A True Patriot's Verdict - When serving your country isn't enough to earn justice—and one public defender refuses to stay silent.

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

I mean, listen, there were no eyewitnesses. And for you to link someone to a whole ass murder based on a car and this contrived, manufactured, coercive Perkins operation does not, a case beyond a reasonable doubt, make.

He was very considerate. He would always ask me how I was doing, how my family was doing. Wish me a happy this or marry that. The ballistics information, the GSR stuff was huge for me. The fact that they admitted to add an attempted murder charge literally right before when we were in the trial court, they added this attempted murder charge.

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

We're not guilty.

All right, here we go. Season two.

We're live.

Here we are.

Nikhil, how you doing, buddy?

I'm good, man.

Man, I'm so glad to see you.

I feel like we had a nice little hiatus, a little vacation.

Yes.

You know, and now we're back in it, back on the ground.

Right.

Telling these stories.

Right.

I mean, assuming that this is the first episode of season two.

I mean, it may not be, but it's cool.

We can talk about the vacation stuff anyway.

I know.

And I think we have a pretty, for this season two, maybe episode nine-ish, eight-ish, one-ish.

I don't know.

I feel like the content is a season premiere type of content.

Yeah.

Ooh.

It's a pretty gutsy call, and we have our guests sitting right here with us anyways.

Welcome to the show, Miss J.

Thank you.

It's been a long time coming.

Yeah.

Cool.

It's been a long time coming.

Our fellow public defender who works right down the hallway from me.

How are you doing today?

I'm good.

I'm good.

I know you had a not guilty pretty recently.

I did.

I did.

All right.

Well, what kind of case was it?

It was a murder, a gang shooting.

So the charges were murder with the gang enhancement and the gun enhancement and discharge of the gun.

Attempted murder, but the same, and fell in possession of a firearm with the gang enhancement.

All the charges had a gang enhancement.

Yes.

And the gun possession was mostly related to the fact that if your client was the murderer, then he used a gun in the murder.

Got it.

All right.

And at least if he didn't murder, and if he didn't attempt a murder, he at least had a gun at some point.

Right.

So they did it for good measure.

Okay.

Yeah.

And what were the prosecution facts?

The case now was a couple of years ago.

So when we actually took the case to trial, it was almost to the day.

It was one day past the actual date of the incident.

But the facts were that my client was a gang member.

The decedent was a gang member.

There was a shooting near a park on a residential street at night.

And the decedent was shot once.

He succumbed to his injuries and surgery.

At the time of the shooting at the corner, there was a building that had graffiti at the top that allegedly belonged to the gang to which my client was a member.

They said that that graffiti was fresh, indicating that it had just happened.

I'm sorry.

What's your question?

My question is, how did they determine that the graffiti was fresh after the murder?

Or was there some officer canvassing the scene and was like, oh, and putting his finger to the graffiti?

So I asked.

I asked how that they know because it wasn't like ground level.

The graffiti was at the top.

He said, well, it looked fresh.

It was shiny.

Blah, blah, blah.

But he did not actually touch it.

And some was lower to the ground.

And that one was not wet.

Although he said it was fresh in as much as it didn't have the normal wear and tear and weathering and blah, blah, blah.

But the graffiti at the top, he said, was fresh.

Because it didn't have the weathering.

Didn't have the weathering.

It was glossy.

It looked new.

And your client's gang was graffitied on top of the building where the shooting happened.

Yes.

And the decedent's gang was also graffitied in the same area.

So there was graffiti on the building at the top, graffiti on the bottom, graffiti on the curb.

So there's a lot of graffiti in this area.

There's a lot of graffiti.

Interesting.

See, real scientific testing was done to determine the freshness of this graffiti.

Exactly.

Got it.

He just said it looked fresh and that became a fact.

Is that a significant in some way, having different gangs graffiti in the same area?

For this one, because I believe that the prosecutor was going to try and say that that was the cause of the murder.

That there was graffiti going on in the decedent's territory.

Something happened.

Decedent may have happened upon it as it was happening.

And he ends up getting shot.

Okay, so like rival gangs, territory, graffiti, like this just the natural, like the, you know, we're talking about the, you know, the gangs on the plains are now fighting for territory.

That's their motive, right?

They also said that the gangs were warring at the time.

Got it.

So.

Scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence.

They said that the gangs were warring.

This is rumor and innuendo based on the officers.

Right.

Right.

There was nothing to support it.

Not like, oh, we had had a rash of murders or this or that, or there was nothing to support that.

They did have retaliatory graffiti after the murder where it was like, fuck, my client's gang.

We're going to get you back.

Da, da, da, da, da.

So, yeah, that was, you know.

Okay.

And obviously an obvious consequence of the shooting.

But in terms of leading up to it, they had nothing to support that there was a war of any sort going on between the gangs other than the gang expert cop saying that it was so.

I would also say that, like, in my experience and, you know, having spray painted a few things in my day.

Anybody can spray paint anything, really.

I mean, it's like.

Anybody can spray paint anything.

It's like identity is really difficult to prove.

It is.

And so, like, you know, you're basically.

It's so many levels of speculation.

Right.

To say that this is what's going on behind the scenes based on, like, this anthropological study of the graffiti that I'm, like, deriving from.

Right.

Right.

It's pretty ridiculous.

Sadly, as ridiculous as it is, a semi-important part of the prosecutor's case.

Oh, wow.

Which is sad.

But it was.

So, all right.

So, there's a.

The decedent is standing where when he gets shot?

So, there was a surveillance camera across the street from where the decedent was shot.

That surveillance camera was motion censored, as fate would have it.

So, the decedent is at some point across the street.

You see right up until the shooting where you just see people driving by, people standing around talking, and right after.

So, he falls in between, on the ground, in between a van and another car.

There are cars parked all along the curb, and there's someone in the van.

What's on the street there?

Is it a park, a building?

There's a park right there near, like, maybe a few yards up from where he actually falls between the cars.

Okay.

And it's about eight or so at night.

And is he by himself?

Allegedly, but I don't know.

And did the surveillance video show, what did it show again?

It shows right up until, so cars driving by, people walking by, just normal activity.

And then afterwards, you see people running to where he's down.

Okay, so you don't see gunshots.

So, the shooting is not.

You don't see the origin of the shooting, like who's shooting at him or is shooting.

Nothing having to do with a gunshot is captured.

You can't even really see him.

You just see the body.

You can't even see the body.

So, you just see the people rushing toward where the decedent is off camera.

Right.

You can see that part where people, but he's covered by the people.

So, you can't see him.

Got it.

Can't see him.

So, the video really shows nothing.

Just assured, basically, an incident occurred.

That was off camera, thank God.

Yeah.

And you didn't see anything.

Okay.

So, no facts were we're disputing yet.

Because it's, yes, the person was shot.

The graffiti, but no.

Oh, yeah.

The graffiti.

So, then the, I guess I imagine the police are called, right?

The police are called.

Okay.

They show up, right?

They show up and show out.

There are a lot of them there.

Did they interview people?

They tried.

So, we did have the body worn.

Body worn video, right?

There were a ton of police there.

So, there were several different body worn videos.

And they did ask people.

And people said they didn't see anything.

Which seems consistent with the video, though.

Which is consistent with the video.

One lady may have said something about a van.

And that's it.

Everyone else said they did not see anything.

Okay.

Is that how she said it?

Something about a van?

What did she say?

I think I saw a van go that way.

Okay.

Something to that effect.

Did she describe the van?

Not in any great detail.

Okay.

All right.

So, the cops show up.

They interview people.

Nobody sees anything.

A lady says she sees, kind of sees a van.

And that's it for, then what happens next?

They take the decedent to the hospital.

They, you know, tape off the scene.

He goes, the decedent goes to the hospital.

He dies in surgery.

And they take pictures of the crime scene.

So, no suspects at this time, then, right?

No suspects at this time.

Nobody saw.

Yeah.

What kind of forensic evidence is recovered, if any?

So, they don't ever recover any firearms.

They recover six, I'm sorry, 11 casings.

Five, a cluster of five and a cluster of six.

And they are far enough apart that it led the ballistics expert to conclude that there were two shooters.

And the two clusters contained different caliber casings, which means that there were two separate guns used.

And where were the casings found?

In the street.

Okay.

In the street.

Not right near where the body was.

They were kind of, the body was somewhat in the middle-ish of where the casings were.

