The Couple That Stands Their Ground Together Gets Charged Together – When Self-Defense Becomes a Battlefield

So the judge, instead of just doing what most judges do and say, you know, I understand the light most favorable to the state, I believe they've shown a prima facie case, JOA denied.

What he does is he goes over a recitation of the facts that was incredibly coherent and very well put together and much better than the state's argument the entire time.

And he goes on about a 12-minute conversation about the facts as we're testified to in court and I'm sitting there like, geez, just deny it. Like, just deny it. Move on. Like, what are you doing? Like, stop.

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 the deck stacked against us.

And welcome back, everybody, to another Not Guilty. It's your boy, David D here, bringing you the freshest not-guilties across these United States.

What's up, America? Are you ready for a fight? Because we got one here. Let's go.

I don't know about you. Is that hot?

It was hot. You did it.

Of course, that's my awesome co-host, Lauren Marie Manning from the Los Angeles Public Defenders. What's up, Lauren?

Hi, guys. I'm excited about this. I've had a little bit of a break, but I'm back.

Yeah. Yeah. You did have a little bit of a break. I don't know about you, but I woke up Monday morning exhausted. You know, it's only Wednesday right now.

There's a lot happening right now.

We are under siege. We are recording from a bunker here in Los Angeles.

Hiding out from the National Guard.

Yeah. That's right. Speaking truth to power against the powerful government. Let's go. That's what public defenders are about.

That's, I mean, the media, whatever. This is just called Tuesday in our world.

Yeah. Just another day in our life.

Just another day, you know. We've been saying for, like, years, you know, like, a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

We've been just hollowing those things from the criminal justice world for, like, decades now. So, anyway.

We've been sounding the alarm. They've been calling us Chicken Little. The sky is falling, but now it actually is.

So, it's all across America. From here, from California, from all the way to the great sunshine state of Florida.

I know they're doing the fight over there as well, because we have our awesome guest today, defense attorney, premier defense attorney, all the way from the state of Florida.

We have Andrew Darling with us today. Andrew, go ahead and introduce yourself to the A&G universe.

Hey, what's going on, A&G years, guys? Thank you so much for having me.

I am a criminal defense attorney here in Orlando, Florida.

I spent the first nine or ten months of my life as a public defender down here in Orange County, and then back right before COVID, started my own firm.

And we have three associates now and seven or eight employees. I can't remember.

Oh, you're not still a public defender.

No. I sometimes wish I was.

Well, obviously.

But once I kind of branched out after COVID, I just never went back.

It's okay. You're nine months in. We'll take it. Not quite a year, but, you know, we'll take all we can get.

You know, that's for sure.

I will say we did try to bomb the docket when I was at the PD's office with all the trials, and I only got two trials in nine months.

Oh, okay. Okay.

I mean, that's because probably they were scared to see you coming. They were settling them, right?

That's the power of the public defender.

Why don't you tell people why you left the PD's office? Like, what happened?

Yeah, so I was actually running to be a sheriff, be the sheriff in Orange County.

I have no prior law enforcement experience.

What is happening right now?

Orange County, Florida, guys. Orange County, Florida.

Yeah, Orange County, Florida.

I had no prior law enforcement experience, and I believe the place that you change the system is law enforcement.

Because by the time it gets to us as PDs or us as defense attorneys, it's too late.

I don't care how progressive your prosecutor is or how empathetic a judge is on appeal.

None of that matters if you fix policing.

Yeah.

And that was my thought process.

It was an entire criminal justice reform ticket, and I came in second out of five, so I was the first loser.

Wow, okay.

Okay, so not only are you not a public defender, but you also ran to be the sheriff.

We're really taking this podcast in another direction today.

I'm excited to hear what you have to tell us.

Oh, boy.

I ran to be in charge of the deputy sheriffs, not to be a law enforcement officer.

The elected sheriff, Lauren, okay?

Yes.

No, I'm clear.

I just, it's not usually what happens on this podcast, so.

I will say that one of the best things that happened to me was that I didn't become the sheriff.

Yeah, why is that?

Again, obviously, yeah.

So a lot of it is because it wouldn't have given me the opportunity, obviously, to do the work that I've done

to get the not guilty in the case that we're here to talk about today, and several other cases that we've been able to get.

But a lot of it is the type of institutional problems that law enforcement has and has had for many years.

I don't know that I would have been able to fix that, and I would have probably been miserable for at least four years.

So what I'm hearing you say is that your training as a public defender allowed you to secure this victory as a private attorney

when you realize that if you have the best public defender around, the best lawyers around who are always public defenders, it's not too late.

A hundred percent.

And I will tell you this, too.

Whenever I speak to potential clients, I am one of those private attorneys that I tell them,

public defenders are phenomenal attorneys.

I know here in Orange County, the caseloads can be ridiculous, particularly for felony cases.

And the thing that you are hiring a private attorney for is you're hiring us for our time.

That's what you're hiring us for.

And the skill level, like there are public defenders that I know right now here in Orlando, in Orange County, in Osceola County,

they're better lawyers than I am.

I'll tell them that to the face.

I tell them that in front of my clients.

Recognize.

But the clients are paying for my time, and that's the thing that I have to give them.

All right.

Okay.

I can't wait to hear this.

Let's get into it.

All right.

So let's tell us about one of those clients that had your time.

Let's share with the ANG universe what you're able to do when you've got some resources.

Andrew, it's great to have you on the podcast.

Thanks for coming on.

Looking forward to hearing this one.

Andrew and I have been kind of back and forth trying to get going for like, what, since July of last year?

It's been like six months or ten months.

Like, we almost recorded a couple times.

It didn't happen.

So I'm glad you're finally here.

Glad we were finally able to listen to this story.

So, Andrew, tell us about this not guilty all the way from Orange County, Florida.

What was your client charged with?

Yeah.

So my client was charged with second-degree murder as a principal, which has the same ramifications as just being kind of by yourself.

Basically, a principal is you knew about some sort of plan.

You encouraged or participated in that plan.

And she was arrested for first-degree murder, charged with second-degree murder.

And then after 21 months or 652 days in custody, we had a jury trial.

And there was an outcome.

All right.

Well, listen.

So just back to the charge.

First-degree murder, but charged for second-degree murder as a principal.

So you could be charged for murder as a principal or just murder as a principal?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

So generally, if you're just charged with murder, like, you are the principal.

Okay.

So the principal theory is essentially you were there, you knew of the process, you didn't do anything to stop it.

But it's more of you actively participated is what the principal instructions are.

So you are as responsible as – it's similar in some states have, like, felony murder.

It's kind of the same thought process.

Or aiding and abetting.

Really have – yeah.

It's more of a you were there, you were a part of the process that led to the death.

Yeah, so we call it a major participant, right?

So in California, you can be the actual killer, you can be a major participant, or you can be someone who was acting with, you know, reckless disregard for human life.

But we say you're a major participant even if you weren't the actual killer.

Okay.

It sounds like that's what you're saying.

Yeah, that sounds similar.

Okay.

All right.

And what did your client allegedly do?

What's the state claiming – what's their theory of the case?

Yeah, so the state's theory is there was a disagreement between this gentleman and my client and the co-defendant at the largest bus station here in Orlando.

There was a disagreement, some kind of argument.

The gentleman walks away.

My client and the co-defendant walk another direction.

They see the gentleman walking.

They follow him.

And the state's version is they were stalking him, following him.

You know, they had planned to do something to him after the first interaction.

And, you know, a couple blocks down the road, which is, again, all out in public and most of which is caught on the city's security cameras.

They say, you know, at some point he ends up being shot in the back and being killed.

This is a stranger to your client and her girlfriend?

To my client, yes.

Sort of a mushy gray area on how much of a stranger that person is to the co-defendant, which is kind of an interesting part of the story, too.

And, yeah, we'll get into that in a second.

So the state's theory is your client is at the bus stop with her girlfriend.

The stranger approaches.

They have some type of verbal altercation.

The stranger walks away.

Client and girlfriend follow him several blocks and then get into an altercation then with him.

And then is he – and that's how they kill him.

Yeah.

Did you say how he was killed?

Was he shot?

Was he stabbed?

Yeah, so both.

So he is – they get into a physical altercation and then – so they get into a physical altercation and then at some point he is both stabbed somewhere in the front, like in his lower abdomen area twice, and he is shot in the back one time.

And are there, like, witnesses to this?

Is there – you said there's video, right?

There is a city surveillance video from the city of Orlando that – there's Lynx, which is the bus company here, Lynx Buses.

They have the footage from the actual bus depot.

It is our downtown, like, the main bus station.

They have video from there where the first interaction takes place.

They have them leaving, and then they are picked up on the city surveillance camera walking.

It's roughly four, four and a half blocks.

But most of it – you can tell they're in the video.

I know some of the video is kind of far away, so you can't really tell exactly what's happening.

But the actual allegations of the murder, the death itself, is on video.

It's kind of grainy and, like, up in the corner of the video, but it's completely on video.

Okay.

And it shows – the video shows the decedent and two people engaging in some sort of squabble?

Yes.

So, initially, my client and the decedent are fighting, and then you see the co-defendant walk up.

When the co-defendant walks up, you then see the gentleman fall.

And you can't really see what happens right after that, but then both my client and the co-defendant leave the scene, and there's sort of a fun way that they're identified later.

Is it physically fighting?

Yes.

Okay.

Does someone call 911?

Yes.

So, there was a – this takes place across the street from Salvation Army, sort of a – it's not a homeless shelter, but it is sort of a transition housing for people that are housing unstable, if you will.

And then there was some calls from there, and then there was also a – like a – not a club, but kind of a hangout spot, you know, halfway – the other way up the block.

Okay.

So, there's – I mean, several people did kind of call it in and see it.

Okay.

And then how does your client –

What time of day did this happen?

So, it's in the evening time.

It's – I believe it's around 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock at night.

It's not super –

Okay, so it's dark.

It's not like this happened in broad daylight with a bunch of people to be able to see it.

No, it is dark.

Okay.

And then how's your client arrested?

Or identified also?

This happens – yeah.

So, this happens October 9th of 2022.

The – my client wasn't arrested until November 11th, and she was arrested on November 11th.

So, essentially, the case had gone cold in the first month.

And what happens is the co-defendant makes an allegation of domestic violence against my client in October, October 30th.

So, like, right before Halloween.

So, you figure it's been 20 days, 21 days since the incident.

Law enforcement has no leads.

Domestic violence accusation, client gets arrested.

Once her picture hits the jail website, those photos are public photos.

They're public photos.

They ran – they run every person that gets arrested through their little AI algorithm for their open cases.

And she gets matched.

And then, oddly enough, co-defendant, her father is the one that identifies them as law enforcement continues to –

because the father thought that they were there talking about the domestic violence incident.

So, investigators showed up with photos from the day of the killing, and they ended up seeing photos from that.

He was like, yeah, that's your client.

That's my daughter.

Of course it is.

This is why you don't talk to the cops.

That's how they write them.

Ever.

You know, especially if you shoot somebody, right?

It's not even, like, a month ago.

It's not even a month ago.

Maybe you just break up with your girlfriend instead of calling the cops on it.

You know?

It would have been easier.

Easier for everybody involved.

Let's give them names.

Let's give them names so we can keep them straight.

So, your client shall be called –

So, my client – I have permission, and all this stuff is available publicly.

I do have permission.

We can just call her Ms. Watson.

