Pro Pimpin' Prosecutor – When the State Puts a Trafficking Victim on Trial

Four, three, two, one.

Happy New Year.

Woo!

Wow.

2025 is upon us, everybody.

I hope everyone had a nice holiday season.

I know I did.

I enjoyed spending time and catching up with family and friends.

Special shout-out and big thanks to Buddha and Sean for hosting an awesome holiday party.

What up to my boy Brian, a.k.a. the busyness, the party jump-starter.

Thanks for supporting the podcast.

I also want to say hi to my friend Aaron Walker, who just so happens to be the director of winemaking operations for Pali Wine Co.

Thanks for supplying us with the amazing bottles of wine.

And, of course, what up to Mondo and Shannon Gallegos, founders of B12 Love Bay Area Nutrient Shots and IVs.

It's always nice getting a nice shot in the butt with nutrients and vitamins from Dr. Shannon before any holiday party.

I highly recommend it.

You should try it.

It was great seeing you all.

Much love and smooches.

I am looking forward to this year.

The tough-on-crime era is back in this country.

Yeah!

Let's get those bad guys!

Which, of course, means there will be lots and lots of awesome content for this podcast because, I promise you, our justice system and so-called heroes fall short of the ideals you think they represent on a daily basis.

And there ain't nothing we public defenders and defense attorneys love more than to remind you of that.

So, yeah, 2025, bring on the Not Guilty!

I think 2025 is the year of the Not Guilty, actually.

I'll check the calendar on that.

I think today's episode, of course, our 2025 opener highlights that for us all perfectly.

And last but not least, I'd like to give a huge thanks and shout-out to Alison Kennard, Carly Hayter, Stephanie Cook, and Carrie Adams, our newest members to the ANG Patreon program.

Thank you all for your recent contributions to the podcast.

It really helps pay the bills over here at the ANG Studios.

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

And with that said...

Without further ado, here's this week's episode of Another Not Guilty.

I wasn't worried one way or another, honestly.

As much as I still put in, you know, the proper efforts, of course, to the best of my abilities with the voir dire, there was a good part of me that said,

you can pick me any 12 people off the street and I'll take this to trial right now.

Right now.

I don't care.

I don't care.

Keep who you want.

Kick who you want.

Bring me a jury of golden retrievers.

I really don't give a shit.

I will find a way through this case.

Anybody with half a brain, half a brain, a quarter of a brain, I don't know, will see through this immediately and I am confident.

Welcome to Another Not Guilty.

I'm David Moore, here along with my fellow public defenders, presenting to you the untold stories of the criminal justice system.

Objection!

That assumes there's justice in the system, which there ain't.

I prefer calling it the American criminal system.

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

In an unjust criminal system.

With a deck stacked against us.

Another Not Guilty.

All right.

Welcome back, everybody, to Another Not Guilty.

It's your boy, David D. here, bringing you the freshest not-guilties across these United States.

And you keep coming back for more because we keep delivering here at Another Not Guilty because that's how the public defenders do it in the justice system.

Can I get an amen to my fellow co-hosts and guests?

Come on.

Amen.

Amen.

Woo-hoo!

Amen.

All right, all right.

Now, some of you guys out there in another Not Guilty universe may have not recognized some of those voices.

Our lovely co-host, Lauren, couldn't be here today.

So, just like in any system, it's next man up, right?

And we got an awesome co-host today.

I've worked with this co-host for many years.

I've seen her down in action at downtown L.A.

She's so awesome.

She's been doing it for a while.

We have Kim Curran with us from the Los Angeles Public Defenders.

Kim, so happy to be here.

Thanks for being on the show.

Thank you, David.

Good to be here.

Yeah.

And go ahead and introduce yourself.

I did a little bit, but tell us about your experience with the Public Defender's Office.

How long have you been a PD before?

And what's your favorite past assignment and your current assignment?

Oh, wow.

Well, I have been a public defender with Los Angeles County for coming on 28 years.

And I just left my last assignment, which was Central Felony Trials, 25 years straight, I think, is how long I was there.

That was mostly my favorite assignment, but it wore on me at the end.

So, I made a very welcome change about six months ago.

I'm now a juvenile resource attorney, and I am also the Star Court Public Defender.

So, I represent our clients, our juvenile clients, who have been identified as victims of commercial sex trafficking.

Okay.

And when you say Star Court, there's a special Star Court courtroom with a special Star Court judge and special Star Court prosecutor, DA.

What's that about?

What happens there?

Well, STAR stands for Success Through Achievement and Resilience.

And those are kind of buzzwords for the rehabilitation process of victims of trafficking, in particular, juvenile victims.

And that court has special rehabilitation services to support these victims who are often identified through criminal prosecutions.

Because of the trafficking, they get involved in criminal activity.

And that's how we identify our clients.

And I'm there to represent them in the courtroom and also help usher them through these rehabilitation processes.

Okay, great.

Great.

That's right.

I mean, they are being sex trafficked.

They end up getting arrested for something.

And the system used to treat them like bad people, but really they're victims.

And instead of punishing them, we should be helping them.

And that's what this system is about.

We're not trying to have people get criminal convictions and weigh them down with all these criminal stuff.

We're trying to help them.

So it's a very tough courtroom to be in.

And, Kim, I'm glad that you're there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right, guys.

But it's not about Kim today.

We have a badass Los Angeles public defender as our guest today.

I work with her.

I see her charging down the hallways.

She's always too busy to stop and say hi because she's too busy defending our clients.

We have Desiree Garrity with us today.

Desiree, how are you doing?

I'm doing great.

How are you, Davey?

I'm good.

I'm good, Davey.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I was in one of the offices schmoozing it up with one of our other family lawyers.

And Desiree comes in like a whirlwind tornado.

She's just like, hey, I'm about to go to trial, and I think it's going to be a good one for the podcast.

And I was like, Desiree, you've got to win the case first, okay?

You've got to win the case.

Let's not jinx anything.

But, no, she went, and then she tornadoed right out and went to trial.

And then two days later, she tornadoed back in and said, I got it.

So it's exciting, though, because I always see Desiree around, and we chit-chat here and there.

But it's nice to sit down and talk to you, Desiree.

Welcome to the show.

Thank you so much for having me.

Yeah, how long have you been a public defender for?

I have been a public defender for a little over three years now.

Okay, and where are you assigned?

I'm in Compton.

Compton, okay.

That's a fun branch.

I am assigned to Compton now, but I did a misdemeanor, juvenile, and some felonies in Compton.

It is never boring in Compton.

No, it's not.

It's not.

All right, Desiree.

So you got this awesome case.

You did this awesome trial.

Tell the ANG universe about your client and what she was charged with.

Introduce your client and tell us what she was charged with.

There you go.

Yes.

When I received Natalie as my client, she was 26 years old.

I say that because her 27th birthday fell during our trial.

I'll get to that.

She's a 26-year-old female from Nicaragua.

She has no criminal history whatsoever.

She was initially charged with one count of a 273.5A, which is a domestic violence charge.

She then later within the period was additionally charged with a 273.6A, which is a violation of a domestic relations court order.

And so those are misdemeanor charges, right?

Yes, they were charged as misdemeanors.

They can be what's called a wobbler, which they can be charged as felonies, but they were charged as misdemeanors in this case.

All right.

And so the domestic violence, it's 273.5.

So there was like a little bit of an injury there, right?

Yes, there was a photo of a scratch mark.

Okay.

And then there was a violation of a domestic violence protective order by her as well, right?

Allegedly, yes.

Okay.

Allegedly.

Okay.

Well, let's talk about what the government's alleging then.

Okay.

Why is your client a defendant?

What are they alleging she did?

So I'm going to give the dates for this because the dates are important here.

So the government is alleging that on May 15th, her and her husband were in an argument.

And she left two scratch marks on him, one scratch mark here and one scratch mark on his hand.

Okay.

And for the record, Desiree pointed to her right neck and then her right palm or top of her hand.

Okay.

So there's a scratch mark.

Just like in the courtroom.

Yeah.

Yes.

So the scratch mark on the neck and the hand.

Okay.

Yes.

Neither with blood, just scratch marks.

But her husband took photos of those scratch marks on that day.

He did not call the police about this incident until August.

So then on August 12th, he calls police and reports this incident and shows them the pictures of the scratch marks.

Um, and she is arrested and taken into custody based on the pictures of the scratch marks from three months prior.

Does the police report like indicate why he waited three, was it?

Three months.

Does he say why?

He does not.

Okay.

And does he, and the police report, does it indicate the context of how that he got the scratches?

Other than she gave me the scratches, was there like an argument?

Did like, did they have a fight?

Um, just essentially that she was, they were, they were arguing and that she was hitting him and left these two scratch marks.

What else is there to the prosecution facts of this case?

That, I mean, unfortunately, I wish I, I wish I had, uh, some more for you there.

That's, that's really the bulk of, of what the indication of that first charge is.

Can I ask, how long did she stay in custody?

Was she released soon after?

She was in custody for, she didn't come for, so he made the call and she was arrested on August 12th.

She wasn't brought in for arraignment until August 14th.

Um, she did get released that day.

Uh, so yeah, so, uh, just to make sure we're covering all our bases here, uh, the, the police report indicates that they were having an argument.

They have no shared children, um, and that she was hitting him and left these scratch marks on him.

That's the police report from the, that relates to the first charge.

Great, great.

And did your client make a statement in the police report?

Um, I don't believe so.

I'm sorry, just give me one second.

I should have pulled this up earlier.

I pulled up everything but the report.

Go easy on yourself, Desmond.

I'm sorry.

So the first charge for the, uh, scratch marks, the police report essentially indicates that, um, the two were having an argument.

The police report specifically says that the victim, her husband, had discontinued her cell phone.

Um, and then he alleges that she had threatened to burn his clothes and to damage a television, um, and that he wanted her gone from the residence.

Um, and so they were having a verbal argument and then he tells the police that she didn't injure him but that back in May during a verbal argument she did injure him.

Um, and he didn't report it because, and I quote, he thought she would change and also fear of deportation.

Um, and so he showed them the photos and asked to have her arrested.

Uh, it, she admitted to the, she did make a statement to officers where she admitted to scratching him back in May.

Um, and she said that they were arguing about her asking to leave a party that they were at and that he would not allow her to leave and that that's how the scratch marks happened.

Sounds like bullshit.

That's, that's funny.

Okay, so, so the cops were called because she threatened to burn his clothes and damage the television, which, yeah.

So that he, he was saving these photos from a month ago and he's pulling them up right now.

Yes.

Um, but hold on because things really start to get horrific when we get to the arraignment.

Okay.

So that's where things really start to take off here.

All right, Desiree, so then, uh, so then tell us about the, uh, the arraignment.

You, you, you got the police report, you see the charges, you read the report.

It's bullshit according to Kim.

Now tell us about the arraignment when you meet your client.

I was actually not there at the arraignment.

I was on medical leave.

Okay.

But the notes from the arraignment that were conveyed to me and that were documented, put

on the record, were that the complaint, our, our client was asking if she could return to

her apartment because that's the only place she has to go.

