When The Kobe's Fit You Must Acquit - What happens when high‑profile pressure meets legal strategy—and only one sets the courtroom free.

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

In my eyes, it was about racial profiling, you know, discriminatory police practices. I don't think that happens to anybody that's not, you know, a young African-American man in South LA. "Mr. Client, what is that?" And he goes, "Oh, those are my Kobe's."

And I was like, "Okay, what is that, uh, what is that string I see?" And he goes, "Oh, it's the string to my Kobe backpack. I love Kobe." And then he, like, looked at the jury and kind of smiled and, like, you know, because he was a young charmer. People liked him. And it said, "Su vota es su voz," which is like, "Your vote is your voice." If you don't think it's right that this young man was pulled over for making a three-second stop, use your vote, use your voice.

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 the deck stacked against us.

Okay, welcome everybody to another Not Guilty.

Uh, David here, of course, with our most lovely co-host, Allison. How you doing today?

Hi, I'm doing great. Thank you. Happy to be here. How are you?

I'm good.

Um, you know, it's, we're kind of coming off the holiday here and the, the criminal justice system slows down.

For us old timers, right, Allison?

Yeah, that's true. That's true.

Uh, but our guest today is, uh, is in trial right now. Right after the holidays. Aren't you, Cam?

Young Gun, yes. In trial right now. Uh, really happy to be here. A lot of chemistry in this room.

Yeah. Say hi to Cam, guys. He's a public defender. You're considered a new lawyer, but yeah,

you kind of have some wisdom. You can tell yourself well. You've been with the office for how long?

Just over a year. A year. Okay. Nice. And he's in his 10th jury trial right now. That is right.

Ooh. Yeah. There's, there's some felony lawyers that barely even have 10 jury trials. So, yeah.

That's not true. Oh, hey. It's my show.

Okay. Well, how good do we have to make him feel? I mean, come on.

It's not that. It's just the, the audience wants to know. They want to know like the,

the caliber of lawyer we have with us today. I mean, I appreciate it. So thank you.

Uh, all right. So you're in trial right now, but you're able to take a break and tell us about

one of your past trials that you got a knock guilty on recently, right? Yes. Okay. And tell us about

the case. What was the charge? All right. So the first thing, the charge is, uh, carrying a concealed

weapon within a vehicle. Uh, this was actually supposed to be my first trial ever. It was a handoff,

which is just like when one of the supervisors or trainers gives you a trial and says like,

okay, it starts in two days. Here you go. Because the prior attorney had gotten shipped off to her

next assignment. Okay. So basically somebody got transferred. The case was already set for trial

and they needed somebody to come in and do the trial. Yeah. It was set for a 1538, which is your

motion to suppress hearing and then set for trial. And I didn't meet my client until the day of the

trial. And that's tough for our clients. Cause you know, they get a new attorney. They don't know me.

We don't have this rapport that I've generally built up over, you know, at least a month.

Right. So you got to win him over in what a minute. Totally. And it's my first trial. So I'm like,

you know, naturally I'm kind of confident. So I was presenting that it wasn't. I was like,

oh, that's my first in this building for sure. And then, uh, we did the 1538. We did not win.

And then we were set for trial. We were ready to go. And we got this judge who's a real old timer.

Um, but he's great. Super sweet. Super nice. Was the 1538 heard the same day? Same day. Same day

as you got sent to a judge. You did the motion there. Yes. He denies the motion. Yes. Did you think you

were going to win on some level? Yeah. Uh, like, I mean, the case was that my client was driving in

his car with his two cousins and he gets pulled over because he stops to let one of them out.

So pretty much like what every Uber does, you know, like here in downtown LA, that's what he was pulled

over for is that the police said that because he stopped that, you know, impeded the flow of traffic,

they pull them over, lights suspended, search the car, find the gun. You wanted to say that it was an

illegal search. So the cops should have never searched the car in the first place. And that's

why since it was a legal search, the gun should have been thrown out of evidence. Well, there's two

things. I'm saying bad stop. Right. But then there's also like these standards that police have to

follow when they're going to do an inventory search, when they can tow a car, when there's a licensed

driver in the vehicle. That's not the driver that they're arresting. An inventory search is an

exception to the warrant requirement and occurs when the police have lawfully impounded a vehicle and need

to catalog its contents. However, here, the police didn't need to impound the vehicle and

thus the exception shouldn't have applied. And this judge's ruling is a bunch of so they could have

like let one of the little cousins drive because they did have licenses. They weren't like that little.

