Resisting An Officer In The Performance Of His Lies - When lying officers force a defender to resist—legally, morally, relentlessly.

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.

You just hear, like, beating. And you hear screaming, "Ah! Ah! Help! Ah!" And then it just goes dead. So then the sergeant comes, schmoozing it up to the jury, and it is not working. And he's just like, "Well, you know what it's like to be a sergeant. I'm your dad after work.

Just tell me like it is, you know?" He testified for, like, an hour. I was basically able to destroy him in, like, four questions in 30 seconds.

Because we are based on freedom, we tell the government, "Put up or shut up." You can file charges on anyone you want, but you better prove it.

I don't have to lift a finger. I can be taking a nap and drooling, because I don't have the burden. This is our basis of freedom.

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 public

defenders get on a daily basis. In an unjust criminal system. With a deck stacked against us.

All right. Welcome to Another Not Guilty. And guess what? We have another awesome public defender with us

today who just got a not-guilty in trial, I should say. And we're gonna jump right to it. We have with

us the fabulous Jane today. Jane, hello. Say hi to everybody. Hello. Thank you for having me.

Uh, and Jane, I am, was very pleased to find out that you got a not-guilty the other day. I don't

think anyone was more pleased than my client, second by me. But yeah, I think we're all pretty happy about

it. All right. Nice. And what kind of, what kind of case was it? Um, this was a PC-148, which is

resisting or delaying arrest. Um, it's kind of a tough charge to beat because the language is very

broad in the law, um, where anything you do that can delay or resist, um, an officer doing their

lawful duty, um, would be an automatic violation. I mean, the crime wasn't preventing an officer,

right? It was just delaying? Yes. Like it took the officer a little bit longer? That,

that would be all it take. In this case specifically, it was on resisting. You know,

from my experience, you know, I used to work for a police misconduct lawyer who, uh, sued,

would sue the police. Uh, and for us though, the 148, PC-148 charge was the

bullshit charge police would charge when they wanted to find something wrong with somebody for whatever

reason. Right. I mean, the, the, the first, uh, sign of it being bullshit is that if it's resisting

arrest and there's no other offense, so what were they being arrested for? Um, that's your first

indication that this is going to be bullshit. Um, the second indication is, um, they're usually

filed pretty routinely when, um, the person is beat up by the cops as a way to prevent civil lawsuits,

because if they get the conviction on the 148, then officers look like they had a reason to do

what they did and it makes it much harder to sue in civil court. I feel like you could almost do like

the, the Jeff Foxworthy, uh, you know, it's bullshit when they're resisting arrest when there was no

reason to be arrested. Yeah, I feel like that's a lot of my closing arguments. It's pretty Jeff Foxworthy.

Uh, all right. So you, um, so you get the, you get the case. I imagine you go over the police report.

What's the, the prosecutor's facts of the case? The police, what's the police version? The police version

is, um, that they responded to a call for domestic violence. Um, and that call was actually made by my

client who's a male and he'd called the police on his wife. Um, the police get there and they do an

investigation and find that, um, they don't believe, uh, an act of domestic violence occurred. They don't

want to make an arrest. And so they, um, ask her just to leave for the night, which she was willing

to do. According to the police, um, my client's son was sleeping. They just decide that my client is

drunk. Um, based on apparently his person, it's really his personality, but, um, they just decide to

just declare him drunk. Um, you know, they never do any testing of course. And so they decide, um,

well, if he's drunk and she's leaving, it's not safe for this child in the middle of the night

who's sleeping to remain sleeping in bed. So they all of a sudden now want to take the child

and give it to the mother who was being asked to leave for being, um, by the officers, um,

after he, she was reported for domestic violence. And how old's the child? Um, about five years old.

Okay. And this is still the police version, right? This is the police version. Okay. So they want to

give the child to the, to the, to the alleged DV perpetrator. Yes. Cause your client's drunk. Okay.

At this point, um, according to the police, my client starts resisting and saying, you know,

you're not taking my child. And they say, you know, we have every right to do this. And then

according to the police, my client reached behind his back where he could have had a gun. This is in

the police report and said, you don't know what I have here. And then he says, I'm going to shoot

you. I'm going to shoot you. So the police in that scenario, very understandably, of course,

take him down pretty brutally. Um, it's an older man. He's in his later fifties.

They all three take him down. They bind, you know, they, they put cuffs on him. They tase him,

then arrest him. They tased him twice. Okay. Arrest him. All right. And that's it for the

police. Yeah. So based on, yeah, you would imagine he would be charged with not just resisting,

but also what we've called a criminal threat, which is a four 22, where if somebody makes a credible

threat of immediate harm, um, that's how it should be charged, which would be a felony. What's a police

report actually said that this should be filed as a felony criminal threat case. So the police

arrested him for the criminal threats. Yes. Okay. But the, the district attorney's office didn't

file criminal threats. No, they did not. They just filed the resisting. Yeah. Instead of filing

the felony criminal threat, they just filed a misdemeanor resisting arrest. Which I would say

almost even shows like the DA's office doesn't quite believe the police, which is shocking because

they've filed many bogus charges before. I don't know why they didn't file it in this case. Yeah. I, um,

it's a little surprising. I think they know something they didn't turn over because again,

if you, if it was true as it was written again, it's a much more serious case. Um, but at the same

time, it also didn't quite make sense because they'd been in the house for some time. Um, my client was

only wearing a pair of boxers. Where is he going to keep a gun? Um, there, there were some logical

flaws and, uh, I think they knew they just didn't have enough to go forward. Uh, okay. So you get the

case, you read the, uh, the police report. Was there any other discovery in the file evidence?

You know, there was something glaringly missing, um, from the file. And that was the fact that my

client recorded the incident that night. And the only evidence they took from him was his cell phone.

Of course, they found no gun or anything. He only had a cell phone that night. That's all he was

quote unquote armed with. And I noticed that was missing. And I know he was armed with a cell phone.

Exactly. I noticed there had been about, he'd been coming to court once a month for about six,

seven, eight months, just to get access to his own phone to get this recording.

Audio or video?

It was audio. And, um, and he, it was on video, but it was all, you can't see anything. So it's

just the audio. And it took, um, I had to file a motion to compel, to force the police for,

and they, the, each time they had a different excuse. First, they couldn't find it. Then they said

they needed a passcode and they would get it for me. I rejected that offer because,

you know, yeah, like you're really gonna, um, you're really gonna preserve this evidence of you

guys, uh, taking down my client. And I demanded it be brought into court. So I had to file a motion

to compel. And I made a very strong record given the fact that at this point had been six, seven,

eight months of us trying to get this exculpatory evidence. The judge granted the motion to compel

finally. And so, uh, one of the officers, uh, some sort of detective came in with the phone and I had,

we had to play it with the prosecutor there. It was a little bit questionable because I didn't know

what was going to be on it. Okay. So you listened to the cell phone in court, open court with the DA.