She's originally from Nicaragua.

She came here at 19.

She has no other place to go but back to the home that her husband lives at.

Uh, the DA made a phone call to the husband to see if it was okay for her to come home.

And he told the DA that, yes, um, she could come home.

He's not afraid of her.

Um, there are no issues there.

And he tells the DA, uh, that she, the reason that they were having an argument is that she

is being trafficked and had not been paid for her services.

And that that was the basis of their argument, but that he wants her to change so she can

come home.

So the DA tells our attorney, the person who was at the arraignment, that they are very

concerned about this.

They're going to ask her to get out of custody.

They would like us to put it over for two weeks within the period so that they can get

a hold on this and, and, and dismiss this case because this is the information that they

received from her husband that she's being trafficked.

And they used that word specifically and that information made it to the judge as well.

The judge was also made aware of this at the arraignment.

Wow.

Oh, hold on.

Hold on.

Let's, let's make sure we, we, we catch all this.

So she, the, the Vic, the complaining witness, sometimes we call them victim.

The complaining witness tells the DA over the phone that, that she can move home and she's

being trafficked.

Did she say who's trafficking her?

Is that a thing?

Like, so he, he first indicated that she's being trafficked by her boss at a Chick-fil-A.

Um, he then said, he then said, no, it's, no, it's her boyfriend.

And then said, but that's the reason we were fighting is because she hadn't been paid for

her services.

Interesting.

Okay.

Okay.

Was he supposed to receive some money or something like that somewhere?

Correct.

Okay.

And then, so then the DA says, you know what, we're going to put this over for a week or

two so we can look into dismissing this case because, and, and, and up, lo and behold, this

is why we have Kim on the show.

Kim, why, why are we dismissing these cases?

Do we know why?

Or because she's a victim of trafficking.

It sounds like, well, first of all, the, the whole argument, it sounds like is around

her, the process of her being trafficked.

Right.

Which is a crime in and of itself.

Okay.

So I have, I still have so many questions floating around in my head.

Go ahead, Kim.

All right.

So did the DA, so this statement was made to the DA.

To the DA.

At arraignment.

And then the DA just verbally repeated the statement, did not commit it to righty.

We don't have the exact language used by the husband.

She did tell us and the judge that the language used by the husband was the word trafficking.

Okay.

That's interesting.

Um, my, my question is just because a lot of times our trafficking victims

they're being trafficked by their own family members or their husbands or their male partner

or, so I'm wondering, is he part of this trafficking process?

Do we know at this point?

Or is he just supposed to be receiving like her share of the rent payment and this is her

excuse why she doesn't have it?

How does this, do we know this?

We don't know this at this point.

This is the, the only information he gave to the DA.

My understanding, it was a fairly brief phone call, which is concerning in and of its

own, right?

But it wasn't a phone call that happened with our attorney.

It was with the district attorney.

So, um, we obviously then talked to our client, Natalie, about it, um, where she informed us

that she is being trafficked, but it is by her husband.

That's what I would suspect.

Yes.

And then just to elaborate a little more, David asked me a question about, I was thinking

about all this stuff.

The problem is trafficking often involves criminal behavior.

So they're often overlapped and, and the victims of trafficking are often forced into

criminality as part of the trafficking.

There's often overlap with labor trafficking and just a lot of other violence with recruitment

and things like that.

So that's one of the main reasons why these victims are treated that way as victims and

not as criminals, because the genesis of their behavior is that they're victims of trafficking.

That's where it all starts.

Okay.

Go on.

So, um, yeah.

So Natalie tells us that she is being forced to have sex with men for money against her will,

but it's by her husband.

Um, so it's not necessarily trafficking in this big sense of, you know, Liam Neeson, what

you're seeing in movies, big trafficking ring going on, but it is trafficking in the definition

that she is being forced to have sex for money against her will.

Uh, so we come back two weeks later.

This is now when I get involved with the case because I get back from leave about the same

day that this case is scheduled to come back to court.

So between the arraignment and the day that I received the case, the original DA that took

that phone call, that made those notes, that relayed all that information to us and to the

judge had been reassigned to her next step in training at a different branch.

So we now have a new DA, um, handling the case, um, and it seems that things have fallen

through the cracks.

Nobody has picked this case up.

Nobody has done further investigation.

Nobody has done anything to work on dismissing this case or helping this person.

And so we, we get to this next court date and instead of any sort of accountability of,

you know what, we had a new assignment, things fell through the cracks, um, please give us

more time to look into this.

There was none of that.

Instead, they doubled down and said, no, we're going to go forward on the prosecution.

And at that time, again, it was maybe my, I'd been back from medical leave for only a couple

days.

So my understanding was that there was a chambers conference where the judge was told

that this was going to be my case.

And the judge offered a 30 day continuance because they knew I had just gotten back from

leave.

And it was a little hush hush around me.

And then finally somebody came to me and they actually gave me the file.

Um, I took me about five minutes to look through the file and say, absolutely not.

And I walked into that courtroom and I said, we don't need a continuance.

You can bring me a jury this afternoon.

Um, I, we don't need any more time.

We will go to trial right now.

Um, you were in court when they, when they said they are going to go to trial on it, or

was that a different lawyer handling, handling the case?

No, the, they never initially said they would go to trial on it.

They just continued, they trailed it within the period because they were under the impression

the DA's office was going to be dismissing the case.

Okay.

So they, as in one of your colleagues, a public defender colleague trailed it.

So then when they came back for that second court date after the arraignment, when there

was supposed to be a dismissal, the new DA said, no, we're going to trial on this.

That's correct.

Was that your interaction with the new DA or somebody else still handling the case?

It was, it was a different PD.

And then secondarily, once they handed it off to me, I had the same interaction where I sat

them down and said, why would we do this?

And they again, doubled down and said, she committed a crime and we're going to proceed.

Nice.

Okay.

Is this your first time with this new DA?

It is.

Okay.

So just out of curiosity, did they make you an offer?

No, they didn't.

Oh, okay.

No offer was made.

When you said, forget this, we're going to trial.

Had you met the client by then?

I had looked at the file before I felt that way.

And then I met with her before I stormed into the courtroom with that attitude.

Just wanted to make sure she was on board with, with that.

Okay, great.

Well, why don't you tell us about, uh, when you first read, when you looked at the file

and you read the police report, what was, what were you thinking?

I was absolutely livid.

I was fired up.

I read the police report and I said, how, how did somebody read this and still charge this

case that he took this picture and used it against her three months later?

How is somebody not alarmed by the fact that he's the one that told the DA that she's being

trafficked?

How is there no accountability for, hey, let's work together to figure out what's going on

here?

Some semblance of what the justice system is maybe supposed to be actually for.

Um, I was, I was absolutely incredulous and I felt terrible for this girl.

Um, I noticed right away that she was 26 and her, well, I noticed right away that in the

police report that they met and got married when she was 18 and he was 35.

Um, I met they were in Nicaragua when that happened.

Um, I don't know how that didn't raise red flags to anybody from the prosecution.

Um, I was, I was angry and I felt like this was a clear betrayal of justice and what the

system is supposed to be for.

Um, and so they let me know that I could have the, that the judge had said I could have the

continuance if I wanted.

Um, I said, no way, take me to meet the client and I'll let her know that we can go to trial

today.

What time period were you at on a case at that stage?

So at that point, I think we were the 14 of 30.

And just for the, for the people, the non legalese people out there, you know, the trials within

30 days.

So on the day 14, I mean, the trials occur on the, by the 30th day or the case is either

dismissed or goes or resolved, whatever.

Um, okay.

So tell me, tell us about when you first met the client then.

Yes.

What was that like?

So I first meet Natalie.

Um, and I feel like this police report, even if without, cause it doesn't mention sex trafficking,

but if you just looked at that police report, it's pretty bullshit.

It literally says she was, she was threatening to burn my clothes and break the television.

So I called the police and brought up these photos from a couple of months ago.

Yes, sir.

And then when she's questioned about it, it's like, he wouldn't let me go.

I was at a party.

He wouldn't let me go.

Right.

Sounds like false imprisonment on some level.

There's a defense there built into, it's just a, it's a very weak, it's like a few sentences.

It's a, it's a stupid domestic violence case.

It's like, it's a dumb domestic violence case already.

Terrible.

Absolutely terrible.

Then we're going to bring in the sex trafficking element to this thing.

That's crazy.

This exactly.

So I meet with Natalie and she is, she is so sweet.

Um, she's so even tempered, well-mannered.

Um, I sit down with her and I explained that I'll be the attorney taking over the case from

here on out.

Um, that I've looked over the discovery and the report and that I, we haven't received an

offer, but it's not my intention to take an offer.

Um, that my advice is that we take this to trial and that, um, I can connect her with some resources

through our office that can help her with things like housing, um, and, you know, getting to

court and whatnot.

Um, we go over her work schedule to make sure that she's available for trial.

Uh, her work schedule is that she works every day from 4 30 to midnight.

And then after that, she goes to a cleaning shift from about midnight to three to 4 a.m.

Um, so she, we're in a misdemeanor courtroom, so we do afternoon trials.

So she would need to be here every day from about 1 30 to 4.

And we, uh, made sure that that would work and that she was on board with going to trial.

And I just did everything I could to make it clear to her that I was going to fight for

her.

What were some of the things that she said to you then about the case?

Sure.

So I, I start to ask her a little bit more about, you know, her experience and, uh, her

relationship, uh, what it was like when they first started dating, what made them come to

the United States.

Um, she essentially informs me that she had met him again.

She was 18.

He's 35, uh, that they were dating in Nicaragua and that there was an issue where she, they

had lost money or they had lost housing and that his mother was going to allow them to

live with her, but only if they got married.

And so they had to get married a few months after dating in order for them to have a place

to live.

Um, to me that immediately raised a red flag.

There's, there's some coercion going on there.

He's immediately trying to exercise control over her.

I don't know.

I don't know.

There's a lot of mother-in-laws out there.

You know, uh, my mom has been trying to pawn me off and get me married at my, well,

my 20, I'd be like, I, my mom would bring like the weirdest people over like, Dave, you

got to meet this girl.

I'm like, I'd be like, ma, I don't want to meet this.

She'd be like, Hey, there's this girl.

She's working at the sandwich shop.

I mean, I'm just saying that she was really worried about her son.

I mean, 35 and still single.

We got to get this kid married.

That's what I mean.

I'm just saying.

I'm just, we're about to figure out why.

So, um, so yeah, so they, they're in Nicaragua.

He, he's not able to work.

He repeatedly is ousted from jobs.

Can't keep a job.

She's the only one able to keep a job.

Um, I later learned that one of the reasons they left Nicaragua is that he was convicted

of rape of another girl in Nicaragua.

Um, that was something I learned later, but in my initial meeting with, um, Natalie,

she's explaining that very shortly after getting married, he says that we need to go to the

United States so that we can, um, get better jobs.

We can make more money, um, and that you need to come with me.

And so she was taken from her family and friends and brought to a country that she didn't speak

the language.

She didn't know anybody here.

They were living in an apartment with like three other people that were all trying to pay

their share of rent.