They're 18. But they decided not to do that. Inventory search, they tow the car, find the gun.

OK, go ahead, Allison. Sorry. I was just kind of going to clarify because you had said 1538,

you said which is a motion to suppress. But basically, it's a motion where you're challenging

the legality of the stop. And this is not something that the jury gets to decide. This is something that

a judge decides. Just the judge. So that's sort of why this hearing, which seems like something that

jurors maybe would want to know and hear about doesn't get to the trial.

Yeah, exactly. And if the prosecutor does it right, the really the stop really shouldn't come

into the actual trial because it's not relevant to the possession of the gun charge. Right.

That much. But in this case, it came in. All right. So let's talk talk about the the prosecution

facts then. What's their version? What's the police's version then? I mean, it sounds like it's kind

of similar to go ahead. Tell us about the facts of the case. Yeah. I mean, their version is that

he as he's being pulled over, he has a loaded gun in his hand and that he unloads the gun.

And that's why there's a bullet like a round found on the rear floorboard. The magazine to the gun,

which contains like the ammo clip is in the center console, like right next to I guess where the stick

shift would be. And then that he puts the gun in the glove compartment at that point when he's being

pulled over. So they're saying that it was like it was never like, you know, that he would just had

it in the glove compartment. They're saying it was on him and that he like took everything apart real

quick and put it away right as he was getting pulled over. And the cops say they saw this.

The police said that they saw furtive movements in the back through the tinted window at around

9:30 p.m. Ah, so you don't believe that. I'm a little skeptical. Okay. Just a bit. Yeah. And

the furtive movement says in like they saw him moving. They saw him lean over and go into the glove box

and all that. Or they just said the word furtive, right? They said that they saw one of the people in

the back move from like the center seat to the right rear passenger seat. That was their movement.

That's what they said was going on. Okay. As they're scooting to exit the car?

It's very unclear. Yeah. Okay. And there's no video. Of course, there's no video of this stuff.

That's true. Right. Because they, the guy stopped the passenger out, right?

Yeah. And they're saying that there was more movement like a couple seconds later

when they like initiate the stop. Okay. Okay. And your client says what?

He says, so he was a licensed security guard. Uh, the gun was registered in his name. You know,

he'd passed all the background checks and done everything you need to do. And so our argument

was that it was, you know, legally registered to him and that he had it in the glove compartment

for safety because his gun box, which was in the trunk was broken. It didn't have like a locking

mechanism. And so I was trying to argue necessity, but that was denied, but that's kind of down the road.

Okay. So you're sent out for trial. The motion to suppress gets denied.

We started doing voir dire. We're picking a jury and then the judge at like the break, you know,

this is a felony judge. He doesn't really do these misdemeanor cases. So this is kind of an annoyance

to him at thinking at this point. And so he offers my client a diversion sentence on the gun, which is

what? Uh, that if he like stayed out of trouble for one year, as long as he did this like hospital and

morgue program, then the case would, his plea would be withdrawn. The case would be dismissed. So he would

not have the gun charge on his record. Okay. Uh, prosecutor was not happy about that. My client

wanted it. His whole thing was just, the gun was more important to him than any suspended license

charge. He wasn't caring about that. Okay. Um, and then, so the prosecutor, like he wanted his gun

conviction. That was the number one thing. So they actually filed a motion for the judge to reconsider

his decision. And so we come back. So that would have been my first trial and it didn't happen.

We come back about two months later. Now it's my fifth trial at that point motion

to reconsider, reconsider his decision to offer diversion as an indicated sentence.

And it was funny because, uh, this prosecutor was like, you know, your honor, if you go through

with this, we'll probably have to follow writ. And then this judge had been on the bench for like

40 years at this point. He goes, well, you know, young man, I would advise you to not threaten

judges with the writ when they're making decisions. Um, but then, yeah, we came back two months later

and he did, he took back his decision. He took back, he said that he overstepped his grounds.