I, I, I, we, we, we went into another room, but yeah, it was me, the DA and the detective.

And I filmed on my phone, his phone. Okay. And it was the detective, one of the officers there on

the scene that night. No, he wasn't. Okay. Yeah. And what did the recording say? Um,

the recording was nothing like the police report. Um, in the recording, you definitely hear my client

being agitated. He was an excitable man. That's just who he is sober. Um, he didn't really sound any

different to me than he is sober. They don't know him. So, you know, they might not understand that's

his personality. But what I hear are the officers kind of taunting him. Um, they're saying, we're

going to take your kid from you. They don't like, it's clear. They don't like his personality. It's

clear. He's failed the attitude test. And they said, we're going to have your kid go with your wife.

And he's like, absolutely not. Like that's the, I just called you guys on her. Right. I'm not. And

they said, well, we think you're intoxicated. And he's like, test me. What do you think I'm on? Test

me, go ahead and test me. And then they're like, well, sir, you know, be careful. We might call

children's services on you. And he's like, go ahead. Yeah. That's what, if you think there's

something here that's so bad for my child, that's what you should be doing. And he says it on the

recording. I counted about seven times of him saying, please call children's services. If you

think this warrants that he doesn't say it, like I'm saying it now, he is screaming, he is agitated,

he's angry, but he's calling them out. He knows they're cutting a corner and he's calling them out

and they don't like that. So it continues to escalate about this. Um, who should take the child?

You hear them coming at him and you know that because he's like, don't touch me. Don't touch me.

And then his mom who's sick and an invalid in the home, he was like, mom, do you see what they're

doing? Then you hear, you just hear like beating. It just, if the phone obviously falls and you just

hear, and you hear screaming, ah, ah, help. And then it just goes dead. Wow. So you listen to this

with the DA and the detective during a pretrial, right? Yes. Okay. And what's the response of the DA?

I looked at the DA and I said, do you need to hear that again? And again, I had no idea it was on

there. It could have been very incriminating. And the way I saw it is if my client misremembers and

isn't telling the truth, well, it is what it is because they can bring this evidence in any way

and it can be used against him. I just need to know what's going on, but it definitely went in our favor.

And so I looked at the DA and I said, would you like to listen to that again? And she said, I hope I never

have to hear that again in my life. And I said, please flag this for your supervisor for dismissal.

I don't think you guys want to go to trial on this. What you put the case over for another month so they

can kind of figure it out or what? Yeah. I honestly thought, um, because about a year before out of our

courthouse, the same police department, different officers, but the same police department, um, also

filed a 148 against a man who called them to his home on a different issue. And they turned on him.

He also recorded it. They also beat him up, lied about his behavior. It didn't get very far in the

trial before the judge 1118 did. He just stopped the attorney from asking any questions and dismissed

it, said the cops were lying. And then that made the media and the media interviewed the, got a

statement from the police department who threw the DA, our DA's office under the bus saying they need to

show discretion. They don't have to file cases on every case we submit. Right. That's very impressive

for a judge to do something like that. Yes. And you said the media called out the, the DA's office for

filing a case like that. Yeah. Well, it was actually the, that police department called out the DA. Um,

that was the statement that they made to the media, which was, you know, the DA's office has discretion

and like kind of like they didn't have to proceed with this case. So the police, the arresting police agency

that submitted a police report to the DA's office for criminal filing told the DA's office, don't file

every piece of shit we send your way because we're not going to stop doing shitty things. So you need to

protect the public from us. Is that what happened? Is that? Yes, it is. All right. So there's no lawsuit

pending. The DA's office takes a month so they can look it over. Hopefully, at least that's what we're

assuming. Right. All right. You come back and what happens? Um, we come back for trial. Um,

cause you know, we just set it for trial at that point. Oh, you set it for trial on the day you

heard the audio recording. Absolutely. Okay. All right. I like that. That's what I mean. 30 days.

Like I'm done. I like that. I, I got what I need and uh, it's on them to dismiss and I'm not giving

them any more time. Right. Okay. So you got your evidence. You're like, Hey, that sounds good for me.

We're going to trial if you want to dismiss it. Right. You, you dismiss it, but I'm heading in this

direction. Right. You got 30 days to dismiss. Okay. Or this goes public. Before we go public.

I like to pretend I have more power than I do. Yeah.

All right. So the ball's in your court, DA's office. So you come back on the day of trial. What,

and what's, uh, what's that? What's the offer? Um, well, the offer's the same and it, you know,

of course has a lot of jail. What is the offer then? The offer had, um, something like, oh,

I, I, it changed a few times, but it had some, a good amount of jail time, about three years of

probation. And when I say good amount of jail time, um, for a case that should be dismissed,

one day of jails too much. Um, but this, it was something like started at 90 and then it came down

to 60 days and then, and then all this anger management. And then they wanted, um, all the

things that, you know, like alcohol classes, you know, just everything you can imagine.

That's the trial at, that's right before we start trial. And then, um, the way it works in our

courthouse is it goes from the, the court that it's kind of been, the pre-litigation's been done

and, and it goes to a calendar court and there's a different judge in there who assigns it to a court

for trial. And there's a different DA in there. That DA only handles, kind of sits in on all calendar

matters, but she doesn't really know the cases. Um, so it goes to that court, that judge is very

hands-on and he's also very honest, brutally honest, can really see through the bullshit.

So he has his own way of doing things. So, um, he hears the charge and then he takes us to the

back to his chambers and he asks permission to read the police report. I, you know, I, I trust this judge

thoroughly. Um, I let him read the police report and I'm sitting in this room with the, the DA who's

standing in for that day and he reads it and he looks up at her and says, I have a pile of garbage

in front of me. Why did you put a pile of garbage in front of me? He says this to the DA. He's like,

are you kidding me? This report doesn't, this isn't even logical. I don't believe a word it says.

Are you kidding me? You filed on this and now you want to take the time and resources of taxpayer money

to make this go through a trial. You want people to miss a week of work on this.

And he said, and she, um, got a little defensive and then I interjected, oh yes. And your honor,

I also have a recording that shows that all of that's a lie and it has been provided to the

prosecution. And he was just incredible. He just looked incredulous. He just looked at her and said,

uh, have you listened to this? And she said, we don't agree with her interpretation. He said,

have you listened to this? She goes, well, I don't see any notes in the file. So I assume

somebody listened to it and I assumed it didn't really relate to the case.