But again, even when he got here, he couldn't keep a job.

She was the only one that could keep a job.

So she's essentially keeping them afloat, but he is controlling the bills and the phone

bills and things like that.

And that often as a mechanism of control, uh, he would turn off her phone and would, and

she would have to go through him in order to get it turned back on.

Um, he speaks English a little bit better than she does.

She doesn't speak any English.

Um, but essentially she gets around to explaining that when they were short on money,

both in Nicaragua and here in the United States, he would then turn it on her and set up these

situations where she would be forced to sleep with men for money so that they could make ends

meet and finish paying their rent or their bills or whatever it was.

Um, so that was sort of the, the information that I got, you know, when I first met Natalie.

Um, and that, uh, that was more than enough for me to go off of, but of course I, I got to

learn a lot of and get real intimate with this relationship as, as the weeks went on.

Wow.

That's such a, on your first time meeting her, that's such a powerful statement by her.

And I can't, I can't stress enough that one of the things that broke my heart was she was,

she was consistently so calm and even tempered where you would think that somebody could maybe

be, you know, sobbing as they're telling you these things.

She didn't, it's not that she'd appeared indifferent or like she wasn't bothered.

It was like, she was so desensitized to it.

Like she was so used to this just being what her life is now, um, that the only real time

that I saw her cry was after she had an evaluation with the expert, which I'll, we'll get to in

a minute.

And then when the case was eventually dismissed.

Um, and it, it shocked me every single time because so many days I was holding back tears

and I didn't know how she was keeping it together, but my God, I think she's the strongest client

I've ever had.

She's just like, everything's just so matter of fact for her.

Just, um, Kim, did you have, do you have any comments or anything you want to say about

that?

I have a lot of questions here.

So the, the trafficking started in the United States at about what age?

It started in Nicaragua when she was 18.

So he had a couple of times even there when they had trouble making ends meet, he had started

doing that with her there.

And I think that she had indicated that it started with, uh, selling naked pictures of

her, um, and then would escalate to actual sexual acts with men.

And you said she met her husband when she was 18.

Yes.

And, uh, because this is just, I mean, classic trafficking behavior.

I don't know how much you knew about where she lived and who controlled the money, but I'm

guessing she had very little control over any of that, especially if they're living at her

mother-in-law's house.

Yes.

She's getting more isolated from her family.

She was immediately isolated from her family.

She talked about how her friends and her parents, you know, tried to express to her that she

thought this guy was bad news and that eventually he just wouldn't allow her to go over there,

wouldn't allow her to have contact with them.

Um, yes, very much textbook trafficking.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Makes sense.

So, I mean, so Desiree, like, I know you said you're enraged and you went in the court

saying, let's, we don't need, we don't need to continue to just go to trial now.

Did you feel like, was there like anything you wanted to do to prepare for trial?

Yes.

Um, which I wanted to do this both in, I guess, an additional effort to get the case dismissed.

Not that I felt like I should have even been in that position, but both in an effort to

get the case dismissed and in an effort to prepare myself for trial a little better, I

wanted to appoint an expert in, uh, what most people would refer to as battered women's

syndrome.

Uh, we now refer to as intimate partner violence or, um, we, you know, it's more gender neutral

at this point, uh, battered spouse syndrome.

Um, so I wanted an expert to be able to testify as to that.

Um, and so I didn't need a continuance.

I was determined that I would find somebody, uh, so that same day that I announced ready

for trial, um, I went to my office and I spent, uh, a good hour calling a good 20 different

experts until I found somebody willing to clear their schedule the following day in order to

meet with my client.

And I made that happen.

Uh, Desiree, you are quite the poker player.

I admire this energy and I want to know, did you tell your expert a little bit about Natalie

in order to get, yeah, of course, well done.

That is incredible advocacy.

And I admire you so much.

And I, I, I wish I had that energy.

I have to say, I might've gone for a short continuance myself.

Natalie was out of custody.

Well done.

She was out.

She was, she was, she was, there's no, no need to.

All the need.

Are you kidding me?

Are you kidding me?

That is hard charging defense.

I wasn't about to let her have to go another day without knowing that somebody was going

to fight against the control that he was clearly exercising over him and had been trying to use

the judicial system to manipulate her.

And I wasn't going to let that stand for another day as far as what I could do about it.

And again, I was, I was fresh off medical leave.

I was well-rested.

I was fresh for energy.

That helps.

That helps.

I have another question, Desiree.

So how did Natalie respond to you when you started explaining to her what you were proposing

to do, how you were going to defend her?

What was her response?

Um, I think when we first spoke, of course, she was a little hesitant.

I can only imagine how hard it is to divulge this type of information to somebody that you're

just meeting for the first time.

Somebody that doesn't look like you, somebody that doesn't speak your language.

We're doing all of this through an interpreter that always, that always takes a personal

element out of it and makes those relationships a little bit harder.

But I did everything I could sometimes, sometimes as defense attorneys, we find it really important

to sort of hide our emotions and be a little bit more matter of fact and be a

little bit more, you know, just about the law and, you know, it's not our case to be

emotional about, it's theirs.

Um, I took a little bit of a different approach here and I wanted her to see how emotional

I was about this.

I wanted her to see how I reacted to these police reports and the allegations that were

being made and that she's not being protected here.

And I, I think she received that well.

Um, she seemed to, to, to establish a trusting relationship with me pretty, pretty early on.

Um, and she, she trusted me to, to take this into my hands and, and fight for her.

Wow.

Excellent.

Great.

Great.

And wait, a followup on that.

So during the time that the case was pending, it sounds like the very short time, uh, where

was Natalie living?

What kind of resources did she have?

Was she back with a husband?

Well, so she was staying, and here's where now I can also explain where the second charge

comes in.

Because remember, we've got a second charge here too.

Um, so the second charge comes in because she gets released from jail on August 14th and

she goes to the shared apartment and she takes about as much stuff as she can before she, she

got released just in time for her to make it to her work shift that night.

So she takes everything she can so that she can go to work that night.

Um, she gets off work and she texts her husband and says, can I come by and grab the rest of

my stuff?

And we have these text messages, they're transcribed, they're printed out, they're

turned over to the people.

Um, I, these text messages where he says, yeah, come, come get your stuff.

You can have 15 minutes.

So she goes to the shared apartment to get the rest of her belongings a little after

midnight and the door is locked and her key doesn't work.

He's changed the locks.

And so she's texting him saying, you know, can you, can you come let me in so I can get

my stuff?

And he says, yeah, I'll give you 15 minutes.

Yeah, I'll give you 15 minutes.

Well, you can see in the text that a good 30 minutes go by and she's still saying like,

you need to come let me in.

Well, so she then realizes that he's not inside the apartment.

He's about 20 yards behind her, leaned up against a fire hydrant, drinking a beer, laughing

at her while she's trying to get into the apartment.

So he alleges that she then came up to him and slapped him in the face four times.

And then he called the police and they arrested her for the violation of the peaceful contact

order.

She went into custody that night.

They declined to file the case and then she was released.

So this charge actually did not get added until the following week when we came back for the

third appearance, the third pretrial conference where we did officially announce ready for trial.

And they, I had turned over the expert report and I'll, we can go, we can backpedal a little

into that in a second.

Yeah.

We had turned over the expert report, which like I said, I'll get to, but detailed the horrific

abuse that my client had been facing all these years.

They had it in their hands and they tell the judge that there was actually a violation of

the peaceful contact order that they had originally declined to file.

They are now going to be adding it to the complaint and they would like her remanded.

Oh no, of course they did.

Of course.

Which we were able to keep her out of custody.

We didn't get her remanded, but was a very intense thing.

And this, at this point, this was actually the remand request was made by not the new

DA to that courtroom, but by a felony DA that had come in to kind of oversee the case.

Um, so this was, uh, the other DA that I had mentioned, uh, before Kim.

Wow.

Wow.

Go ahead, Tim.

And just to be clear, the, the, the felony sort of supervising DA who came in and asked

for the remand, this DA was aware of all the evidence that Natalie was a victim of trafficking.

I'm not so sure she would say that now, but I know that she had the 730 report, the expert

report in her hand while she asked for a remand.

There.

Okay.

Let's, let's just go back to the, let's talk about the expert report.

Let's go back to the expert.

Let's go back to the expert.

Okay.

So yeah.

Um, tell us.

So I, I get the expert appointed.

Um, and like I said, I was able to convince this expert to clear this happened.

Um, this all happened on a, on a Wednesday and I got the expert to clear their schedule

for Friday.

And I also got our office interpreter to clear his schedule for Friday so that everybody could

be there for her to have this interview with the expert.

Oh, I, I remember that.

Cause I remember I, I called him up the interpreter.

I was like, Hey, we have an appointment for Friday.

And he's like, you got bumped, David.

I was like, I was like, Sal, you're bumping me.

Yes, he did.

Yeah.

You got bumped, bro.

Sorry.

You're not as persuasive as Desiree.

I was like, what?

I, I, I pulled a lot of strings.

I made a lot of people clear their schedules, but I think, I think it was all in, uh, in,

in, in righteousness.

So, um, and I'm just for a quick shout out to Sal, our office interpreter is absolutely

fucking incredible.

I could not have done this case without him.

He was a, he was an absolutely paramount role in getting this case to where it got.

Um, so, so yeah, so that Friday, um, she has her interview session with the expert and,

um, our interpreter.

And what, the experts there to opine that, that Natalie's conduct is based off the fact

that she is being sex, is she's being tracked, trafficked and abused, that that's where her

conduct stems from.

Correct.

That's the purpose of the expert.

Go ahead.

Yes.

And so, um, after they, they have the interview, um, and she, she meets with, Natalie meets

with the interpreter and the expert.

And I'm not there because I want to give her as much of a semblance of, I mean, privacy as

I can.

I mean, at this point, there are so many people involved in the most horrific moments of her

life, but trying to give her as much privacy as I can.

Um, I'm not in the interview.

So I go in afterwards where she is kind of wiping up tears a little bit and, you know,

I, I give her a hug.

I let her know, you know, go home, do, do what you need to do.

And, uh, we'll talk about this, you know, on Monday and she's, you know, let us know at

this point, she has a friend that she's staying with that she's not having to go back to the

apartment.

Um, so she has what she feels like is a safe place to stay.

Personally, I'm terrified that he's going to kill her.

I, I, I'm terrified that no matter what she thinks is a safe place, I don't know if

that's the truth.

Um, thank God that that wasn't the case.

Um, but she appeared more confident in her safety than I did.

Um, and so I, I, I, I spoke to her briefly after the interview and then she left and I

shut the door and I turn around to our interpreter whose eyes just welled with tears.

And our interpreter, our office interpreter has been with our office for over a decade.

He has, uh, seen some shit to say the least.

And so watching him break down over what he had just heard over the prior two hours of

this interview, um, was telling.

Um, and I similarly got a call very shortly after from the expert letting me know that

she's going to get the report to me as soon as she can, but this is one of the most horrific

interviews that she's had.

Um, she was crying when she called me, um, and it was, it was a very, it was very emotional.