So, the casings were, I don't want to say because I don't remember exactly how far apart, but they were far enough apart to lead to that conclusion.

And was the bullet that killed the decedent matched one of these cluster calibers, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

How many times was the decedent struck?

Once.

Where?

In the left arm, on the outside, went out on the inside, went back in, and struck the heart.

Wow.

Through the arm?

In and out of the arm, then through the chest cavity, and then the heart.

That must have been a pretty big caliber bullet there.

Just one bullet.

And that hail of gunfire, he was only hit once.

So then, that's what the ballistics say.

What's next in the police's developments?

They latch on to this white van.

They know my client because my client...

So wait, you said they latch on to the white van.

A white van.

Where'd the white van come from?

Somebody said something about this stupid white van.

Oh, it's a white van.

Yeah, this is a white van.

Okay, it's a white van.

Somebody, okay, so when the police officers are doing their canvassing of the area because

it's a residential street, they door knock.

Most people say they don't see anything.

One guy says, oh, yeah, I saw a car take off going down the street in a certain direction.

And that guy, at one point during that statement, described it as a white van.

So then they start looking for a white van.

So this is like a day or two later, they get the white van information?

Yes.

Okay.

Well, knock and talk a day or two later, guess is why?

Not the night of?

No.

Oh, okay, interesting.

So another, more time for people just to say whatever they want, right?

Nobody really, either they didn't want to be involved or they truly didn't see anything.

Got it.

So now we got a lead.

The police have a lead.

Now they have a lead.

Is it, they even say like, what kind of van, what year, make and model?

Nope.

Windows.

Yeah.

Rapey van.

Nope.

Like, you know, like child molester van.

Like, what?

No, no.

Nothing, nothing.

No, it was just a white van.

Okay.

Interesting.

Literally.

Because that's interesting.

Not an astro van, not, you know, just a white van.

It's an interesting profile of a gangster in a white van.

Right.

Right.

So the police.

It's a hardcore gang member there.

Right.

So the police have this tip and they start from there.

All roads start and lead to and end with the white van.

So what do they do with the white van tip?

They instantly finger my client.

I think.

I don't know what they did in real life.

But, um, my client is a gang member, had been a gang member, um, and they knew him, um, that

it was uncontroverted.

They, they knew who he was.

They knew where he lived, all of that.

Um, and they also knew that his, um, someone close to him had a white van.

And so they knew where to start.

Had he ever been stopped driving or as a passenger in that van?

After the shooting, he was.

Oh, after the shooting.

After the shooting, they did stop him because they were kind of watching him.

They did stop him and he was driving the white van.

So after, but this is after they would already, they had already targeted him as a potential

suspect.

So they knew he was affiliated with the white van before they actually caught him in the.

Yes.

So it's very, I think.

Got it.

So it's very interesting because what you've described is you're like, they knew who he

was.

They know what kind of car he's driving.

They know, um, basically all about his patterns and practices.

It sounds like a very high level and sophisticated intelligence gathering operation.

I think so.

Right.

Like, I mean, you're basically just collecting all this intelligence on people and saying,

and we're going to keep it.

So when you, when we think you've done something, we're going to use it against it.

I mean, they didn't, um, they didn't commit to all of that at trial, but they did concede

that they didn't know my client.

They knew where he lived.

They were familiar with him.

Um, and I believe that to know that and to know where he lives and all that, you also

know that he had access to that white van.

Got it.

And when they had stopped, they had stopped him before they actually arrested him, um, in

connection with this case, driving the white van.

Okay.

So.

So, so, so they do surveillance, they see him get into a white van that he drives and

they stop him.

Right.

So they're not sitting outside his house in a, you know, typical stakeout that you see

in the movies, but they're, they, I think within their, within their police, within the police

department and in the community, they had created this kind of bolo or, you know, beyond

the lookout.

Right.

And, and a picture of, um, a white van that they believe could be the van and a picture

of, um, the actual van from surveillance video in the area right after the shooting.

So they had those two pictures side by side.

So wait, so there is surveillance video of, of a white van.

In the area, in the area, a white van, not a license plate, not a driver to be seen.

Nothing.

Just a white van.

Not like the shots were fired from that white van.

Just a white van was, was on a surveillance video near the area at some point.

Like on a different street.

Right.

Like let's say the shooting was at Temple and Broadway.

It was not.

That's where we work.

Let's say the shooting was at, um, Broadway and, and whatever.

Temple.

Um, if they found them.

Oh, wait, that on Grand and First.

Yes.

In the area at around the same time.

Got it.

But just that, that's it.

There's, it's just, it's literally a van driving in motion.

There's nothing distinct about the van.

It's not like it has front side damage or, you know, something that.

Like gang graffiti on the side of it.

Right.

There's nothing that stands out about the stupid white van.

Okay.

Okay.

So then, uh, it's your client get in the car and he drives and then what happens?

Who gets in the car?

Your client.

You said they.

A person.

Oh, okay.

Am I assuming facts?

Wait, are we talking, are we talking about the case or when they.

You said it is surveillance.

No, we're past the surveillance.

You're saying they were surveilling him and they see him get into the car.

They were like a bolo.

They had the.

The bolo.

Right.

So then they stop him.

They pull him over.

Okay.

So your client.

Your client is driving them.

That's where we're at, right?

Yes.

He's driving.

They drive him.

They stop him.

They catch him with what?

Like a, like an armory of guns.

I'm sure.

No.

They catch him with nothing.

They catch him with nothing.

They catch him.

They catch him with nothing.

What'd they pull him over for?

Ultimately, uh, driving on a suspended license.

Oh, so unpaid traffic, uh, debt.

Driving on a suspended license is what they got.

Yeah.

So they.

Woo.

It's a pet pee.

I'm giving the kills right there.

I cannot stand that shit.

When they did that, um, they actually impounded the van.

Oh, okay.

Found nothing.

Found.

Oh, so they, they, what?

They must have fingerprinted it and DNA.

Not sure what all went into it.

They never really focused on it because it yielded nothing.

Okay.

So found Kate.

They didn't find any casings in it.

They found no casings, no gun, no nothing.

GSR, gunshot residue.

Nothing.

Nothing.

They got nothing out of that.

So did they arrest him?

Um, I don't.

He was ultimately cited out.

So I don't.

Actually, no, I don't think they arrested him.

I think they just impounded the vehicle and was like, you have a court date.

Okay.

And they, you know, they use it as a pretext for more, the more investigation purposes.

Got it.

So still no, I'm still okay.

So they just have this loose affiliation with your client, possibly through the white van.

What happens next with the investigation?

Time goes on.

They're working the case and then they go and arrest my client based in large part on the

white van.

Basically they get a search warrant.

So they get a search warrant to, um, execute at my client's house.

They pull them out early in the morning.

Um, they pull everyone out of the house, including my client.

They search it, they tear it up, searching it.

Um, they find nothing.

Um, I, I'm actually really shocked cause you know, we, we watch a lot of judges come, you

know, sign warrants and we see how fast it happens, right?

Like when we're in, we're staffing calendar courts and we see a police officer come in and

I'm like, dude, that person determined probable cause in 30 seconds.

Yeah.

What you're describing the affidavit to me as so far is like, there's a white van in

the area.

I mean, gang stuff, gang stuff.

Maybe, you know, there's a possible motive maybe cause there's a rival gang because.

Right.

But that seems pretty, even, even by, by like judicial standards of what we see get signed

all the time.

I can't imagine that they authorize a search warrant to search your client's house on that

alone, but they didn't.

What did it say?

What were the facts?

Just a white van?

Oh, the white van.

The, um, the fact that, um, the client was a member of a gang that was alleged to have

been, um, in an active rivalry with the decedent's gang.

Um, the fact that they had seen my client actually driving that van in the area afterwards.

Um.

So they're saying that's the van then.

This, this van.

Oh yeah.

They believe that that's the van.

That seems so speculative, right?

That's not, that's not probable cause.

It just seems like we have a hunch that this might be the van.

I mean.

They believe that it was hands down the van.

Which just shows kind of like how the dehuman, like why we talk about like all the reciprocal

effects of like the dehumanization of like calling people gang members or like painting

gangsters as like this, like sub, like this different society that it's like, it's so

intense how easily we are allowing people to search their house or arrest him, you know,

and disrupt his life because he's a gangster.

Right.

Right.

And it's really, I mean, if you, if you analogize this to any other group of our society, like

cops, for example, or, you know, any other, or Kiwanis club, a rotary club, you would never

be like, oh, he was part of the rotary club and they like, you know, you could never imagine

him.

