something.

And if they do that, if they transport you to the, um, to like a detox center, you are immune

from prosecution under the statute.

And so I, I was like vaguely aware that that portion of the statute was there, but like,

I didn't really consider it because a unit, it wasn't taken to a facility described by welfare

institutions code, blah, blah, blah.

Um, and so I kind of didn't seem like it had like any immediate application in my case, but

then Susan was like, yo, I saw this YouTube video.

And immediately I'm like, well, I don't practice law based on YouTube.

So I was like, I was like pretty resistant, but like, she was like, I saw this YouTube video

by this public defender in Tulare County.

And his name is Kaylee Anderson.

Um, and he did like a whole training video on 647F, like in 647G, check it out.

And so she recommends this video to me and I, I watch it and I, you know, anybody out there

and practicing in the state of California, I also recommended this dude is like a boss.

But, um, basically there is a case, uh, it's Henry Jorge G, um, whatever, you know, there,

there is a case in California that says, uh, facts very similar to ours where a individual

in that case, a juvenile was arrested on a 647F, uh, violation.

The cops basically just took him straight to jail.

And the defense attorney was like, well, did you take him to a facility?

And the cop says, no.

And then the defense attorney in the, in the Henry Jorge G case argues, you know, well,

Hey, like the cops should have tried.

They should have tried to take him to the facility before they took him to jail.

And surprisingly, uh, the appellate court agreed.

And they said, the only thing a criminal defendant is entitled to is the determination of the police

officer.

The legislature enacted the statute.

They gave the cops a choice.

The defendant is entitled to the choice.

Now that means that if the cop decides like that, it's just not reasonable.

If for whatever reason, I got another call, the facility's too far away, you know, for any

reason they can think of that, it's just not reasonable to take somebody to this facility.

Then they've made the choice.

The defendant has received the benefit of the officer's, um, uh, determination and the defense

is not available to you.

But in this case, I was like, what are the odds that this rookie cop under these facts,

where he's just making a super quick call to basically ameliorate, you know, this angry

lady actually knows about this or made any determination at all.

And moreover, our prosecutor's office, it's like, I don't know, man, they're the most charitable

I'll be is that they lack any form of judgment and they are completely untrained.

And so I was like, what are the odds that the prosecutor knows about this?

Like, I'm pretty sure nobody has thought of it.

Does that mean they have, the police have to take them to a facility first?

No.

They don't, they have to, they have to consider it.

Basically, they have to justify why they chose not to.

So if he's just so-

Any justification will work.

Right.

So intoxicated, it would be pointless to take him to a facility because he won't, he won't

be able to listen and be, it won't be effective.

So we're not taking him.

So then they do the analysis.

Like, or like in our county, they don't even have a facility.

Like, one doesn't exist.

It is per se unreasonable.

But that's not what the legislature said.

The legislature said the cop, it owes a criminal defendant the determination.

So the cop has to be aware that he has other options other than just arresting and caging

a person.

He's got other options and he has to justify why he didn't choose them.

Like, I considered him, but, uh...

Yeah.

Yeah.

Wow.

So that considered it, but no, we're going to just take him in.

And this is, and this is why, because he's too drunk.

So, so they just add in an extra sentence or two into the police report saying, we considered

these options and they were not possible.

Therefore, we put them in the drunk tank.

You know what?

I think I've seen reports that say we made a call and, and a room or something was unavailable.

So we took them in.

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

That's it.

And so in-

That's all it would take.

And if the, and if the police officer does not do this analysis, then what?

Then the defendant is unprosecutable for the crime of drunk and public.

Yeah.

Wow.

Okay.

Okay.

So this-

It's pretty out there, but there is, there is a legislative incentive to route people out

of the criminal justice system and towards substance abuse treatment on paper.

In practice, it doesn't happen, but like on paper, legislature, the legislature is, you

know, made that a priority.

So whatever, take that as you will.

And the only time this defense is actually available to you is after the prosecution has

offered their evidence, which would be at a trial.

So you can basically only bring it as an 1118.1 motion, uh, saying that the prosecution has

failed to prove their case after they've rested.

I want to know how long you sat on this information, Matt.

Like you knew you had this ace in the hole, like, oh my gosh, I just, I can't, you can't

tell anyone this.

You can't-

No, no, no, no.

You can't be part of your negotiation.

So you're sitting on this for weeks of just like, we're going to trial and this is what

I'm hoping happens.

Yeah.

Well, it wasn't just that.

It was like, I was like, this is going to be a hard sell.

Like, even if I move the ball down the field, like, you know, if I get the right testimony,

that's great, but like, I don't trust a bench to just take my word for it.

Like, they're going to need authority.

Like I could get a bad ruling here.

And so, um, you know, I went home to visit my family actually, you know, in, in Ventura

County, um, pretty close to LA line over Christmas.

And I spent my whole Christmas researching the issue and drafting an 1118, like a written

1118.