Can you share some of the contents of the report then about some of Natalie's story then?

Absolutely.

So, like I said, the interview took place on a Friday, um, Tuesday night at about nine

o'clock at night is when I received the report from the expert.

Um, I'll go into some of the details of the report, but I also just want to note that this

was the first and only report I've ever received that literally ends with the, with the expert

saying, please dismiss this case.

I have never had an expert just outright be like, why, why is this happening?

Um, but this expert was incredulous over the case.

And I should add that, um, for those of you who don't know that when we do give an expert

an appointment for a case like this, they don't only get my client side of the story.

They get the full police reports so that the, she's taken all of the things into account

here.

She's taken their story into account.

My expert is incredulous that this is, that this is going on the way that it is.

And is this an experienced expert?

Can you tell us something about that?

Yes.

So, um, the, the doctor that I had, um, you know, let me, I had her CV pulled up.

And how did you identify which expert you wanted to use?

Um, by calling every single one that I could until somebody agreed to clear their day for

me.

Yeah.

Which is the expert you want, right?

Well, especially in this kind of a situation, I mean, I do want to kind of put on the record

here because she is extremely experienced.

Um, she is a board certified psychologist.

She's trained in EMDR therapy.

She has her, uh, doctorate in psychology.

She has a master's in psychology.

She has a bachelor's.

Um, she went to the California school of professional psychology.

She works in private practice doing neuropsychology, sports neuropsychology, geriatric forensic, uh,

neuropsychological diagnostic assessments.

Um, she, uh, ironically enough, she works as a psychology in residence for the Laugh Factory,

um, which I thought was pretty cool as well as for the NFL and the NHL.

Wow.

Um, so she is, she is extremely experienced.

She also had previously worked with the Department of Corrections, um, at Twin Towers for, uh,

for, uh, people who are incarcerated and working on psychological evaluations for them as well.

So very experienced, um, and so she, she includes in the report that she's diagnosed, my client,

she's diagnosed Natalie with PTSD.

Um, I'm going to botch the pronunciations of these, but with, uh, uh, trichotillomania

and excoriation, uh, these are disorders of skin picking and hair picking based on severe

amounts of stress.

Uh, so she, she identifies those specific diagnoses and she explains that, you know, my client is,

uh, sorry, 25 years old.

I'm not sure.

I think I might've said 26 in the beginning, but she's 25 years old at this time.

Um, and that's what her charges were.

She identifies, um, that she, what the, what the claims were and that she had reviewed the

police reports and she, uh, then goes into what her, you know, clinical observations and assessments

are of the situation, which are that there has been significant physical abuse, uh, throughout

the relationship that there's been significant verbal and emotional abuse that Natalie is unable

to get pregnant.

So she's often referred to as a dry woman, um, in Spanish by her husband and that that

is part of the reason that he sex traffics her, uh, that she, he has slapped, pushed, kicked

and strangled her over the, uh, course of their relationship, uh, the first time being in the

second year of their relationship, uh, when she was just 19 years old, that he, uh, strangled

her no less than four times just in the past several months.

Um, and that he had often recorded her, um, when he would abuse her physically or emotionally,

and then he would take out his phone to start recording her reaction to these things.

And if she, you know, sometimes she would throw something at him or something like that, and

he would use that recording and say he was going to keep that to, to get her deported, to throw

her in jail.

So he had all these recordings where she's hysterically crying and begging, um, for him

to leave her alone, which was sort of the theme of my trial opening.

It's Jame and Paz, Jame and Paz in Spanish for leave me alone.

And you hear her scream it over and over again in these videos that he's produced, that the,

that the prosecution turns over to us saying that these are examples of her being abusive.

And I can't play those videos at risk for violating all kinds of things.

But when I tell you that the sound of her screams still keeps me up at night and that nobody

in their right mind would hear or see those videos and think, yeah, she's the problem here.

It is horrific moments of desperation.

So the expert was able to review those videos as well and included in her report that she can

very clearly see that these videos are showings of him exercising control and threats over

her.

And that, um, in one of the videos, in fact, he had just raped her and she's laying in her

bed with no clothes on.

And the covers are kind of pulled up to here.

Her body, our covers are pulled up to her chest.

Um, her arms are crossed.

Her body language, you can see in the video is just terrible.

She's clearly just been through something traumatic.

She's trying not to look at him, not to look at the camera.

She's crying and begging, leave me alone, leave me alone, leave me alone.

And at one point, after a couple minutes of him yelling at her in this video, she turns

and she grabs something off the nightstand and throws it at him.

Um, and again, the people turned this video over as evidence of her abusing him.

Uh, the, the expert report continues to go on about how he controls the finances and requires

her to give more than half of her money, um, and controls all of the bills, all of the,

uh, utilities.

Like I mentioned, the phone, uh, services that he turns off, uh, in order to exercise control

over her, um, and that she has, uh, symptoms such as distressing dreams, nightmares, flashbacks,

uh, she has depression.

She feels shameful.

Uh, she feels judged.

She has hypervigilant.

She has difficulty sleeping.

She has hair pulling, skin picking, and hand wringing.

Um, and her, um, the, the expert report details some of the ways that he isolated her from her

family, um, about not being able to talk to her father and not being able, um, to be in

contact with her friends.

Talks about how prior to her, this relationship, she had only had two boyfriends, um, in her

lifetime, uh, that were less than six months and that she had always wanted to go to college,

but she wasn't able to go to college.

And then this relationship happened, relationship happened and he didn't allow her to go to

college and, um, significantly.

And the reason that essentially this made it to the courts is because about a year ago, um,

in, I believe, September of 2023, she had met a man at work who she started to grow fond

of and that she wanted to leave her husband for this man, um, that she felt like she could

have a better, healthier relationship with, um, and that for months she tried to leave and

begged to leave.

And that that's when the video recording started.

That's when he started trying to use things to threaten her with deportation and with jail,

um, so that he, so that she couldn't leave him.

These are all classic signs of a victim and her trafficker.

And there's a lot of overlap.

You said you were looking at this from a battered woman's syndrome approach.

Oh, I use the old fashioned term.

Yeah.

But, um, but it's, they're very, very similar.

The difference with trafficking victims is there's a lot more shame about the behavior and that

makes them even more vulnerable to their traffickers because the traffickers can use that shame

against them.

But this guy sounds even more, uh, just sophisticated and just, you know, devious in how he uses her

reactions of trauma against her for criminal charges and immigration consequences.

Absolutely.

Which is outrageous.

Which was also shown in, um, the, the prosecution then sort of went back on the second charge regarding

the violation of the protect, of the peaceful contact order, um, based on his alleging that

she had slapped him.

They then said that they weren't sure whether that was going to be the basis for the charge

or he had, uh, told their investigating officer that when she was arrested, that she had called

him and said, you need to lie and tell them that I didn't hit you.

And so they were debating on whether or not that was going to be the basis for the charge

as dissuading somebody from, uh, trying to report things.

Uh, but later when we did get the transcripts, so the same day that I appointed the expert

and went through all of that, I also immediately appointed a transcriptionist to transcribe all

of the text messages between the two and all of the jail phone calls.

And so the, uh, jail calls were transcribed.

She never asks him to lie for her.

She says, tell them I didn't hit you because I didn't hit you.

And he then calls the investigating officer and says, I, she says it, she admits it on

the phone.

She admits that she hits me, but that's not, that's not what happened.

Um, also in these transcripts of the jail calls, he's telling her, you need to get down on your

knees and pray to God for forgiveness.

God's the only one that can forgive you.

Now you're going to be in there for three years because of what you did.

Um, just again, textbook instances of the exercise of control and the manipulation of

the system.

And, and it sounds like the way our system is supposed to function absolutely immediately

broke down because the DA's office sounds like, I don't know, they were just handing this

off, not showing up.

And they allowed themselves to be used immediately, essentially as an agent of this criminal trafficker.

They did.

They were carrying out his role.

They did.

And once they did, they, it was like they committed to it.

There was, I, I, I think the most shocking part of this case from my perspective was when

they turned over all these videos where she's crying and begging for him to leave her alone.

Um, and they turned those over as somehow those were going to be evidence against my client.

Um, that was the point in which for me, I immediately knew you're not looking at this

objectively anymore.

You're, you've committed to the mistake that you've made.

And instead of being accountable and trying to help somebody or get justice out of this,

you would rather double down, triple down on it.

And again, for me, that's fine.

So skipping ahead a little bit, them trying to admit those videos into evidence,

was sort of a comical, um, issue because the judge took issue with it since they had turned

the videos over a little bit later, but I was, no, no, no, no.

Bring in the videos.

Bring it.

I want the videos.

I want the videos.

I have them transcribed.

I want them to see the videos.

So, um, I did let the judge and the prosecutor fight over that for a little bit before I,

I interjected that I do want those to come in.

Desiree, let me ask you, so then you get this report from the.

Yes.

You know what?

Thank you.

So I get the report at Tuesday night, nine o'clock.

I send the report to the prosecutor and CC the felony attorney that's sort of somehow

involved with this case.

Why is there a felony attorney involved?

That's a great question.

I still have no idea.

Um, so I CC that both attorneys that are using this case, I get them the report at 830

that morning, the next morning, Wednesday at 830 AM, they had that report and I printed

out a copy and brought it to the courtroom.

So they had it both electronically and physically.

And like I said, they, they looked at me, they looked through the report.

I watched them read the report and then I watched them walk up to the judge and ask for remand.

Wow.

And they, and that's when they added the charges too, right?

Yes.

Okay.

So the, so this is day 20 of 30, I think, right?

Zero, 10, 20, 21 of 30, something like that.

Yeah.

So this is the day where either the case settles or gets continued or it's like, no, we're going

to go to trial in seven or eight days from today.

And you provide the DAs with the report stating, outlining, detailing all of the trauma that

the PTSD, the abusive nature thing, the control, the manipulation, the money, the, the sexual

assaults, all those things that she is a victim of sex trafficking and the DAs decide to ask

that she go into custody and they add an additional charge.

Yes.

They want her to have to spend more time in custody.

Yes.

Okay.

And then, so how'd that go play out in court?

So it was painful because the judge is only able to, the judge is only able to give rulings

on the information that they have from both parties.

The judge hasn't read the expert report.

So the judge sort of saw through the situation, but still as a judicial practice had to kind of

admonish my client about, you know, she could have gone into custody.

She can't have any contact with him.

She did something wrong to that extent.

So it was a little painful to sit there and listen to the judge admonish my client over

this situation, but she ultimately obviously did not remand her.

And the basis for the 273.6, the violation of the protective order stemming from a domestic

violence incident was because she went to the sheriff's to get her property and then not all the

property was there.

So then she goes to the apartment or house, wherever they live, and the doors are locked

and he's laughing at her around the corner.

And that's what led to a slapping incident.

Well, he says there was a slapping incident.

We don't know if that's true or not.

So then they initially say that that was the basis for it.

But then they go back on that and say, well, also, maybe the basis is that she told him

to lie for her in the jail phone calls.

So they never make it clear what the basis for the second charge is.

Wait, they're just adding a charge?

There's no report to back it up?