What was the basis for the reconsidering then? Uh, they, they had some case law. I don't really

remember it off the top of my head. It's been a while, but they had some case law that says that

a judge cannot offer diversion over as an indicated over the people's objection. Uh,

so the judge grants the motion, takes back the diversion and now you're back with the jury trial

again, right? Yeah. We're back, uh, doing voir dire, picking a jury. And wait, did you hold on a

second? Did you do anything to prep the trial at all then? Yeah. I talked to him. We talked everything

out. I had a plan for, you know, what I was going to ask, what I was going to go for. I knew that we

did not really have a legal defense. Like our legal defense would be necessity saying that he needed

to put the gun, you know, protect himself, protect others in the car, in the glove compartment because

of the broken box. And the good judge was like, nah. Nah, sorry, Cam. To get to the necessity

instruction, the defense must show the defendant put the gun in the glove box of his car because one,

he acted in an emergency to prevent a significant bodily harm or evil. Two, had no adequate legal

alternative. Three, did not create a greater danger than the one avoided. Four, actually believed that

the act was necessary to prevent threatened harm or evil. Five, a reasonable person would have also

believed the act was necessary under the circumstances. And six, the defendant did not

substantially contribute to the emergency. That's going to be a tough one. That was a tough one.

Well, and then what about the fact that it's in a glove box, which can be locked? I mean,

isn't that a locked compartment? No, not for, there's actually like a California

penal code statute on point that says it cannot be in the glove compartment, even if it's locked.

It needs to be in a lock box or in the trunk. That's it. All right. So then let's talk about

the trial then, right? That's what you want to talk about, right? I'm ready. All right. You're ready

for trial. Uh, you're doing jury selection, also known as voir dire. What are your goals in voir dire?

I want people who know nothing about guns. I wanted people like generally I was told like,

oh, you want gun owners, uh, is what I was told from like some of the older attorneys. But

I figured gun owners might actually know how you're supposed to store a gun.

So I did not want gun owners. Right. So I kicked them after like using them as much as I could.

But I also didn't want people that hated guns. How did you use them as much as you could? Would

you like, what'd you do you because I wanted them to talk about like constitutional rights to possess

a weapon and that, you know, like having like a, like there was this guy, oh my gosh. And he was

just talking about his right to a gun and how, you know, if it's legally registered, then people

shouldn't blah, blah, blah. But, uh, he also said some other things that I found like kind of off

color and I was just like, you know what, this isn't the guy for me. So I got rid of everybody that,

you know, knew stuff about guns and everybody who hated guns. And so we just got these people in the

middle. And did things get sort of like heated or emotional in jury selection? Because it seems as though

the public has really strong opinions about gun rights these days with all the shootings that are

going on. Yeah. I mean, there was people that were like, had relatives that were victims of like gun

crimes. And so, you know, and at that point is when you can kind of let a couple things slip to the

jury that you're not supposed to, you know, you're not supposed to share facts and be like, oh, but

there's no shooting in this case. So you don't need to worry about that. Like, there's no like,

uh, like discharge of the weapon. It's going to be fine. Like, that's not this kind of case.

It's just, this gun wasn't even loaded. Yeah. I didn't go that far. That's, that's the next step.

But yeah. And then we also wanted people that understood that, you know, like police bias,

when it comes to like racial profiling, when it comes to, you know, uh, police, like going after

specific areas, like high, high crime neighborhoods, because they're high police neighborhoods as well.

And were jurors or your potential jurors receptive to that? Did that have a lively discussion?

Yeah. Some of them were. And then some of them got kicked for that, you know, but that's how it goes

because we had to get those issues out there before we started the trial. But we had a lot of people who

just kind of maybe knew someone who had a bad experience with police or just believed it. We

talked about the news. Uh, it was, you know, it was a good experience.

You feel like you got real to like really have a conversation with the jury then, right?

You kind of just like set the tone, like for what this case was about. This case was about,

in my eyes, it was about racial profiling. And then it was about, you know, discriminatory police

practices, which I couldn't really like say out loud, but you can talk about those kinds of issues.

Because you're saying that like, if perhaps if maybe it was a better neighborhood and the

people in the car were white, if the guy had a suspended license, the police would have just

gave the, let somebody else drive. Right. And they wouldn't have searched the car.