Right.

Right.

Like, I mean, it's just so crazy or he was Samoan and, you know, like, it's true.

And we would just break into his home because they had, they

had so little, but I guess it, you know, it was like, you know, enough.

I think it'd be like the equivalent of being like, well, the shooter had a shaved head.

This guy has a shaved head.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

And let's go get him because he also has a shaved head.

Close enough.

Okay.

So they searched the house.

They find nothing of evidentiary value.

No.

What they did find was a stupid pattern that my client had.

So my client had been in custody in previous years.

And, uh, during that time he had a pattern for a tattoo and that tattoo was gang related.

So a pattern on him?

No.

So whenever you get a tattoo, they write it, it's on a piece of paper and then they put

it onto your skin.

They transpose it onto your skin to then tattoo it.

So that pattern was just on a eight and eight and a half by 11 paper and it was gang related.

Sure.

In terms of what it said.

That was a violation of his conditions.

Having gang related materials?

Because he was subject to gang conditions.

Um, and they took him in.

Wow.

It's just so, it's just, right.

We just, here he is again, right?

Like when you go through, it's like the thought police, right?

Right.

You can't have gang graffiti, you can't have gang, you can't write things in a certain

way.

It wasn't, it wasn't your gang paraphernalia in a typical sense.

It was just so ticky tack.

It was so ticky tack.

And to have searched, I mean, it was a bigger house.

That was all they came up with.

Was your client, uh, working at this time?

What was he doing?

Does he have, he's third, how does he?

He was at that time in his late twenties, early thirties.

And who's he, and who's he living with?

Family.

Family.

Does he have his own kids?

Um, he was, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

So he's, he's living with his family.

He has kids and he's working.

Working.

The police bust into his house.

At like five in the morning.

Because there's a white van somehow involved.

They find a piece of paper with a drawing on it.

When they bust into his house, I'm sure it's like, they knocked and announced themselves

and politely walked in.

Of course.

Well, no, they did not.

They bursted.

They kicked down the door.

They bursted.

Woke everybody up.

And woke everybody up because it's 5 a.m.

Terrorized probably the kids.

Everybody who's there.

And they turn the shit upside down.

Yeah.

Like just ripping drawers out.

They ransacked it.

Yeah.

Right.

And so when they're leaving, they clean that shit up, right?

Oh, yeah.

It was spotless when they left.

Got it.

It was, it was completely.

I've always wondered that, right?

Like, let's say they batter around your front door for no reason, right?

Because they could have just knocked, right?

They didn't even try that, I'm sure.

They just go.

Oh, I mean, they always say that they did.

No.

They always say, oh, he knocked.

They knocked and they wait like one second.

And then they're busting the door.

They're busting in with a battering ram.

And then, you know, and then they're like coming in with assault rifles and like as if

they're like trying to hunt Osama bin Laden out of your house, right?

It's a whole scene.

And then you're like, who, who cleans this shit up afterwards, right?

Nobody, right?

Like, it's like, I mean, I just like, you know, I think.

The family does.

Right?

Sorry.

We have, we talk a lot about, it's just so funny.

We talk so much about like a lot of people in our community right now are suffering like

all this loss of property because of like natural disasters.

But like these communities constantly are just the police just break in, destroy their

lives, break up all their shit, right?

They're poor, right?

It's not like they could just go to the store and be like, let me just buy new stuff.

They took all the cell phones they could find.

Yeah, all their high value items, they take them, right?

And you're just like, I can't even imagine.

Imagine breaking into a judge's house and like, I'm going to take your laptops, your cell

phones, you survive now, right?

I mean.

They took every last cell phone they could find.

And then they find a piece of paper.

The one thing.

Find this piece of paper.

Which is how they get him in custody.

And they say he violated his probation or parole?

Yeah.

Okay.

So for the hardcore cop lovers out there, you know, he was on parole.

Shouldn't have broken the rules if he wasn't willing to do the tab.

That's law and order, people.

That guy deserved it.

The sad part is, it's like, how often do you lose a sheet of paper?

It was just a piece of paper that he had long forgotten.

Right.

Whenever you get released from custody, your shit's just in a bag.

Was it in a high school yearbook from like 1990?

I don't remember where it was in the house, but it was just, you get a sack of your belongings

when you're released and you just, you put it down.

You always just find random shit.

Every time you move, there's like a piece of paper from 10 years ago.

It wasn't like, let me tag the whole gang as part of a whole ass wall in my house.

It was none of that.

It was literally just a piece of paper with some words on it.

All right.

So now he's in custody.

Right?

Now he's in custody.

Facing parole violation.

Facing a parole violation.

Okay.

What happens next?

My client makes a couple of calls to a person close to him, which any call that you make

while in jail is absolutely recorded.

They even tell you during your phone call that this call is being recorded.

So they had those two phone calls and then they stick him in a recorded environment with

a Perkins agent.

Okay.

Okay.

So, and our audience is pretty savvy.

They, they know what the Perkins agent is.

Right.

Do they really?

Yeah.

You'll remember from season one, episode four, gang murder admissions, the good, the bad,

the exculpatory.

A Perkins operation is when an undercover officer or an informant records their conversation with

an inmate in custody.

This usually occurs prior to the arraignment, wherein the defendant's Sixth Amendment right

to counsel and Miranda rights attach.

He made a couple of phone calls.

Those were not the, um, problem.

The problem.

They could have been.

The Perkins were though.

Perkins agent was the problem.

Got it.

So, they put him in, they put him in with these professional informants.

With good old Gus.

Right.

So, they put him in with the Perkins agent.

Um, before the case went to trial, I tried my level best with many hearings and motions

to try and get the identity or the next best thing of the Perkins agent.

Um, I was shut down summarily.

Um, as I understand it, they don't typically give it because, um, at least at this point,

they are allowed to just press play at trial and play it.

So, the jurors don't have the benefit of have, of having a voice or a body to the voice, um,

to the, a face or a body to the voice.

They just hear this Perkins agent peppering your client with questions and setting them up.

And then they can see your client and you just have to sit there uncomfortably for however

long it is.

In my case, it was about an hour of listening to this recording.

And what was, what was said?

How's he set him up?

Well, my client walks into the cell.

There was something about this Perkins agent that made my client want to show some kind

of respect or deference.

Um, I don't know who the Perkins agent is.

My client doesn't know who the Perkins agent is, but based on what my client could see of

the Perkins agent, he knew what kind of life he led, um, in terms of like being a member

of a gang or something like that.

Um, the only thing that I was just a small caveat, the only thing that I was able to get

out of trial is that the, um, the Perkins agent did have, um, tattoos and I can't recall

if I was able to get out that they were gang related, but that he had obvious and visible

tattoos.

But beyond that, I was shut down in terms of size, height, weight, color, eye color,

hair color, all of it.

Really?

Even though like it goes to coerciveness or voluntariness.

That's exactly what I wanted to get at because they can see my client.

They know what my client looks like.

But if he's in a cell with a six, eight, 300 pound man who has these gang tattoos and,

and he's a part of a gang that my client has to show some kind of deference or respect to

or something like that, that's important.

And so kind of off topic during my, um, cross of the gang cop, I got into the politics of

being in custody and, and the gang politics and the hierarchy and how you do have to prove

yourself and show deference and all that.

Um, when you come across certain people, because you have to align yourself with someone when you're

in there, if you do not, you will not get very far.

You have to.

Do we get into what was said in the Perkins?

So my client comes in, he shows some sort of deference, which indicates to me that this

Perkins agent was someone that my client respected in the gang world.

My client, they, they chit chat, shoot the shit.

Oh, it's cold in here.

What are you in here for?

Fucking pattern, parole violation.

Oh, you'll be out in 10 days.

What are you in here for?

My client asking the Perkins operate the Perkins agent, what he's in there for.

And, um, oh my gosh, they, um, they got me for, um, murder.

A cold hit or something, right?

No, no, no, no, no.

Mine wasn't cold hit.

They got him for a murder.

Um, the Perkins operations cover story was that he, um, was driving a car and that his

cousin had done a murder and that, um, the murder weapon was in the trunk.

And so he had forgotten that the murder weapon was in the trunk and they got him a blah, blah,

blah.

And so they kind of talk about how, um, how the PO, the Perkins operator, um, agent will

be able to get off, you know, because he doesn't know and blah, blah, blah.