That's your client?

That's my client, Ms. Watson.

And then the co-defendant, Ms. Santana.

It's public.

You'd be able to find this on the Orange County Clerk of Courts website.

So, it's not –

Okay, so –

I have my –

We can call Ms. Santana Carla.

Carla?

No.

Carla works.

Carla Santana.

Carla Santana.

Yeah.

And what about –

What is Watson's first name?

Not the real first name.

Yeah.

What should we call her?

Wait, let's just go with Ms. Watson, Ms. Santana.

Usually, we go with first names, but we've never done that.

Are you sure?

I mean, yeah, we go first names just like we try and get away with that in court, you know?

Try and humanize them.

Okay.

So, Carla and – we said Kalanche.

Kai.

Kai.

Okay, Kai.

Kai.

Kai and Carla.

Okay.

Carla and Kai.

And who's the deceased?

All right.

So, Carla's dad identifies the two of them, believing he's helping in the investigation of his daughter being the victim of domestic violence.

But the police pulled a dirty trick and actually had him identify them from the video stills of the day of the murder.

Yes.

Oh, dear.

All right.

Well, then, so that's the case.

And then tell us about, like, when you received the case.

Like, where was the – you weren't the first lawyer on the case, right?

No.

So, when she was arrested in November of 2022, the family did – November of 2022, the family did reach out to me.

There was some mix-up with the family, with who was communicating with whom.

They ended up hiring another lawyer who does criminal, partly, but that's not the meme.

Not very well.

It's not the main thing that they do.

So, I didn't actually get hired until, I believe it was February 13th of 2023.

So, you know, three months-ish later where I get on the case.

And then we start an incredibly long process to – we begin with depositions.

We get all the video.

I mean, we're talking hours of video here.

I mean, there is – I think we went back through and looked, and there's almost 200 hours of video in this case.

It's just all the security, different security footage that you had to come through from all the businesses along the walk?

Yes.

So, there's – the bus station has multiple cameras, multiple angles, no audio.

It's all video.

The city cameras are also all video, no audio.

And then there's another couple businesses along the way.

There's a hotel.

There's a – what's the hotel office building?

And then there's also a apartment complex building that they walk by.

And then there's the Orange County Public Schools building, which is downtown here, that also, like, there's an angle from the parking garage.

So, there's all these different videos to go through.

And it's essentially the entirety of – from the first interaction he has with them at the bus station till he's eventually shot is less than 15 minutes.

Okay.

But there's 200 hours of video.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

Tell us about when you met your client, though.

What was that like?

So, she had – the only other trouble she'd ever been in was the domestic violence from a couple weeks prior, which ended up getting dismissed because there was no domestic violence.

But she was not in a good space mentally.

Okay.

Obviously, she knew about what situation we were talking about.

They actually – both my client and the co-defendant ended up going in and doing full interviews with law enforcement.

Oh.

Oh, no.

Which were not good.

Yeah.

As you can imagine.

Yeah.

So, they were problematic because they put themselves at the scene.

Well, yeah.

Just tell us what your client said.

How did your client say it to law enforcement?

Yeah.

Client said they were sitting at the bus station.

This man walked up.

I just have a question before you give that.

They gave statements separately or together?

Separately.

Okay.

So, they were split up.

They were arrested at different times.

So, my client was arrested first.

And then when they ended up arresting the co-defendant, she ended up having another long story.

Majority of the story is consistent.

So, we're sitting at a bus stop.

Man approaches, says some offensive things, something to the effect of, you know, dirty pigs or something.

It was – this gentleman, we believe he was unhoused.

We're pretty certain he was unhoused.

So, just the interaction was weird from the get-go.

My client or girlfriend had just arrived at the bus station not too long before.

They had went out to eat.

So, they were finishing some of their leftovers.

In our anticipation, which they were just waiting on another bus to go home.

And then he comes up and says something.

As he walks away, he leaves going around one part of the building.

Co-defendant says something to my client, which we learned later was, that's the same guy that tried to take me.

Or, that's the same guy that tried to rape me on a bus a couple weeks prior.

This is the statement your client's giving?

So, she tells the police that her girlfriend says that guy tried to rape her on a bus a couple weeks ago.

Yes.

Okay.

So, what she says is when they got up and they were walking, they didn't know exactly which way he went.

They knew he went around one side of the building.

But then when they started walking, they saw him again.

So, what she said was she wanted to confront him and basically just tell him, like, hey, that's unacceptable.

That's not okay.

Like, we don't – we're not going to do things like that.

And my client, about 5'8", 125, 130, maybe, on a good day, the gentleman was still a grown man.

He was about 200 pounds.

I think he was 5'9", 5'8", 5'9", himself.

But, like, at the end of the day, it's probably not a smart decision if you're 120-something pounds to go fight somebody that's 200 pounds.

But it wasn't even necessarily that there were – the intention was to go fight.

Well, Andrew, it seems like there were a lot of bad decisions made to go and confront this guy.

Not just the size differential there.

It seems like –

So, then what did Kai say about the confrontation?

Did she approach him?

Yeah, what's her statement?

Did he tap – was he facing the other way?

She tapped him on the shoulder?

Like, he turns around?

Like, what happened?

No, so they were – they were yelling.

And you can see in the video, like, through the body language that she's very clearly yelling to, like, get his attention.

You see in the video he stops at one point and sort of turns around.

And there's some type of dust-up initially, and then he walks away.

Dust-up meaning verbal?

What's dust-up?

No, there was some kind of physical.

So, we could – you can't really see in the video how physical it gets, but there's some type of physical –

Okay.

And does your client say –

What does your client say, though?

Yeah, it's like we keep jumping back and forth between her statement in the video.

Just what was her statement that she gave to the police?

Yeah, her statement to the police was that they were arguing back and forth the entire way and that eventually they get into a fight.

So, this part is not really part of her statement, but this is sort of as you're following the walk.

Right, but I want to know what her statement is.

Her statement says she goes to confront this guy.

Does she start – she says they're arguing back and forth.

Does she say she starts the argument?

What does she say that she said to this guy?

How does it happen according to her?

Yeah, so she says at some point they get to where the actual death occurs.

She doesn't talk about any physical confrontations really in between or on the walk, if you will.

But she talks about the last altercation where they're arguing and he turns around and squares up and she squares up with him and they start to fight.

And she very quickly gets the sort of losing end of that altercation as he pins her up against a red Nissan Murano and he has his arm.

What she says in the video – in her statement is he had his arm across my neck.

I was starting to lose consciousness.

I did not know what was happening and then he fell.

That's what her statement is in the sort of arrest interview.

So her statement is that essentially she gets up to follow him, to confront him, and that their only altercation was verbal until he turns around and ends up choking her.

So she never cops to any sort of physical violence that she's perpetrated in her statement.

No, she says like when he turned around, we squared up and we were ready to fight.

So she was like they're ready to fight and I think like as they come together, she's trying to hit him like as they come together.

But he just overpowers her and presses her up against the car.

So she admits to trying to start a physical fight then.

Well, she said that they had just been arguing for so long that at some point he turned around and was ready to fight and then she was also ready to fight.

So it's not that she was starting the fight.

It's that they kind of agreed to fight after arguing for a couple blocks.

What's the part – what's the part that you don't like about that statement?

I don't like that we follow this gentleman for four blocks because that's the whole purpose of the state's case is followed, followed, followed the entire time.

And the thing that I didn't necessarily mind about it was she is saying we were having an argument and then we agreed to fight and he turned around to fight me.

So like at that point, worst case, it's just a battery.

It's just a misdemeanor battery.

Well, it seems like they agreed to fight.

She loses the fight.

And so he ends up getting shot and killed.

And stabbed.

Yeah.

Like it's like – you know, it's kind of hard to say self-defense when you kind of instigate a fight, right?

You can't really claim self-defense.

So –

Unless he's about to take it to another level.

He was choking her.

I mean maybe he was trying to kill her or with a third person.

So a lot of – you know, a lot of states are very different on sort of what the stand-your-ground basis are.

So in Florida, we have a pretty robust stand-your-ground.

We're like you.

California is famous.

Yes.

But part of it is –

What's his name?

Who shot the kid with the spinos?

That's how I got famous.

For Trayvon Martin.

George Zimmerman?

George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

George Zimmerman.

He made your stand-your-ground laws pretty famous.

Yeah, for all the wrong reasons.

But we were in a position where we felt like she was charged as a principal, which means it could have either been her or Carla.

So what we ended up saying was essentially Carla is the one that was defending Kai.

At this time, I'd like to give a huge shout-out and thanks to our newest member to the A&G Patreon program who is going with the alias Random1208.

Thank you for your recent donation.

We really, really appreciate your support over here at the A&G Studios.

If you, too, would like to donate to the podcast, then please visit our website at anothernotguiltypod.com and click on the Patreon link.

So what was her statement?

Carla's statement.

Carla's statement.

Yes.

Carla's statement was that Kai had owned a knife but didn't have it with her that night, that this gentleman had previously tried to take her, that the entire process, she doesn't know how the gentleman died, but that they started fighting and then he fell and they left.

Because I was not supposed to be able to get that in the trial, but I'm sure we'll have a conversation about that.

Her statement was, I don't know, he just died, essentially.

There was a bullet in him and a stab wound and we didn't do it or see anything.

It just happened.

It just happened.

And that my client owned a knife but did not have a knife with her that day.

I own a knife, too.

It's in the kitchen.

So, yeah.

That makes sense.

God, these are shit statements.

They're very bad.

There's also, like, the fact that they talk about her, Carla, being possibly raped by this guy is sort of motive to follow him and confront him and be violent.

Like, there's just sort of this sort of motive and conspiracy to act together that's kind of brewing right now.

Yeah, and they're not saying that's what was happening that night.

He wasn't trying to take her that night.

Right.

This was some revenge.

All right.

So, we got – so, this is the evidence.

You got these shit statements from Carla and the client.

You got video showing an altercation.

It shows an altercation.

It shows following something like that.

He drops and falls.

Question.

He's got a wound.

Go ahead.

You said that the video was grainy but it actually shows the moment of the murder.

Yes?

It does.

Homicide.

Homicide.

Sure.

Homicide.

The moment of the homicide that you can see, can you talk about what you can see there with your client and Carla and – yeah, Carla, what they're doing.

Yes.

So, my client does appear to be pressed up against the car.

Okay.

So, the gentleman is – arms are in front of him.

You can't really tell where his arm is.

So, like I said, my client's statement is that it was across her neck and pressing her up against the vehicle.

And you can see Carla walking up.

And as soon as she walks up, the gentleman falls.

And there's allegations that he was – like, that the gentleman was, like, kicked or stomped when he was down.

But you – it's just not clear because it's dark in the video.

Like, you can see the parties move there.

And, like, I don't think there's any dispute about, yes, there were three people there.

But it's –

Okay.

So, you can't see –

It looks like a fight.

Do you see a flash from a gunshot or anything?

No.

You can't see the glint of a knife?

No.

But – and what you see is at least somewhat consistent with your client's statement in that it does appear that the decedent has your client up against a vehicle.

And then he doesn't fall until the co-defendant, the future co-defendant, Carla, walks up to him.

And does she walk up to him from behind or the side?

How does that happen?

So, she – he is facing the car with my client in front of him.

And she comes up from what is his right side to behind him.

And there's some movement with her arms and then a slight, slight pause and then he drops.