Really?

And this is the person supposed to negotiate at the last minute.

Was your client willing to take anything?

Um, well, first he said, you need to get this dismissed. And she said, absolutely not because

their management doesn't dismiss anything. And then he said, go get a 415, which is like

disturbing the peace.

Wait, this is the judge said that?

This is the judge. He said, go to your office, tell them at most, this is a 415 infraction

and come back with that.

Okay.

And the prosecutor comes back, then spends about half an hour, leaves again with, brings all the

officers out because they were all in there waiting to find out what court were going to trial.

They take about half an hour. They come back. And then she said, it would be a 415 misdemeanor

with all sorts of terms, you know, classes, labor. And my client was just like, are you kidding me?

Like, absolutely not. He's just, I mean, it's just a principle at this point. And I asked the DA,

I said, have you, because they were gone for so long. And I said, well, I imagine at this point,

you've had a chance to hear the recording. And I said, did you tell the officers about the recording?

And she said, she had, and I said, and they still want to go forward. And she said, oh, well, they're

claiming that that happened. And then 20 minutes passed. And that's when he threatened them with the

gun. Oh, so now there's a new story. And this is part of, this is something that they do. There's

this idea of, you should be able to work with the DA's office. And I've worked in courthouses where you

can, it really depends on their management. I've worked in courthouses where the DA's actually

do want to do their job, which is pursue justice and not try to put innocent people in jail. And

you can show them things like, here's some statements where people say, you know, here's

some other witness statements that kind of call into question your officers, or here's some video

evidence or something. And they'll actually look at it and listen to it and often dismiss cases. But

in this particular courthouse, I found whenever I've handed anything over in an effort to negotiate

or resolve or dismiss there, they just use it as a way to spin. Offers sometimes get worse.

It's this idea of like, we can't let go, like our, you know, our teeth are in and we

can't let go. We're like a pit bull. You know, we can't, we can't release the jaw. Sorry.

So the, that's what the DA tells you. What happens next?

I really felt so strongly for my clients. So I was actually kind of excited to be going to trial.

We declare ready and we, uh, we go to trial.

Okay. And, uh, are you feeling confident or there's that, there's always that part of you

that's kind of like, what am I missing here? Cause they, they are still pursuing this case.

I must be missing something. Are you worried about something coming around the corner or,

but I wasn't really, I mean, it is what it is, you know, um, it was a pretty righteous case and I was

glad we were going to fight it. And my client knew that, uh, you know, there was no, I never make

guarantees to a client. Um, even if we have the strongest case in the world, I, you know, you

have, I've had juries, uh, really surprised me in either direction. And, um, that's one thing I

learned. You just can't, you know, I tell every single person, like I'm not making any guarantees.

I'll just say, I, the best I'll give you for odds are 50, 50. I just tell them like, I think we have a

strong case. We'll present it, but we don't know. We don't know really what's going to be in the hearts

and minds of the actual jurors. There's going to be 12 individuals. They might say all the right

things to us now and might be harboring some other agenda. You just don't know.

Right.

So no matter how strong of a case I feel, yeah, I'm never going like, oh, I'm going to win this.

Cause I had a case like that once where I thought it was going to win. Everyone thought it was going

to win and they came back guilty. And, uh, there was one guy on there who had certain biases that,

um, took him two days to turn the jury around. I mean, it was when they said guilty,

the alternate juror who wasn't even in the deliberations fell out of his chair.

I mean, it was the whole building with the whole room was in shock. And I mean,

and after that you're just like, wow, you can, that was the one time I was ever confident.

And I was like, that will never be confident.

You don't know what one rogue person on that jury who purposely didn't disclose information

is doing, or I mean, they lie. People lie. And I, and I remember telling my family,

I can't believe someone lied to get on a jury. And I found out my mother did it once

because she has her own biases and wanted to get on a certain jury to punish someone. And it was 11 to

one, not guilty. And she just wouldn't listen to the evidence. She wanted to punish him.

Your mother. My mother did this. I pay the price. This is the, this is the price I pay for that

person 30 years ago, who my mother hung their jury. Like now I get it. Right. I carry this burden.

Hey, A and G fans. This is David from another not guilty. I hope you're enjoying this episode.

A lot of work went into its production. I have a favor to ask of you. If you enjoyed this podcast,

then please subscribe to it. Please hit the subscribe button. Thank you.

So you get sent out the trial then. Yes. To the trial judge with the new DA, correct?

Yes. New DA. And I will say of the DAs I deal with in this particular building, this is probably,

I hadn't worked with her before. She was brand new. Probably one of the most ethical DAs I've worked

with really ever. Um, especially in, cause the management, you know, the management kind of

taints how, you know, the, the deputy, the young DAs want to make the management happy. So the

management's a little bit dark. They all get a bit dark. I felt, um, this particular DA was really

above board, very ethical, very, very smart. I was a little intimidated, but at the same time,

you know, um, I I'd rather have that than someone dumb and dirty. Of course. Yeah.

Cause you just don't want to even be thinking you just want to do the trial. You don't want to be

thinking about like what this person may be hiding something or lying to you and then use to put that

extra stress on yourself. So if they're straightforward, then we can just focus on the trial. Yeah.

And I will say, um, this particular DA was yeah, very straightforward jury selection on a 148. What

was your, your game plan for that? My game plan for that was, well, again, this is going to be one

where we have lying officers and officers protecting themselves. But as a community, people don't want

to think of officers as evil or lying. You have to kind of humanize it for them and kind of make it

like soften it a little. I really focus on burden of proof, um, and presumption of innocence.

And I kind of indoctrinate them on that. And then as far as the proof beyond a reasonable doubt,

I don't even get into that for jury selection, to be honest, I, I saved that for closing,

which this particular DA's office now has special 402 briefs on my closing arguments.

Now I know we're not really at the closing argument portion of this story, but our viewers,

they just got to know now, what is your closing argument on the burden of proof? And it's not just mine.

I mean, I've taken this from colleagues who were very senior, been doing this amazing work for 20 years

and are very good at their jobs. And it's kind of a standard argument that a lot of people are in

the public defender's office use. The, the issue I think people have with, uh, what's beyond a reasonable

doubt is it's defined in the laws, an abiding conviction that the charges are true. And it's hard to

know, like, what does that mean? What's an abiding? Yeah. What is abiding? That's a word we don't use

every day. Yeah. And, um, you know, so we all try to find our own ways of describing it. And this is

what I was given by from a colleague. I've used it in about a dozen trials without problems. And

basically, um, how it goes is imagine you have a loved one on life support and a doctor comes to you

and says, you know what, I'm sorry, but it's time to pull the plug. You don't just pull the plug at that

moment. Just because a doctor says that you don't pull the plug. You say, well, okay, I understand.