So then, um, at some point during this time, the client says that he, they may be trying

to up his charge to murder.

He had been hearing rumblings about that.

He had actually been charged yet or reclassified within jail.

Um, so what are you talking about?

He was like, I don't know.

They're talking about some shooting.

Cause they, they, they contacted my close, uh, family friend since I've been in here and

asked her about this shooting, blah, blah, blah.

And, and you know, she told me that they're asking her about that.

So I think they may be trying to pin a murder on me.

So the conversation goes on.

Someone says this must be the murder cell, which wasn't very helpful.

Um, then ultimately my client says something like that fool was alone.

The homies that I was with, they're the OGs.

They wouldn't tell, um, they're good.

They're not going to tell, um, he ran up on us.

Um, he, he was, he was afraid, um, the person close to him would never tell they were good.

Almost like, let me say as from a lay person.

Sounds kind of like admissions.

I mean, yeah, that coupled with the text messages that they got from my client's phone were

certainly not helpful.

Oh, what text messages?

The day before the shooting, um, my client had been talking with another gentleman, um,

requesting a, um, gun of a certain type, which was also the same caliber kind of gun.

That was one of the guns involved in the shooting.

And then the day after my client said that he had used all of the bullets and he needed more.

Okay.

So real quick, one follow up question I have was, was the caliber of bullet of firearm that

he was discussing on the text messages, did that match the caliber of bullet that was fired at the

decedent?

Yes.

Okay.

That's not a good fact.

No, it was the same caliber.

So this is the first instance, instance of pretty incriminating evidence, right?

Your client's telling the Perkins agent about this shooting.

Right.

About a shooting.

About a shooting.

A shooting.

And then they, they got, during the search warrant, they got his phone and they found

text messages of him requesting a gun, which is also the same type of gun that was used

in the, to shoot the decedent.

And then after saying he had run out of bullets.

Right.

And he needed some more.

Okay.

And the only intervening event in that period of time is the decedent getting shot.

But he, didn't he say, he didn't say I shot, he said he was with the homies and they,

what was he said?

He said that the homies wouldn't tell that he was good.

But did he say I shot somebody?

What did he say?

Like, what was it?

Maybe.

Yeah.

He said that.

Okay.

All right.

So now we got a, now at least we got an arrest now, right?

You have a solid, a legit-ish arrest.

He's in custody now.

Okay.

With a Perkins agent.

Okay.

And so.

At a murder charge.

At a murder charge.

At, so during the Perkins operation, they take him, they pull my client out of the cell

and tell him that they're adding, they're at charging him.

Okay.

Now we're going to at charge you.

Now these Perkins operators can't do any more work.

Right.

So they're just sitting there listening to it as it's happening.

Okay.

So charges are filed and, uh, uh-oh, that means, uh, Miss J is appointed to the case.

Dun, dun, dun.

I am.

I get the case.

Actually.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, so you got it.

You got it from the very.

I was like, yeah.

Big mistake on their part.

I did get it originally.

I did the prelum.

That's where they messed up.

I remember that.

Yeah.

Sounds like Miss J's client is in quite the pickle.

Make sure you listen to the second part of this episode to see if he makes it out of the

criminal system alive.

Previously on another not guilty. Murder with the gang enhancement and the gun enhancement and the discharge of the gun. Attempted murder with the same. They put him in with the Perkins agent. My client says something like, "That fool was alone. The homies that I was with, they're the OGs, they wouldn't...he ran up on us." That coupled with the text messages that they got from my client's phone were certainly not helpful.

Charges are filed. Uh-oh! That means, uh, Ms. J is appointed to the case. Dun-dun-dun-dun.

I am... Welcome to another not guilty. I get the case. Actually, yeah, yeah. Oh, so you got it, you got it from the very original. I was like, yeah, I did. Big mistake on their part. I did get it originally. I did the prelim. It messed up. I remember that. Yeah. Now you get the case, where do you, what do you do?

I talk to my client. Okay. Um, who I adore. Um, get his version.

What do you, what do you like about him?

Everything. He was very considerate. Okay. He would always ask me how I was doing, how my family was doing.

Wow. That's very nice. That's, like, unusual.

I had had, yeah, I had had certain issues with, um, my parents and their health and,

you know, blah, blah, blah. And he would ask about those things. And, you know,

several holidays went by. I had the case for two years to the day when we started practically the trial.

So we, we, um, we had holidays. We had, you know, birthdays, Christmases, New Years,

you know, Thanksgiving, blah, blah, blah. And he would always wish me a happy this or marry that.

Um, he just, he would always ask me how I was doing. Asked me about my other cases,

all of that. He was just, his family was nice too. I adored his family as well.

What do you start doing with the case then? Um, I tried to follow up on a, so a lot of my stuff

was redacted. A lot of the police reports you got from was redacted. Okay. Um, so I tried to

get that stuff redacted, um, unredacted. I'm sorry, unredacted. What do you do to do that?

I asked the DA, um, who redacted a good portion of it, but there was still shit that I had to argue

about to try and get redacted. Like what's redacted? Like what the witness names, contact

information. Yeah. Anything else? No, that was it. So like, no, and some of the just seen this

information was redacted. God, it's so interesting. Right. It's like what states, like the one person

that is entitled to this information, right? Us, right? Like it's like, I think they have this

we've got to protect, stupid fear that I'm going to then turn around and share it wholesale with

with your client, my client, whomever. Although it's bizarre, a crime to share. Right. To do that.

I would never prosecuted for sharing. Yeah. I would never like, I don't know. Give, I don't know.

Let's lay out. Okay. So we charge your client with murder. There's, they have police reports

saying why they're charging your client with murder. Within the police reports are witness

statements. You're the defense attorney. You get this information. It's your job to investigate it.

Go, you know, challenge the source, do your own investigation, see what happens. But you can't

do that because you don't know what the source of information is. So how can you attack it or at

least see if it's credible as a defense attorney? Right. And then you got to go into court and file a

motion just to get that extra bit of information, which could take months. Which is what you're

entitled to by law. Like they have, they're not, they're not in good faith really. There's not a

real basis to redact it. Any, anything else you did in terms of, uh, defense prep or investigation?

Um, do you know what your defense is at this point? I did a 995. Oh, okay. Okay. On what issue?

Um, ID. ID. So you did the prelim at this point then? I had done the prelim. We're in pre-trial.

How did the prelim go? Well, he was held to answer. He was held to answer. So it was a very fast

prelim for a murder. That prelim was done in about an hour, an hour and a half. It was,

it was fast. I mean, what, they just played the tape? No. They had, um, uh, the person who

executed the Perkins operation testify. So you saw the, you saw him?

The officer that conducted the operation. I have no idea who the Perkins agent is. One of y'all could

be the Perkins agent. I have no idea who the Perkins agent is. I know, but you've heard the

voice, right? I mean, I, we get a lot of complaints about how low my voice is. No, it's not your

voice. It's definitely not my voice. It's not your voice. I have no, you know, I've always wondered,

like kind of thought this idea because right, like I've had the same experience in litigating

Perkins cases is that, you know, they, it's a state secret, right? It's like a government,

they will never disclose it. Right. And so my question is, I mean, if we had the resources,

potentially, uh, you know, to try to, to try to show coercion, I mean, if I put up an animation

and made these guys like exaggerated figures, six, eight, seven foot tattoos or whatever. Right. And,

and because 100%, that would be objection. The DAs would object up and down. They would lose their

shit. They stamp their feet, they throw a tantrum and say, this is not what really happened. It's

like, well, I don't know what really happened. But you do, because you know exactly who it is.

Yeah. And so you guys won't give me that information. So what's, if it's not relevant,

then I can put whatever I want. I could, I should be able to portray the Perkins operations however I

want. Right. I can make them the most, the most intense looking dudes on the, like ogres, aliens,

whatever. And I mean, for all I know, he could, he could look like that. I, and you know,

most likely, I mean, from what I hear from clients and witnesses that have been in those operations,

these guys are not, you know, these guys are not timid. No, they're not, they're not, they're not,

they're not, they're not, they're not, they know what they're doing. They're people who have been

around the block and I couldn't even get into how many times they used him on what kinds of cases,

how much, if he's, how much he gets paid, if he gets paid based on results. Um,

how, if, if he's actually in custody at the time, or if he, if they fly him in,

because some people live out of state and they bring them in, you hear them talking a little

bit about where they come, they're coming from somewhere sometimes in the operation.