And it's not – like, it's not something where – like, the shot was, according to the medical examiner, almost nearly immediately fatal.

Wow.

So, the coroner said the cause of death was the gunshot, not the stab wound.

Yes.

Okay.

Did the coroner say anything about the stab wounds?

Yes.

So, there were two puncture wounds to his lower abdomen.

So, one sort of by his hip and then the other one sort of right below his belly button.

And then there was a very weird, incredibly straight cut along like his – it almost looked like a C-section but wider.

And it looked like it was a newer cut but it was – it was just incredibly smooth and consistent of a cut that it did not look like it was anything that it came from that interaction.

From a struggle.

So, yeah, from the struggle.

It didn't – it didn't look like it came from the interaction to –

It was clean.

It was clean.

It's happy face.

Yes.

So, and again, we'll talk about more of like how – what we talked about with the medical examiner.

It would have been like a Charlie Brown like this if it was – you know.

No, it was – again, the photos that we received as part of this case were not for the faint at heart.

Any other pieces of evidence we should know about?

We got a coroner's report.

We got video.

We got witness statements.

We got statements from the defendant, both defendants.

Any other pieces of evidence?

Yes.

So, there is DNA of the doors of the vehicle.

There's fingerprints from throughout the scene, none of which match my client or a co-defendant.

There's nothing that physically ties them to the scene.

Fingerprints where?

Of what?

Fingerprints on the what?

On the car.

But that's just a random car that was right there that they were pressed up against.

Yes, but the state made a big deal about how good the investigation was.

I assume that they – they had search warrants as well for Carla and Kai's –

There was footprint.

Residences?

Did they find any weapons?

So, for – when they were together, they were sort of staying in a van in a carport.

They – their home situation was rough at the time.

So, they did have a search warrant for Kai's van that she was living in.

They found basically the clothing that was similar to what Kai was wearing that night.

They then later executed a search warrant on Carla's parents' home, found Carla's purse.

In that purse, there happened to be some rounds of ammunition that were the same brand as the casing from the crime scene.

Trouble.

But there's only, like, three – there's only three brands in the United States.

Everyone has the same – the same bulletproof.

They didn't find a gun or a knife.

Never found a gun, never found a knife.

It's like saying there's a pair of Nikes.

Yeah.

Everyone has Nikes.

Chuck Taylors.

Black Chuck Taylors.

That's actually – that's what the video shows that Kai is wearing is black Chuck Taylors.

All right.

Chuck's, I mean – so, you get the case.

You meet your client Kai, you go through all the video, you see the witness statements.

Like, how does the defense take off from there?

Like, what are you going to do to get this not guilty?

Like, what are you doing?

Yeah.

So, our position really early on was I need Carla to file a stand-your-ground motion.

Why?

The prop – and basically defensive of it.

This is co-defendant.

So, because they're co-defendant.

Yes.

So, you need her to file a stand-your-ground.

Why?

Because if – so, because my client was charged as a principal.

If the principal is found to have not been responsible, you can't also be responsible.

So, for example, if Carla is found that she was defending Kai because even if Kai consented to a fight, the potential act of her being choked up against a car exceeded her consent of that fight.

So, now Carla, being also a small, younger female, was unable to physically remove this gentleman.

So, she did not have a choice but to use force because she thought that Kai was, you know, fear of serious imminent bodily injury or potentially death.

So, I have what might be a dumb question.

But why didn't we just say she's just not guilty without stand-your-ground?

Like, her intention was to confront this person.

She never had any intention to end his life or do serious bodily harm.

She wasn't found with any weapon.

She didn't make any statement that she had a weapon.

The video doesn't show that she did anything, that the guy didn't fall until Carla comes over.

There's no evidence that she worked with Carla for some plan to kill this guy.

So, why do we even care about all that?

So, why aren't we just saying she was there but not guilty of any murder or conspiracy to commit murder?

For us, the reason we wanted the stand-your-ground to go first is we thought it was appropriate so that we knew where we were positioning-wise for a potential plea that we wanted Carla to go first, basically, in the trial posture.

The issue that we ran into is I know Carla's attorney.

I worked with her throughout this entire process.

Phenomenal attorney.

Carla just wouldn't agree to ever take ownership of the gun.

And to file a stand-your-ground, you have to put the gun in your own hand.

If she's saying she was defending Kai, she had to basically put the gun in her own hand.

Right, but I guess my question is who cares about her?

Like, why was that necessary?

Why not just say Kai's portion of this was I was just trying to confront this guy.

I had no intention of killing him or causing great bodily injury.

I didn't know what she did.

I don't know if it was stand-your-ground.

I don't have any part in that.

I'm not guilty of this.

Yeah, so that's what our trial argument ended up being.

But at this point in the process, we were still together.

Got it.

We had not severed the trial.

You were exploring theories because you still had a co-defendant.

Yes.

Okay.

And trial counsel for Carla would not file the stand-your-ground motion?

She couldn't get Carla's permission to file the stand-your-ground motion.

Also, why do you have to file a motion for self- – usually you just go to trial and you argue self-defense, right?

Like, is there like a declaration that it's going to be self-defense and the judge has to allow – before you can even bring self-defense to your jury?

Or how does it work over there?

No, so there's a tactical reason for it.

And the tactical reason is we had done depositions of – I think we deposed –

Well, you got to tell us about the depositions.

16 people, and one of the purposes of a stand-your-ground is it is kind of a mini-trial before the trial.

So it was going to give us another run at all the witnesses that they needed to call.

And like I said, we had their first –

So it's a hearing.

It's a pretrial hearing is what you're saying.

Yes.

So if it's granted, what's granted is actual immunity from prosecution.

So it's like in self-defense, obviously it's a jury question, right?

But here, the stand-your-ground is an affirmative process where if we allege facts sufficient to show that stand-your-ground was possible, it shifts the burden to the state to show by clear and convincing evidence that this was not stand-your-ground.

That it was not made in self-defense.

Yes.

And so you get to have a hearing about this and have all these witnesses testify.

But for that to happen, you need to co-counsel to file the motion, and co-counsel wouldn't do it because they don't want to do it.

They don't want to give an element to the prosecutor.

They don't want to even admit your client had a gun because the video doesn't even really show your client having a gun.

So maybe – so they're just not quite ready to give that.

I guess so, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So we –

You can't take it back?

You can't be like, we want the motion.

We don't want the motion anymore.

We're changing our strategy, judge.

We've decided against it.

So they could file it.

And then even if they lost, you can still assert stand-your-ground or self-defense at trial, which are essentially the same thing at trial.

You can still use it because the burden is different, right?

So clear and convincing, you know, somewhere in that hopefully 75 percent, even though we're never supposed to use numbers, you know, it's still a much less burden, much lower burden than beyond a reasonable doubt.

So it was a situation where she just – the co-defendant just refused to ever put the gun in her own hand.

So we couldn't do that.

I'm sorry.

But so you follow the stand-your-ground.

That means the co-defendant has now admitted they have the gun in their hand, and they can't take that back, and that admission can be used against them in court during the trial.

It's like an admission.

Do they take a plea, a waiver?

You're waiting to write to have this fact presented – you know, to dispute this fact in your upcoming trial?

Do you know you have a right to a trial over this one fact, but you're going to admit it right now?

Is that what happens?

So in stand-your-ground, the case law here in Florida is if you are asserting stand-your-ground, you are admitting to the conduct because you're saying that that conduct was lawful, and, yeah, you don't get to take it back.

Wow.

That's your assertion.

So is there like a waiver in court that happens, or is there like a declaration that your client's making this waiver?

How does that go down?

So we have C4 motions, which are motions to dismiss.

The C4 portion is a sworn statement.

So most of the time in stand-your-ground, you're going to have your client – you can have them sign the motion, basically, as, yes, this is true and accurate to the best of my whatever.

But a lot of times they don't.

So the thing is, once you file that motion, it is difficult, but it is possible for the court to take notice of the file and determine whether that's relevant evidence or not for a jury to see.

They're not supposed to, but I have seen stand-your-ground motions that get incredibly complicated, and there are admissions in there beyond just I was the shooter.

This is fucking stupid.

This is like –

This is Florida.

It's a wild place.

It's a trial.

It's a self-defense trial.

We're putting up witnesses and presenting evidence that was in self-defense.

It's a fucking element to the fucking murder charge that it was in self-defense or wasn't in self-defense.

We have to have a whole hearing on whether or not a defense could be presented.

Can you imagine if the prosecution's case was this scrutinized?

It's never this scrutinized.

They're just like, oh, yeah, we're in charge, prosecute, throw it in front of a jury.

Well, defense, you want to do something?

Hold on.

Let's take a closer look here at what the defense is doing.

I don't know.

I was listening quietly hoping for it to make better sense, but it just wasn't getting any better.

All right.

I mean, California has stand-your-ground, but we don't fucking go through all these procedural hoops just to get there.

We just go in front of the jury.

The jury instructions, which I'm sure we'll get to at some point, they are helpful in understanding the foolishness that is sort of self-defense as well as a principle argument.

But, like, I think – I mean, I agree with Lauren.

Like, I think at the end of the day, like, the defense is like – your client's just like, look, hey, I agreed to fight this guy.

This guy was kicking my ass, and she shot him.

I had no idea that she was going to shoot him.

Was I getting – I was blacking out because I was being choked.

Does that mean it was a reasonable fear?

Does that mean that, you know, she thought he was trying to kill me and she was protecting me?

I don't know.

It just fucking happened.

I had nothing to do with it.

That's my problem.

I didn't even know there was a gun involved.

You know, I don't – I mean, like, that's kind of like – I think that's the defense, you know, because I think at the end of the day, like, no jury is going to like the fact that this person started – like, they started to fight with this guy, and now this guy is dead.

You know, like, so that's kind of like –

But even in California, you're still allowed to claim self-defense if you started the fight.

I mean, there are things you have to prove in between there, but you can still get to self-defense even if you're the one who started the fight.

Yeah, and we were in a position too where I got on this case February of 23.

By February of 24, February, March of 24, we had decided that it was time to sever the cases and just get ready for trial.

Well, let's – okay, and let's talk about getting ready for trial.

So did you depose any witnesses?

We did.

We deposed 15 or 16 witnesses.

Okay, any good ones?

So the lead detective, it's one of the – it's a scenario where I will say this.

As far as detectives that I've interviewed or deposed or anything previously, she was incredibly thorough.

The problem that we sort of reached was she sort of picked what the outcome was really, really early on, and the entire investigation was to serve that outcome, which is why they were arrested for first-degree murder.

She led with confirmation bias.

Yes, and –

Why do you say that?

Why do you say she picked this certain outcome?

Like what did she stay in the interview?

She – in the interviews themselves – so when we actually – when you watch the interviews, she's trying to understand basically her version, which is they stalked and killed this man.

That's what her sort of version was coming to it.

So in the interview, she's trying to figure out why that happened.

She never once in her investigation or in the deposition where we're talking about everything, until depositions, does she admit, okay, I guess there are other reasons why something like this could have happened.

She just – she knew it was this cold-hearted, premeditated murder, and that's what it was going to be.

And every part of the investigation that she did from that point was to serve that purpose.

As soon as she heard that they got up to confront him, that was the end of her.

Yeah, there was – there was one funny officer that we deposed, and I actually – the state attorney in this, the prosecutor, we'll talk about him a little bit.