They eventually turned over a report regarding him alleging the slaps.

But when we got to trial, they refused to identify which they were going to go with.

Okay.

That was fine with me.

That's fine.

And you said that the calls showed, the conversation between Natalie and the trafficker, the calls

showed that she was telling him, you have to say the truth, that I never slapped you.

Correct.

But he tried to say that that was her saying, I'm admitting that I did slap you.

And this case is really sad.

But this is also just, this is not like atypical behavior of the DA's office.

No.

There is no such thing as meaningful negotiations about a case until you get to trial.

Because they can't even look at cases.

This is all DA's across the board cannot negotiate on good faith basis of reality of what the case is.

Everything they see is through this sort of hypervigilant sort of everything that the defense attorney is trying to present

is like voodoo or something and everything.

They just buy into so many storylines or I don't know what it is or they can't, they're not allowed to show that they have a heart in the DA's office

or they won't get promoted.

It's almost like, yeah, the supervisor's like, yeah, go prosecute this case.

Double down.

Add charges.

Have no heart.

That's how you get promoted.

And I mean, it was insane.

And I will say that I, as my personal practice is I tend to have a good, I tend to have a trusting relationship with my DAs.

I'm able to often be a source of trust for a lot of my DAs.

And what was interesting about this case was that I had not worked with this DA before and I don't know perhaps what was said about me or what it was,

but I felt so much animosity from this DA that I had never worked with before that at one point I did sit down with her and say, listen, I can feel, I can feel what's being directed at me here.

And I am asking you from the bottom of my heart to take this case home with you and look at it neutrally.

I'm asking you so badly to remove me and whatever it is you have against me from this case and to take it home and just look at it, just, just look at it like a person.

And she looked at me and she said, I think you're misinterpreting and walked out of the room.

So I made every effort here.

I don't know to this day what it is or what it was about that specific DA that has this seeming vendetta against me, but it, it, it showed.

Um, any other juicy nuggets of evidence that we need to talk about in the case?

There's a, there's a, some video, you got a, a DV report or an expert report.

Okay.

Um, Oh, what about the pictures?

The boyfriend, he took pictures, right?

Of the scratch on the neck or the hand.

Were they actual scratches by the way?

They were scratches.

I think to anybody that practices in our field, that practices in law enforcement, criminal, whatever it is.

And I honestly, to anybody that's an avid watcher of SVU or anything on television, you would look at these photos and immediately see these as defensive wounds.

These are wounds that he incurred from, from being physical with her and her trying to defend herself.

A tiny scratch mark on the back of somebody's hand is indicative of her trying to get his hands off of her from hitting her, from beating her.

And that's what these scratch marks were.

And it was in fact the case that they were at a party where he was trying to make her have sex with another man.

And she wanted to leave that party and he was grabbing her and forcing her to come back in the room.

And she left those scratch marks on her as trying to defend herself.

And I honestly think that even without the other context here, if you look at the pictures, they paint that picture.

But that's, that's my two cents.

Okay, good.

I'm glad you answered like that because I was, I was concerned about asking a question that humanized him a little bit about the scratch marks.

No.

Okay.

None of that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have to ask the tough questions.

Absolutely.

All of them.

Okay, so then are we ready for trial then?

Is there anything else we want to talk about before we get to trial?

Kim, any questions you have?

Anything we might have missed?

I think that's it.

Did they ever, I'm always curious about these cases because they try to make offers that you can't refuse.

They try to intimidate your client.

I've always said almost every trial I have done, there's been a moment where my client had weakness and was scared.

It's very scary to proceed to trial.

And I had to kind of encourage them and remind them that, you know, why we're going to trial and why it's a good choice and how I'm going to defend them.

So did you have anything like that?

I think there was a part of me that every time I saw Natalie, I expected her to have a moment of, I don't want to go tell an entire jury about all of this.

I don't want to do this.

Can we just take a deal?

And every time she was, it was as if she had just been through so much already that there was nothing that sitting in that courtroom and listening to all this stuff could possibly do traumatize her further, which is, is the case.

It is very traumatizing to sit through all of that, but it was as if there was nothing else that could happen to her that would make things any worse.

Like she was, she was fine with going to trial.

So there wasn't much pre-trial negotiations on the case then?

No.

So then we're time for trial then?

We're time for trial.

Okay.

Can I ask one more question?

Sure.

Here's something else that I experienced and I absolutely hate.

Did they try to intimidate your client, scare your client in court, on the record, talking about the potential consequences, the maximum?

Absolutely.

Immigration.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And how did, how did Natalie react to that?

I'm just plugging in my computer one second.

Because that drives me crazy.

And I always prepare my clients for that.

We don't make decisions on fear.

That's what I tell them.

Wow.

There's a lot in this case.

Oh yeah.

So yes.

On the record, both when they initially asked for remand and during 402s, they put the max on the record.

They definitely did it in an effort to scare her.

Again, the ask for remand was certainly in an effort to scare her.

But the court we were in was initially engaged in trial.

So we were sent to another court where that judge then, when he got the posture of the case, said, has there been an offer made on this?

And we said, no, there hasn't.

And he said, I would like for the DA's office to do some soul searching and find an offer.

And the judge even said, potentially an informal diversion offer.

And so they came back about an hour later and they gave us a standard domestic violence offer, which is for three years of summary probation, 52 domestic violence classes in person, a $500 domestic violence fund, a fine to be paid by my client, and 40 hours of community service.

And this offer was made well past the time that they had received, reviewed that report.

Yes.

Well, let's talk about the 402s then.

What were the 402s and the motions to eliminate, the motions to exclude evidence or limit evidence?

What was that?

So this is, not that this hasn't already been interesting, but this is where things start to get even more interesting.

So the 402s are just fascinating.

First, the people are trying to keep, the government's trying to keep out any mention of sex trafficking, to which the judge sort of laughs at because he has in the notes that it was the people, the government,

that made the defense aware that she was being trafficked first, that the first allegations of trafficking had come from the DA's office.

So them asking to keep out their own information is a wild request, but they made the request and it was denied.

And can I ask a little more on that?

Because that is outrageous behavior from the district attorney's office.

Yes.

So what, the motion that they made, what was the reason, the authority that they gave to keep that out?

Because they can't just exclude evidence.

Yeah, because I always love to know, what's the theory here?

Mm-hmm.

Let's see.

The people seek to-

Wait, Kim, when do they need authority to ask the judge to do something?

Well, they don't.

I mean, I'm kind of expecting you to say there wasn't anything.

Judge, it could hurt our case.

You've got to keep it out.

I mean, like, what did they-

They cited California Evidence Code 352, and they said that it is more prejudicial than probative and that it's not relevant.

There you go.

Uh-huh.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

The thing that the first DA put on the record, because it was so relevant, right?

Right.

Right.

Immediately.

I have to defolge this right away.

Yeah.

Yep.

Yeah.

So they sought to exclude that.

That was denied.

They sought to exclude our expert report.

That was also denied.

They sought to also exclude a portion of their own investigator's report, because their own investigator had made a report sort of on their side for most of it, talking about, you know, what he alleges happens and what he says about her.

But then their investigative report also opined on the videos and had a whole paragraph in the investigative report about how the videos show him being the abuser, him being the aggressor, and they sought to exclude just that part of their investigative report.

Oh, that's fair.

The DA's investigator's opinion as to what the videos show.

Yeah.

Right.

So they want to bring in.

They speak for themselves.

That's fine.

Right.

Right.

They want to bring in all of the other investigators' opinion except for that one.

Oh, oh, no.

Nothing, nothing, all the investigators' opinions should just be excluded, period.

Correct.

But they're saying that they want to bring in their investigators' opinions on everything except that part.

Which.

Just the part that helps them.

Just the part that helps them.

Yeah.

Of course.

Yeah.

So, yeah.

What did the judge do then?

Well, so the judge sort of, they went back and forth.

And again, here's where things start to get real fun.

The judge says, okay, I will, I'm going to allow all of this to come in because, obviously.

And I.

Is that how the judge rules?

Because, obviously.

But the judge says, I'm asking that the statement about her being trafficked that they divulged at the arraignment.

I'm asking for that information to come in.

And he initially, the DA's office is opposing that, you know, we're, we don't know what was said.

It was a different DA.

And so the judge says, okay, well then, if you're not going to stipulate to that information coming in,

then I'd like you to make the DA that did get that information available for testimony.

Right.

And the DA says, well, we're not going to do that.

And he says, well then, I'm not going to allow you to bring in the videos or any of the other prior evidence of her,

of the domestic violence.

And again, this was before I had made it clear that I want the videos in.

But he says, I'm not going to let you bring in any of this other evidence alleging domestic violence on her end

if you're not going to stipulate to what you told them at arraignment.

And the DA says to the judge, I don't think it's okay for you to bully us into a stipulation.

And the judge said, did you just call me a bully on the record?

And she said, yes, I did.

And he said, go get a supervisor.

Excellent.

So that shortly after that is when I came in and was like, listen, the videos can come in.

I'm fine with you guys can keep doing this.

This is enjoyable for me, but the videos can come in.

So you're just kicking back with your client.

You know, there's an interpreter there too, I imagine.

Oh yeah, at this point there's a room of interpreters that have been ordered for this case that are cycling out every, you know, 20 minutes.

And at this point the whole interpreter's office is invested in this case.

So then what happens next then?

So then they get most of their motions denied and, you know, excluding any of these things.

No, but did the supervisor come?

Oh yeah, the supervisor comes down and just sort of rephrases everything and says, well, she feels not bullied, but like she's pressured.

And the judge goes into a whole spiel on taking issue with being called a bully on the record and that being inappropriate and feeling like that was a misuse of that, those words.

And that he didn't appreciate that attitude from, from the DA, um, a little back and forth from him and the supervisor.

And then, and then we moved on.

Did the judge ask for the informal diversion then?

No, no.

He, I mean, she, they had already said, we're not going to do any kind of diversion.

Here's the offer on the table.

Um, and that was kind of it.

Um, the judge of course indicated that if I wanted to file a mental health diversion based on the report that he would entertain that at that point, I mean, I don't want my client doing anything for this.

I don't want this.

I want, I want her name cleared entirely.

And I got her on board with that as well.

We're rejecting any offer that comes in to be completely honest.

They could have offered an informal diversion and I would have told them what they could do with that offer.

Wow.

Okay.

So you, you're, you're, you're going to trial.

I'm going to trial regardless.

And they technically, okay.

So your defense is self-defense.

Like what's, what's the, is it self-defense?

Cause that what battered women's or intimate spouse battered syndrome is?

Is that what it is?

My defense is a combination of self-defense and this is bullshit.

Yeah.

In general.

Okay.

Okay.

No, no, no, no.

It's self-defense and your attitude is, this is bullshit.

That's in combination with your attitude.

This is fucking bullshit.

You know?

And were you planning on calling the experts to testify?

Yes.

And so they had sought to exclude the expert testimony.

Um, and the judge made it clear that, that the expert, the expert could only testify if my client testified, but we had gone into the, but we had gone into the trial knowing that she was going to need to testify.