And it was a little tough because I asked my colleagues like, yo, does anybody have

like a, an 1118 template or like a pleading I could look at?

And everyone's like, no, why would you write an 1118?

Like you bring those as an oral motion, just as a procedural matter.

Like I don't have a written 1118 to look at.

So I had to cook up all the boilerplate, um, and write the whole motion from scratch.

And then what I had to do, and this felt like the biggest leap of faith in the whole process

was I had to do, you know, put a fact statement in my 1118, where I described the testimony

of the officer at trial before the trial happened.

So like, okay, I just, I wrote out this fact statement being like, this officer just testified

to, you know, A, B and C.

And, you know, here's what the law says.

And given the testimony, the court has no, um, alternative.

They must dismiss the case.

So you had the, you had the Nostradamus, that fucking motioned a little bit there, huh?

Yeah.

That doesn't sound like it's fun.

It felt, I did not, it was, it was, it was, it felt kind of ballsy.

Based off your training and experience, you know, this is how it's going to play out because

these cops are these cops and this prosecutor or this office tends to be this office.

So it sounds like you had faith in law enforcement to follow what they wrote in the report and

you saw the camera.

It sounds like, Hey, this is easy what they're going to say.

Right.

Cause why would they change your story?

Understand who does that?

It was like, it was a gamble.

It was like, it's not just enough for the prosecutor not to bring it up during their direct.

The defense has to raise the argument during the prosecution's case.

And then the prosecution has to fail to adequately rebut it.

Like it's a tough needle to threaten.

Wow.

So Rene, Rene, what did you think of your defense here as Matthew's explaining it?

Uh, I think it's, uh, absolutely thorough, like really, really sharp.

And that's pretty much why I really like went for the trial.

All right.

We got, we're, we're, we're being sent to trial and this happened to be on New Year's Eve.

Yeah.

I mean, that was part of the calculation.

I was kind of hoping they wouldn't be able to get a panel.

Oh, okay.

And, and, uh, you said the judge was pissed about that?

Oh yeah, man.

Yeah.

Everybody was pissed about it.

The court staff was pissed about it.

The prosecutor's pissed about it.

Like everybody, everybody was mad.

Why, why did you want to do the trial on New Year's Eve?

It was like, fuck everybody.

Right.

Just talk everybody.

Like, fuck the court, fuck the prosecutor, fuck everybody's New Year's Eve plans.

Like they're going to drag Rene through this bullshit.

Like, fuck them.

You know, I was like, this is the best thing.

I, the best thing I could imagine doing on a celebratory day is fucking trial.

Right.

So it's like, you know, I just kind of felt like, you know, why am I going to make, why

am I going to make it easy on anybody else?

Like, let's make it easy on me.

Right.

Let's bring in the New Year's with, with declaring Rene's freedom.

You know, let's declare Rene free in the 2020.

Basically.

Yeah.

Rene, what about you?

Were you down to do a trial on New Year's Eve?

Did Matthew get you hyped up to say, fuck the man, let's fucking do it.

Let's stick it to them.

No, totally.

I think the strategy was, was pretty good.

Um, uh, I definitely didn't have really any plans.

Well, you were there.

Was it also kind of like, you know, um, it was New Year's Eve and you needed to know legally

how much you can go out and celebrate.

So if you're found not guilty, if you're found guilty, then you know, you can only celebrate

so much.

But if it's not guilty, then you can, you know, you want to know like what, what, what

do the people in Nevada County think?

That's hilarious.

Yeah.

I kept it pretty together till late when I was already home.

Yeah.

At this moment, I'd like to thank and acknowledge our newest members to our Patreon program,

Jill Costa and Morgan Arnbrust.

If you too would like to donate to the podcast and become part of our Patreon program, where

you can receive a shout out on an episode and or the unedited version, which usually

is double the length and includes more legal analysis, facts and commentary, then please

visit our website at anothernotguiltypod.com and click on the Patreon link.

Thank you.

So tell us about Wadir then.

How'd that go down?

Wadir was pretty straight.

Um, I wanted to get through, I wanted to get through the people's case that day.

I did not want it to go into a second day.

Um, you know, credit to the people in Nevada County, people really like showed up for their

civic duty.

So even though I was kind of hoping we wouldn't have enough folks for a panel, we had a

free, we had standard veneer and, you know, um, the, my, you know, 647F, like it's a pretty

simple charge.

So, uh, I knew officer credibility was going to be an issue.

Uh, and I knew people's familiarity with the downtown nightlife could be a factor.

So I wanted jurors that had been downtown on a Friday or Saturday night, kind of knew the

vibe, um, weren't going to be like, you know, and particularly I wanted people that weren't

going to be pissed about it because like not everybody is thrilled that the town has a

robust nightlife.

You know, some people, you know, not stereotyping here, but sometimes a lot of older folks or

something like that.

They're, they're not excited about the fact that there's, you know, bars and drinking and

things like that, that go on in the town.