Oh, I'm saying like, if it wasn't, you know, his, uh, like silver Lexus with three young African

American kids, I'm saying they wouldn't have been pulled over in the first place. There's no way

for just stopping for literally, I mean, the police officer said several seconds. So you're talking

about two to three seconds for them to let someone out and then continue on their way. I just don't

think anybody else would be pulled over for that. I definitely wouldn't. Or, you know, any Uber I've

been in would not be pulled over. You said there were African Americans. Yes. Okay. How was the judge?

Oh, he's wonderful. He's really nice. The same judge, same judge, same judge who denied my 1538, but I still

hold him very high regard. He was really nice and was not one of those judges who was just like,

you know, making themselves part of the trial. Cause this prosecutor, I don't know if he objected

more than twice the entirety of the trial. I'm talking from voir dire all the way to closing.

Maybe not even that. And so the judge, he didn't object either. It was just kind of like free reign.

So it's the cam show. It was the cam show. And then, you know what, just when it was the

prosecutor's turn, it was his show too. It just didn't go as well.

Just going to get that. The ratings weren't that good, huh?

Yeah. All right. So then, uh, what about opening statements then?

Cause you can't get the, you're not getting, did you ask the judge for the necessity of defense at

this point? No, not until later on. Okay. So then you think you're going to go into this trial,

even in opening statements, you still have a necessity of defense in mind, right?

Well, that was my plan. And I had talked to like my mentor attorney about it. And I was like,

this is the plan. He's like, okay, well that's going to be really tough.

I was like, okay, cool. Um, then I was like, all right, we'll just do our best. We'll try and

null it up. Null it up. What do you mean by that? Uh, so jury nullification. It's like the,

the argument that, you know, the jury knows that the crime has been committed, that the burden has

been proven, the elements are met, but they still decide to vote not guilty either for, you know,

personal reasons or just because, you know, they think it's not just, right?

So in the interest of justice, it's basically the jury saying, we don't stand by this being

convicted. And I think in this case it was like, they're like, you know, this young man deserves

a second chance. Like this is, is weird. This isn't right. Hmm. When you say talk about second

chance then, like what's like, was there some consequences to having a conviction for your

client? I mean, just the fact that he would now have a gun possession on his record. He was a

young man, college student, security guard, you know, the gun was actually kind of his

livelihood. Like without, if he wasn't able to have a gun register to him, he wouldn't be able to

at least work at the same wages of which he was using to provide for his family.

So he had a family then too, right? He did. And they showed up every day, which I liked.

Yeah. Yeah. I was like, okay, yeah, be here. Perfect. Sit in the back. You guys are very in love.

Be very in love this whole time. Be really nice to her. Open the door for all that stuff. I was like,

because they'll see everything. The jurors. Wow. Opened the door too, huh? To the courtroom.

Yeah. I was like, just be chivalrous. Like do whatever you need to do, you know?

Hey, this is David from another not guilty. If you like this podcast, go ahead and subscribe or

follow us and go ahead and write some comments and tell your friends. Thanks.

All right. So then what's your opening statement like then? Since you don't,

since you're thinking maybe jury, no, maybe necessity. What's your opening statement like then?

My opening statement is very argumentative at this point. And it is a lot about the stop.

Okay. And it's a lot about like, which, I mean, if, so if the prosecutor had done like the proper

402s, I think like the prelim, the pre-trial motions. Right. I think he would have kept most

of like the stuff about the stop out, but he, instead he decided to drop the suspended license

charge before trial. So it was only the gun charge. And I thought he was doing that for

the purpose of making the stop not relevant. Yeah. That's what you would, that's what you would,

I think that's what most attorneys would do, but he didn't. And so it all came in and it,

that's like what I said, it was really just kind of free reign all over the place. And then, uh,

I was talking about a lot about the stop and his opening did not mention that the gun was registered

to him that the gun was, uh, that he was a security guard. It didn't mention that his like work boots,

vest, his work jacket were all in the trunk in like a duffel bag. He didn't mention any of that stuff.

And then, so I mentioned that he did not mention that stuff. And I said, but that'll be part of the

evidence you'll see. We say that, that, that the prosecutor messed up, but I mean, in reality,

you obviously would have objected to that 402. And it seems like in this case in particular,

all of that is really pretty relevant. Right? Yeah. I mean, from the standpoint of like,

it's in the car and like the car is moving, how do they get to that point? And then they're going to,

if they're going to make the arguments that, you know, he had it in his hand,

they saw these movements in the back seat, he unloaded it, he put it in there. I think so.