But we were in this deposition, and I asked the gentleman, you know, the officer, one of the other, like, backup detectives, if you will, just one of the people that shows up at the scene, and we're like, all right, did you take any notes?

No.

All right, so did you get anybody's statement?

He's like, no.

I was – I was like, so what did you do at the scene?

And he's like, well, you know, I was going around and just making sure everybody was in there.

So I was like, yeah, but you didn't take any notes.

You didn't talk to me.

So like, what did you do?

And he could – he just couldn't answer.

And I was like, and how long were you there?

And it was like two or three hours.

He was collecting his overtime.

And I'm like, did you transport anybody anywhere?

Did you find any – did you bag any evidence?

I was like, what?

He was like, no.

He was like, I just kind of – I was there to support the lead detective.

I was like, how did you support the lead detective?

And he's just like, I don't remember.

Coffee.

I got coffee when he wanted some.

But it was –

Donuts.

But I asked him.

Towards the end, I asked him.

And this is like – I actually made the state attorney laugh when I asked this in the deposition.

I was like, all right.

I was like, officer so-and-so.

I was like, so how many times in a month do you go to a scene for three or four hours and do absolutely nothing?

And he was just like – and like when I asked it, like the co-counsel was sitting next to me and she was like mortified that I would even ask that question.

And he was just like, I don't just go places for three or four hours and not do anything.

I was like, okay.

So that was just this case.

And he's just like, I just – I don't remember anything from this case.

I'm like, okay.

Thank you.

And the state's like, yeah, I have no questions.

Why was this person deposed?

I mean like –

So they're on not just the state's witness list, but they're also on like the list of people that was present at the scene.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

And we couldn't find any written anything.

So to me, a lot of times that's a red flag for there's a report that we don't have.

But then we got there and learned, no, he was just there.

That's all.

He wasn't doing anything.

It's a funny story, but I do love that you get the chance to ask all the officers questions because we don't – we're not able to do that.

I mean I've tried to get creative and send our investigators out to talk to the officers because they're mentioned in a report and they don't talk to us.

And we can't – there's nothing we can do to hear from them short of subpoenaing them to trial.

You guys can't file a motion for depositions?

There's no criminal depositions.

Yeah, we don't do that.

Wow.

So we can subpoena them to court and they can testify in front of a jury, but we have no idea what the hell they're going to say if we don't have a report from them.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's rough.

So we have them – you can get them in felony all the time, and if you motion for them, you can get them in county court, which is misdemeanor land.

So the only real thing that you would normally do in a misdemeanor situation is like domestic violence situations or like DUIs.

Like everything else, there's not a lot of depositions in county court.

I mean I love that you got to embarrass this guy too.

That's fun.

That was a long day.

That was a good part of the day.

Yeah, just taking a shot.

Was there any like good witness statements that you liked that was favorable for the defense or depositions, I could say, whatever you want to call them?

Yeah.

Yeah, there was some mix-up about what the actual brand of casing that was found at the scene.

Just between the investigator – oh, actually the lead investigator had said that the deceased didn't have any tattoos, but he had a huge tattoo on his chest.

So it's like there's little things like that that are helpful.

Like they're not substantively helpful, but they're helpful for the just little cuts, right?

Like little cuts to the credibility.

Yeah.

I mean it's kind of like this case.

The facts aren't too much in dispute.

It's all kind of on video.

There was an altercation that led to the shooting.

So it's going to come down to like really like your client's state of mind and what the jurors believe.

And so I think I cut you off earlier, but you were talking about now it came to the point where you decided to sever the cases, right?

Yes.

So because the co-defendant –

Describe severing the cases to A&G verse.

What does that mean?

Yes.

So that means that we are filing a motion that basically says it is not possible for our client to get a fair trial if the cases are tried together because either the facts, the theories, the everything is so intertwined that the jury,

even if we pick two separate juries to sit on the trial together and one evaluates one co-defendant, one evaluates the other, that doesn't change the fact that certain things that are admissible, both juries are going to hear.

So certain things that are not admissible or would not be admissible for one person's trial may be admissible to the other person's trial.

So, for example, co-defendant statements in that video should only be admissible at her trial, not at our client's trial.

So even though they were good for us, they shouldn't be admissible at our trial.

Now, I've done a co-defendant murder trial that was severed, and so we had two juries in the courtroom, and then sometimes the judge would be like,

okay, jury number, jury A, step out of the courtroom, because only jury B can see this evidence now.

Okay, now jury A, come back in.

Jury A, jury B, you guys don't talk to each other ever, you know, and then...

Yeah, we know that they never discuss what happened.

No one ever goes, hey, what did you guys listen to when we left the room?

Yeah, while we're back here in the same room for lunch, nobody's talking, of course.

The judge is waiting in the hallway for an hour.

Judges like, jury A, please step out of the courtroom, because what the evidence we're about to present is going to be too prejudicial to the person you're judging.

Yeah.

There's some really bad evidence we don't want you to see.

It's going to be juicy.

Why don't you guys get to step in, all right?

Don't even think about it.

Don't even think about it.

Yeah, so once we made the decision to sever, we filed a motion to sever.

The state did not object.

Interesting.

Because the co-defendant, just, she never, at this point, I think they'd also sort of raised competency concerns for the co-defendant.

So we didn't know if that was going to go kind of, we have a separate, like, competency docket where, you know, folks get evaluated for their mental health and whatever.

She came back competent at some point.

But that delays your client from going to trial, because once they're deemed not competent, it suspends proceedings.

But your client's still like, hey, I want to try my case.

I have a speedy trial, right?

I'm not going to wait for my co-defendant to be competent.

You know what, my A&Gers?

We are starting a new thing over here called the A&G Mailbag, where we answer your questions on the show.

If you have a question for us, then go ahead and visit our website at anothernotguiltypod.com and click on the submission link.

Also, if you'd like to be a guest on the podcast and share your not guilty story, then visit the website as well and click on the submission link.

Thank you.

And then how are you feeling about your defense at this point?

Like, what is your defense?

Is it going to be your – it was self-defense or defense of third person?

Or is it going to be – had nothing to do with it?

Do you have a decision right now?

So because the way it's charged as a principle is it's essentially – listen, yes, Carla killed this guy.

We're not fighting about the facts of the case here.

The facts of the case are what they are, but she acted lawfully because she was defending Kai.

And because she acted lawfully, Kai didn't do anything wrong.

There's nothing that Kai could have done to change the situation at all.

So how can she be responsible for Carla's actions?

Interesting.

And we also – I mean that's – so you're going to try to tell the jury that the shooting was justified?

We sort of backdo it to stand your ground.

Yes.

Yeah.

And it's – and what it is is like my client never had a firearm, so I couldn't file a stand your ground and put the firearm in my client's hand.

And the way that physically the bodies were positioned, like for my client, she would have had to have been like one of the fantastic four that can stretch his arm all the way around to shoot him in the back.

Like there was no way for her to do that.

So, I mean, that was our theory of the case.

And it was just one of those things that we're not scared of the evidence.

One of the things that I said in the beginning is we are not scared of the facts in this case.

I like it.

And the state brought up that you're going to see a bunch of videos and all this other stuff.

So, I brought up that, yeah, because defense stipulated to them, because we want you to see all of the videos in this case.

We want you to know what happened so you can make the right determination.

Okay.

All right.

So, that's the opening statement.

Let me ask you this.

So, right before we start trial now, how is Kai doing?

Anyway, she's been in custody for over a year now.

What's that like for her?

So, she is to a place where she is as comfortable as any client can get in a jail situation without knowing how long I'm going to be here, how long I'm going to be in custody.

One thing that did come up last minute right before the trial is the regular trial court judge said, because we filed our demand for Speedy, and that demand ran on a week that he had a bunch of other trials, we were going to have to have some random judge come down and be the judge for the case, which for me is, I've had sort of hit and miss situations like that when you have a trial with a judge you're not familiar with.

But we didn't just get a judge, we got a district court of appeals judge that used to be a circuit court judge, which is the felony level cases here, and he came down from the DCA, the district court of appeals, to do the trial.

So, now we have a judge who is thinking about a trial, not just from a trial court's perspective, but from an appellate court perspective, and that comes into play a little bit later too.

Did your client want a trial, or was she hoping to settle?

So, the state never gave us a formal offer.

So, they were saying, you know, we wouldn't do anything less than, you know, 12 to 15 years, but she's got to accept that before we formally make the offer.

And as we got laid in the process when we completed depositions, we shared with the state, she will do five years on any third degree felony, which is the max, day for day, on any third degree felony of your choosing, to not go to trial.

And they were like, no, we're not even going to entertain it.

Okay, we did our part.

Okay.

And that was kind of where she was, was like, listen, we gave them the opportunity to try to get something.

And I made a comment to the prosecutor during that conversation.

He was like, five years.

No, we're not doing that.

I said, okay.

I said, you're going to either take five years or you're going to get nothing.

And I don't normally, like, make proclamations like that.

But this, at this point, the case had gotten pretty contentious because the prosecutor was just hook, line, and sinker, whatever the detective said.

And, like, you have to have some sort of independent thought about a case.

And the state just refused.

You'd hope they would use their prosecutorial skills to analyze whatever the detective is telling them.

Tell us about any motions to eliminate, motions to exclude evidence.

So the state filed a motion in Lim to keep out co-defendants' statements, the recorded statement, because it was helpful for us, which we didn't have a legal basis to really argue.

So we agreed to that.

Wait, wait, this is Carla's statement they wanted to keep out?

And they wanted to keep out why?

So because it couldn't be – so it's not my client speaking.

So basically the same way in Florida – so it's – in Florida, if the statement would have been bad for my client, we would have been able to exclude it because it's not the defendant's statements.

And she's not going to come in and testify because she's –

I understand, it's hearsay, but what were they worried about with the statement?

Because she says in there that Kai never had a knife on her that night.

So even if the state – or the state was going to try to argue that my client had a knife and my client is the one that stabbed him, and that led to the rest of the violence, and if you can show that my client stabbed him, I think that's a – I think that would have been a big enough leap for the jury to be like, well, yeah, of course she's equally responsible.

Okay.

Okay.

And then – so they want to keep that out.

I mean there's really no basis to bring it in.

There's no opportunity to cross-examine.

Makes sense.

So you didn't even fight him on that.

No.

So we stipulated to three main things.

We stipulated that all the video can come in.

And we did that for a couple reasons.

One of the reasons was the witness list and the witnesses that we did depose about who could authenticate certain video.

It wasn't super clear exactly which videos they could authenticate because there was one part where, like, you go by two buildings, but you're not entirely sure which camera angle is from which building.

So we could have probably figured it out.

But to even just save the issue of that, like, let's stipulate to it.

Let's get it in.

We want the video in anyway.

And we also stipulated that the individual who was deceased was that individual because I didn't want his family member to have to come on the Zoom and cry and all this other stuff.

And then we also stipulated that, yes, that's him.

And, yes, he is, in fact, deceased.

So we stipulated to his identity and that he was dead.

Okay.

Yeah, that's cool.

All right.

So tell us about jury selection.

What was that like?

So in Florida, you only get six, generally plus an alternate or two, depending on how many you have left in the panel.

You only get six people on your jury?

That's what you mean?

You say we only get six?

Yes.

So there are – if it's a capital case, then you get 12.

Yeah, we – it doesn't matter if it's driving with a suspended license in misdemeanor county court or if it's secondary murder, you get six.