Yeah. Like I, I knew none of that. And it's like, that has nothing to do with his actual identity.

You could give me at least his race, his height and his weight. Yeah. And he would still be safe,

you know, but it's like, whatever. There's a reason why it would explain why my client said the

things he said. People say a lot of shit when they're in certain situations that aren't true,

it would be a IEA false confession, which now society is learning more and more about that.

They're not as unique and rare as you would like them to be. Because if your back is against the

law, you'll say anything. If it wasn't coercive, then they would gladly give us the details.

Right. Do you guys already say that? No, no. Okay.

One other thing I did. Thanks, Dave, for that. One other thing I did was-

Did I contribute? Okay, good. In a lot of terms of the people's case, did they like turn over any

of those cell phone evidence or anything like that? They gave, as a case wore on, they gave

cell site information. They don't like to use tower because it's not all towers anymore. Some of it is

underground. Okay. So they gave cell site information to show where my client's phone

was pinging off of at the time. And where was it pinged off at the time?

In the area where the murder happened. However, my client also lives in that same area.

Sure. Right. So the pinging is just like very broad. It doesn't give a specific location.

Right. There were two towers that my client normally pinged off of in that area. And at some point,

he changed from the tower that he most normally pinged off of to another tower that he less

frequently pinged off of. And it appeared that the DA was going to try and argue that,

hey, he switched. And he switched right around the time that this happened. So

he was going in the direction of the murder scene or whatever. But I appointed an expert who then was

able to let me know that, hey, that's not what that means. He could have just changed direction in the

house. Yeah. That commonly used cell tower might've been full. Full, right. And there's any reason,

there are any number of reasons that don't have anything to do with a physical change in location.

So they're saying that because his cell phone pinged off one site and then another,

that means the client was on the move right after the shooting. No, before going towards it.

Oh, going towards it. But then you're, that's where you guys lived in the area.

What kind of expert is this that you appointed? What is, what does he do?

He is a jack of all trades. He does a lot of things. But for this case, he analyzed the cell

side evidence and created these very handy, colorful and useful charts and stuff and graphs that I was

able to show to the jury. And he said that he just, your client could have just changed directions in

the house. Like he's walking or pacing around or. Right. Just moved rooms or something like that.

So if you, if you're carrying your cell phone and you're talking on the phone from one room to

another, that can cause your cell phone to ping from one site to another. Potentially. I think it would

also determine, in this case, these cell sites were close. Um, and so he occasionally did that. So I had a,

I had information about his, um, cell site usage for maybe a day or so before and then a day or so

after to show a pattern of how he was pinging in his phone usage and all that. Another thing

the DA was probably, at least I thought, or he did argue was that my client, um, turn his phone off

because he went dark during the time for the, like a couple of hours. Um, but there was no,

nothing to prove that he's quote unquote went dark or turned the phone off. It was just, he didn't

get a text message for, there's no activity. And it's like right now I, I haven't had any activity

since we've been sitting here. I haven't unlocked my phone. I haven't texted. I haven't checked it.

So there's some times where you might be doing something on a Sunday night. This was on a Sunday

night in the evening. He could have been watching a movie, could have been having dinner, could have

been sleeping, could have been doing any number of things that were not nefarious or in any way,

you know, related to a murder. And the DA tried to say, because there was no activity on his phone,

that means that he turned his phone off so he wouldn't get caught or something like that.

That would be the argument. But I had my expert to say that, um, you can't tell if he turned it off.

Okay. All right. You just know that he wasn't texting or getting a phone call or doing anything

on the phone. So, okay. So this is the people's case. They got the, the, the, the Perkins, they got

the cell phone text messages asking for a gun, asking for bullets. They got the cell tower, cell towered

site pinging in the same area. They got a video of a white van in the same area. You, uh, canvas the area,

you found out who the guy was. You got a cell phone or cell site expert to refute the DAs. Any

other evidence out there that we're missing? No, that was the only witness I called. So then what's

the defense then? Hmm. Reasonable doubt. And my client did do it. So you're going to rely on the

constitution of the United States of America. I was, you're going to rely on the founding fathers to

come through for you and your client. I did. You are a true patriot to the end this Jay. I mean,

listen, the issue was that there was, there were no eyewitnesses and for you to link someone to a

a whole ass murder based on a car. And this contrived, manufactured, coercive Perkins operation

does not a case beyond a reasonable doubt make. And I got some alley-oops along the way in the trial,

which helped. You got some, wait, I'm sorry. Alley-oops along the way in the trial. The

ballistics information was huge for me. The GSR stuff was huge for me. The fact that they admitted

to add an attempted murder charge right, literally right before when we were in the trial court,

they added this attempted murder charge. In other words, trying to throw everything at the wall. If

you don't believe this, then believe that. And it's like, you can't have it both ways.

Either he was a shooter or he wasn't. Either you know what happened or you don't. But what you can't

have is a jurors trying your case for you and, and figuring it out and, and filling in all your

fucking holes because then, then that isn't perfectly unreasonable doubt. Okay. So then you get,

let's, let's, you get sent out to trial then, right? You go to trial. That's when they added the

murder charge or the attempted murder charge. Yes. Right before we started. Okay. Right before

we started trial. I was arguing that issue in the trial court, in the trial court. So they were like,

I did not know about it before. Oh, cause you weren't expecting it. No.

Penal code section one zero zero nine allows a prosecutor to add charges to a criminal case at

any time they want. As long as the evidence for the new charge was elicited during the preliminary

hearing. Wasn't an attempted murder. There is a person who died. Usually the scenario is your

client's charged with attempted murder. When someone survives. And then someone may possibly die.

And which case it becomes a murder, right? And then they're like, cause there's a causation issue.

Maybe if they have a monthly, that's the only time I usually hear this double scenario. You're

right. It's unusual to hear the opposite. They knew, they knew that this case had issues. And I

think that the closer, not even the closer that we got to trial, and maybe it was a tactical decision

on their part. Cause it kind of blindsided me. Oh, but don't you think that was on purpose?

Probably. Yeah. I have appellate on speed dial. So I called appellate and figured it out and found

out that they can do that. It is a lesser included attempted murder is a very technical lesser included

of murder. Wow. So, okay. So they were able to add it. All right. Thank you, judge. All right.

It's time to pick a jury now, right? Time to pick a jury. How was that? What was,

how'd you tackle jury selection? I wanted to get people that look like my client. And by that,

I mean, not just like physically or even in terms of just race, but, um, people who I thought would

understand a person who was once a kid, who was born into a certain set of circumstances, who was

recruited into a gang very young, um, and only knew that, that life for a very long time. And so when you,

when you grow up like that and you, that's kind of all, you know, that's all, you know, but it doesn't

mean that you are a bad person or a violent person or someone who goes around doing heinous things.

Sometimes that's the only family you have. Um, and I wanted to try and get people who would see the

humanity of my client and look past his tattoos, um, and be open-minded.

And how did you do that with your questioning of the jurors?

I wanted to know where they were from, what they did. Um, and I wanted their thoughts on gangs and

whether or not they thought someone who may be a gang member at one point has to be a gang member

forever. If there's ever a point where you can just say, I'm done.

And then how about opening statements? I'm curious, like, uh, um, if they, if they,

they charge your client with murder and then they also charge with attempted murder,

meaning the prosecutor saying if your client, if your client shot him, but if he, you don't think

he shot him, then he tried, he did shoot it or he tried to kill him, but didn't kill him.

Or like, how did the prosecutor in his opening statement address these sort of competing,

conflicting theories?

He didn't address them in the opening statement.

What did he think? He just kind of, he just went for broke and just said,

you know, laid out the facts kind of how I did in the beginning and then said,

and you know, my client did it. He, he was very us like in that moment in terms of

not, yeah, he kept it, he kept it vague, right?

He had to sew it up with his closing.

Cause I think that's reasonable doubt right there. If you don't know what he did.

No, he did not start that way. Oh no, he did not start that way. He went out.

This happened and this guy's responsible. He did it.

And what was your opening statement like?

It was very vague.

So no one knows what's going on.

It was vague. Yes. But I conceded that that was going to be the whole problem with

this whole thing was that no one is going to, I basically said,

no one's going to be able to tell you this, this, this,

this and, you know,

let me know things that they won't be able to say and to keep an open mind and,

you know, all of that.

So I kept it vague, but I was very assertive about,

and specific and saying that my client did not do it.