I think it's just like, it all goes towards it. So. And I think it goes towards, you know,

just the bias of the officers in general, right? Like they're not looking from the way it sounds

that they treated your client and his cousins and the, the whole stop as a whole. It's like,

they're not looking for any sort of reasonable explanation here. They're looking to arrest

somebody. Oh, immediately. I mean, these are three young guys. And as soon as they're pulled over,

they are put in handcuffs and told to face the fence, which is on the sidewalk. And then that's

when the car search happens. One of the police officers is like, okay, the glove container is

locked. Uh, where's the key? And the client's like, I don't know what you're talking about. I

don't have the key. And then he goes inside his pocket, pulls the key out, it's like key fob,

uses it to open the glove compartment, and then gets the gun at that point.

That's what the, the cop testified to that?

Yeah.

Was he the first witness?

He was, there was three police officers.

The first officer testifies to what?

So the first officer testifies, he's the one who approached my client at the driver's side window.

And he testifies that my client has his right elbow on the center console.

So he's saying that he's keeping it there, even when it becomes awkward. So he's saying that my

client uses his left hand to undo his seatbelt, his left hand to reach into his pants, to pull out

his wallet, and that he's keeping his right elbow on that center console, right there in the middle,

the whole time, which goes towards their argument that, you know, he's trying to hide something.

He's trying to keep the officer from doing that. And that was something that was in the report.

So he had had that in there from beginning to end. Okay.

Then the officers, you know, pulled them out of the car. Okay.

After he goes and runs the suspended license. That's the first officer. Okay.

Is this the first officer still testifying right now?

Still testifying. He did the majority of the testimony. Okay.

Then he comes back, the license is suspended. They move all three out of the car.

They separate the, actually, they put the three young men against the fence with their handcuffs on.

So he handcuffed all three of them. Yes.

For a traffic violation.

For officer safety is what he said. Okay.

And then they separate.

Did he just use the word officer safety or did he like use like high crime area, three young men,

or did he give factors to justify officer safety?

Yeah, because one of my 402s that I had done was keeping out the word gang.

I was like, well, they're not charging the gang enhancement.

They're not, you know, alleging gang.

So I don't want the officers to say that they were worried that this might be potential gang.

Right.

Right.

And so gang had been eliminated from the trial.

It wasn't coming in.

Okay.

But the officers were able to testify, you know, officer safety, high crime neighborhood, uh,

risk to health.

You know, they're talking about all that stuff.

Okay.

And so at that point, they're running the suspended license.

My client is separated from the other two.

This is when the second officer comes to testify.

Yeah.

So he's the one that's talking to my client and he's like, uh, asking him if there's

anything in the car that they should know about.

Client says, no, they're asking.

And then the first officer comes back with a suspended license.

So the second officer says, okay, we're going to search your car.

You're not going to be honest with us.

Uh, because he had said there wasn't anything.

Right.

Right.

Right.

So he's already assuming that he's lying.

And then did you ask him why he searched the car?

No, you didn't.

Okay.

I didn't because you know, I was just like already at this point, I was kind of fed up.

And I thought I was like, he's going to come up with something.

If I like leave him this like opening of like.

You're right.

You know, and I think you're trained not to ask why or open ended questions on cross

examination, especially the cops.

So good job.

That was a trick question.

Oh, good.

Okay.

You're still on probation in our office.

So I'm just, I'm just testing you there.

Yeah.

And then, so this officer was the one that went to go search the car.

So it's officer two.

Okay.

He searches the car, finds out the glove compartment is locked.

He comes back and he asks, okay, who has the key speaking to my client?

He says, my client denies it to the officers.

This is all in testimony.

Right.

And then the officer pats him down, finds the key fob and takes it to open the car.

How did this not get, I mean, I feel like this is such an illegal search, you know?

Like, I mean, like, how did they even justify that searching or opening the key?

I mean, like, what's the basis for that?

I mean, what, what reason, investigative reason does this cop have to get into the glove box?

Well, you have to remember at this point, this officer has already said that he has seen the

bullet, the, the round on the floor.

And he's already said that he had seen the ammo clip.

And so at that point.

Oh, the center console.

Yes.

Okay.

And then so at that point, now he's saying, okay, there's must be something in there.

He's thinking that it's like some sort of loaded weapon.

Right.