So I didn't want anybody that had like, you know, just basic negative preconceptions about

why somebody might be downtown on a Friday night.

And I wanted people that I like to, this is the thing I got from, uh, my boss, Susan that

I basically use in any case in which officer credibility is going to be a factor, um, where

I asked the jury's permission to cross-examine the officer, uh, aggressively.

And I don't mean aggressively like, you know, my physics, but I'm just like, look, you know,

my client's accused of this crime.

She he's got a right to a trial.

I got a job to do, you know, you know what it is.

And I need to ask this officer some questions.

I need to be critical about this officer's judgment and decision-making.

Do I have your permission to ask tough questions and get answers?

You know, because I, you know, is it okay with you that I'm gonna, I'm going to tell you right

now, like, I'm going to cross-examine this police officer.

And if you, if that rank, if that is a, is a problem for you, like, this is a good time

to talk about it.

Any memorable moments with jurors or interactions that you remember specifically?

Um, I think that I had a guy who, um, was in the military and, you know, in like the seventies

or early eighties or something like that.

And that when he was in the military, he, um, was an MP who had to, who told a story in

Guadir about how he would like drive drunk people home from the base and stuff like that.

And I was kind of like, oh, that's good.

Like this guy, this guy will understand what like a really shit-faced person is like.

Right.

And he'll be able to see that that's not what the people are going to give him.

Nice.

You know, um, so you went with stereotypes on that one.

Oh, this guy's in the military.

Those guys get shit-faced all the time.

Yeah.

He's, he's, he's seen it firsthand.

That's why I've had like a cases where he said, okay, this, you, you sound like you really

experienced it.

So when you hear the evidence of my case, you're going to say no.

And that sounds like what, what you had here, Matt was like, you've seen people drunk.

You know how it is to be too intoxicated to care for yourself.

And that's not gonna be present in this case.

Yeah, basically.

And so that was it.

We had the panel.

Okay.

Well, let's, let's get to it then.

Um, let's talk about opening statements then.

Yeah.

The opening statements were again, kind of like the Guadir.

I mean, I felt like everybody, the momentum of the case was just headed to the evidence.

You know?

So I had a very, very light touch in the opening.

I probably opened maybe five minutes.

You know what I mean?

Where I'm just like, Hey, what's up?

This is this charge.

Here's a description of the charge.

This is what the people need to prove.

This is what you, this is what you're going to see.

You're going to see this.

You're going to see this.

You're going to see that.

And that ain't enough.

Okay.

And I'm going to say, I'm going to say the same thing at the end.

So get ready.

You know?

And then I sat down and that was basically it.

You didn't, uh, say in your opening that the defense is that they can't prove this element

that he was not too intoxicated to care for himself?

No.

And the reason why, Oh no, I did.

I'm sorry.

Uh, I didn't say anything related to my 1118 627 G defense.

I did say that the evidence that you're going to see will not meet the elements of the charge.

Because that was also true.

You know what I mean?

It's like, it's like he was both not guilty because they didn't have the evidence.

And also there was this procedural bar to the prosecution itself.

And so I focused on the evidence in my opening, knowing the whole time that like my principal

shot here is going to be on that 1118.

But like, obviously you can't count on it.

So, you know, I didn't, I didn't overpromise there.

I would love for you to say all that.

And then at the end of the scene, but there's a surprise at the end.

You got to wait till the end.

You got to wait till the end.

Don't fall asleep.

Well, let me, let's, so let's talk about the evidence then.

You know, Matthew, can you describe how the DA rolled out the evidence in its case then?

Who was the first?

Yeah, they called the, yeah, first witness was a complaining witness, civilian witness.

She, what really what was going on was that the only testimony this lady had to offer

was that she saw Renee leaning on the car.

That's it.

Oh, and then he made the statement, oh, I've been drinking.

And I'm just like, well, neither of those are particularly dispositive.

So if I like go at it super hard, like, what am I going to get out of it?

She's just, you know, she's just like some lady doing regular person stuff.

You know what I mean?

She wasn't, she wasn't a convenient bad guy.

And like, she didn't have any real evidence to offer.

And, um, you know, so I didn't see, I didn't see getting any traction out of like going at

her super hard.

So I basically asked her one question, I think like the DA went, the DA, you know, his direct

was basically what I thought it was going to be.

She just testified to, you know, frankly, what was on the body cam of her saying, leaning

on the car, said he had something to drink.

I had my car dented and I'm mad about it.

Um, and that was it.

I mean, she was on and off the stand.

I don't know, maybe 15 minutes.

Okay.

You know, 20 minutes.

So it was fast.

It was all about the, the testimony of the officer, right?

The rookie.

It was all the cop, the rookie, the whole case was a cop.

So, so tell us about it.

So the cop took the stand, cops direct.

Um, I felt it was favorable for us, even though it was like, you know how it is when it's like

a prosecutor's doing a direct and it's kind of landing, you know what I mean?