But before we do that, I need to know this is the right decision. I need to have an abiding

conviction that this is the right decision to make because it has to be with me now and a year from now,

10 years from now, because it impacts the life. So what do you do? You want to talk to maybe other

doctors, get second, third opinions. You want to look at the medical records. You probably want to do

research on a recovery, um, rates and people in the situation. You want to know you've really looked

at everything before you do something like pulling the plug. So that's how I describe an abiding

conviction. What's the objection? The objection is that it's inflammatory and that I am inflaming the

passions of the jury and I'm heightening the burden. It's ridiculous. First off, inflaming,

this is an important decision. You're about to declare someone guilty. That's it. That's a big,

that you're about to affect this person's life for the rest of his life. It's a big decision.

And we're not allowed to talk about that. We're not allowed to tell a jury, by the way, like,

you know, cause a lot of times it's like, well, I kind of like the prosecutor and I like the defense

attorney. I don't know. I'll vote guilty on one and not guilty on the other. And you're like,

no, there are consequences to a guilty verdict. People go to jail. People lose things. And you're not,

we're not basically the rules of defense is you're not allowed to talk about anything that can help your

case. That's what I feel like the rules of defense are. And if it helps your case, not allowed. So

you can't say, is this enough for this person to go to jail? Because most times I think juries would

say no, even if there's something there. So we can't talk about any of that stuff. And so we have

to find these metaphors and these analogies to try and like convey these kind of foreign concepts.

Cause we don't walk around every day thinking like, do I have an abiding conviction to do this?

You know, like we don't think like that. I, uh, when I do abiding conviction and my closing

arguments, I, um, I like the list of the synonyms. Okay. You know? Oh, that's good. So I go to the,

the Webster's dictionary or whatever online Google search of that, of abiding. And it says it's

long lasting, it's permanent, it's enduring. And it's like 20 words. And the prosecutors always

object because they say it like heightens the burden. And it's like, all I'm doing is explaining

what the word abiding means. But judges grant the prosecutors, they just say, oh, no, you can't wait.

I'm not allowed to say what abiding means, your honor. No, you're trying to delude or, uh, confuse

the jurors about what the burden of the proof is. I'm like, these are just words. They're just words.

In fact, it could be, you have a permanent conviction that the charge is true. And then I would say,

what does permanent mean? It means abiding. Yeah. And it's like, we're going to the whole

thing. It's like, oh, that's too effective for the defense. Can't allow it. Can't allow it. You

know? Like that actually makes sense. Can't allow it. Nope. Keep it vague. No, that might make them

vote not guilty. So we'll just say, no, you can't do it. Yeah. All the judges are lame like that.

All y'alls are lame. I've had a few good ones. Except for the few good ones.

The rest of y'all lame. But what's up, good ones? What's up, good ones? Thanks for listening.

I can say lame because the lame ones aren't listening to this podcast right now. Exactly.

Yeah, exactly. Lame ones not really in the pursuit of knowledge. No. Yeah. Especially on this side of

it. They don't want to know. Uh, okay. So back to the 402s. They tried to forward to out your closing

arguments, which would mean that you've been effective in this courthouse. And now the DA's

entire DA's office is trying to figure out a strategy to stopping you. It is. I do get high

fives in the office about this, that they actually have a brief that they all use for me. Right.

And it is because it's like, I have a pretty good track record. Right. Yeah. Uh, all right. So back to

voir dire, right? You were talking about voir dire. You say you really pushed the burden,

the proof and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Yeah. Presumption of innocence too. Yeah.

All constitutional rights. Yeah. And then I went for, you know, cause here we're going to have

lying cops and we're going to have cops acting badly. But I also know if I straight up say that,

then I'm going to lose the audience. So, and Jane, one thing that Jane has to do is

she has to make sure that when the juror, the jurors that are listening to this case,

aren't a bunch of cop lovers that are going to believe everything a cop says. Right. And we had a guy like

that. I said like, are cops more honest than people in other professions? Are they more honest than like

teachers or engineers? And a guy raised his hand and I said, okay, I go, all right, have you been aware

of, um, all the videos on TV showing shootings and police brutality? And he said, yes. And I said,

and are you aware that part of what makes them newsworthy is that's not what the officer said happened.

The video shows something different happened than what they claimed happened. This is why it's newsworthy.

And he said he was aware. And I said, and that doesn't give you pause. And he said, well, I mean,

there could have been more to the video. Maybe the news edited the video just to make it look bad for

ratings. I mean, people bend over backwards. Right. They have to like justify in their mind why this,

what they're seeing that still is consistent with their point of view that everything a cop says

is the gospel. Right. We did have a really interesting potential juror who worked with

the homeless population and community nonprofits and had seen a lot of 148s improperly filed.

And she gave a lot of interesting stories about how one time she and another person were at a protest

and both were pushed by cops. And then the other person just for fault for the crime of falling

forward after being pushed by a cop was arrested for resisting arrest and delaying and all of that.

But, and she noted, she said, we both, the same thing happened to both of us. He was arrested.

I wasn't, I would like to note that I'm a white female and he was a black male with a record.

And she goes, and I think that's kind of how these things go. And there were a few people

that had issues with 148s, personal issues. Um, there was a guy from another country who's like,

if you don't talk to your cops the way they want to be talked to, they'll file this on you. He's like,

and he had three that he beat. Um, so the, a juror, this juror had been charged with

three 148s before and he beat all of them. But, um, so we had a really great jury that, um,

potential jury. I mean, of course they were all kicked off. We had one particular juror who was, um,

an NRA member. He was a white male NRA member. My client was a minority. And I, and I, and I was

interested in him because I find NRA members go in two directions. Um, one, there's the Blue Lives

Matter group, which I think is a little inconsistent with a lot of the NRA philosophy, but this is how

they are. You know, they identify as, uh, you know, we want our guns and Blue Lives Matter and, uh,

you know, whatever the cops do is okay. And then the other, um, but the government can't take our guns,

but don't touch the cops who are the government and how they would get their guns taken away. But, um,

it's kind of weird. But then you have, uh, the other NRA people who are libertarians, who are

just like hands off my guns, hands off government of everything to stay away from me. And so I pretty

quickly figured out he was in the latter group. He was more the libertarian type of, um, so they have

more of a philosophy that they're abiding by. And so I don't think it would normally be a good idea to

resist arrest when your client's a minority. But I felt that the idea of the officers being

inside somebody's house after they were called and what the officers did, I thought this guy would

be, I want him on my jury. Yes. Cause it's his home. Yeah. He can protect his home with his gun.