So we get to the place where we have –

Because we wouldn't want too much thought and discussion going into someone possibly serving life in prison.

Got it.

Yeah, heaven forbid.

Heaven forbid enough people talk about it.

So we get to the sixth person who would be on the jury, and we are out of preemptories.

And this person, throughout the process, was kind of just looking – so our client's a black female.

The co-defendant's a Hispanic female, and this is an older white lady.

And just throughout the process, like we didn't do much back and forth with her, but she just had a – it's kind of an edge about the way she looked at our client.

And there was something about it that just wasn't right, and it didn't sit well with me.

And we got to her.

And at that point, you know, the jury is kind of out of the room at that point while we're doing the actual selection part.

And at that point, I brought up to the court – I said, Your Honor, I said, actually, I want to go back to this person, and I would like to do a cause challenge.

And the state's like, well, we're done with cause challenges.

And I was like – I just – I was quiet because I know that you can do a cause challenge at any point.

Like there's no – there is no – even if you're done with your preemptories, like a cause challenge is a cause challenge.

If I didn't bring them up at first, I can bring them up now.

So we're talking, and I said, Your Honor, this person was constantly sort of mean-mugging was the way I explained it to the judge.

My client, she – whenever we did have interactions with her, she was very short, just with a response.

Very matter-of-fact, when she first came in, like her first look at my client was just like disdain.

And he was like – you know, he's like, Mr. Darling, I don't think you're wrong.

He's like, let's question her real quick, which is, as an appellate court judge, I think that's the right thing to do.

You bring them in, and you question.

So we asked a couple more questions, and I basically asked – I said, listen, I said, you know, none of this is to make you uncomfortable, but obviously we have to make sure we have the right jury for this process.

And I just straight out said, you know, I said, you know, since we've been here, I said, you've been kind of giving my clients some looks that aren't necessarily friendly.

You know, are you able to explain that a little bit?

Like why would you be doing that?

And not once did she say, I wasn't doing that.

I haven't done it.

Her response was, you know, I'm not sure.

I'm not sure why I would do that.

And at that point, the state was like, yeah, I don't have any questions.

So she leaves.

We get the cause challenge, which was great because she was a person that I absolutely did not want on the jury.

And the next person was good for us, and then, of course, we ended up with an alternate.

We got our jury.

So you got her kicked by the judge for just because she said like, yeah, I'm not sure why I was giving him bad looks.

I can't even imagine.

My cause challenge, when they say, what's the basis?

Well, Your Honor, I didn't really like the way they looked at my client.

I can't imagine that working with any judge here.

So it wasn't so much that.

I think it was really her response.

Her response was, it wasn't a, I didn't do that.

I wasn't looking at her that way.

It was just kind of like, I don't know.

Or like, I don't know why I was doing it.

It wasn't a denial.

And it's one of those things where like, I argue to the court, you know, if she can't even tell you she didn't do that, how is she supposed to be fair and impartial starting here?

I get your argument.

I just don't imagine it working with any judge I've done a trial in front of here.

It's impressive.

I don't think, I don't think it works in front of any trial court judge.

Yeah.

So because he was an appellate court judge, I think him knowing what the issues would be going up on appeal, if this were a conviction, and him denying that cause challenge, if that person was on the jury, I think for him, we had enough people left that we were going to be able to get a jury anyway.

Now, do I think it would have been different if we were going to bust the panel and have to start over?

I don't know.

I like to think it would have been different, but I don't know.

But yeah, we got our jury that day and we had four men, two women.

I think four of them had advanced degrees.

We had an older black woman.

We had a younger Hispanic male.

We had a white female.

And then we had two white males.

Anything about the gender?

Like you had four men.

Your client, you said she's only like 120 pounds and trying to fight a grown man who's like 200 pounds.

Did that play any role in your choosing of the jurors?

Our bigger overall picture was we need educated jurors.

We need people who are, like one of the folks worked at Lockheed Martin.

Like one of them was, I know, I'm sure you guys know who Morgan & Morgan is.

We had a person who was a paralegal at Morgan & Morgan at the time who wanted to go to law school.

So like we had people who were able to think through this.

For me, I was less concerned about the makeup of the jury as far as male or female as I was making sure that people were educated.

And we're going to be able to think through this defense because this defense is not a – it sounds simple on that.

But you have to understand and be able to read the jury instructions to understand why we went the direction we went.

And I'm sorry.

Is your client black?

Did we miss this?

Yes.

And the girlfriend is black?

Hispanic, he said.

Yeah, yeah, girlfriend's Hispanic.

And then the deceased is?

Also Hispanic.

Okay, okay.

All right.

So let's talk about opening statements then.

How'd that go?

Yeah, so the state got up there and had the – one of the most confusing PowerPoints because there's all the different angles of the videos from the bus station.

And it was like a PowerPoint with different colored arrows pointing in like the direction of the video.

And it was like, all right, this is an okay start for us.

Like we're okay here.

And then doesn't talk about the entirety of the interaction is 14 minutes.

He makes it feel like it's this long, drawn-out dispute that our clients are just stalking this guy forever.

And it's just not like that.

Like the Hatfields and McCoys, you know?

Yeah.

So I get up there in opening, and I had a semi-prepared opening statement, just the bullet points that I wanted to hit.

And I had printed out a poster board basically of kind of the downtown part of Orlando.

And I was able to kind of take a highlighter and say, listen, this is where it started.

Here's the walking up the street.

And like this is the entirety of the interaction.

And from our courtroom, you can actually look out the window and see the bus station.

So I could point and say, hey, it's right here.

They walked up this way.

And for me, I thought it was incredibly helpful because by closing argument, I was able to get the jury to come down to the window and look and see sort of what we've been talking about the whole time.

About how close it was.

In opening, one of my first – the first things that I said is we are not afraid of the facts of this case.

That's a great line.

It's better than a conclusion you say you're afraid of the facts of this case and your other cases.

So that's nice that –

Yeah, I mean we tell them like this is going to sound bad, keep an open mind.

These are some bad facts, folks.

I'm not going to lie.

These are some bad facts.

So it's pretty great to walk in.

And you walk in strong to say, bring it.

We're not afraid of any of the facts.

Because the state brought up in opening that they were going to see a bunch of video, I brought up that, yeah, because we stipulated to it.

Because we want you to have all of the video.

And I said my client agreed with the state.

Let's have everything come in and let you decide because you are the finders of facts.

I like that too.

It takes the wind out of their sails.

It's like we're coming in with this evidence.

And you're like, yes, we asked them to.

Yeah.

And it was – there was a part that I had in my sort of pre-planned statement where we were going to talk about Carla's prior interaction with this gentleman.

So the state didn't motion and limb out us talking about the prior interaction.

So we actually deposed Carla's mom and dad too.

Not super relevant for the case, but we did it because if this part – if this argument ended up coming in or we felt it was necessary, we wanted to kind of know what they were going to say.

I had that in my notes to talk about.

This is her statement that the decedent had tried to kidnap her and rape her.

Yes, but her mom had also witnessed – like her mom picked her up from a bus stop when this supposedly happened.

So we were going to bring it up in our case in chief and I made the decision on the fly in opening statement to not even talk about it because I didn't want to commit myself to having to put on a defense to show those things.

So one of the things that – if you guys remember the Casey Anthony trial from forever ago, Jose Baez, who is a big attorney down here now –

He said her dad molested her in opening.

He got in some stuff and then never put on anything to support that.

That was all we ever heard about it.

Yeah.

So what I didn't want to do is I didn't want to bring up something and then get to my case in chief and say the defense rests and the court's like, no, no, no.

This is what you talked about.

We don't have that – we don't have that evidence.

How are you going to get it in, Mr. Darling?

And so for me, I just on the spot – like I had all the other parts checked off of my bullet points that I wanted to hit and decided not to bring it up.

Did you feel – I mean when you were making your judgment calls, did you feel like it would be better or worse for the jury to hear that?

Because on the one hand, if they hear that, it helps explain why your client wants to confront the decedent.

It makes your client look more reasonable in confronting this person as opposed to someone going looking for trouble.

On the other hand, it makes her look like she has far more of a motive to harm this person.

So that was exactly our concern.

And what my thought was is going into the trial, we had fully intended to put on a case and put on that stuff with her mom and dad, with the co-defendant's mom and dad being testifying.

And also how a co-defendant's mom and dad didn't like my client.

So we had intended to put that on in our case in chief.

And I thought – after I saw the state's opening and after I saw how the state sort of performed in jury selection, I made the decision not to bring it up because I felt like it was going to be confusing more so than helpful.

And I still had it.

I still could have brought it up had we done our case in chief.

But what I didn't want to do is I didn't want to give the state motivation to say this is why Kai had the motive to start this altercation, which led to his death.

So that was opening.

Was it the right call?

We'll find out.

Yeah.

Screw it.

The show is called another night.

You did.

Okay, so go ahead.

How does the evidence roll out for the people then?

Who do they put up?

Yeah, so they went through and they did sort of the crime scene tech people.

A lot of the evidence was – I don't want to say a waste of time, right?

We're stipulating to quite a bit here.

Stuff you weren't disputing.

Yeah, we're not fighting about a lot of stuff.

When the investigator comes up, and this is where co-defendant statements did come in in our trial because the state was directing the main investigator, the lead investigator, lead detective who did those interviews once the girls were arrested.

And she says – first he was talking about my client's video statement.

He's like, well, didn't Kai say that she owned a knife?

And the detective was like, yeah, she said that she owned a knife.

Did she say she had it that night?

She said she couldn't remember.

But then what the detective says is she said she couldn't remember, but Carla said she didn't have it that night.

So the investigator said that on the stand.

And then I heard that, didn't say anything.

I'm like, all right, doors open.

So the prosecutor is questioning the detective about your client, Kai's statements, and then sort of inadvertently mentions Carla saying that Kai had a knife.

All right.

So, yeah, Carla is saying that Kai did not have a knife.

Kai did not have a knife.

Okay.

This was on direct.

Yeah.

Yes.

So you didn't violate any of the motion and limine rulings.

This was the prosecutor's problem.

Yes.

So, and it was fortunate because I had one of my associates at the time who was on the trial with me.

But it just so happened the lead detective was my witness.

So I prepped.

I'd done all of the, I mean, I did the depo.

I knew everything that she was going to say already anyway.

So when she said this, when I got up for questioning, I was just going through sort of my process.

Did you ever look at any of the suspects?

Did you have any other suspects?

How did you identify my client?

You know, all of these, she was like, and she couldn't talk about the DV arrest.

So she had to say that she used AI or the algorithm that they have to identify a photo that then led to further investigation.

So going through this process and I was like, and then when you said, when, you know, my client was interviewed, she said that she owned a knife, but didn't have one.

She's like, yes.

I was like, all right.

And you said, when Carla said that she never had a, had a knife that night.

And she was like, yes.

And she says, objection.

And the court knew exactly where we were going.

And we go up to the, to the court, to the bench.

And the state is like, your honor.

We said in a motion of limb, the court granted the motion of limb that the co-defendant statements are not to come in.

Da, da, da, da, da.

And he looks at me, goes, defense.

I was like, your honor.

The witness answered one of the state's questions on direct and talked about the statement.

The state definitely opened the door.

Doors open.

And the judge looks back at the state and goes, state?

And he goes, well, no, we, we kept this out in motion and limb.

And he was like, overruled.

Mr. Darling, please continue.

Oh, I like it.

I was like, okay.