Okay. And then how, and how the evidence roll out,

what was the, like the big piece of the evidence that the prosecutor put up?

The Perkins, the cell site, the text messages.

All right. So let's start with the Perkins. Played the tape in court, right?

We played it.

Did you cross examine on that at all?

As much as I could. I tried to, I decided I was just going to

strategically ask the questions and get shut down in front of the jury and then argue it.

So I did that.

I did that. I knew that I was going to get shut down and I did it until I didn't want to press

the judge too much. And then I backed off.

So like what questions did you ask and then objections sustained? What were the questions?

Without telling me his name, um, how tall was he? How much did he weigh? What color was his hair?

Did he have hair? What color were his eyes? Where were his tattoos? What were his tattoos?

And then how much did he get paid?

How much did he get paid? How many times has he done this before?

How many times have you worked with him? Is he actually in custody or do you fly him in?

Is he out of custody? Oh, does he get paid based on results or a flat fee?

Does he get paid before or after? Does he get paid under the table in cash?

Or is this a check that you write? Who writes, you know?

And are they answering these questions or? No.

No? They're all, all these questions are sustained.

They're all objections sustained. Objections sustained.

I got a little bit out. Like I said, I was able to establish the,

one thing I was able to get out was that the Perkins agent had tattoos and that they were visible.

And as I sit here before, I don't remember if I was able to say that they were gang related,

but I was able to get that out. Wow. Okay.

But everything else and in that he was paid. Okay.

I was able to get out that he was paid. So at least, I mean,

you asked a bunch of questions that made the jurors wonder.

Yeah. This is not someone being benevolent and doing it out of the kindness of their heart.

They have some skin in the game. Oh, I wanted to know if they was doing it for leniency.

If he had a case of his own. That was another thing. When you're doing these kinds of cases

and you have this Perkins operation, it may be a person we represent.

Right. It could be a fellow public, another public undercline.

It could be a person I represented. I have no idea who this person is.

There's no way we would represent a snitch like that.

Right.

Not on our, no way.

Right. Not on our watch.

Not on our office.

No way.

Right.

I mean,

That's the lowest of the low right there.

Right. But you never know.

You don't know who they are.

What was the next piece of evidence?

We interrupt this A&G podcast to bring you a very important message.

Please subscribe and or follow us on whatever podcast medium you use.

Thank you. Now back to a True Patriots verdict part two with public defender Miss J.

The gang expert?

The gang staff.

Okay, let's get into this because I feel like we've talked a little bit about this.

The gang expert was huge.

That was my star witness.

And that was their witness, right?

It was their witness.

Okay, how'd that go out? What did they put up there?

For me, I wanted, I needed the gang expert to get into the prison politics and the jail

politics and gang culture and stuff like that when you're in custody, because when you go in,

you need to align yourself with something or somebody for safety, for any number of reasons.

And particularly when you are a gang member and your gang tattoos are visible, as many of my clients

are you need to align yourself with whatever.

So a lot of times you have, you know, 1100,000 gangs, right?

But it only comes down to like the top gang for, you know, the black people or the top gang for

the Latino people.

And then, you know, within, you know, this race aligns with this race, blah, blah, blah.

And so for this particular one, when dealing with the race, which I won't say what it was,

they broke into these two factions in terms of gangs in custody.

And then they all bowed down to the one at the top.

And I wanted him to say that if you were a member of a gang and you happened to be in a cell with

someone who you knew was in that higher up gang, that you would show deference.

You would feel like you needed to prove yourself.

And I'm such and such from such and such, you know, to say who you are and to show respect.

So if your client is not a member of the top gang, but falls under the umbrella of the top gang,

because they're the same race, he has to show more respect and deference to all the members

of that top gang in the jail.

So whenever he comes across a member of the top gang, he has to bow down to them.

Right.

It's very Game of Thrones like.

I mean, I don't know if you're into the show, but it's like it's big.

There's big top dog houses.

Yeah.

And there's like small dog houses.

I mean, and I guess it's not actually it's like human nature in a lot.

Right.

It's not it's not unlike, I guess, how it goes when you're out either.

It's it's it's not novel.

Right.

So when your client entered into that Perkins cell, did he have to show deference and respect

to the Perkins agent because that Perkins agent is from the top gang?

We don't know.

I don't know.

We don't know because you don't know anything about this Perkins agent.

That evidence I argued is not relevant or didn't seem to come in or for some reason.

I argued it that based on how that the conversation started, it was very bizarre how the conversation

started when my client walked into the cell that I would imagine I would I would bet my

bottom dollar that this person was someone that my client felt.

Yeah.

It's deference.

The whole I mean, the reason why we as defense attorney exists, I mean, if we're just going

to take a face value with the government throws out there, I mean, then we what's the point

of our job anyways?

I mean, we need to know this information, right?

Like the government is just hiding the ball because everything's so secret.

What else did you bring out with the gang expert?

So that was a lot of it.

I also got into, you know, once a gang member, always a gang member is not necessarily true.

There are people who are gang members and they grow up and grow out of it.

There are people who move.

There are people who just decide I'm not about that life anymore.

Like there are any number of reasons why people get out of the gang.

I'm not saying that it's common, but it happens there.

There is attrition in gangs like whether you die, you are doing a lot or you move or you

get up or even just their level of involvement.

Like maybe they're right, but they're not really they're like putting in a gun and killing people.

Right.

So this is where it got hairy with the gang cop, because I was saying, you know, you're saying

that people put in work and they're doing violent crimes like, you know, murders to put

in work for the hood.

Right.

Based on my client's age, that is far from the age where they are really putting in work like that.

You're getting your young tweens, your teens.

Right.

That are really doing those kinds of crimes.

And I was like, and my client is just he's out of there.

He's he's not in that age range.

Well, you know, I've seen 40 and 50 year olds put in work.

And so we got into this whole pissing match about really.

So 50 or 50 year olds are what keeps the gang going?

No, the young bloods keep the gang going.

Right.

That's why you get them when they're so young.

You can squeeze more out of them.

So we went back and forth about that.

And he ultimately gave me what I want in a roundabout.

Well, I guess it's possible way.

So fucking annoying.

So that was also what I wanted to argue about that.

Talked about my client's tattoos.

I talked about puffing.

That was a big part of my defense that my client or anybody in some of the situation my client would feel like in that kind of environment where you're dealing with someone who's like, this is the murder cell.

And I did it at it at that shit.

It's like shit.

You might be a murder.

So sure.

It's a murder cell.

Let me tell you about, you know, to kind of you're kind of going along to get along.

So I'm puffing was a huge part of my defense that my client was just, you know, thrown into this thing, not really knowing what's going on.

He's just talking because it wasn't like it was a secret murder.

Like everyone in the neighborhood, like if someone dies in your neighborhood from a murder, you know, people talk.

So it wasn't a secret and it was fairly relevant and fairly recent.

So it was.

Which is like, right.

Because when we study confessions or like we're attacking confessions in the police contact, like a custodial interrogation.

Right.

Like the police are always trying to solicit details that are not publicly available.

Right.

To prove the credibility.

Right.

So they want something, the suspects to give them something.

But it's funny because in these Perkins operations, which are not, I guess, governed by the same laws.

Right.

Because so it's, you know, you know, the Sixth Amendment, all these rights don't apply yet.

They don't care.

They don't care.

You'd say the most innocuous details about the street level gossip about the murder and they're going to use it against you because there's no, we're not litigating credibility or reliability in the same ways.

It's, I mean, it's pretty absurd.

Yeah.

The end run around about all these years of law that we've created to protect against confessions.

Right.

We're like, okay, well, if we just put this guy that we hire from this gang to do it.

Right.

And we just do it early.

Right.

It doesn't apply.

It wasn't incredibly detailed what was said during the Perkins.

So everything your client said could have been just something you heard on the street.

Right.

I mean.

There was nothing like, how did you know that detail?

There's nothing like that.

And I don't, and to be honest, the circumstances surrounding the shooting, I don't know that there was anything that was a detail that you only, you know, the shooter, quote unquote, would know.

Any other evidence, big pieces of evidence that you attacked?

The ballistics?

Ballistics was huge.

Okay.

What was huge about that?

It established that there were two shooters and two different kinds of guns used.

Okay.

And so they had put up a ballistics expert?

They did.

Who was, or just some other person that works for the police department?

It was a, it was a cop.

Okay.

But he was rendered a ballistics expert.

It's very detailed.

And then what, how was, how did that evidence play out?