Yeah. And he can protect his home. From the government. Right. From the government.

And this, and so, and I also frame my cases a lot in jury selection. I remind them this isn't the

people. This isn't the prosecutor. This is the government. This is the government. And that's

when I go into burden of proof and all that. I always say like, you know, the foundation of a

free society is we get to walk around and not have to account for every moment. Because if you're

accused of a crime, that just means all it takes is for someone to point a finger at you.

That's all it takes. And I tell them, if someone points a finger, you can be in that chair.

And if we put the burden anywhere else except the government, we'd have to be proving ourselves

innocent just in case someone pointed a finger at us. I go, that's not freedom. That's us recording

ourselves at all time, accounting for everything we did and handing it over to the government upon

demand. Right. I said, so in this society, because we are based on freedom, we tell the government,

put up or shut up. You can file charges on anyone you want, but you better prove it. You better

prove it a hundred percent. You have a hundred percent of the burden. And, um, and you know,

the, you know, defendant doesn't have to testify. Nobody else has to, I don't have to lift a finger.

I can be taking a nap and drooling because I don't have the burden. This is our basis of freedom.

And then I make sure they understand the context of it. And they usually really resonate with that.

And so I, I tend to refer to, to the prosecutor usually as, as the government.

So then what got your, you got your jury then? Yeah. So we, we, we pick our jury and I, I got my NRA

member. Okay. I just felt in my gut, this is going to be my foreman. I just felt that he was

intense and I just, he's, you know, you like to pick your alphas, right? You always want to,

you always want to find hook and alpha in your voir dire and that's going to be your foreperson.

And I, I, I kind of pitched a lot of the case to this one juror.

And hopefully the DA didn't pick up on that or obviously did not pick up on it.

Absolutely not. Yeah. Because you would think white male NRA member, you would think I was

dumb for not kicking. Right. You know? Um, I think she was just like, she thought she got

away with something there. And you know, you have a little experience of putting out the

vibes to, uh, to white alpha males, right? Maybe. Oh yeah. I always joke that white male racists

love me. Um, I'm just like, they just do like I, you know, and, and they get so disappointed when

they hear my, what I believe in and my politics and they all think they can change. That's how I

know they love me. They all think they can change me. They all think like, you know, if I, if they

could just get through to me, I'll be racist like them, you know? And I must be hiding something,

my true feelings, you know? Uh, okay. So then did you just lay it out and include in your opening

statement? Like I was kind of like, um, you know, on this night, so-and-so called the police

and after failing the attitude test, he was bound, beaten, and arrested in his own home

for standing his ground. That's it, huh? It was kind of like, it was kind of, I gave a little

description. You know, I like to leave my openings very vague because you don't always know how things

are going to unfold. Right. More than anything, it's voir dire. That's where I really

do the framework for what my closing is going to be and where I, where I want them to focus for the

trial. I really do that in voir dire. And then in opening, I'm more like, just listen to the

testimony. And I always point out, especially if I have cops that I think are going to lie,

I always, uh, I do this little thing where I just like say like, um, you know, it's, it's common.

It's common for someone to take the stand and not remember every detail that that's normal,

you know? But when an officer takes the stand and doesn't remember things,

especially if I ask the questions, I want you to pay attention to that because sometimes it's

easier to not remember than commit perjury. And I was like, I'm not saying, I don't know who these

officers are. I don't know how they're going to testify. But you know, if you keep hearing,

I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall, that should, each time you hear that, that should

raise a flag in your mind. And the more flags are getting raised in your mind, that should tell

you you might have a problem with the reliability here. You might know an officer is lying.

It doesn't remember. It's kind of like that. It's like one time I had a case where jurors,

like they hung it and the ones that were voting for guilty, they were like, well,

the cops didn't remember all that stuff. And I'm like, but that didn't strike you odd that they

don't remember all these really important things. They answered every question. Perfect for the DA.

They remember every detail for the prosecutor. But then when I get up and ask a simple question,

they don't remember all of a sudden. So I noticed when I just highlight that for a jury,

and I never know how the officers are going to testify. But whenever I've highlighted that in my

opening, and the officers played that game, you can just hear the notebooks come out and scribbling

happen. And they're like, we're on to you. We're on to you. You know, and again, if the officer tells

the truth, I don't have to worry about it. You know, but I mean, I one time had that in an opening,

and an officer just aggressively say, I don't recall. I don't recall. I don't recall. I don't recall.

I don't recall with her arms crossed. Like she was like, about to fight me. And the and I like,

it was a case I should never have won. I had like a confession, a witness, everything. And I hung it

because of that cop. Because the cop lied so good. A lying cop. Yeah. The jurors don't like lying

cops. They don't like it. Most of them don't. But you have to alert them on how they lie.

So what was the first, the first witness that, or you have to say all the witnesses,

but what was the prosecution's case? I found it interesting that they didn't bring all the cops.

They only brought, um, the main guy who wrote the report and was the initial aggressor in the

violence. The other cops didn't want to perjure themselves. I think so. I thought it was a little

bit odd because if I were them, I mean, if I believed their story, I would want every single

one to get up there because they each played a different role. Instead, she just had that cop

and, um, the sergeant who responded later. So just the one cop. Yeah. And how many cops were

actually at the scene? A total of four. So there was four, but only one shows up. And then

the sergeant who did what? Oh, the sergeant. That was hilarious. So the first cop tells his story

and he's very young and he's very like, Oh, well, you know, Oh gosh, what is that? Oh, um,

you know, I'm just, just doing my job. You know, he did that whole act, you know, like

just doing my best, just doing my best. Oh yes, ma'am. Okay. Of course. Um, you know,

that's how they play it. And it was funny because at one point the court reporter told him to slow

down or something like that. And he just was like a different person for a second. It was like for a flash,

like he got mad and the jury saw that gave like the, the, the death stare. Yeah. It was like,

he like had this like really aggressive response and I was just like, you guys see that? But he'd

like testified to his report. Like I described it earlier. Well, what was your cross like for him?

I never go hard on cops, um, and cross. Oh, I usually, I know I never start hard on cops. I

always start very soft and like, hello officer. Thank you so much for being here. Just a few questions.

And, and you know, cause that's my vibe and that's, I get, you know, I'm not one of these

people that gets away with getting aggro from the beginning, but if they start playing with me or

start lying, I'll slowly kind of get aggressive, but usually the jury's with me on that, you know?