Like the cop is crediting himself.

Here's all the training I've done.

Like I mentioned, he was a trainee at the time and he made a big deal out of the fact

that like, you know, I was a trainee then I'm no longer a trainee now.

I was very close in time to all my training.

I'd just gone through all this stuff.

I was with the supervising officers.

So all the calls I was making in terms of, you know, these factual observations I had,

you know, I was really referencing my, my training and my experience, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

With, um, that kind of shit.

And so that was the state of the direct.

It was fairly linear.

So tell us about your cross-examination then.

So the cross-examination was really, that was it.

I mean, this, this was like the whole case.

So like, I kind of plotted out my cross.

I typically don't write my cross-exams out like verbatim.

Um, I'll do a series of bullet points and I'll, I'll sometimes I'll script like important

questions where the wording really matters.

Um, in this case, I did a little bit more cross-scripting and the order of my questions

became super important because I was like, thinking back, you know, primacy and recency,

people remember the first thing you say.

And the last thing you say, so if I stick this 647g shit, like right in the middle, like

maybe no one will catch onto it, like while I'm doing it.

And so I tried to like front load my cross-exam where I was like, I want to talk first about

what you saw.

And then I want to talk about what you chose to do.

And another great thing I got from, uh, you know, my boss, Susan is like really framing

questions to police officers in terms of choice making.

So like one big piece of evidence missing from this case is a blood alcohol amount, you know,

they didn't breathalyze them.

So it's, you know, we don't have that piece of evidence.

So, uh, you know, in the first block of my cross-exam, I'll be like, you know, you observe

this, you talk to these people, you did all these things.

Then I did my 647g shit.

And then in the end I would be like, so you had a breathalyzer with you.

You were trained to use the breathalyzer.

You know how it works.

You know what kind of evidence it gives you.

You chose not to use it in this case.

You made the decision not to collect important evidence that would help you prove this case.

You know, and let's talk about the other things you chose not to do.

And so we kind of, you know, I focused, uh, um, most of my questioning on either side of

the 647g stuff.

And when it came to the 647g stuff, because again, this sort of relates back to the technical

nature of this 1118 defense, you have to raise it.

And then the prosecution has to be afforded an opportunity to rebut it.

So I asked him, I was like, you arrested my client for a violation of 647f.

And he's like, yes.

So, you know, what 647f is, you've been trained to identify 647f, you know, the elements, you

know, the ramifications of the charge, you know how to identify it.

What is 647g?

I just like asked him an open-ended question.

And he was like, I don't know.

And I was like, that's right.

You don't know.

Cause you weren't trained on 647g.

You didn't receive any instruction on how to identify 647g.

And he's like, kind of looking at the prosecutor and like, you know, looking around the room.

He's like, no, I don't know about that one.

I was like, you know, cause you were trained to arrest people for public intoxication.

So you didn't make a determination about the reasonability of transporting my client to

a facility designated by welfare and institutions code.

So and so and so did you.

Objection, relevance.

I can't imagine the DA is just sitting there like, oh my gosh, where is he going?

He didn't object.

Not only did he not object, but the cop was like, what?

Like, I was like, I know it's an awkward question.

Let me ask it again.

You just, you didn't make a decision to transport him to a facility described by this welfare

and institutions code.

And for a second time, he was like, no, I didn't, I didn't do that.

Who does that?

Because he was, you thought he was drunk in public.

So you just arrested him.

And he was like, yeah, I just arrested him.

I was like, cause you're trained to arrest him.

He's like, yeah, I'm doing my job.

And so it was kind of like, as soon as I started feeding into him, I was like, you were just

following your training.

He was like, oh yeah, yeah, definitely.

I was just following my training.

And I was in part of me was like, oh fuck, there it is.

Like, this is what I wrote in my fact statement that he didn't make the determination that he

was unaware of the provision that he didn't know he had to do it.

This is all in my 11, 18 motion.

So as soon as I got the answers I wanted, I was like, now let's talk about your PAS device.

And then it was like, I kind of like moved it, you know, transitioned over to the

fact stuff.

And I probably asked maybe 10 more minutes of questions than was strictly speaking necessary

because I wanted to bury that 647G question and answer.

I didn't want the prosecutor looking it up.

Great.

I mean, that's, that's great.

Great.

I just want to insert possible title for the episode.

Just so when I'm editing, I'll remember ain't nothing but a 647G thing, baby, or something

like that.

G thing, baby.

I kind of like your decisions.

These are you.

I like it.

But it's a 647G thing.

Yeah.

That's, but that, no, okay.

Going back though.

That's fucking great though.

It's a G thing.

I liked it.

It's 647 that is.

Oh yeah.

It's good.

So it sounds like your cross went really well then.

Yeah.

It went about as good as I could expect.

I could hope it to, you know, I really sweated this case.