So that was not an issue for us.

We were prepared with that.

Right.

Um, so the judge said, if she, if she testifies the, then the expert is allowed to testify as well.

By the way, these, these experts are used by the prosecution all the time.

Right.

Absolutely.

Like a battered women's syndrome, maybe why she's recanting on the stand, maybe why she's telling different stories.

We'll be telling you about the cycle of violence and this and that.

Yeah.

But then when the defense uses the expert, they're like, we don't want her.

Get her out of here.

Get her out of here.

Right.

That was very much so the case.

Okay.

Um, um, so we moved into.

Did you say the charts, they draw through the test?

Yes.

They draw.

Yeah.

I mean, there were so many times.

They draw this big old chart and then there's a Venn diagram chart and there's all these charts.

There were so many times that I, I tried to say to the prosecution, like, you guys have this

so wrong, like, like her husband should be my client right now.

I should be on my hands and knees begging you guys to keep him out of prison and find some

alternative.

And you guys should be offering her services and trying to help her move her life along.

Like this is so backwards, so backwards, but none of that mattered to them.

Um, and they, they marched forward, uh, to jury selection.

All right.

Good.

Good.

Let's do it.

Let's do it.

All right.

So, so during.

Does all this happen in one day?

Like these 402 motions?

This is on day one of the trial.

How does this happen?

Yeah, this is, this is sort of, uh, over a one to two day period that all of this is, this

is happening with the 402s.

Um, so we bring in the jury, the jury panel and we start doing jury selection.

During jury selection, um, the DA gets, uh, yelled at essentially for trying to indoctrinate

the jury.

Um, she goes, well, yeah, tell us about that.

She goes on a spiel to the jurors saying, uh, asking each and every individual juror, um,

that if they think that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they have to

vote guilty and will they follow the law that says they must vote guilty?

Um, and so the judge stops her, cuts her off, releases the jury and sort of scolds her for

a couple of minutes, brings up the jury instruction and says, it does not say that you must vote

guilty.

It says that you may find the defendant guilty if though, if they think that the charge is

proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the judge believes that she's trying to indoctrinate

the jury and that he kind of puts her on notice that she's, that he's, he's aware of this.

Um, I should also note that this, this prosecutor has been practicing for over 10 years at this

point.

So this is not in this, despite being new to the DA's office, this was not a new prosecutor.

She has been prosecuting for 10 years.

So I have had three years experience.

She knows what indoctrinating the jury is.

She knew what she was doing.

Wait, we all indoctrinated the jury though, but they just, they just, they just brought

it, even like keep it in the shadows.

They just brought it out of the dungeon.

Here, go ahead.

We need a prosecutor for this case.

Can you imagine if we got up and misstated the reasonable doubt instruction?

That's the instruction that every trial attorney, no matter DA or public defender, we know

that instruction backwards and forwards.

It's the one we talk about the most.

So she knew exactly what she was doing.

Absolutely.

So did the judge though, re-correct the DA in front of the jurors and point out the

may, the may?

He did.

Because that almost makes it worse now for the DAs.

Like the judge is sort of saying, hey, you don't have to.

I'm just letting you know, the law says you don't have to guys.

Indeed.

Coming from the judge.

I know from the judge.

Hey guys, I'm going to present the law.

I am the judge.

I will tell you what the law is.

And you may.

You don't have to.

She's doing herself no favors with this jury.

On day one of jury selection, we had a juror who talked about his experience with domestic

violence, being a victim.

And he started to kind of cry during his explanation of that.

And so after we let that first jury, that jury go for the day on first day of jury selection,

we stipulated to removing a couple of jurors for, you know, financial issues and things

like that.

And the judge brought up that juror and said, would you guys like to stipulate to letting

him go?

He seemed very emotional about his experience.

And I said, yeah, that's absolutely fine.

I'm fine stipulating to letting him go.

The DA said, no, I won't do that.

Totally fine.

Totally fine.

But then the next day during jury selection, she chooses that juror and she asks him more

and asks him to talk more about the domestic violence situation.

And she probes and she probes farther and he's crying again.

And at one point, the judge just cuts her off and says to the juror, I'm so sorry, sir.

You don't need to answer any more of her questions.

You guys can leave for right now and we'll bring you back in about 10 minutes.

And the judge again spent some time sort of laying into her about, I asked if we wanted

to let this juror go yesterday, why would you then come in and probe about a situation

he's already been crying about when you had the opportunity to stipulate to letting him

go?

Why do you think this is helpful for you?

And so the judge decided to let him go.

Um, that he had been through enough essentially after being made cry by this DA during jury

selection.

Um, and then we, we continued.

That's so consistent with what I've seen in DAs in my entire practice, just an absolute

lack of humanity.

No humanity whatsoever.

No humanity whatsoever.

It's like this person that I was working with just had not an ounce of humanity to her

throughout this entire trial.

Well, and the jury could see that.

Oh yeah.

Wow.

Um, any other fun, uh, anecdotes with the DA and the jury?

I was battened for the first time in my career, which will not be the last.

It will happen.

Yeah.

Let's tell us about your jury selection and tell us about your voir dire with the jury

then.

Yeah.

So, I mean, my voir dire with the jury was kind of simple.

I was asking, you know, women and men can both be victims of domestic violence.

Can you, can you, well, but it's, I mean, but I want them to be clear that I'm not trying

to say that men can't be a victim of domestic violence.

I'm just saying this man is not a victim of domestic violence.

And I'm, you know, asking them to talk about and think about, um, you know, situations where

a woman would be in a domestic violence relationship and choose not to leave or why they would choose

not to leave or why they would choose not to report prior instances of domestic violence,

because I'm anticipating that those are going to be some of the thoughts they have

about my client.

Well, if an expert and her are going to get up here and say that she's being raped and

trafficked and all of these things by, uh, the, the, the victim allegedly in this case,

why wouldn't she have left?

Why wouldn't she have reported that?

Why wouldn't she have asked for help?

And I want the jurors to have in mind and hear from other people sitting next to them

that, and this is what was the case in the jury selection.

Almost every juror I spoke to had either themselves or their mother or their sister or someone

they loved that had been in domestic violence relationship and had chosen not to leave or

had chosen not to report and why there are plenty of valid reasons for that situation.

So that's, that's largely what my jury selection was focused on.

Yep.

Any, any memorable moments you may have had with jurors?

Just, I mean, I, I'm not kidding.

It was every juror.

Every single one had a story about, yeah, no, my, my mom was abused by my dad for years

and didn't leave for the kids, for the money, for the, this, for the culture, for that, you

know, just all of the valid reasons that a lot of us who have had even a minimal amount

of experience in this field understand, but that I thought maybe I going through my head

at one point was how can the DA sit here and listen to this and still be proceeding on

this case?

How can she listen to all of these jurors say that they've experienced this?

They get why somebody wouldn't leave.

They get why somebody wouldn't report.

That doesn't mean they're not a victim.

All of these things and still proceed on this case.

Yeah.

Cause, and then at least in Los Angeles, the defense attorney usually does voir dire first.

So you went up there first, right?

Yes.

And then after you went, then the DA goes up there and just starts making the jurors

cry.

Yes.

Yes.

And it was, I mean, it's, I mean, it's hilarious, but in the moment I was so mind blown.

Like I was like, if I was in her position, the DA's position, I feel like I would have

listened to those jurors and immediately been like, I need to go talk to a supervisor.

There's no way this case is going the way we want it to go.

Like, I mean, you know, sucks is that this DA is probably going to be taken out of trials

and it's going to be like in some assignment where she's just, Oh no, she was promoted to

felony prelims.

Oh, absolutely.

Yeah.

Yeah.

There you go.

She'll help us ultimately.

So Desiree, I have a question.

When you were thinking about your voir dire, did you consider, or did you ask them about

C-Sec behavior, about trafficking, anything like that?

So the judge, the judge did determine that he, what's C-Sec behavior?

Commercial sexual exploitation, well, of children.

So that's, that's my term.

I guess trafficking, since we're talking about a technical adult here.

So the judge did agree that I wasn't allowed to bring up the trafficking in voir dire.

So it was-

You were not?

Correct.

Why?

Just that it would be too prejudicial because it would, it would divulge too much of the

defense to talk about the trafficking when that wasn't part of the charges.

No.

What if there was a victim of trafficking that couldn't fairly judge the evidence?

That's ridiculous.

I don't disagree, but again, I was, I was pretty, I was pretty strong in where I knew this case

was going to go.

So I wasn't-

That was per the request of the prosecutor.

Correct.

So the prosecutor, okay, that's the judge just throwing the prosecutor a bone.

Which is exactly how I saw it.

Exactly how I saw it was.

All right, fine.

I'll grant one of your stupid requests.

I've triggered down on so many.

We've had this bad blood about being bullied and I said no to all your fucking 402s.

Yeah.

And so I got to act like I'm being fair to both sides.

So I'm going to like be egregious.

That's, that's, that is, I mean, Kim's right.

What if there is a juror that has some type of a history with sex trafficking?

So that's crazy.

That was my analysis exactly.

But I was also in the position of fine, throw him a bone.

Fine.

Fine.

What I was going to ask you is what I would wonder, it's one of those things that maybe

you'd rather just have it hidden because then the DA, I don't know how smart this DA is,

but then she could identify somebody who might sympathize, right?

So I wasn't worried one way or another, honestly, as much as I, I still put in, you know, the

proper efforts, of course, uh, to the best of my abilities with the voir dire, there was a good

part of me that said, you can pick me any 12 people off the street and I'll take this to trial

right now, right now.

I don't care.

I don't care.

Keep who you want, kick who you want, bring me a jury of golden retrievers.

I really don't give a shit.

I will find a way through this case.

Anybody with a, with half a brain, half a brain, a quarter of a brain, I don't know,

will see through this immediately.

And I am confident of that.

All right.

I love it.

Um, okay then.

So then on to, uh, opening statements.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, so opening, opening statements, um, oftentimes the defense will give a really short opening

statement that doesn't really preview our case very much because our job is to respond to

what they're giving.

Um, I did go about this a little differently.

I did consult with some of the felony attorneys in my office about going about my opening a little

bit differently, um, because I wanted them to have the picture.

I wanted it to be laid out.

I wanted them to know this is what you're going to hear over the next couple of days.

This is the real story.

Um, and so I did that.

I laid that out.

Um, I talked about them, went going back to them meeting in Nicaragua.

Um, it was still maybe only, uh, uh, seven minutes, I'd say maybe at most, it was still

a very brief opening, but I did really lay out the, the, the situation and what they

were going to hear over the next couple of days in evidence.

Um, and again, my sort of theme that I repeated throughout my opening was Dejamae and Paz.

You're going to hear it so many times.

You're going to watch these videos of her, Dejamae and Paz, leave me alone, crying, begging

him to leave her alone.

You're going to watch him commit crimes because it's illegal to record somebody without their

consent in California.

You're going to watch videos of that.

You're going to watch him exercise that control over him, over her.

And you're going to see that he's using and abusing the justice system to continue to manipulate

and have that control over her.

And you're going to see that the DAs are enabling him to do it.