Um, so I remember I kept it pretty friendly the whole time. One of the most important questions I

asked him was what was my client wearing? Because I thought it was pretty significant that my client,

there was nothing in the report about this really, but that my client was only in his boxer shorts.

And how would you have a gun back there if you're just wearing boxer shorts, you know? And he's

like, Oh, pants and a shirt. I'm like, what color? You know? And he goes, Oh, well, and I was like,

possible just boxers. And he goes, well, I guess that's possible, you know? Okay. And so, you know,

I got, I got stuff like that out and, um, you know, and they played the call, they played the recording

and he explained it away. Oh, and then another twin, that's just him dropping the phone. Then this other

thing happened afterwards and all that, you know, and you don't really, you never really, uh,

show the cop how you're going to win, you know? Cause then they'll explain it away.

You just, I just, I do that thing where I asked like, so then what happened? So then what happened?

And then when the conclusion is, so therefore you're lying about A, B and C, you know, I stopped

there and I save it for, and so I was driving my client crazy. He's like, you gotta got him so many

times. And I'm like, save it for the closing. It's there. It's there. I'll save it for the closing.

And, um, you don't, I was like, it's not like TV. The cops never like you got me.

Yeah. Like that never happened. They never agree. Yeah. Just like, you know, they're,

this is the one thing they're trained to do. They are trained to lie on the stand and they're trained

to cover themselves, which is human nature, right? We're all, we all love to, no one wants to really

say, Oh, I fucked up and I'm going to lie about a penalty. Oh, I got caught under penalty perjury.

All right. What's going to happen now? I'm everything's fine. It's never going to happen.

They're going to lie to the end. So I just basically got a few things that I needed, um,

from that officer. I think you want to try to get to something that the watch sergeant said.

So then the sergeant comes and he's in a suit and he's just really shwarmy. Like, he's just like

schmoozing it up to the jury and it is not working. And it is, um, like, he's really slick

and he's just like, well, you know what it's like to be a sergeant. You know, he's like laying

back and he's trying to do like the more senior they get, the more they're like conversational

and like, I'm your dad after work. Just telling you like it is, you know, he's polished too,

right? But he wasn't, you know what I mean? But he's trying, you know, but it was so transparent.

And so, um, he, he testified for like an hour and it was like a movie, every detail, just like the

other officer who he was in the hallway laughing with for like an hour before, uh, he got called in

front of the jury, which I thought was a great choice on their part. He describes, and this again,

it's been like a year since this happened, a fucking movie, every detail, where the lighting

was. I mean, it was just. Cause he wants to show the jurors how well he remembers this incident.

I was basically able to destroy him in like four questions in 30 seconds. Like this was one of my

better crosses. So I just got up there and I was like, did you write a report? No. And this happened a

year ago. And how many, uh, how many, uh, scenes do you respond to where, you know, the officers call

you to him? And I got a series of numbers, you know, and it ended up being about a thousand from

that period to when he's testifying. And I was like, and this is the first time you is, you read the

police report in this case, just this week to prepare for this case. And you, you really haven't

thought about since, right? It's not come up. And he's like, no. And I was like, okay, uh, what was he wearing?

And because what he described was like my client on his back with an officer underneath him holding

him back and my client's arms and legs flailing around again, he's in his late fifties, um, overweight.

And, and the other officer already said he's in his boxers, you know? And he's like, oh, pants, jeans, uh,

shirt, you know? And I'm like, are you sure about that? And he's like, well, um, you know, um, and he just

just didn't know. And then I just said one more question. You guys can be sued for this.

You know, if, if my client isn't convicted, you guys have a high likelihood of being sued and

him winning, correct? And he said, yeah, I said, no further questions. I didn't ask him anything

about the night. Like, I didn't accept that. I just like, like how many of these things have

you responded to? You never wrote anything down. Tell me one thing you would definitely remember,

which you can't. And then you have an interest here in lying. Like you have a, you know, and, uh,

and yeah, after talking to the jury after no one believed anything he said, they didn't believe

a word he said. So that was one of my big moments where I'm like, oh, I've gotten there. I'm getting

there. I'm getting there where I take down a whole hour of, you know, this movie and I'm just like,

no, never happened. Just pulled the plug, you know? So anything else from the people's case then?

Um, that was, that was it. And, um, yeah. And I, I didn't have my client testify.

Did you play the recording for the, uh, Sergeant? No, I just had it play for the first cop.

The first one. Okay. And then that was it then. Closing. So you didn't put on any evidence in?

No.

Hey, A and G fans, isn't Jane an awesome public defender? Another not guilty is a pretty awesome

podcast. So please do us a favor and don't just download these episodes, but also subscribe to

this podcast. Hit the subscribe button. Thank you. And, uh, so then closing argument time then,

right? For my closing, um, I focus on the fact that he called the police. I talked about how he

failed the attitude test, but it's not illegal to be an asshole. It's not illegal to be upset. I said

that he was, um, he's calling the police for a domestic violence situation. I can't imagine anyone has,

uh, is emotionally neutral in that situation. Um, they respond to these all the time. Obviously,

emotionality is part of it. And one thing I said is, you know, just imagine if the genders were

switched here, how different that would have been that got objected to shut down, but the jurors held

on to that. Um, Oh, did the cop, uh, the first cop arresting officer or reporting officer, did he say

your client was drunk? Yeah. They, they all said my client was drunk. Oh, and I brought up, um,

with the first cop cause they had to take him to hospital after cause they tased him a bunch and

really beat him up pretty badly. Um, and I said, you know, and in the hospital, um, you can get,

draw blood, correct. And you can test that blood for alcohol. And the whole basis for you doing these

things was, you know, that he's drunk. I mean, that's why you're taking the kid away. You're not

taking the kid away cause he's yelling. You're taking the kid away cause he's drunk. And he's like,

I'm like, but you didn't do that. And I was like, even if he refuses to let you do it,

you could get a warrant and have that done. And he admitted, yes, I could have done that.

And then I said, then you took him to the station and booked him. He's again, I said,

can you have a breathalyzer there? Right. You could have breathed and you could have done the

breathalyzer test and you didn't do that. So, you know, this wasn't your, and I don't say this to

the, until closing, but to the jury, I'm like, he, they could have proven their case. You know,

they, he knows what he has to prove and they purposely didn't do it because if he wasn't drunk,

everything they did makes them liable, right? Their whole basis for their actions was that he

was drunk. And if they don't have that, they don't have any excuse for their behavior. So it's actually

tells you more that they chose not to test him. Cause if they were confident he was drunk,

that man would have been tested in a heartbeat because that would have protected them. And they,

they had the ability. They know the burden. They know what their job is. They know what they have

to prove. And they chose not to sing it, sister, bring it home. I also pointed out like I, and I

also, I also asked the first cop and I said, Oh, so he threatened your life and you thought he had a

gun. Oh, you know, and I got him to talk about what criminal threats are. And I said, and that's a

felony, right? He's like, absolutely. I was like, that's a serious charge. It's like, absolutely.