So we got that.

And then the state wasted about half a day calling forensic folks.

Wait, let me ask you this.

What statements of Carla did you get in because of they opened the door?

Did you bring in the whole statement?

What did you bring in?

Yes, I brought in the fact that they had gone out to eat previously, that this guy walked up to them and accosted them.

We didn't bring up any of the sort of prior-

Was it important to you that you got into the fact that they were at a restaurant beforehand?

Was that like a big deal to you?

Like, they were on a full stomach, all right?

They were actually kind of sleepy.

They were, they weren't trying to start no trouble.

They had some good Southern food.

You know, like, what's-

It was, there's, for me, it was a, there was no, there was never a plan here.

Yeah.

Was what it was.

Like, they were on a date.

They were having dinner.

They were having a regular day.

And this man came up to them.

And so we got that out.

Then he spent a bunch of, the last person, I believe, was the medical examiner, which was, I think, the most important witness in the process.

But before that, he brought out some forensic folks to testify that all the fingerprints collected and all the DNA collected, none of it matched my client or the co-defendant.

Which I got up one time and I was like, so you tested how many fingerprints in this case?

And it was like 40 something.

Wow.

And I was like, all right.

And how many of those, how many of those matched my client back here?

And he was like, none of them.

I was like looking at my paper.

None of them?

Did they show where they lifted the prints, like off the car?

Like is who, who cares, right?

This is, it's, it's ridiculous.

So the States, what the States said.

You should have done a motion to exclude all that bullshit.

Unless you just enjoyed it.

You know, like.

I enjoyed it.

I enjoyed it because the state.

You fucking sick, sadistic, enjoying, enjoying.

The, the state, the state's entire case was so confusing about their theory.

And like, it was just not very coherent.

And he told me afterwards that he didn't want us to get up there and argue how they didn't

even really do an investigation.

Who?

Who's he?

The, the state.

The prosecutor.

Yeah.

He didn't, he didn't want me to get up there and say they didn't really do an investigation.

So how could you possibly come back guilty?

You did one.

It just wasn't a good one.

Yeah.

Was that a better argument for you, Mr. Prosecutor?

It was thoroughly bad.

Yeah.

That's what it was.

What's there, the investigate?

It's on video.

They, there was an arrest.

They matched AI, you know.

Also, I kind of like the theory of letting the prosecutor sort of talk their way through

it.

When you just keep looking at the jury, like, we already told you we're not arguing this

stuff.

Look at all of the time that they're wasting, which is not only annoying, but they're trying

to draw your attention away from the key points.

We're trying to flood you with all this other nonsensical information, non-relevant information.

I think that that's a great way to make an argument to a jury.

And we were also, so one of the other things that we did is we limited, severely limited

and agreed on like four or five scene and autopsy photos so that the jury wasn't bombarded with

the hundreds of photos of a dead man, either on the street or through the, in the medical

examiner's office.

So there were some very limited ones and we, you know, we blocked out his, you know,

general area because some of the, the, the two stab wounds were like near the hips in

the front.

So there, there was not a picture that showed the wound, but, but not as his general area.

So like we blocked off a part of the picture and we did a whole bunch of things to try to

make it as less disgusting as possible.

Well, I always also just feel bad for the decedents.

Like no one wants to be laid out like that in front of everyone.

So that's nice.

Yeah.

Give them as much dignity as you can.

So, yeah.

And it was part of it.

Go ahead.

Too is we, yeah, we, we were saying, um, when the state gets up there and says, you know,

defense and I have stipulated to this every single time he said that I was just looking

at the jury and they would all look at me like, okay.

Yeah.

All right.

Yeah.

And it's great.

You did that from the beginning.

You told him, look, we were going to be in agreement.

So every time he said it, he made your point for you.

And you got to look at the jury.

Told you we're not hiding anything.

I told you without ever having to say anything, which is chef's kiss when the DA does your job

for you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Prosecutor.

I'm going to use that.

I think next time I'm in trial, I'm going to be like, jurors, I want you to pay close

attention to every time that the prosecutor says stipulation, that means we agree.

And I want you to look over my direction and give me a wink.

I like that last part.

You don't have to say the last part.

Give me a wink.

Give me a wink.

All right.

We're in this together.

Yeah.

So the best witness for us, so I mean, all of it, even the detective, like we were able

to not even necessarily impeach in sort of a traditional sense, but more of just a credibility

thing.

Like you never looked at other people.

You never thought that this could have been anything other than some cold-blooded murder.

And when we got to the medical examiner, who might be my favorite person outside of my

client that I interacted with in this entire trial.

When we did the depositions and during the trial, this woman is a, in her 60s, she's been

a medical examiner for 20 years.

She was a medical doctor before that with her own practice.

She is absolutely amazing at walking through, here's what the injuries are, here's the cause

of death, here are the particulars of, you know, the facts of this case.

And in the depot, nothing like a good medical examiner, isn't it?

You know, it's so in the depot, we started and she literally grabbed a clicker and had

a dropdown screen that came down in the room we were in.

She grabbed a clicker and turn on a computer and went through 200 pictures.

And I wasn't really directing much.

So like when I first became a lawyer, I would be like, this is my deposition, I'm asking

the questions here.

But like, this is a 60-something-year-old woman, like, I'm not in charge of anything in

this room.

Like, she just started going and I was asking questions in between.

And one of the questions that I'd asked, and I asked her, you know, in trial as well, was,

so how close was this gunshot wound?

Are we talking, you know, five feet, 10 feet?

And she's like, no, probably a couple inches.

And I'm like, oh, shit, that's not good.

Okay.

And I was like, well, how do you know that?

And she goes, well, if it was from five or 10 feet away, the size of the hole in the

shirt would be the same size as the hole in the body.

But when you're next to it, there's going to be a ripping and, you know, essentially

disbursement of the actual round coming out of the chamber.

So the hole in the person is going to be much smaller than the hole that's blown into

the shirt.

And like, just her way of explaining everything.

And I was like, and this was in his back, correct?

What about, what about stippling?

Do they have like the little, the little bruises around the bullet entry as well?

Yeah.

So he didn't have any bruising on him, uh, other than just the entry wound.

And then he had some bruising in the front.

So the bullet did not leave his chest, but it was, I mean, fractions of an inch from leaving

his chest.

So he had a huge bruise on his chest.

And that was something I forgot to mention in opening.

I made a big deal about because who was right in front of his chest?

My client.

So what client is going to participate in something that puts them in the path of the bullet?

Like who would ever agree to be involved in this so-called killing, but hang on, let me

get in front of him so I can be in line with the bullet.

Hey, A&Gers.

Can you do me a favor and follow, like, subscribe, and leave a rating and review and a review wherever

you get this podcast?

It would really help the podcast out.

You can watch this episode and other A&G episodes on our YouTube channel.

So check it out and watch us have a blast making fun of the government.

Okay, back to the show.

Yeah, the medical examiner was one other part that we didn't get out of depots, but we came

out at trial was the perfect cut along his sort of abdomen right below his belly.

To me, it was just too perfect, and what we were able to get the medical examiner to agree

to was, so he had on some, like, basketball shorts that he was basically using as boxers.

Well, the drawstring on basketball shorts, if you're using them as boxers, that has to

be tied, and it has to be tied pretty tight because most basketball shorts are loose.

You're trying to say the drawstring cut him?

So what I got her to say was that she couldn't rule it out.

Because of the perfect angle of the cut, and then she also couldn't rule out that not just

that cut, but the two stab wounds had taken place within four to six hours of his death.

Oh, that's huge.

Someone else could have stabbed him, in other words.

And what my argument in closing was, and we'll get to the whole thing, but my argument in

closing was, how do we know he wasn't stabbed prior to this event?

And that's why he was so angry when he approached them to begin with, because he was in pain.

Were the stabbing wounds fatal, or were they just stab wounds?

They were just stab wounds.

They weren't, they didn't hit anything particular.

Yeah, I mean, they were just puncture wounds in the front.

And I think the drawstring argument is just more to the point of, like, we don't have, we have no fucking clue how he got these wounds.

Could have been the fucking drawstrings.

So the crazy part is...

It just seems absolutely ridiculous.

It was a drawstring, just a nylon wire, like, what do you mean?

So it was, it was, it was so perfect.

Like, I, when we get done here, I can show you a picture.

But what I'm saying is, the line was so perfect.

And, like, I've had scenarios, so I do jujitsu as well.

And I've had scenarios where, if you get pulled, or if you get your clothing pulled, or yanked a particular way, you will have a perfect line.

It can be on your neck from a collar, it can be on your arm, it can be your pant leg.

So jujitsu, your pants tie.

So I've seen marks, and again, the, the thing that you're tying in jujitsu is, like, much thicker than a drawstring.

So, but it's like, when I saw it, that was one of the things that I thought about.

And I kind of let it go.

I didn't bring it up in depots.

But I was like, you know, we're in trial.

Like, I don't want this to be two years from now.

And I didn't ask a question.

I'm like, oh, I should have done that.

Lauren, Lauren, we're just, we're just regular lay people.

We're just regular people.

But to a trained, to a trained killer?

Boxer drawstrings are a weapon.

You're just not a trained killer.

Okay, Lauren?

I guess so.

It just seems, the way you describe the rules seems like.

Anything's a weapon, okay?

Anything can be used as a weapon.

You just haven't had the proper training.

Drawstrings out of all of my sweatpants now.

But it does look like, so like, if you have, exactly in sweatpants, right?

If you have that drawstring, if you were to take that drawstring and like pull it back and forth,

it is a cut though, like on him.

So like, you could see where that could cause like a burn mark.

But like the actual cut, it's just the way it was done is so, it's just so, it's too perfect.

I don't know how it looks.

Well, I think it's ridiculous.

I think it's great that you were able to get out of a coroner that they really can't tell you how it happened.

And they can't say that it could only have happened from a knife that the prosecutor wanted you to believe that Kai had.

And you also got the coroner, which is brilliant to talk about the timing of the wounds.

Because if they happened in a four to six hour window, that would certainly put them outside of the time frame where he was with your client and with Carla.

Which is great because you have then something that not only removes the responsibility from your client for those wounds,

but it also makes the decedent look like somebody who is engaging in violent behavior, is violent enough.

If he had another altercation with someone else where he got stabbed,

this is definitely someone who was choking the life out of your client when she confronted him.

So that's brilliant.

The state eventually rushed to their case and then it got bad briefly.

So my co-counsel, who was one of my associates at the time,

she made a really good JOA, judgment of acquittal argument at the end of the state's case,

essentially saying that even with the light most favorable to the state,

that the state hasn't proved that my client was a principal or that my client had anything to do necessarily with the actual cause of death.

It's what we call it 1118.

Yeah.

So motion to dismiss, motion to dismiss.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So the judge, instead of just doing what most judges do and say, you know,

I understand the light most favorable to the state, I believe they've shown a prima facie case,

JOA denied.

What he does is he goes over a recitation of the facts that was incredibly coherent and very well put together

and much better than the state's argument the entire time.

And he goes on about a 12 minute conversation about the facts as we're testified to in court.

And I'm sitting there like, Jesus, like, you're just deny it.

Like, just deny it.

Move on.

Like, what are you doing?

Like, stop.

Who's writing the prosecution's closing argument for them?

He was protecting his record is what I believe he was doing.

You made the motion, counsel.

That was my fear.

You made the motion.

Yes.