Um, so that was sort of my spiel.

And, uh, she got up and basically told them to keep an open mind and that they were going

to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that my client is, uh, the, the aggressor here and their, their opening was also not

very telling and not very long either.

That sounds like a defense attorney opening.

It was the most backwards case, the most backwards case.

Cause the prosecutor goes first on the opening.

So the prosecutor says, doesn't really say much, just keep it opening.

Can't really say anything.

Then you get up there and you give all these specific, all the specific details, right?

And that's anytime you can do that in an opening statement, I think as a defense attorney,

you have to lay out the case.

You have to give them all the details up front to make them interested, to get them thinking,

they're going to want to know what your side is going to say before they start getting

indoctrinated or they start getting cloudy through the, the prosecution's evidence, you

know, when you can, you can't always do that.

Absolutely.

So I agree with that.

I love that you did that.

So yeah, thank you.

And I actually, when the, when was, when all was said and done, the judge did take me

into chambers and commended me.

He, he said that was a fucking amazing opening.

During the trial?

No, no.

When all was said and done.

Oh, after the trial.

Oh, okay.

Wow.

Yeah.

So it was a big compliment with the prosecutor there.

No.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Wow.

Cool.

So then, um, all right then.

So how does the evidence roll out for the people then?

So, uh, I need to back up.

I can't wait.

Just a second here.

I need to, I need to back up just a second here, which is right before we started opening

statements, the judge did say, and I was warned by a felony attorney that this would happen,

but it didn't quite go the way I thought it would, which is that the judge did appoint counsel

for the, the victim, her husband in this case, because the expert report and our defense

is indicating and accusing him of rape and trafficking and domestic violence.

And so the judge said he needs to be appointed counsel.

And he appointed the alternate public defender's office to represent him.

The minute he did that, I said to the DA, I said, can you make sure to turn over the expert

report?

You have permission from us.

Turn over the expert report because that has everything in it that we're going to accuse

him of.

I want to be real clear here.

I want his attorney to know all the things we're going to accuse him of, and it's your

job to do that.

And she, you know, kind of nodded and pushed me off.

Well, so we start testimony.

We start evidence after openings.

Because there's a, there's a world where the, he refuses to testify or he's just going

to plead the fifth the whole time, right?

And then there's just no case.

And we get there.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

You tell the story.

Well, if that was my client, that's the advice I'd give him.

Absolutely.

And so initially when we were, when the judge appointed counsel, I mean, I'm thinking this

is game over.

This is game over there.

Any attorney in their right mind is going to tell him to shut the fuck up and they're going

to shut up and the case can't go forward.

And there you go.

We're all of a sudden done, but we give opening statements.

And he has not been advised to shut the fuck up.

And I am shocked by this, but he's not my client.

Oh shit.

Sorry.

Oh, so wait, at this point he has consulted with an attorney.

He's had legal advice.

He has.

He has been appointed counsel.

He's consulted with an attorney and he takes the stand.

The attorney should be in the courtroom with him.

Correct.

Sitting next to him.

Yeah.

And there was an attorney from the APD's office.

And the alternative public defender's office is great, by the way.

There's a lot of great lawyers in that office.

They're amazing.

They're amazing.

Say, you know, like say anything about, you know, like.

No, no, no, no.

This, I will get to, in a second, we'll get to the fact that this is not on them.

Okay.

So testimony starts.

And right before testimony starts, the DA asks for another sidebar for another quick 402.

And this is just a fun little tidbit for you guys here.

She says, you know, he, I want to make sure that I can bring up in my direct examination

of him when I'm asking him questions.

I want to bring up the fact that his car has been broken down for several months now because

I want to be able to make the point that he can't sex traffic her because he doesn't

have a car.

And the judge and I kind of sat there in disbelief for a second.

Like we, like it was, we were all vibing on the same wavelength of just kind of staring

at her.

Couldn't believe that that argument actually came out of her mouth, that she wants to establish

that his car is broken down and that you cannot sex traffic another person with a broken down

vehicle.

I don't think it was a pun or a play on the word trafficking.

I think this was a real argument that she thought she was going to make.

The judge and I kind of stared at each other for a second.

I sort of snapped back into reality and I looked at her and I said, you just sent me an email

last week that said his car had broken down one day before.

And she looks at me without skipping a beat and goes, I don't know what I said in the email.

Um, and so the judge, the judge says, the judge, the judge goes, I don't know why I have to

explain this, but you don't need a car to traffic somebody.

And so no, I'm not going to let you have that line of questioning.

And we all went back in the courtroom and gave us another start.

You know, isn't it amazing?

Even after so much experience, they can surprise you with their stupidity.

It's, it's stunning, really.

Never, never cease to amaze me.

Truly.

This, this, this case specifically just brought new levels of low that I didn't even realize

existed.

I'll never forget.

I will never forget standing in front of a judge while this prosecutor asked to make the

argument that because a car was broken down, you can't sex traffic somebody.

Yeah.

Amazing.

You did have one thing going for you, which is that the judge was not letting her get away

with all of this.

And a lot of times, I'm sure you both know, you've been in the situation where the judge

just gets right behind the prosecutor.

It doesn't matter what they're doing and whether it's illegal or unethical.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

So then you're fighting two fronts, but at least you had that going for you.

Which I feel like I was, I was very prepared to do.

I felt like I could, I could be successful in this case in front of any judge, in front

of any jury.

But I will say that we had a very, very fantastic judge on this case.

And I'm very grateful for the judge that we had on this case.

All right.

So we had.

So we had laid out the testimony schedule, um, where he was going to testify and then

their investigating officer was going to testify.

And then my client was going to testify.

And then our expert was going to testify.

And so he, he starts first, the, the victim, her husband starts the testimony and they basically

just get, they play all of the videos and they play all the jail calls.

And that's essentially all that happens on day one.

But it was so much that, I mean, you're watching, I'm watching the jurors reactions the whole

time to these videos in these jail calls.

They're disgusted with him.

They're disgusted.

We've got the interpreter up there.

This is what killed me.

He's up there with an interpreter that I've worked with many times in the past, who I would

say, I know her for being very stoic, for not having, showing many emotion.

They do their jobs really well.

You could tell her skin was just crawling, listening to this man on these recordings.

Telling my client to get on her knees and pray.

This, she would, this interpreter was doing everything she could not to show her emotions,

but I know her, I've worked with her before and I could just see it on her face.

She doesn't even want to be standing next to this man right now.

And again, the jury is all there.

They're looking at me.

They're looking at the prosecutor.

They're watching these videos.

They're like, you can, you can read it in their faces, but they're like, I don't think

this is doing what you think it's doing.

What, um, what point is the prosecutor trying to prove or what's, what's her vibe?

Is she trying to act like he's a victim?

These are like really, yeah.

Like incriminating videos against the defense or your client.

Like what's like, what's he saying?

Like what's he doing?

Watch him, you know, throw, watch, watch him get a thing thrown at him.

Watch this girl lose her temper and clearly show how unhinged she is by, by screaming at

him in these videos.

I mean, I think I can only speculate to what her mindset was because I, I mean, David, I'm

telling you, these videos were atrocious.

I don't know a single human being that could watch these.

The rape video, her, her laying in bed.

That was right there on the big screen in the courtroom.

Right there on the big screen.

It's that one plus several others.

One where he's following her around a parking lot, calling her a whore over and over again.

And she's begging, just leave me alone.

And at one point she tries to grab the phone out of his hand and the prosecution saying, look

at her, be violent.

Oh, wow.

Tried to sway the witness.

So only after, only after that first day of testimony, does the APD, the alternate public

defender that was appointed to represent him come in and say, I had no idea that he's being

accused of rape and domestic violence and sex trafficking.

And we all look at the prosecutor and the prosecutor never turned over the, never turned over the

expert report to the alternate public defender's office.

So the alternate public defender's office is only getting information from him where he's

saying, I've never done anything wrong.

She abuses me.

And that's why we're here.

And I've got nothing to hide.

And the alternate public defender's office can only advise based on the information that

they have.

And then when they watched my opening statement and the testimony, they immediately butted in

to say, hang on, we need to re-advise him because we were not informed that all of these accusations

were being made.

So we break the jury that day about four o'clock and the judge says, you have till tomorrow to advise him properly.

And then we'll come back and start this tomorrow at one 30.

So we come back the next day and the prosecutor has advised him not to testify, but he's going to testify

against the prosecutor's advice.

No, the defense attorney.

Sorry.

Yes.

Yes.

He's going to testify against the defense attorney's advice.

The same day that morning, the prosecution turns over to me another video from a 911 call that was made

in May of that year.

So right before the pictures he had taken of the scratch marks, that there was another 911 call

where my client, where Natalie had called the police and said that he was beating her.

The police showed up and on body worn, she, you know, she's got her arms crossed.

She's speaking Spanish and she says, you know, he didn't hit me today.

And the police tell her, well, if you guys call the police again, somebody's getting arrested.

And then on body worn, he, her husband tells the police, I, I, I wish I was making any of this up.

This is something at this point that you just can't fucking make up.

He tells police, well, she's blackmailing me.

And they say, well, well, what is she blackmailing you with?

And he says, well, she has a video and a recording of us having sex and her saying no, no, no, no over and over again.

But she did want to have sex.

And so the prosecutor turns that over to me and says, can you please turn over the video that she has that she's blackmailing him with?

And I am, I mean, I'm doing everything in my power at this point to even take this seriously.

Like, I'm like, you, I'm sorry, you're putting, you're, you're giving me a video of him telling police that she has a video of him raping her.

And you want me to turn that over to you.

That's what, that's what page we're on right now.

So she's making a discovery request.

She's making a discovery request based on evidence they had not turned over that my client apparently has this video that they think we're going to use in trial.

And I'm like, listen, I would love, I would love to have that video.

I would, I would love it.

But if you, if, in case you missed it, the way that he exercises control over my client is by taking away her phone, by turning off the phone, by deleting all the evidence that she has of the abuse against him.

So I would love to tell you something different, but we don't got that video.

But thanks for sharing what the fuck is wrong with you.

What the fuck?

So that then the APD, the, his defense attorney says, can you give me another minute?

Goes and advises him a second time, comes back and says, he's not going to testify unless the prosecution will offer immunity to the following charges and rattles off the dozen, some charges, including sex trafficking.

And I actually, I have them written down.

So give me just one second here.

Oh yeah.

Those are like life charges, right?

Oh yeah.

Oh yeah.

You know what?

I bet, especially with the way this prosecutor's office thinks, you could probably find a kidnap for rape in there.

And I think that's a life charge.

There are so many things that you could find.

So the APD says that they have advised him to invoke the fifth and they are requesting immunity from penal code section 632, 273.5, 243E1, 422, a 136, an 1118, a 135, a 261, a 632, a 262A2, and a 236.1A.

Well, that's a lot of charges you rattled off.

I don't even know what those, all those charges are.

Me either, but I wrote them down for you.

That's a lot of assault, battery, domestic violence, rape, all of those, all of the things.

So they've requested immunity from those.

And the prosecution's office doesn't say no.