Potentially a firearm.

And so he goes through and that's when he opens it and finds the gun.

Okay.

And then what would you try to cross him up on?

With him, I was just, again, uh, trying to get the lay of the land because he was also

the officer that searched the trunk.

And so he didn't testify about searching the trunk on direct, but I wanted to get out there

that he found the gun box in the trunk and that the, in the report, he had wrote like a

broken latch or broken mechanism or something like that.

And so I wanted to get that out there because I was still hunting for that necessity instruction

at this point.

And then he also testified about, you know, finding the security guard outfit, the duffel

bag filled with his work boots, work shirts, work pants, and then his bulletproof vest,

which said like his, uh, security company's name on it.

Okay, good.

So you established he was a security guard through this cop.

Yes.

And then the third police officer, he's the one who did like the gun registration check.

So that was all him.

And then he came in, testified about that, gun was registered in his name.

Uh, they also asked him a question.

Are you allowed to have like the weapon in the glove department?

And he said, no.

And then they kind of left it alone, which was the prosecutor asked that prosecutor asked

that and left it alone, left it alone.

And it was interesting because, I mean, at the end of this case, they voted not guilty.

But one of the things that the jury said was that they were unclear as to the law.

Well, and I'll be honest with you.

I mean, clearly there's more to hear, but, you know, filling in the blanks myself at this

stage of the trial, um, I mean, I totally see your necessity argument, right?

You get off from work.

You're going to put your gun away.

You're a security guard.

You're taking all your stuff out.

Oh no, my, my lock box for my gun is broken.

What's the second safest place for me to put this gun where no one else can have access

to it?

My glove compartment, which is then locked in the keys of my pocket that no one else can

access.

Right.

I mean, yeah.

And that was the argument.

It makes sense.

I mean, it's like, what's the next, you know, safest thing that I can do.

And especially with the two like young cousins in the car.

And that's what I was saying.

Well, how did the two young cousins end up in the car?

Uh, they were all playing basketball together.

And my client was going to drop them off on his way to work.

Oh, okay.

He's going to work.

I love it.

Okay.

So he's going to work.

And then, so then my client takes a stand, uh, the prosecution rests at this point.

That's the end of their case.

And was your client, your only witness?

No.

Oh, uh, I guess actually his, he's testified first, but then we had a character witness afterwards,

which was one of his college professors who came in and talked about his reputation for

honesty.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

So, uh, and he's a college professor.

He was a college professor, uh, you know, very articulate and everybody really liked him.

And I guess the jurors really liked him a lot.

And the prosecutor didn't ask any cross of him.

How does someone get a reputation for being honest?

Because I feel like that means something shitty would have happened.

And he, instead of lying about it, he told the truth, right?

No, it was just that my client had worked for him in like the school office and he said that

he had to do things as part of his job for the school, like, uh, some sort of like basic,

like accounting kind of stuff.

And that my client was always honest about his like time sheets or something like that.

And that came in, that was it.

Oh, I love it.

Yeah.

My client took the stand and you know, I had him talk about what he does for his schooling.

I had him talk about what he does for work, about his family.

Uh, and then I had him talk about like, you know, what happened that day?

And he talks about playing basketball with his little cousins.

He talked about, he was on his way to work at this event, this private event, like in the

South Bay or something like that.

Um, and he was required to bring his gun and that he was required to bring his gun.

Yeah.

And then, you know, the prosecutor comes up for cross and he tries to cross him

by saying, oh yeah, if you're playing basketball, where's your basketball?

Why is there no basketball in the car?

So he's using the photos that I showed earlier, which show like the

trunk with a duffel bag and like the work boots and all the security gear.

And he's saying that there's no, you know, photos that show this basketball.

He's like, where's the basketball?

Where's your basketball shoes?

And then, uh, so my client got a little tripped up, but on in the photos that showed the bullet

round on the rear floorboard, you can make out some Kobe 11s in the

Oh, in the back and like the Kobe backpack.

And then, so I was like, oh, okay.

Uh, Mr. Client, what is that?

And he goes, oh, those are my, my Kobe's.

And I was like, do you wear your Kobe's to play basketball?

He's like, yes.

And I was like, okay, what is that?

Uh, what is that string I see?

And he goes, oh, it's the string to my Kobe backpack.

I love Kobe.