Like, because when you got like a dude who straight up didn't do it, who has been subject

to all of these covert and coded kind of biases, both through their arrest and then through

the ultimate prosecution.

And like, in the event you lose, like, you're not just talking about a summary grant of probation.

You're talking about like a major financial hit to a person that's just working a wage

job.

Like, I didn't want to fuck it up, you know?

And it was, it really like it, I spent a lot of time trying to prepare this 1118 and

a lot of nights where I was waking up in the middle of the night and I would be running

my cross in my head all the time.

And so when I finally got up and did it and I asked the question and I got the answers,

it was like, I don't know if you play poker, but it's hard, it's harder to play a winning

hand than it is to bluff a losing hand.

And it was like, you know, like I've got the answers and I was like, don't fuck it up.

Don't fuck it up.

Don't fuck it up.

Like, move on, move on.

Don't ask the 13th question.

Don't keep going on it.

Like, got what you need.

So what was the DA's recross or I'm sorry, what was the DA's redirect like?

Yeah, the DA's redirect was kind of like I had hoped, just focused on the facts.

You know, I tried to contextualize the facts in the light that I saw them as in the hopes

that the jury would see them the same way.

The DA basically did the same thing, tried to recontextualize the facts in the light that

he saw them.

But by focusing on the facts and failing to ask any questions about the 647G defense,

he basically surrendered his rebuttal.

So, okay.

So the DA rests.

Now, typically the defense goes next.

But before the defense puts on their case, all defense attorneys do this 1118.1 motion that

say that the DA has not provided enough evidence to go forward.

That a reasonable jury could convict.

Right.

So tell us about you pulling out this 1118.1 motion.

First time ever done in defense history.

There's no tight motions.

I was going to say, does the judge, after the people rest, does he, okay, now, Matthew,

do you defense want to call a witness?

And you're like, wait a minute.

Or how does that exchange go?

Some judges would say, defense, you have any motions now?

Anticipating 1118.

Basically, yeah.

So the way it went down was, you know, people rested.

They're like, you know, prosecution rests.

And the judge turns to me and says, you know, defense, would you like to present a case?

At which point I say, same thing I say in every case where I'm just like, you know,

your honor, I'd like to make a motion outside the presence of the jury.

And everyone's like, again, like pissed that they're there on New Year's Eve.

So the judge is like rolling his eyes.

The clerk's like, oh God.

And then the bail is like, now we got to excuse the jury.

So the judge is like, all right, we're going to take care of some housekeeping business.

Everybody go out in the hallway.

Don't go anywhere.

This won't take longer than five minutes.

Oh, wow.

So the judge has already decided how he's going to rule.

At least at this point.

Clearly.

No, 100%.

It's all standard.

You're just going through the motions.

Because sometimes the judges are even like, when you make the 1118.1 motion,

at least in my experience, when I know I don't have a good argument,

they're like, all right, reserve it for later.

Let's just do the defense case.

And then you can make your 1118.1 at 430 today after the jury's gone.

I can deny your motion at 430.

Yeah, I'm going to deny it later.

Okay.

So, okay, you reserve the record.

Okay.

Blah, blah, blah.

But we'll just, you make your arguments later.

I'll deny it.

Okay.

Defense case.

Proceed.

Let's go.

But you said, I need to talk now.

I like that.

That's great.

You tell me.

I have a reason.

I have a solution to send everyone home, Your Honor.

Yeah.

We can just meet right now.

We can end it now.

We can just talk for a few minutes.

Five minutes?

I think that should be sufficient.

Yeah, sure, Your Honor.

Everyone leaves the courtroom and...

Yeah.

Tell us about it.

Yeah.

So, this is where it got pretty intense.

I mean, we didn't have a closing argument in this case, obviously.

But, like, this is on par with a big one.

So, like, the judge excuses the jury.

I know, you know, it's like, you've all done these things where you're just like, sorry, everybody.

You know, I got to do it.

I don't think they met their burden.

The DA recites the facts.

The judge rules.

And we all move on.

That's basically what everybody thinks is about to happen.

And, like, you know, I did this in a previous trial one time where every time I cross-examined somebody...

This is another thing I got from Susan Leff.

I basically owe my entire career to her.

But, like, it's, you know, every time I was cross-examining somebody, I'd pull something out of...

And I was going to impeach them with something.

I'd pull it out of a red folder so that whenever the jury saw me pick up that red folder, they knew something was coming.

And, like, I kind of just, like, wanted to borrow that mojo a little bit.

So, I brought my 1118 in that same red folder.

And I was like, you know, ordinarily, Your Honor, this is where I would say, you know, just a procedural motion.

But, actually, I briefed this issue and I've made my presentation.

I was just like, 647G, the penal code, obligates the police officer to make a determination.

Henri Jorge G has interpreted 647G to require that as a legal...

You know, to mandate that as a legal requirement.

And absent the sufficient showing of meeting the legal requirement, the court has no option other than to dismiss this case.