It played out well for me.

And it, it, it, because the prelim was so quick in my case, we did not get into that level of detail.

And so it was a pleasant surprise.

Some of it.

What was, what was surprising?

The fact that the two clusters were so far apart.

Clusters of?

Casings.

Casings.

So after the, when a person fires a bullet from a gun, the casing is expended from the gun and it lands on the ground.

And it lands on the ground somewhere.

So there were two clusters of shell casings, one with five casings, one with six, and they were far enough apart.

So the expert opined that the fact that there were two different kinds of casings mixed in, the fact that they're, they were so far apart and their actual locations made it so that there were, in his opinion, two separate shooters and two separate guns used.

Oh, okay.

Which was helpful.

Did you know he was going to say that?

I did, but I wasn't, I wasn't, I did know that he was going to say there were two separate guns.

I didn't know he was going to say there were two separate shooters.

Right.

And I didn't, it seems like why wouldn't you know that, but I didn't know just how far apart the casings were.

And how did you use that in your case?

Does that help you in like what way?

It did because if there's another shooter, then who shot, who, when, who shot, who, who fired first?

Was it a lot?

Was it was, was, was whoever fired back firing in self-defense because they were shot at first?

And if for argument's sake of the prosecutor saying my client shot and you believe that, you know that there was another shooter that wasn't my client.

So what if my client was simply shooting back at someone who shot at him?

Then that would not be an unlawful killing.

That would be self-defense.

And did they say that the, the decedent was fired a gun or they say he possibly fired a gun or?

They didn't concede that.

I argued it and they couldn't say that it didn't happen because they don't know.

Was a gun found on the decedent?

They didn't find a gun.

But they also didn't, they didn't get GSR testing on the hands, right?

They did not bag the decedent's hands.

So before he passed at the hospital, they took him there to have surgery and they took him straight from the ground to the ambulance to have surgery.

They didn't bag his hands to produce any potential GSR that may have been there because as we all know, when you go into surgery, it's very sterile.

So when they did do the GSR, which was after he passed, he did not have any GSR, but that wasn't conclusive because he could have had GSR potentially before going into the sterile environment for surgery.

So I don't know if he shot.

And if, if only one bullet was found inside the decedent, where were the other bullets?

Did they find them anywhere down the block somewhere or?

They were lodged in things and cars and fences and wrought iron gates and everywhere.

Anything that would suggest that the decedent actually fired a bullet like towards the direction of the street or?

I argued it, but he couldn't say.

Okay.

He couldn't say for sure.

And the DA didn't catch on to that or make a point of that as well?

Like saying, oh, he didn't shoot anything because the bullets were all found over here?

No.

But generally, it's pretty hard to identify them.

Yeah, they couldn't say.

The bullets are not, casings are all much easier to find, but bullet watches are everywhere.

The bullets were everywhere.

Yeah, they ricochet so much.

Yeah.

And they, they were literally on both sides of the street, on place.

I was like, how did the bullet get there?

Like, they were everywhere.

So he could not say whether the decedent did or didn't.

And because he couldn't say, I guess I could argue.

Well, if he doesn't know, then y'all don't know.

Because I was watching The Wire, and they found that bullet.

Right.

Like, within five minutes.

We're talking about the one with the fuck episode where they're in the refrigerator?

I think so.

What was it?

From the outside, he finds it.

Oh, there's that scene.

No, it was like later on, right?

Was it The Wire?

Maybe it was some other TV show.

Like, it was down the block, and they found it in a trash can or something.

Oh, they did.

That was The Wire.

Kima found that one.

Yeah.

I got you, got you.

Yeah.

But there's like one bullet, dude.

I mean, they, he, it's just hard to say.

How amazing is that scene in The Wire, though, right?

The fuck scene?

And they're just like working together.

They're not even, they're not even partners.

It's almost like, it's almost like how you and me worked in.

Right.

We don't work in courtrooms all the time.

And we just, when we do this podcast, it's just like, we could just, we just vibe.

It's true.

It's like, we just communicate telepathically almost.

It's true.

It really is.

It's amazing.

We're still talking about The Wire?

Yeah.

Oh, that's Miss Allison right there.

That's basically a folklore.

That's like a operative folklore in our profession.

So, that's fine.

It's totally fine.

And so now, now it's your, your time, right?

It's your case.

And you've decided.

It's my time to shine.

You've decided that you're not going to put on any evidence other than for maybe your own

cell phone guy because the judge said you would and you don't want to disappoint the jurors.

Right.

That's it.

Nothing more.

So going into the trial, though, did you know you weren't going to put on a case?

Yes.

I'm not putting on a case.

I'm in the defense.

The burden is on the people, squarely on the people.

They have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I can just sit here and twitle my thumbs.

I'm not going to do anything.

You have to look at their evidence and see if it proves the case.

When did you know that that was going to be your strategy?

From the beginning.

From the beginning.

I mean, I feel like that's a tough decision to make.

Yeah, especially in murders, right?

Because I feel like that's the one case in which I constantly feel like I have, I'm compelled

to tell an alternative narrative.

I suggested plenty of potential alternative narratives.

Uh-huh.

But because my client wasn't the one who did it, I didn't know who did.

Yeah.

And I couldn't tell them who did.

You know what I mean?

Like, there was nothing for me to say.

And I was like, for me to sit here and tell you who did, A, it's not my job.

It's shifting the burden.

And that's not why we're here.

I'm not here to tell you who did do it, even if I did know.

And I don't.

He's here to tell you that.

And he can't tell you that.

He wants you to say that he shot him.

And in the off chances you don't believe that he was a shooter and my client was with these

other people who shot, then there's some sort of aiding and abetting theory.

And then in the alternative, an attempt at murder if my client shot at him, but his bullet

wasn't the one who, you know, killed him.

There were so many, if not this, you know, on their part.

And for me, it was like, let's just keep it simple.

You're here because he's saying my client did this.

And there's nothing to say that my client unequivocally, beyond a reasonable doubt, did

this.

If you have all of these scenarios, by definition, you're not convinced about a reasonable doubt

because you don't know.

And neither does he, quite frankly.

Is that how the prosecutor argued it?

Well, if this, if not this, then this, if not this, then.

I can't remember exactly how he did it, but he had to get all of it.

And he started with like, he didn't start, but like he threw in corpus delecti.

He said, corpus delecti, meaning you can't say someone's guilty just on their statements

alone.

Well, if there's not a body.

And it was like, there's no body of the crime.

There was absolutely a body.

The person did pass.

That's someone's death, right?

Yeah.

Someone, they showed his autopsy photos.

There was a body.

There was a real life human being who lost his life.

Real law school there.

And I was like, without the body, there can be no murder.

Right.

I was thrown when he said that.

Okay, so, I mean, Perkins operations could be coercive.

The cell phone tower just shows your client was, could, could have been home.

But the text messages, he asked for a gun.

The next day is like, I need more bullets.

I just ignored those.

Oh, okay.

Ignored it.

What does that mean?

I wowed them with my other arguments.

Wow.

I'm very impressed with that.

I ignored it.

I did not have anything to say about that.

You stuck your head in the sand on that one?

I sure did.

I did not address it.

Did you talk that over with colleagues?

I mean.

I might have.

That's probably the worst piece of evidence right there, right?

I thought.

Yeah.

I mean.

Ooh, the no defense defense.

Yeah, I ignored it.

There was, there was no point in drawing more attention to it.

Yeah, there's just so much.

I did not have an explanation for it.

And if I did, I'd have to be like, well, gay members get guns all the time.

And it's not unheard of for them to trade guns.

And nope.

So you're going to ignore it.

And your client didn't want to testify?

Because that's their choice.

Right.

So he did not testify.

I mean, I don't know what he could have added other than I didn't do it.

Right.

Because I find, and not necessarily with this case, but if you, if your client testifies,

the jurors are looking for them to tell you what happened.

It, the, the onus now is squirreling on the client.

Well, tell us what happened.

Right.

It's like, I don't know what happened.

I'm just here to tell you I didn't do this.

You know what I mean?

So then.

People have had nothing to add.

Well, that means in your, in your voir dire though, when you, when you're doing jury selection,

you had, you must have hammered the burden of proof with them, right?

Oh, I did.

I mean, you hammered that.

You were just looking for fair jurors towards gang members, this and that.

But you're looking for jurors that could honor the burden of proof, right?

What did you say?