And then he like looked at the jury and kind of smiled and like, you know,

cause he was a young charmer.

People liked him.

Uh, the black mama came through, huh?

Kobe came through.

I can't believe it.

Yeah.

Wow.

Dishing.

Uh, assisting is it.

Cause he doesn't do get out, give out a lot of assists.

Normally.

81 points.

No assists.

No assists.

Until this trial.

But he has his first assist in the criminal justice system.

And it's interesting.

Cause you know, we were just talking about how Kobe's are, you know,

the, uh, older, maybe retired man's basketball shoe, but maybe I'm wrong.

Right.

I think you might need to pick up some Kobe's.

I do.

I look right behind you, man.

Look at those.

I just got some Kobe's for Christmas.

Oh no.

That's it.

Yeah.

That's why I thought that they were the, uh, older basketball player,

retired man's shoe.

Now I can, I can expect no passes my way when it comes back to the PD league.

Cam and I are in the same basketball league.

So I will say it with, uh, with David, the shoe fits.

Ah, definitely.

I got some skills.

He's a gunner.

Hey there.

It's your buddy David from another not guilty.

Would you like to be a guest on this podcast?

Have you experienced the not guilty before either as a defendant,

a defense attorney, a prosecutor, a juror, a judge, a bailiff, a court reporter?

I don't know.

A clerk, who knows, but go ahead and visit our website at another not guilty pod.com

and fill out the submission form.

And while you're there, check out some of that cool A and G merchandise.

Thank you.

The prosecutor says there's, where's the shoes.

You say you point them out with the picture and then what happens next?

And that's it.

Uh, you know, after my client's done, we have his character witness come on to just bolster

his credibility.

What'd your client say about the furtive movements?

Did he deny it?

He didn't.

They didn't.

There was no questions asked about that.

Did the cops testify to furtive movements?

One did.

And you crossed them on that though, right?

I did.

And I said, was this when the person was getting out?

And he said, no.

And then I was like, okay, so there was more movement.

And then he said, yes.

And I was like, wait, but there was multiple people in the backseat.

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

And then that was that.

Oh, yeah.

All you had to do is ask me like two, two questions to diffuse that.

Yeah.

I was like, I don't remember the, the go-to, the go-to line.

Yeah.

So did your client testify about anything else about the actual stop and search or just why

he had the gun and where it was?

I really tried to get him on there in and out.

Like I wanted him to be real quick.

I wanted to hit the points that I wanted to hit that I thought would potentially get me

the necessity instruction.

And also I just wanted to get out, you know, the good facts about him because I mean like

the fact that he's a college student, that he's a father, that stuff's not relevant to this case.

Security guard, that was relevant, but to have him talk about that because I wanted the jury

to see him as very, you know, this young guy, this young guy who's really trying to do his

best.

And that was like my opening.

And that was my closing is just a young guy trying to do his best.

And was there any testimony about why the bullet and the magazine were located where they were?

Yeah.

And he said he keeps the magazine in the center console.

He testified to this, that he keeps the magazine in the center console because his work has trained

him that he's not supposed to keep a loaded gun in his car and that he's supposed to load

the gun as soon as he parks.

So he keeps the ammunition in the center console separate from the handgun.

And that when he parks, he loads it up and he says, I don't know about the bull on the floor.

My car's messy.

Okay.

So maybe it slipped out in the loading process or whatever he, or in the filling the magazine

or, okay.

Yeah.

And the pictures like with the Kobe's and the Kobe backpack and everything kind of like

shows that.

And, you know, you actually see like his college books in these like pictures.

You see like his bag and stuff.

All right.

So now it's time for closing, right?

It's time for closing.

How's the judge been at this point in the trial, by the way?

Great.

He only, uh, he like reprimanded me once.

Cause I like, after I asked about the Kobe's, I said, after you answered, I was like, okay,

great.

And then he's like, well, you don't need to do that counsel.

And I was like, oh, my bad, but like, okay, great.

Cause you get the answer you wanted.

You're like, great.

Yeah.

I was just like, I just like, you know, ended this guy's point.

And then, so I was like, you know, feeling good.

And I guess I let that out a little bit too loud.

And that was that, but for my closing, I actually had an idea that I went to David and his office

mate with beforehand.

I had this like idea of doing like a conversational closing, because one of the things that the

judge tells you is that, you know, now that this case is over, you'll be able to discuss

it with your friends and family.