And here's my briefing.

Here's the case.

I printed copies of the case for everybody.

And the judge was like, what?

Right.

You know what I mean?

Like, it was like, what are you saying?

I could see a big sigh when he starts a motion.

Come on, man.

Yeah, I'm just like, you know, actually, Your Honor, but like, it was, uh, the prosecutor basically just wants to ignore the 647G argument entirely and just be like, well, you know, Your Honor, the police officer testified that there is all this evidence of intoxication.

And here's what the jury instruction says, and we should proceed.

And, um, you know, I kept kind of circling back around.

I'm like, look, here's the language of the case.

Here's my brief.

Uh, you know, sent it up to the bench, provided a copy to the prosecutor.

And then the judge is like, you know, it's like, I think it was like maybe four or five pages.

Like it wasn't super long, but it wasn't exactly a one page brief, you know?

And, um, the, so he's like, okay, I'm going to go into chambers, tell the jury not to go anywhere.

This is going to take 20 minutes.

And so he goes back into chambers.

And at that point, it was just Renee and I in the courtroom as the only members, uh, you know, the defense, my office wasn't there.

Um, well, but the prosecutor's there with the cop and then the prosecutor gets on the phone.

Um, and I think, I think the court bailiffs, um, maybe radioed around to each other because for whatever reason, over the course of the next, it took 45 minutes.

Um, over the course of the next 45 minutes, the courtroom starts filling up with cops.

Uh, all these sheriff's deputies start coming in, like all the court bailiffs.

And then every member of the prosecution's misdemeanor division comes up to the courthouse and they establish a little command center, like over on the side.

And there's like all three or four of them over there and they all got computers out and they're all like looking at cases and like, you know, type writing things down and like whispering to each other.

And it was just, and then, uh, so this was the amount of resources that are going into a drunken public case right now.

On New Year's Eve.

On New Year's Eve.

On New Year's Eve.

Pretty unreal.

Why are people still there?

Right, right.

Yeah.

But then it was like, then the prosecutor.

It was like red alert, red alert, we're about to lose a drunken public case, bring in the whole cavalry.

Yeah, it was kind of like that.

I thought it was for intimidation.

Like, judge, you can't rule.

Oh yeah, intimidating them.

We're bringing everyone in here.

You're going to make this ruling in front of the entire county?

And I feel like the judge was like, all right, nobody go anywhere.

I'm going to go to my chambers.

This is going to take 20 minutes.

I got to read the motion, read the case, and then I have to decide whether or not I want to follow the law.

So, or how am I going to get around this law?

So 45 minutes.

Go ahead.

45 minutes, man.

It was like the, uh, the arresting agency was the Nevada City Police Department.

The court staff is run by the sheriff.

So there's two different agencies that are there.

All these NTPB officers start showing up.

The cop supervisor shows up.

Like, you know, the courtroom is full of like, I don't know, maybe 15 or 20 people.

And only two of them are us, you know, and it's pretty much all cops.

I'm like wearing a path in the back of the courtroom, just walking back and forth, trying not to look at anybody.

Like, Renee and I aren't like talking very much.

It was a moment.

It was tension, man.

It was like in the air.

You could feel it.

It was built up a bit.

This is a big landmark ruling because what the judge is about to do means that the cops are not going to have to add an extra sentence to the police reports from here on out.

Yeah, basically.

The cut and paste has to be manipulated.

Yeah, they got to like change the template.

Yeah, the template has to be manipulated.

That's kind of it.

You know, so they're doing their thing.

And it's like, you know, by now the prosecutor's got like all this paperwork all over his table.

He's got like cases printed out.

He's got all these pages of notes.

And people are like showing them things on their computer and stuff.

And like, you know, eventually the judge comes back out.

It's like the whole courtroom goes quiet.

And the, you know, the gallery's now filling up and he kind of looks down and he talks to me first.

And he's like, you know, counsel, my reading of the law is that the prosecution, because the prosecutor, let me back up slightly.

The prosecutor at one point was like, well, let me reopen my case and we'll address it.

And I was like, absolutely not.

You rested, buddy.

Like, that's your deal.

Like, you took your shot.

No, you can't fucking reopen the case.

Get out of here.

Like, so it was like, you know, I objected to that, obviously.

And then the judge was like, wanted to readdress the issue and was like, you know, my reading this case says the prosecution is given an opportunity to rebut.

I believe that they should be able to reopen their case to address the concern that you raised.

And my response to that was like, well, you know, your honor, the prosecution had an opportunity to redirect their witness twice.

So they had an opportunity to rebut it.

So they had an opportunity to rebut it.

They chose not to.

Then they rested.

I don't believe it would be appropriate to permit the prosecution to reopen a case that they rested on to argue a point once they realized maybe perhaps too late they were unaware of the law.

That can't, that can't, that can't be the case.

And also like, also like the cop is right there in the courtroom with you, right?