I'm supposed to put a factual basis for the appellate court in case this is under review.

I'm just doing my job thoroughly.

And, like, when he got midway through it, I was just like, oh, this is, like, I hope the state's not paying attention.

Yeah.

Like, what are we doing?

Like, just deny it.

Like, come on.

Sorry.

We didn't mean to say anything.

And at this point, we are at.

Wait, were you telling your client, like, don't worry.

We got this motion to dismiss.

Don't you worry.

You just watch this.

Go ahead, Jay.

Go ahead.

Do it.

Watch this.

Yeah.

I explained to her, I said, the only jailway that I've ever won was, coincidentally, on my first trial I ever had.

Like, I just got fortunate enough to win a jailway.

The facts were in my favor.

And I was like, listen, I said, it's going to be denied.

I said, it's most likely going to be denied.

I said, but, you know, we'll sit here.

You know, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

Yeah, and you've got to protect your record.

The problem is your bench officer was protecting his record as well.

And it was, it was, like, there was a moment there where I was like, oh, my God, if the state can just literally say exactly what the court is saying, but to the jury, when the jury's back in the room, we're in trouble.

And it wasn't that anything about the facts had changed.

It was just how the court was able to frame them.

And then we got to a place where this is on Wednesday night.

So I think this is, like, 4, 5 o'clock on Wednesday night.

So we had jury selection Monday, which that lasted the whole day.

Tuesday is the state's case.

Wednesday is the state's case.

We get done on Wednesday, dismissed for the day.

We come back Thursday morning.

Now we're talking about, well, state rest their case, JOA is denied, and then defense rest their case.

Bring the jury back in, defense rests.

And then we talk about jury instructions that night.

We go over some of the things that we'd already shared pre-trial.

Well, before we can talk about that, so you, the state rest, motion dismissed, denied.

You come back the next morning, and the defense rests.

So you didn't put on your client to testify, right?

No.

So we actually, we rested that same night.

But what, go into, can you tell us about the decision to not put your client up?

Yeah.

Yes.

So for, for us, there was no benefit at that point to, to putting her up.

Even after hearing the judge's recitation of all the reasons why your client should be found guilty?

So the jury didn't hear that, so we were good.

Right.

I, I, I was confident in sort of the rapport and the relationship that I had built with the jury.

And I was comfortable with the facts.

I was incredibly comfortable with the facts.

Like, I, I could have talked for, for two hours and walked them through every moment of those 14 minutes.

And I, I knew what had happened.

I knew what didn't happen.

Um, and I was fine with that.

And we decided not to bring up anything about Carla's parents and about this prior interaction on a bus at that point, because we didn't think the state had done a very good job.

And I didn't want to give the state an opportunity to then try to call rebuttal witnesses or to then, because what would have happened is we would have called Carla's mom.

She would have said, yes, this happened.

They would have called the investigator to say, yeah, like they would have called her to say, we checked all the bus cam video we could find.

We never saw this incident.

You saw a path and you stayed on it.

Yes.

You saw a way out.

That is one of the things that as I continue to grow and develop in this profession, that it's, it's something, it's, it's actually something I saw one of the, you know, like the TikTok judges from Texas say something about, uh, somebody was trying to say something at a, like a first appearance.

And he was like, ah, stop talking.

And the guy was like, he goes, and he asked him, are you losing?

And the guy was like, no.

So stop talking.

And, and as I, as I professionally develop and continue to grow, if I'm not losing, like, just shut up.

Like, why mess it up?

And then the longer you do this, the less you put up and the less questions you ask, you leave it for argument and you get the hell out of there as quickly as possible.

We had a judge say, called it the take a knee, right?

You know, you know, like with football, they intercept the ball and they're winning and they try to run it back for a touchdown.

You know, they're winning and then they fumble it and then the team gets the ball again.

It's like, you just would have taken the knee, run the clock out.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So then we had a pretty, pretty big fight about jury instructions because the, the principal argument basically brings in Carla into our jury instructions.

So, and the way that that works is normally the, I'm going to read you part of it because it's, it's, it's necessary, right?

So murder, second degree, to prove the crime of second degree murder, the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt that the decedent is dead, right?

You stipulated to that, so check.

Yep.

Yep.

There's the link.

The death was caused by the criminal act of Kai or Carla.

Okay.

And the coroner said that the knife wounds, which the prosecutor had said was Kai's fault, wasn't the cause of death.

It was the gunshot, which could only have come from Carla.

Yes.

Okay.

And then the next part, it says, there was an unlawful killing of the decedent by an act immediately dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

So.

So the unlawful act is where you have your argument.

Yes.

And well, also the problem with the principal argument is that's what adds Carla's name to the second part.

The death was caused by the criminal act of Kai or Carla.

It has to be Carla.

In order for them to get to Kai, they have to say, Carla shot him.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

So what we were fighting about is essentially the, there's another part here where it says an issue in this case is whether Kai or Carla did not have a depraved mind without regard for human life.

Because either one acted in the heat of passion based on adequate provocation.

It says in order to find that Kai or Carla did not have a depraved mind without regard to human life because she acted in the heat of passion based on adequate provocation.

And now there's a couple other elements.

So what we were fighting about is the state wanted Carla's name in the instructions.

So she would get all of the, the burdens of Carla's behavior.

So Kai would have all the burdens of Carla's behavior, but in the part where it talks about the depraved mind and any of the other parts, they didn't want Carla's name.

So they were trying to backdoor, you had backdoored the stand your ground during the trial and they were trying to close that backdoor.

They were trying to say, yes, we want to, to put in the jury instructions that Carla was the one who shot him, but we don't want them to be able to say anything in the instructions about the fact that she shot him because she was standing her ground or protecting Kai or anything else.

That they were just trying to say that they wanted the instruction to say Carla was a cold-blooded killer and your client was helping her.

Yeah.

Dirty.

So the big thing, yeah, the big part for me was, I mean, we had, it had gotten so heated in the, in the jury instructions that I told the court, I said, your honor, I said, at this point, I said, if the state wants my client to have all the burdens of the principal argument, but none of the benefits of also being able to say that co-defendant acted reasonably, then I think we have to open back up our case in chief.

And I have more witnesses to call.

And at that point, the state, you know, objected to that.

They were like, well, the defense rested.

I said, yes, your honor.

I said, and also these changes were never in the pre-trial jury, sample jury instructions that the state sent to us.

So these are brand new as of yesterday.

And the court thought about it for a little bit and said, you know, state, listen, you're the one that charged the information this way.

You're the one that charged her as a principal.

You're the one that's saying she has all those same responsibilities.

If she has all the same responsibilities, she gets all the same benefits that Carla is going to get in her trial.

So we were able to keep them in.

And then there's also an instruction that on principles that we thought was helpful.

So we're fighting about these jury instructions.

And so the principal's argument is, and this is basically how you get to second degree murder for my client, is if the defendant helped another person or persons commit a crime, the defendant is a principal and must be treated as if she had done all the things the other person or persons did.

If the defendant intended the crime to occur or knew that Carla intended the crime to occur and the defendant did some act or said something that was intended to and did incite, cause, encourage, assist, or advise the other person or persons to actually commit the crime.

So one of the things that I pointed out as well, you know, prepping for closing was my client was talking to the gentleman, arguing with the gentleman, getting ready to fight the gentleman.

At that point, she didn't even know what Carla was doing.

Carla was just kind of following like a puppy.

Like Carla, she was just there.

But it was one of those things that being able to keep the co-defendant's name in the jury instructions, not just in the places where it was bad for my client, but also in the places where it was good, is honestly what I think won us the trial at the end of the day.

So then ultimately the jury instructions said what?

So they had both Kai and Carla's name in all of the sections.

So essentially where you would get credit for self-defense, if you believed Carla was acting in self-defense, Kai got that benefit as well, which is what we had tried to do the entire time.

Brings us right back to the beginning with the stand your ground.

Yep.

And it was the hard part for us was, I mean, we had gotten to a place where Kai had given me permission to go with Carla's lawyer to talk to Carla and explain why we wanted them to file the stand your ground.

And, you know, like, obviously I'm not going to share that conversation, but she just didn't want to.

And ultimately that's her choice as a defendant.

I tell folks, I said, generally, I said, you have three choices.

Okay.

You either charge if you're able to select your lawyer, right?

You choose your lawyer.

Or if you're fortunate enough to get a public defender, you get your public defender and you ride with it or you don't.

Right.

Like, those are your choices.

So you pick a lawyer, you choose whether to plea or go to trial, and you choose whether to testify at trial.

Those are your choices.

Everything else is strategic.

Everything else is on me.

So we got the jury instructions and we talked a little bit before we went into the closing argument.

So the way that we do it here is the court reads the jury instructions, then we do closing, and then they read the last little bit, which is just sort of, you know, sending them to deliberate.

Yeah.

So we, the state was like, I'm going to need 90 minutes for closing.

And I'm like, okay, that's fine.

90 minutes.

And there's no scenario where the court actually holds us to any time frame, particularly not on a case like this.

But the state went and he banked like 17 minutes.

So what is that?

An hour and 13 minutes he was talking for.

I know the case better than anybody, which is something that I just absolutely pride myself on when we're going to trial.

I couldn't follow him.

And he skipped.

Please say that was the first line of your closing.

I didn't follow any of that.

And I know this case better than anyone.

So we, the state attorney and I, it had gotten kind of testy between us at a few points because he was wholly unwilling.

To have a legitimate conversation about trying to resolve the case prior to.

And at this point, I just, I, I did not believe his version of events were, were provable.

I didn't believe he had a good faith basis to believe he could prove this based on the facts of the case.

And that's what their obligation is supposed to be.

And he skipped over a particular part of jury instructions.

And I'm not normally like a, a writer.

Like I'm not normally going to go up there and draw all over jury instructions and verdict forms and all of that.

But he completely skipped what's called the independent act instruction.

So, and this was kind of the other thing that we fought about getting in.

And it says, if you find that the crime alleged was committed, an issue in this case is whether the crime of second degree murder, manslaughter, or aggravated battery, because those were the lesser included, was an independent act of the person, other, of a person other than the defendant.

So, since an independent act occurs when a person, other than the defendant, commits or attempts to commit a crime, one, which the defendant did not intend to occur, and in which the defendant did not participate, and which was outside of and not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the common design or unlawful act contemplated by the defendant.

Well, I mean, you can see why the prosecutor wanted to skip over that instruction.

So, part of my process is I knew which buttons to press with him that would genuinely make him mad.

And when he is frustrated, he gets flustered.

And not only can he not put together coherent arguments, he comes off as childish.

So, he does his hour and 13 minutes.

And I got up there, and I tell you, I spent seven and a half years in the Army.

I was deployed twice.

Like, I've been in combat.

I have never professionally been as locked in as I was locked in for that hour and 20 minutes.

And I went through everything.

And I went through the jury instructions.

I went through the facts.

What I started closing statement with was everything that I told you in opening statement is exactly how this happened.

I told you at the very beginning, we are not afraid of the facts of this case.

We wanted you to have all the information so that you could decide what the outcome of this case should be.

And I walked through everything.

And in closing, like I said, I asked for them to be able to get up and walk over to the windows and look where this took place.

And the state objected.

And he was like, so the state brought it up in closing that I had said in opening that they were going to have an opportunity to walk over to the windows as trying to, like, discredit me.

It's like, I had said this, and then they never went over to the windows to look.

Hold my beer.