Will you shift the burden of proof if you're sitting here and you're unmoved and unconvinced

by a proof beyond a reasonable doubt at the end?

Will you then turn to my client and be like, tell us?

Or will you then say, well, they didn't prove it, but he didn't tell us either.

So.

Right.

And then did some jurors have a problem with that?

Oh yeah.

Well, you want to hear what he has to say.

And if he's the reason why we're here, then he should tell us.

And yeah.

Is that why he used all your preemptories?

Right.

All of my preemptories.

I mean, it's hard when you have a murder in general that, you know, that's why you get

more preemptories because there are a lot of people who are just going to have a stronger

version of that.

And then you throw in a shooting and a gang.

Because like when, like how many, was it a month later your client was arrested or?

A little over a month.

So like, how's he supposed to really know what he was doing five weeks ago?

Right.

And that's my thing.

It's like, if someone asked me what I was doing this time last week, I guess I could have

a very general.

That's probably.

Right.

Just, just because I'm a creature of habit.

But if you start going on the weekends and saying, well, what did you do two weekends

ago?

I don't, I do not know.

Independently.

I would have to work real hard, go through text messages, talk to friends and try and figure

out what it is I did.

Yeah.

So you, uh, you got up there and you argued, right?

Kind of like hammering the points you've just been hammering.

You did.

How long did your closing argument last for?

I'm a long closer.

So.

A long closer.

Okay.

I am a long closer.

So an hour.

What, what makes you a long, like what's that?

I mean, I, I don't know.

I'm, I'm, I feel like I'm an expressive closer, which sometimes leads to.

I'm also an expressive closer.

40 minute closings, maybe 40.

So, uh, what's your, uh, your style there?

I'm somewhat formulaic in how I structure it.

So I like to always hit certain points.

Um, but for this, I just, there was just so many things that I had to hit.

I had to hit the, the Perkins, obviously the cell site, the ballistics, the gang stuff,

the reasonable doubt, the possible alternative scenarios, the murder, the attempt to murder,

the felon in possession, the gang enhancement, the gun, the discharge, you know, I had to hit

a lot of things, um, and, you know, try and convince them.

Um, anything about the, that the DA said in his closing that you thought was egregious

or shocking or.

Yeah.

I objected, um, like a crazy person at some point in his closing.

Cause he was like shifting the burden.

He's like, how would you feel?

I can't remember what he said, but it was flagrant.

It was so flagrant.

What did, what did he say?

Essentially asking the jurists to put themselves in another position, which is a giant no,

no for closing.

Um, and his arguments were just particularly his, his, his, a argument was fine.

His B argument, it was rebuttal argument.

His rebuttal argument was, I mean, she was well-spoken.

She did a really good job.

I mean, she sounded good.

I mean, this is how he starts off in his speech.

She sounded good.

I mean, but like, what did she really say?

I mean, what was that?

You're talking about you.

No, about me.

That's fine.

I'm giving a shit what he says about me.

So then you have been well-spoken throughout this whole, uh, it was bizarre.

He got up guns blazing like that.

And I was like, what?

Um, and then he just went on this tirade.

My objections were being sustained because he was just bordering on the crazy.

Like they weren't legal arguments.

He was just riled up, I guess.

Cause he didn't expect me to put together a cohesive closing argument.

I don't know what it was.

It was bizarre.

And I try not to object during people's closings.

So that would try not to.

Oh wow.

That's opposite of my philosophy.

But I was objecting like, you got to a mad person.

So he argued, you argued, his rebuttal argument was offensive, crazy, objectionable.

What about your rebuttal argument?

I didn't have one.

Oh, why didn't you do that?

Cause I don't get one.

That's fucking right.

It's not fair.

We don't get a rebuttal argument.

I didn't get one.

Oh no.

Cause you don't have the burden.

The burden's on the people.

I didn't have the burden.

I also put that in my closing argument.

I'm sure most of us do.

I know.

The fact that I don't get to say anything.

And I tried to anticipate some of his.

And say, you know, this is the last time I'm going to speak.

And I bet you won't get up here and say this, that, and that.

But don't forget.

And how long was the jury out for?

Jeez.

I was trying to remember that today.

It was a while.

It wasn't a couple, like a couple of days.

Well, while they kept you on your edge, huh?

Yeah.

Was it a couple of days?

I don't know.

It was probably a day.

Okay.

It was probably a day, maybe a day and a half.

Okay.

And not guilty on murder, first, second.

All of the murder and attempted murder.

All the murders and the attempted murders.

And not guilty.

And the enhancements attached.

What was he guilty of?

Felon in possession in the gang enhancement.

So the text messages did seem to have some way.

Felon in possession of a gun.

Yeah.

So I.

What other evidence of him possessing a gun was there other than.

Yeah.

The text message, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

But they didn't prove the gun was in working order.

Well, if he didn't pull it, stop.

They did it.

You know, I was trying.

There were casings on the streets.

Yeah.

A gun.

A gun.

Are they saying he possessed that gun?

One of those two.

I would imagine because I was so thrown off.

He needed more bullets.

Why would he need more bullets?

Yeah.

I was so thrown off by the verdict that I would imagine after talking it over with colleagues

that they probably believe that.

Or split the baby.

They probably believe that my client was in some way involved.

But they didn't prove in what way and what capacity.

And they didn't prove if it was in self-defense.

Got it.

Oh, okay.

If that's my guess.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I'm just saying, okay, if maybe he did shoot back but could have been in self-defense.

But if he shot back, he must have possessed a gun.

He's not supposed to possess a gun.

Who knows what crazy theory logic they use, right?

I wish, you know, I don't normally talk to jurors and they were gone, long gone by the time I got

out there.

But I would have liked to have asked them.

I was curious.

I was stunned.

Yeah.

Because it's, I was stunned because I didn't understand.

I was curious as to what they believed, what they thought and how they arrived.

All right.

Are we there, Nikhil?

Are we at the end?

We are.

I think we are.

The one final question we have for you.

Yeah.

Miss J, what brought you to this life?

You know, I wish I had a great, compelling story.

But my junior high was close to where Johnny Cochran's office was.

And I was in junior high, I guess I'm telling my age, at the time of the OJ trial.

You're younger than me.

So I took an interest and I guess throughout the years in college and all that, it kind

of evolved.

And I knew I wanted to do criminal defense.

And then I went to law school, clerked for the office.

So.

Oh, yeah.

What is it about the office when you clerked?

What did you like about it?

The environment, the camaraderie, the ability to be your complete and whole self all of the

time, unabashedly, unadulterated.

I must say your fashion is not impeded at the office.

Right.

You know.

Right.

None of it is.

Miss J is always dressed.

She's always dressed to the nines.

She's definitely brought her A game tonight.

Yeah.

I'm very impressed.

You get to be yourself.

And what we do is a very, I don't know if singular is the right word.

And I was going to say lonely, but it's not lonely in the sense of, in the typical sense

of lonely, but in as much as only we truly understand what it is we do.

So I can try and explain it to other people seven ways to Sunday.

They'll never understand.

Other attorneys don't understand.

It's what we do in terms of what we go through every day in the courtroom and battling everybody.

And so I like that.

I love that about the office and, you know, and I always first above all of that, because

you asked about the office, but just to throw it in there because they're not a part of the

office, but the clients, you know, I think a lot of us do it for the clients because not

everybody has been given a fair shake in life.

And a lot of our clients have seen and been through a lot of shit that most of us will

never, you know, endure and go through.

And it's important that those people don't get discarded and overlooked and treated as

less than their people and they deserve a defense and they deserve respect and dignity.

And they are not necessarily the least among us.

So.

Well, I just want to say out there that this is not this trial right here.

This is not guilty.

This is not the first time I tried to have Miss J on the show.

There's been a couple of other ones, you know, it just didn't work out with timing and schedule.

But, you know, I worked right down the hallway from her.

The other one happened.

I take a certain amount of time off around this time of year and the other one happened

right at this same time.

No, I know.

And then you had another one.

And then I was off.

Yeah, another one, too, earlier in the year.

And I just know knowing how you practice, there's going to be another not guilty along the

way as well, because there's always one with Miss J around.

Of course.

January is jam-packed.

I wanted to say, listen, that was an interesting answer to our question, but it was cohesive.

You're well-spoken.

But what did you really do?

I know.

What did you really mean?

What did she really say?

What did she really say?

What is that?

Thank you so much for being on our show.

Fucking annoying.

Thanks for having me, guys.

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.