They don't say no.

And at this point, my boss, the head deputy in Compton, has said, I want you to get that on the record.

I want to make sure that they put on record that they're not saying no to giving him immunity.

And what they do is they ask the judge, they say, can you give us two days to formally process this request?

And the judge at this point says, absolutely fucking not.

This is insane.

You're either putting him up or you're not.

Move on.

And so they put him up.

By the way, we've already done that dance, right?

Yes.

At the arraignment.

Give us two weeks to dismiss this case.

Yeah.

Nothing fucking happens.

There's no dismissal lane in the DA's office.

The case is just kind of still in limbo.

But there's no dismissal avenue.

There's no.

OK, so go ahead.

So what's important to note at this point is that this was actually the day that she was initially scheduled to testify.

But because of all of the things that I just laid out for you, obviously, things kind of got put over and took longer than we thought that they would.

So he's still in the middle of his testimony.

But it's the day that we had initially scheduled her to testify, which not at all on purpose was her birthday.

And in fact, I had not actually realized that until Sunday night.

This was a Wednesday.

Sunday night, I'm preparing for what's going to go on the next couple days in trial.

And I'm looking at the complaint.

And I realized that her birthday is on Wednesday.

And that's when we have her scheduled to trial.

And I'll be honest.

That's when we have her scheduled to testify.

And I'll be honest with you.

I broke down.

I was sobbing.

Because on my 26th birthday, my husband took me to San Francisco.

And we had a great dinner.

And we met up with friends.

And on her 26th birthday, what I'm asking her to do is get up in a room full of 12 people and tell them all about the rape and trafficking and abuse and trauma that she has suffered to a room full of people that she doesn't know, that don't look like her, that don't speak her language.

And that's what I'm asking her to do.

And I cried.

I cried over it.

I felt terrible.

And I wanted to do anything I could to try to make that a little bit easier on her.

And so the day before her birthday, or a couple days before, I had asked her, you know, what's your favorite kind of cake?

What's your favorite food?

Which I was ready to go scour all of L.A. for whatever favorite Nicaraguan dish she was going to name.

She said lasagna.

I was like, great.

So on Wednesday, I had, you know, recruited some people from our office as well.

So on the day of her birthday, we had some sunflowers for her.

We had a card.

I got a chocolate cake from Susie Cakes, which I mauled over the decision as to whether to bake the cake myself because it'd be a nice gesture to do that for myself or if she would feel more special to get a fancy cake from a bakery.

I mean, I put so much, I was so distraught at this point that we were even in this position.

I just put so much thought into every single small move that I was making for her.

So we, I bought her a chocolate cake from Susie Cakes.

I got her lasagna from Uovo.

And we had a little birthday pseudo celebration at lunch before all of this took place.

And then after lunch is when all of the rest of this took place.

He invoked the fifth.

The people announced unable to proceed.

I moved to dismiss the case.

The judge dismissed the case.

And we spoke to the jurors afterwards.

But after speaking to the jurors, which I will get back to in a second, the judge said to me directly in front of the prosecution, he said, I need you to file a motion for factual innocence as soon as you can.

Nice.

Fantastic.

That's huge.

Fantastic.

That is huge.

Yeah.

And the DA's office is now conducting an investigation into all these allegations?

Absolutely not.

Because that would mean that they're...

A serious violent criminal out in our community?

You would think that that would be their role, that that would be their purpose at this point.

But no, that none of that has happened.

Yeah.

Okay.

Wow.

Just like that.

So you guys sing happy birthday.

And then you go into court.

Unadoled to proceed.

Case dismissed.

Factually innocent.

Yep.

What was your client's reaction?

That was, like I said, that was the second time I saw her cry during the whole pendency of this case.

Which, again, I had expected every day to be ready to console her.

I had tissues.

I had things.

And every single day, she was so much stronger than I thought she would be.

But she did also break...the two of us broke down into tears with the dismissal of the case.

I also just want to add, at one point, on one of the days that we were about to go to trial,

we had her come in a little bit early because of some of the motions that were being heard.

And so she needed to be there at 10 a.m.

And like I said, she works till about 4 p.m. every day.

Or, sorry, 4 a.m. every day.

So she came, and during the lunch break from 12 to 1.30,

I had put her in my supervisor's office that has a couch in it.

And I told her, you know, you can lay down if you want to.

I'm sure you're really tired.

And I came back maybe five minutes later, and she was out.

Like, just dead asleep on that couch.

And I shut the door really quietly, and I said to one of my coworkers,

I was like, well, man, like, she's out.

And my coworker said, yeah, it's probably the first time she's felt safe in a long time.

And, again, there were so many emotional aspects of this trial,

but that also just gutted me that you're right.

She probably hasn't had a good night.

I can't remember the last time she's probably had a good night's sleep.

She probably can't remember the last time she's had a good night's sleep.

And sitting in an office where there's security and all these attorneys

and a closed door in my boss's office was probably the safest she'd felt in a long time.

So that was Katie's office?

Yeah.

So what did the jurors say?

So the jurors come out, and they're like, what happened?

Like, they had listened to testimony.

They had listened to more testimony.

And then they got shoved back into the jury room while the rest of this happened.

And they were like, and I, you know, we explained that they dismissed the case.

And they were, and I asked point blank.

I said, if you guys hadn't heard me speak another word,

what would your verdict have been right now?

And every single one of them said not guilty.

Every single one of them said, I mean, have you seen those videos?

They're talking about how awful those videos are there.

Why would the prosecutor play those?

He's clearly the problem here.

He looks abusive in those videos.

You know, just all of the things you would expect normal human beings to have a reaction to,

which was so validating for me and my client in that moment,

because we had just been essentially gaslit by this prosecutor,

then this whole prosecutor's office.

Because again, it wasn't just the new prosecutor.

It was a felony attorney supervisor that was coming down involving herself in all of this too.

And so they, the juror says all of that to me.

And then the DA and her supervisor come out to talk to the jurors as well.

And multiple of them just wouldn't even speak to her.

Multiple of those jurors just walked right past her and said, I'm not, I don't want to talk to you.

And so they, they continued saying, you know, would have voted not guilty.

We don't understand why you played those videos.

They only stuck around for about five minutes afterwards.

And so I turned to go back in the courtroom and the supervisor, and I don't know,

I don't know if I should call her a supervisor.

She's really not a supervisor.

She was just a felony DA that involved herself in this case.

And she comes in and says to me, you know, good job, counsel.

You really advocated for your client here.

And I sort of just didn't respond.

And she says, she has the audacity to say, you know, if I would have gotten that expert report

a little earlier, maybe I could have looked at this case differently.

And I, I was so infuriated by that.

I went back to my computer and I sent her with the timestamp on it.

I said, I came back from leave on this day.

I was assigned this case two days later.

I appointed the expert the next day.

They had an interview the following day.

Tuesday night at 9pm, I received the expert report.

And at 8.30am, you hand it, you had it in your hand and in your inbox.

And at 9.30am, you asked for remand with it in your hand.

My boss wasn't thrilled that I sent that email, but I don't take it back.

Good for you.

Don't let them get away with that.

They're so full of shit.

Yeah.

It was egregious.

And I, I'm sure I'm young in this career.

I intend to be a public defender for the rest of my career.

I, I love doing this job, but so far, this was the most horrific, most egregious case I had ever come across.

And just the most disgusting display of a lack of humanity from their office and lack of accountability.

Well, Desiree, I don't think it'll be the last one.

Not even close.

Not even close.

We need you.

You're only three years in.

You're doing this work.

Yeah, thanks.

So, Desiree, how's Natalie now?

She's doing really well.

She's still connected with our office because we're, we have some resources that we've provided her with that we're helping be the liaison for to get her a U visa, which is available to victims of trafficking or domestic violence that are brought here in similar situations to Natalie.

She's still working.

She is no longer with her husband.

I'm not quite sure the status of their separation just yet, but she's doing well.

And I, I'm really happy to still be connected with her and keeping up with her progress.

Well, that's fantastic.

I'm just, I'm curious if you know if she has any specific support as a victim of trafficking, because if not, reach out to me.

I have in mind.

We have connected her with, I believe, the Star Courts as well as a couple organizations that help out with, with her situation.

So, yes, we have, we've made sure to, to load her full of all the resources that we can, as well as, you know, any, any way that I can be supportive of her.

I made it very clear that I will be there for her even long after the duration of this case.

This is certainly a case that, that sticks with you for a long time.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Excellent.

Well, well done.

Thank you.

To the close of the show here.

So, Desiree, thanks for coming on the show.

It's been great hanging out with you for these last hour and a half or so.

So, Desiree, you know, to ask you the question we ask all our guests, and is why did you become a public defender?

I became a public defender because I, I grew up in Chicago and I had a lot of family that was system impacted, family members that had spent time in jail or dealt with the criminal system.

I, myself, was a victim of sexual assault.

I was a victim of domestic violence, and I went to rehab at a really young age.

I was 14 when I went to rehab, and I was what I think a lot of victims are, where you don't just turn around and tell the police and, you know, get therapy right away.

And I was angry at the world for the things that I had been through, and I did a lot of not good things.

And I committed crimes, and I was arrested, and I used drugs, and I behaved the way a broken person behaves.

And when I got my life back together, when I went to college, and I felt this deep desire to use the privilege that I had because I was so privileged that I had not a lot,

but I had parents that had insurance that could help pay for rehab that could, you know, I had the privilege of being a white woman who probably scathed by the criminal system in a lot of ways that other people wouldn't have.

And I felt like it was a very important part of me and everything I believed in to turn around and use that privilege for something, to use that experience for something.

And I wanted to advocate for victims, and I wanted to advocate for broken people.

And I realized that the victims typically end up on this side, because you don't always just go through something horrible and then go report it and become this perfect victim that does nothing wrong, and you deserve justice in that sense.

That's not typically what justice looks like.

People who are broken, you know, the cliche, hurt people hurt people.

And everybody deserves to feel like they have somebody fighting on their side when they're in that low place as a result of the things that they've been through.

And that was something that became really important to me.

So in college, I worked for a college program that was in San Quentin.

I went to UC Berkeley and was an intern and employee of the Prison University Project.

And that really solidified for me that the most that I could do with myself that would do the most to advocate for other victims, that would do the most to advocate for some semblance of justice in a really broken world, was to be a public defender.

And so I went to law school, and this is where I'm at.

Nice.

Great.

That is awesome.

That is so cool.

And Kim, like I said earlier, thanks for being on the show today.

I hope you had a good time.

Thanks, guys.

This was fantastic.

And Desiree, I don't know what to say to all that.

We are so lucky to have you on our side for our clients.

You're doing an excellent job.

I'm proud to be your colleague.

Thank you, Kim.

Thank you, David.

All right.

Okay.

Until next time.

Bye, everybody.

Bye.

Thanks.

Bye.

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.

We'll be back in two weeks with another Not Guilty, straight from the trenches.

We'll be back in two weeks with another Not Guilty, straight from the trenches.

We'll be back in two weeks with another Not Guilty, straight from the trenches.

We'll be back in two weeks with another Not Guilty.