Here we go.

And I was like, okay, fine.

No problem.

If that's what you want, let's get it.

And the court was like, well, they can walk over to the window one at a time.

But while they're doing that, you can't continue your closing argument.

I'm like, okay.

So I just stood there right in the middle of the court.

You know, I feel like, though, that's kind of like introducing new evidence in the middle of the closing argument, though.

Like, you know, look at, go ahead and take a vantage point of the window from this vantage point.

I mean, this is like two years, almost two years later.

Maybe some things have changed.

Is it similar as the two hours it was when it went down?

You know, I don't know.

I think there's some problems.

Who really cares?

That's not why he was murdered.

Who really cares?

It was just, I mean, this had to have been in part just to push his buttons, right?

You were talking about pushing his buttons again and flustered.

Just fuck this guy, especially since he brought it up in his closing where he said you were going to, all right, fuck off then.

Let's go ahead and do it.

Who cares what they can see out their window?

How does that change anything?

Appellate judge.

I'm just, you know, this guy.

We should fucking, I mean, I think the, I mean, of course it's like, it's nominal, but I feel like as this, I'm surprised it's not a judge let it happen because it technically is new evidence.

You're not, you're not wrong.

But when I went to sit down, like, I felt like I did a good job in closing, but I didn't understand until like later, like how persuasive I'd been.

And the state got up, I kid you know, like a petulant child and was talking to the jury, he took his version of the jury verdict form, said it on top of mine, like X on must find her guilty of second degree murder.

And then he like signed and then he like signed and dated it as if he was like the fourth person on the jury form.

And it was just so like petulant.

And that's exactly what it was.

And I was sitting there and I was just like, okay.

And it was like, I am a nervous wreck when the jury goes out to deliberate.

Like I, I feel like I have all the same weight as my client and none of the consequences.

Like, it just, it's, it's an accurate way to sum up what it feels like as the defense attorney.

And we, um, we ended up, you know, leaving and I have trying to see, I have here exactly.

It was like two hours and 20 minutes, 29 minutes, something like that.

Um, and we have a verdict and it's, you know, four something in the afternoon.

I'm like, all right, like, let's, you know, here we go.

Thursday or Friday?

Thursday.

So we didn't even get to the Friday.

Um, so we come back in the courtroom and the first thing is normally, um, when a verdict

is read, there's a bunch of other deputies in the court and it's not because anybody knows

what the verdict is.

It's just safety precautions, whatever.

You don't know who else is in the courtroom.

So one of the things that I asked is generally when the verdict is read, if a client is in

custody, they actually have them handcuffed and fully shackled.

Whereas during the trial, only her legs were shackled and she's behind the table.

So the jury never sees that she's shackled.

I mean, they, they knew, because I talked to a couple of them afterwards and they knew

she was shackled.

Underneath the table, she's shackled?

During her, only her feet.

During her jury trial.

Oh, that's.

Only her, her feet are shackled, but her hands are free to, to move around.

Um, but normally prior, once the verdict is in, but they haven't announced it yet, normally

they come and they shackle her arms to her feet in the same way you would be shackled

moving throughout the jail.

So what we did is, is I, um, did just an or attendance motion to the court.

I said, your honor, I said, understanding that, you know, court personnel have their security

priorities and whatnot.

I said, Ms. Watson has been here for her trial the entire week.

She has never once been a problem.

She's never raised her voice.

She's never stepped out of line.

Um, you know, your honor, I would like to ask that she not be shackled.

And I have a pretty good relationship with most of the deputies.

Um, they are, I think some of them know that I ran for sheriff and they kind of, they're

like, oh, okay, you know, good job.

Puncher's chance.

Right.

Like, you know, maybe you could have done something, but a lot of them know me as an attorney and

like, I don't hide the ball.

Right.

Like I, if we have a good case, I know we have a good case.

If we don't, I know that as well.

Right.

Like I know the bad facts, but I also know the good ones.

And it's one of those things that I was able to convince the supervisor to allow her to

just stay there unshackled.

And like my client's sister's in the courtroom, the co-defendants, like auntie is in the courtroom.

Like there were a few people there.

So the jury comes in and when they leave, they actually have two sheets.

So the first sheet is the standard verdict form that has second degree murder, manslaughter,

aggravated battery, or not guilty.

If you found guilty for second degree murder, there's also an additional firearm jury instruction

where did you find that this person had in the commission, you know, use possessed, you

know, provided a firearm.

So when they came back in, I knew the verdict 45 seconds before everybody else.

They had one sheet.

They had one sheet of paper.

And I was sitting there like, I knew it wasn't aggravated battery.

I beat that one up.

I knew it wasn't manslaughter.

And when I saw one sheet of paper, I was like, oh my gosh, did I, did I really do that?

Like, did we really do that together?

And they came back, the court read it, stone-faced, no indications.

And then they let the clerk publish the verdict.

Wow.

And it's not guilty, right?

So how'd your client react?

And it was not guilty as to everything.

How long had your client been detained for at that point?

652 days.

Wow.

So a little bit more than 21 months.

So the verdict came back a little bit before 5 o'clock p.m.

She immediately started crying, gave me a hug.

I started crying.

So like, not like boo-hoo crying, but like, I need to breathe.

Like, this is like, I was, I was like tearing up and everything because like, you don't get

a lot of, I told you so moments on that series of a case in this profession.

And it was one of the things where the state literally refused to negotiate with me, to

try to get this resolved, to try to make everybody else's life, just get this going.

Like, let's, let's get this closed and move on.

But he refused.

And at that point, the, the court asked, you know, does anybody want to pull the jury?

He didn't.

And I went back and looked at the trial transcripts and I said, no, your honor.

I don't remember saying anything at that point.

Like I was, I was in my own little world.

Um, and I know, I know I was teary eyed.

I know once she started crying and, and I was definitely teary eyed.

Some of the jurors started crying.

Um, it was, it was a phenomenal moment and it's something that, you know, I'll never forget.

And by the time we left the courthouse, you know, probably 530, 545, um, when I was going

out to my car, two of the jurors, the jurors were in the parking garage and I drove by coming

down and they kind of waved me down real quick.

And I talked to him very briefly.

I was like, you know, what did you guys think?

And he goes, it just, it didn't make sense.

Like, how are you responsible for what somebody else does?

And so like the whole thing, and they told me like the, the fact that I came out from

the very beginning, explained what was going to happen.

It's exactly what I said was going to happen.

And I said, and I told him from the get go, I wasn't afraid of the facts.

They said that mattered to everybody on that jury.

It's so important as a defense attorney to build credibility and maintain it with the

jurors.

It's so important.

Yeah, we, one of the, one of the jurors kind of joked, he goes, he goes, there was a moment

where he said he was trying to follow what the state was saying when he was doing his directive,

one of his witnesses.

He said he couldn't figure out what the state was doing.

He looked at me and I looked confused is what he told me.

And no, it was, it was phenomenal.

Um, I got home at probably seven o'clock.

I tried to bring all my stuff back to the office and just kind of sit for a minute by myself.

Um, I got home and then about nine 30, uh, that night, uh, back on August 22nd, uh, my client's

sister FaceTime me and she was in the, uh, in the car with her.

So, um, can you tell us how co-defendants, how, uh, Carlos trial went down?

Yeah.

So actually, um, last week she pled, uh, to 10 years.

Okay.

On a manslaughter or something.

Yeah.

I believe it was, um, amended to a manslaughter.

Um, she pled to 10 years.

She has credit for a little over two at this point.

Interesting that she didn't go to trial.

Say at some point actually.

Yeah.

They had eventually at some point, um, filed the stand your ground, but they never actually

went to the hearing.

So it, it was, it was tough.

And one thing I did not bring up that is an interesting fact is co-defendant at the time

was 17 years old.

Oh no, I wish you wouldn't have told me that.

That just makes me sad.

So she, um, so it's, um, my client was 21, I think.

So it was, it was not, yeah, it's a young person.

So a minor living in a van with mental health issues.

Oh no.

10 years for a minor.

10 years.

Fucking Florida.

They direct filed on her.

Fucking Florida.

That's, but at the end of the day, when the jury came back with the not guilty, um, you

know, obviously it changed my client's life and, you know, the family trusted me and my

client trusted me and that relationship, like I still talk to Kai probably every two, three

weeks.

So I had a great relationship when she got out.

Um, she was able to get a job, uh, working for basically like a pest control company.

We, uh, you know, we did the work, we, um, got the right outcome and I could not be happier

for her and for her family.

Cool.

Great.

Well, great job, Andrew.

Thanks for coming on the podcast.

Thanks for sharing your story.

Um, let's close it out with the last question.

We always ask our guests, you know, what, what led you to this work?

Why did you become a public defender and why are you still a defense attorney?

So I grew up in a, in a pretty rough part of, uh, of Orlando and I tell people every

day, um, I'm just an Oak Ridge kid.

So Oak Ridge is the high school I graduated from.

And it's part of who I, what I think shaped me as a young person.

So, um, I saw a lot of my friends, uh, lose big chunks of their lives.

Some of them are still in custody now, um, to the criminal justice system.

And what I thought at the time was not having great attorneys.

And when I was done with the military and decided at some point, Hey, let's, let's give this

law school thing a try.

There was never a question in my mind.

I was going to be a defense attorney.

I've only wanted two jobs in my entire life.

I wanted to be a public defender in Orange County, and I wanted to be the head football

coach at my alma mater.

So I've had a chance to do one of those.

Um, I've been a high school head football coach before, but just not at my alma mater.

So it may be something that, that, you know, gives me that opportunity in the future, but

being a criminal defense attorney, I mean, we have a couple of other things that we can

do here, personal injury and whatnot.

I hate all that stuff.

I really do.

Like I, we do it because some of our clients have those needs as well, but I love being a

criminal defense attorney.

It is my favorite thing.

Like you never have the same day.

It's always something different.

You meet my favorite people that you meet.

Some of our clients are some of the absolute best people in the world who are struggling

through situations that some of us will never understand and we'll never have to go through,

but they're showing up every day and they're fighting for themselves.

And damn it.

They deserve us to be there to do the same thing.

And I can't see myself, I can't see myself practicing any other area of law.

I don't care how big or small my firm gets.

We're a criminal defense firm.

Like that's what we do.

And I love it.

Some of the, some of my clients have become, you know, friends.

Some of them almost sometimes feel closer than friends because they are, they're just a huge

part of my life.

And they've had such an impact on me that I wish everybody out there in the sort of general

public had the opportunity to see these folks as people the same way that we get to.

And there's nothing better than having a verdict come back in your favor.

And those two word verdicts, those are, those are the best.

Not guilty.

Sorry.

I'm just thinking about an Instagram post I made.

Not guilty.

And another one.

Yeah.

Great.

Great.

Well, thanks for being on the show, Andrew and Lauren.

Great, great seeing you again.

I'm glad we got to hang out.

Yeah, finally.

Yeah.

Stay safe out there.

All right, guys.

And hopefully the, by the time this gets out there and the rest of the A&Gverse can hear

this, we will no longer be recording from the occupied or recording from the bunkers or

anything like that.

So we love you, LA.

Wish us luck, everybody.

Fingers crossed.

All right.

Until next time.

Take it easy, guys.

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

Shout out to Daniel Mark, original A&G theme music composer, and Mike Grimm for the remix.

And guess what?

We'll be back in two weeks with Another Not Guilty straight from the trenches.