And I ended the jury. I'm like, why isn't he being charged with, why is he in misdemeanor court?

Where'd the criminal threat go? If you think, you know what I mean? Like this is a red flag for you.

And basically my argument was, um, the cops had a right to be there when they were responding to

the call. They had a right to not arrest the woman and ask her just to leave. That was within their

discretion. Um, nobody's arguing that he had a right to disagree with them and you know, on that,

but, um, he's not doing anything wrong either. And I said, but once they decided to continue to stay

because they're saying he's drunk, um, at that point now, now there's a new line, you know what I

mean? Cause now for them to take his kid away, it would be because he's drunk. And if he's not drunk,

if they can't prove he's drunk, then they had no right to try to take his kid away. They were acting

outside of their duty. They were acting outside of the law and therefore all the exceptions that

protect them under 148 don't apply. Right. Cause they, the, the prosecution has to prove that the

officer was in lawful performance of his duties when he, they took your client down essentially.

And there, and there's a jury instruction for what the standard is to taking a kid away.

I use that rule. I read it to the jury and I said, none of those things are here.

I go, you're allowed to have, I was like, first of all, we don't even know if he had one beer,

but you are allowed to have a few beers in your house. That doesn't rise to the level of letting

you take your kid away. And if he's so drunk that it did rise that level, then they can prove it.

They had the ability, they had the option and they chose not to. And I said, so they didn't necessarily

have a right to take the kid away and him standing up against them for taking the kid away is with,

he's within his rights. Cause once they're acting outside of their rights, he is within his rights.

It's no longer resisting. And so I just kind of like drew the line, you know, so, okay,

the officers did A, B and C that was okay. But then they did D and E and after, you know,

and if in order to do that, they'd have to prove this thing. They didn't do that.

It doesn't matter what he did after that. He's within his rights. And, um, you know, the, um,

I just said like, you know, just imagine the visuals that the sergeant told you about.

How would you not remember if this man was like almost naked? Um, you know, like, look,

he has an interest. He's looking after his rookies. Um, you know, he has a job to do. He did his job,

but that's not reliable. And I always do, I don't say like, they're lying. I just say like,

it's not reliable, right? It's not reliable. And, um, and I said, you know, like, I didn't,

I mean, I really think these cops were completely out of line. I think they were, um, I think it's,

it's terrifying to me, the idea that these things go on all the time and it's outrageous to me,

but I kept all of that out of my closing and was just like, you know, it's a hard job, you know,

but there are rules and this is how it goes. And I think they're rookies and I think egos got

inflamed and I think they didn't like getting called out. And you know, if they really thought

they were within their rights to take his kid first, they should have tested them. And second,

they should have called child services. He told them to, how's that resisting? He's telling them to do

their job more than better than they're doing it. And I said, they didn't tell you he told them to call

child services seven times. They don't tell you that's not in their report. They didn't testify to that.

I was like, if he hadn't recorded himself and you only had their version, what would have happened?

Like he, it sucks that you have to record yourself in your own home to protect yourself

and the government. I mean, this is terrifying really. Um, cause you have to prove you're innocent

because the government can just say you're guilty and just put, throw cops up there that says you're

guilty and they don't have to prove anything. Yeah. I'm sorry. I feel like I cut you off.

Yeah. No, no. It's, it's, it's, it's exactly that. Um, and I mean, I'm glad he had the phone,

but I'm also outraged. He needed it. Right. Um, because most people don't, or you're also

outraged that when you do a jury trial with cops as witnesses, you have to tell jurors that cops may

lie and that you have to make jurors open-minded to that. Where you practice law, there's more jurors

that are open to the fact that police officers may lie, but other parts of our county that are more

conservative for, and you get jurors who don't come to contact with police. Their only impression

of police is what the media tells them or the television. And you have to tell them that that's

not true. And then this officer may come into court and may tell a lie. And are you at least open-minded

to that? And how much time is spent with this one notion that we have to deal with on every case?

It's so, it's so hard. I always just tell juries like, you know, aren't, when they push back a lot

on this, I go, okay, I have a question for you. Are, are cops human beings? And then, oh yeah. Oh,

there are human beings and human beings. We're fallible, right? We can make mistakes. And, uh,

if you make a mistake and you don't want to get in trouble, like sometimes you cover that up,

right? You try to protect yourself. I was like, nobody's calling cops evil or liars. They're

just calling them human beings. And because of that, we have to look a little close. You know,

like I try to do it like, but what I, of course there's what I want to say, but you know, that

doesn't work with the jury, you know? I've done it like, all right, people, I'll make you believe a

witness if they come to court and testify. No, I'm not going to, I'm not going to believe. And because,

you know, it's a person, yes. And a person may tell a lie, right? So when you're looking at these

witnesses, are you, are you at least operating on an idea that this person may tell a lie? Yes. Okay.

Because they're human, right? And humans lie. Yes. Yes. Okay. Now I want you to put a badge on

this person. Are you, that's a good one. Are you open to the idea that this person who's wearing

a badge now may tell a lie? Cause still a human being and we all know humans lie. Does them wearing

a badge change anything? Whatever their answer is, you know? Yeah. Yeah. No, this, this was a pretty

good jury. I have to say, except I mean, and that one guy, like when he was like, oh, they could have

edited it. I mean, I'm like, okay. And like, but nobody agreed with him, you know? And so,

but yeah, I've had jurors just like, but they've taken an oath. They've, they've taken a no sacred

oath. And it's like, right. Their jobs are in danger. Yeah. Why would they lose their job on a

misdemeanor? I'm like, Oh, sit down, sweetie. Have a seat. I have some stories. I have a thousand

stories to tell you. All right. And so the jurors, they go and deliberate. Yeah. They deliberate for

about half an hour. Um, apparently, geez, FDA did a better job than I thought. Well, apparently it was

11 to one, um, immediately. And then there was just one juror who felt like, Oh, I think the cops had a

right to do it. And so the, the, the ones that stayed behind told me that they were like, so we just had

them sit down first. They came back deadlocked saying like, they're just totally dead. Like

after like 10 minutes, they were like, we're totally dead. And the judge is like, okay,

you're going to keep deliberating. And cause you spoke to the jurors after. Yeah. Oh wait. So the

jurors came back 10 minutes later and said, we're deadlocked with a note or whatever. Yeah. So the

judge brings them out and says, keep deliberating. Yeah. He's like, it's been 10 minutes.