Or did you guys excuse him?

Because it's like, now he knows what he needs to say.

Like, if you reopen, he can just say, oh, I did do this.

Even though he testified 10 times that he didn't.

Yeah, no, that was it.

And the judge kind of opened his mouth and then closed it and then kind of looked at me and then looked at the prosecutors like, do you have any response to that?

And then the prosecutor's only response was, they had figured out by this point that we do not have a facility, a detox facility in this county.

So, like, he was like, well, no, your honor, it's sort of per se unreasonable and, and the, you know, this officer's like the, his immediate supervisor is going to come to court and testify that they don't have one and I want to call him as a witness.

And I'm just like, no, like, no, you're not calling that cop as a witness.

I didn't see him on that list.

Like, you know, so I'm just objecting through all of it.

And the judge basically is like, at a certain point, he cuts the prosecutor off and he goes, I have no choice but to dismiss this case, bring the jury back in.

And they bring the jury in and he goes, you know, ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for your service.

We really appreciate you taking time out on New Year's Eve to kind of be here with us.

Sometimes things happen in court that are technical and legal.

And as he said it, as a technicality, I must dismiss this case.

And it was like, the only time that I smiled was like, technicality, get the fuck out of here.

It's the goddamn penal code.

You know that technicality?

Like, you know, like, come on.

But like, you know, that was it.

The jury just kind of looked a little confused and then they left.

And we had some house, I turned to Rene, I was like, como se dice happy new year in Espanol.

Feliz año.

Feliz año nuevo.

And then I said, Feliz año.

We shook hands, we walked out of the courtroom.

Rene, how did that feel?

Oh, that was so liberating.

I was like, oh my God, this is finally, we're at the end of this.

And it felt really good.

I got to say, like, a little experience getting out of that courtroom.

Susan, yes, that's her name?

Yeah.

Yeah, Susan was there.

And the cops were all hurling together, like, probably like three, four cops, all looking at me.

And of course, I look at them, but I just keep going.

We go to the office and then Susan is like, yeah, those guys are like, just like mad dogs.

You got to be careful now because they're going to be like, because mad is his job, but they're going to be looking at you.

And I totally understood.

I could see how, like, how hurt they were.

They really, they really lost something there.

Yeah.

Wow.

So, yeah, that was pretty memorable.

But it was, yeah, it was great.

It was great.

I feel, I feel so.

Rene, you're like public enemy number one now down there in Nevada, Nevada County.

Yeah, I'm glad COVID happened, so I just don't go out.

I don't go out anymore.

Oh, yeah.

I'd like to know how cocky were you walking out of the courtroom?

Did you have a little swag, like, I'm untouchable, bitches?

Yeah.

I have such a good lawyer.

Yeah, Rene, you know, you were, like, you thought about pleading guilty and just moving on with your life.

But then, you know, Matt, you met your public defender, Matt, and he empowered you, told you what your legal options were.

And you decided to fight the case and take on the government.

And what was that like, to have somebody like Matt empower you like that?

Yeah, no, that definitely, like I was saying, like, being a foreigner, I was definitely afraid and just looking into the worst, you know, like, even, like, I don't know, immigration issues.

I'm a legal alien.

I have my green card.

But it was, I was looking at the really dark picture.

And all of this is just really out of fear, you know.

So having Matt on my side and really, like, him being so honest and, like, so thorough with his job, I, as you said, like, I definitely felt empowered.

And I also, like, said, well, because I think at some point with Matt, we talked about, like, okay, let's just, you know, go for the journey.

Like, and I also thought about it.

I was like, this is just a chance to really see how this works.

Can I say something?

Yeah, go for it, Matt.

I mean, I appreciate all the smoke in my ass and everything, but, like, I feel incredibly fortunate to have had Rene as a client.

You know, it's like, Rene made the choices in his case.

Like, I did the things that he directed me to do, given the options that he had.

And, like, I felt a tremendous amount of responsibility and a tremendous amount of gratitude.

Like, Rene was really amazing to work with, and it's always dicey when I'm, like, you know, we're going one way through most of the case, just straight fact defense.

And then at some point, I had to go to him and be, like, hey, dude, like, I have an idea.

Like, I got this idea about this thing.

I think I can pull it off.

Like, I think I can do it.

I got it from a YouTube channel.

It's from a YouTube channel.

I got it from a YouTube.

Like, I was, like, it's not a guarantee, like, but I think it's pretty good.

Like, I think I can do this.

And I, like, the moment when I'm, like, look, dude, like, here's your options.

This is what I think I can do for you.

Like, it was Rene's, you know, commitment to his own case, commitment to his own factual innocence, that, and our relationship together, like, his willingness to work with me and be involved in the process, that I felt like he was in a position to give me the permission to bring the defense.

Okay, well, I think, you know, we're here at the end.

Can't think of a better way to finish out the year than having a case dismissed like that.