You could be here for a whole extra day. Um, at least, you know, um, it's a little early in the process.

First off, I mean, isn't this, how amazing is this that jurors can hear all this evidence or lack

thereof, have an audio that totally contradicts, impeaches the officer's testimony, officers lying,

forgetting things, contradicting each other. And yet there's some idiot on the jury still saying

guilty because the police said so. Do these people realize that, that their decisions affect human,

like people's lives are at stake in the criminal justice system yet they still, this,

these are the idiots deciding the fate of people's lives.

Exactly. Um, I was a little, I, I really felt it was one of my better closings. It was very

powerful. You know, you feel you have the room, like everything I said, the whole, all 11 of the

12 were nodding and swaying back and forth to my mode. You know, like it was, you, you felt you had it.

It was just one of those things. Like, uh, when they came back hung, I just, I looked at my coworker

who watched my closing and I was like, what else could I have done? Right. And he's like nothing.

So yeah, they came back 10 minutes later. Um, totally hung judge said to go back. And it's

like after four at this point. Right. Right. And I've been going on for a week and uh, you know,

they end at four 30 and then like at four 20, like 10 more minutes, 15 more minutes go by and uh,

they come back with a verdict, you know, thank God, not guilty. Um, and my client just broke down in

tears. I mean, this has been a fight he's been having for a year. He's lost jobs. He's been injured.

And you know, he, he felt he was represented. He felt his voice was heard and this was his moment,

you know? So as soon as he just completely lost it. Yeah. And then when we talked to the jury after,

um, yeah, we found out just one of them just didn't think was just kind of so pro cop.

He just, and so they just sat him down and just said, okay, but they did kind of what I do with my

closing. Like you can be pro cop, but here's the rule. And maybe they just, you know, they got a

little ahead of themselves, you know? And they, um, so nobody believed about this extra 20 minutes.

Um, nobody believed them, anything the sergeant said, and, and they think it was just like rookie

cops with big egos. And this is what the juror said. Yeah. Okay. And I mean, they didn't think

they didn't come down as hard on the cops as I felt they should have, you know, they were like,

Oh, you know, it's a hard job, rookie cops. Um, but they felt it was just their egos got in the

way. They tried to cut a corner. He correctly called them out and they didn't like being called out.

They were really surprised to find out I was a public defender. Um, sometimes I usually mention

it early on, but sometimes I forget. And, um, they were just like, someone from my office said,

uh, I'm from the public defender's office, you know, do you mind staying behind and letting us

know how she did before I got out there? And they were like, she's a public defender, but she's so

good. She was excellent. Was she so good? And I'm like, and he's like, yeah, we were pretty good.

You know, and they were like, she should tell people, she should tell people, you know? Um,

but yeah, they, it was, uh, it was, it was, uh, it was a good win. It was a win I needed to have,

like he needed to have because, you know, we'd been working on this case for so long and it was just,

it was just shocking. It got that far, but it just, it felt like if it went any other way,

it would have been wrong. Since we're talking about this, uh, you are a public defender. Why,

why did you want to become a public defender? I've always had a real issue with the, you know,

the police state ever since I was very young. I was just kind of how I was raised. Um, my parents

are from another country and they're very critical of power, money and law and how it's used against

the poor. I also, um, myself, um, we were pretty poor for a long time and growing up, you were growing

up. Yeah. And I went to a pretty rough high school, one of the worst in LA County, one of the highest

transient rates in the country, you know, just, and I learned what real life was like for what ended,

who are now my clients. I, at the time though, I didn't think I wanted to be a public defender.

Honestly, I was a little traumatized by the experience and wanted to be as far away from

it as possible. So, you know, eventually I went to school. Eventually I went to law school

and I was told like my first week, um, a girl who was raised as a public defender basically told me

my first week, she's like, this is what you are. And I, I told her, uh, I'm too sensitive.

I'm too, I'm too, I'm too sensitive. And I think I'm too victim identified because I'd

been through so many things and, um, that's kind of how I saw it. And she's like, you'll,

you'll figure it out. And it took me a long time. I did, I did a lot of years. Uh, I tried to do

workers' rights instead and, uh, that wasn't what I thought it was. And then I tried to do corporate

just to get by. And that was a soul killer. And then I realized like, all I care about is, uh,

is issues of poverty and, uh, fighting a police state. Like that's all I care about. It's all I read

about. It's all I want to talk about. And I hated, I hated practicing law and all the different areas

I tried. And it just seemed like I still was scared of it. I thought I was going to be too sensitive

for it. I thought I was gonna, um, I just didn't think I had what it took. So, but I just got to a

point where I didn't know what else to do. So I decided, and I thought, I thought I would fail.

I thought it would fail. So I thought, you know what, I'm going to go for it. I'm going to put

everything I can to get this job. I will give it everything I have. And if I fail,

I fail. Then the questions will be answered. Cause it was just always in my head. This is what I

should be doing. It was in my head for about eight years.

The public defender was in your head. You're denying you're a public defender.

I tried to deny it. I felt like I found my tribe. I'm surrounded by people who are obsessed with the

same things I am, who see the world the way I see it, which is something I'd never found before.

And, um, it's just been an, it's just been a natural experience. Like every part of this battle

is natural and it's constantly energy. Even though I'm exhausted, I'm always re-energized.

So it's the best, it's the toughest job, but it's also the best job.

I couldn't, it's not even a job. It's like a calling. It's like a calling. It's vocation. It's,

I, I, it's all I want to think about or talk about. It's if I didn't do this,

it's all I would think about just like it was before I did it.

Well, great. Well, I'm, I'm glad to have you on this show today. I remember when I heard

about your one, your not guilty on a 148 and I, I tried to get you on the podcast last week,

but what happened? You went straight from that not guilty and what happened last week?

Oh, I started another trial, another trial. And what was the result of that trial?

That was also a not guilty. And what? Another not guilty.

I've had five acquittals in a row. What? Just another not guilty. Um,

I think we need to have you back on again. Oh yeah. Hopefully I'll have more material.

Yeah. Well, you do have more material. We just need to get it for our listeners. Cause

it's been a pleasure to have you on the show today. It's been really fun to be on here.

And thanks for tuning in to this week's episode of another not guilty. Shout out to Daniel Mark,

creator of A and 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.