Absolutely.

So, Matthew, how long have you been a public defender for?

Public defender, I've been three years.

Three years.

Okay.

Why did you become a public defender then?

Is this something you discovered in law school?

Sort of.

So, I'm a frequent listener to the show.

I anticipated this question.

I want to say I've heard a lot of people give an answer to this, and I just generally concur with their answers.

You know, I want to fight for the underdog.

I am opposed to the expanding police state.

I'm against incarceration as a social remedy.

I feel like we can do a lot better than this.

So, I want to join in with a lot of the things that other people have said.

The reason why I did it, kind of before I ever got to law school, I had this experience when I was a teenager in high school.

One of my best friends, he died.

He died when I was in high school.

His name is Brandon.

And I went to his funeral.

And he took his own life.

And, like, so it was a heavy, it was, like, a really heavy moment for me.

It was, I had several friends pass away when I was in high school, and this one was really bad.

And, like, after the funeral, I had, like, you know, we had, like, a wake.

And a friend of mine was just having too hard a time, so I drove her home.

And then on the way, and she lived in a trailer park.

And this is in Simi Valley, actually.

And that's where I grew up.

And I was driving back out of the trailer park, and I got pulled over for an expired tag.

And this is unusual for Southern California.

There was, like, a dumping rainstorm.

And the cop, when he pulled me over, was like, your eyes look a little red.

What have you been doing tonight?

And I said, you know, well, actually, I'm coming from a funeral, and I've been crying a lot today.

And the cop is like, is that right?

Get out of the car.

And they held me at gunpoint, face down on the pavement in the pouring rain.

And I'm, like, 16 or 17 or something like that.

So I, you know, and I, you know, I worked all summer one year, and I bought a $400 car, and it was full of trash.

And so it was like, the cop keeps going through my car, and I used to pack a lunch to school.

And so he'd pull out sandwich bags, and he'd be like, what is this?

And I was like, it's a sandwich bag.

And he was like, what was in it?

And I was like, sandwiches.

Like, it was a, you know, but it was like, the whole thing was like, they're like, look straight at the light.

Don't look to the side.

Like, you know, they had guns on me.

It was awful.

And then, you know, it was like, by the time I made it back, my friends that were, like, still kind of having this wake with my friend's mother and stuff like that, you know, they held me on the side of the road there for, like, two hours or so.

And so when I showed back up at the spot, like, everybody was really worried that, like, I had gone and done something, you know, like, maybe something had happened to me, like, to put my friends through a lot.

It was really hard for me personally.

And it straight up did not endear me to police.

And I feel like in my life, like, that moment of, like, really intense betrayal.

Like, just feel, like, I was a young person.

And I had my own struggles.

And I was hurting in my own way.

And I don't think I thought very critically about the police before that.

But I sort of generally perceived them as, like, you know, kind of people that were around to protect people.

And then they just fucked with me in my lowest possible moment.

And I just didn't forget it.

And so it's, like, the older I got and the more sophisticated they got with my thinking and when I was thinking about what do I want to do with my life, like, that to me, like, I never got away from the desire to just fuck up that system.

Like, and do something to get in the way of the authority that the police have and the power that they have and the way that they can use that power and authority in ways that are largely unseen and have these pretty awful ramifications.

Because I walked away from that.

Like, I'm a white dude.

Like, there's a reality in which I wouldn't have walked away with that if I was born a different person.

And it's, like, that viscerality, like, it sticks with me.

The public defender was the only choice.

Like, I'm not going to represent rich people.

I'm not going to fight over car accidents.

You know what I mean?

Like, and now I have the privilege of basically going to work every day.

And I just professionally fuck up cops' days.

That's all I do.

That's, like, my whole job.

I suggest you put that on your business card to make sure it's part of the job description of professionally fucking up police officers' days.

That should be in the job description or at least on your business card, man.

So, all right.

Well, let's close it out, guys.

You know, Matthew, thanks for calling.

Thanks for being on the show.

And, Rene, thanks for telling your story, buddy.

I appreciate it.

Yeah, absolutely.

My pleasure.

But I also want to say, Matt, I feel like this episode is going to be referred to plenty of times down the line of young and old attorneys obtaining and using some of the strategies that you shared with us today.

I thought it was an excellent, excellent.

Well, I didn't invent it, man.

I mean, it's like I got it from the folks that came before me.

It's, you know, we're all, like, links in a chain here, you know.

But I'm glad.

You know, 647G, dude.

Look it up.

Yeah.

It's the G thing.

It's the G thing.

Wow.

That's it for season three, folks.

It's been quite the ride this year.

I just want to say thank you for sticking with us and helping us grow.

The best part of doing the podcast is knowing that as a public defender, I am part of an amazing community of people that are out there fighting for humanity on a daily basis.

It is very humbling.

I'm going to take a little break now.

But no, we are working on some exciting things for next year when A&G comes back.

Peace.

Peace.