And so my closing was just like me saying that, you know, now that this case is over,

you'll be able to, you know, discuss this case with your friends and family.

And this conversation might go something like this.

They'll ask you like, what was the case about?

You'll say it was a gun case.

And then I said, okay.

And then, you know, they'll ask you, oh, like, was it loaded?

And you'll say, no, no, no, no, no, not at all.

And I said, okay, well, was he like a gang member or something?

And be like, no, like he was a college student.

He was a young father.

And I'm like, okay, was like the gun registered to him?

And I'm like, yeah, like he's a security guard.

He uses it for work.

Like he had his boots, he had his belt, he had his vest.

And then, you know, it was just like that.

And it was having this like conversation back and forth.

And then, and they're asking at the end, they're like, wait, so the guns registered him.

He has his work boots.

He's on his way to work.

It's unloaded.

And that's a, that's a crime.

And then I was like, and you'll say, no, you'll say, no, we found him not guilty.

It wasn't a crime and it was really good.

And I talked about it with David beforehand.

And I was like, do people do this?

Can I do this?

Is it objectionable?

I always, I would go because we were like across the office, across the hallway, I guess.

I'm a good person to go to if you want to do something, but you're unsure if you're

allowed to do it.

You need that guy to say yes, come to me.

Uh, and then afterwards, and that was actually, you know, really, it was like kind of like a,

an emotional trial for me because I really cared about this guy.

He was my first trial essentially because of the handoff.

Then we came back around.

So I had known this guy for months.

We talked all the time and I really liked him.

And so I was really going for the nullification argument and it was actually my first trial

that my dad came to.

My dad was like watching my closing.

Oh, wow.

And so I gave him a little shout out and I talked about how he had this license plate,

like sticker or license, uh, car sticker or whatever.

And it said, which is like, your vote is your voice.

And then, so with the jurors, I was like, your vote is your voice.

You know, if you don't think it's right that this young man was pulled over for making a

three second stop, use your vote, use your voice.

And then, so, and I just kind of went through all the different things that I thought were,

you know, messed up.

I thought it was like what?

Oh, I mean like the, the stop, the fact that, you know,

he's handcuffed for a suspended license charge is pretty crazy to me.

I don't think that happens to anybody.

That's not, you know, a young African-American man in South LA.

And then it was like, you know, use your vote, use your voice.

And it was just kind of going back to that.

So then, you know, there's, there's kind of a, a careful line that you have to walk with

the jury nullification argument.

Are you then in the end saying, and because of this, the prosecutor didn't prove this case

beyond a reasonable doubt?

Or did you not even go there?

I barely touched burden.

And then afterwards, uh, one of our trainer attorneys was like, I thought it was really

objectionable, but you did good.

And then she's like, but you didn't talk about burden.

And I was like, well, it wasn't really a burden case.

You know, it wasn't like that.

And so I talked about it a little, but in general, I ended with the, the conversation

and, you know, finding justice and showing this young man that there's actual justice in

the criminal justice system.

And, and what's the prosecutor's closing like?

Oh, it's beautiful.

It is beautiful.

So he did not object to me once.

And then, so when he got up there, I was like, okay, you know what?

This is his B argument.

Cause he's already argued once.

Yeah.

His A argument was like, you know, the basic, like, okay, there's a weapon.

He showed the elements.

He says, oh, prosecution has met their burden.

But then his B argument was really amazing.

And then, cause he gets up, uh, this prosecutor is not an African-American male.

He gets up and talks about how, you know, when he's pulled over, he's not argumentative.

He's not talking back to police.

And then he said, when I'm pulled over with my friends, I don't make movements in the car.

And I'm not objecting at all.

I'm just letting this guy go because you look at the jurors faces and they're just like,

I can't believe this guy.

Like, I can't believe he is saying these things with a straight face.

And it was just.

And was your prosecutor is, was he white?

No, he was an Asian man.

Okay.

Well, it sounds like your closing was really powerful.

And it seems like you really, you know, um, keyed into some important emotions for a gun

case, you know, which is maybe not necessarily a very emotional, emotionally charged case.

So it seems like that was a really skillful way to, to go about your defense here.

Yeah.

I got really into it.

I told my friends that were there, I was like, yeah, I kind of like almost like teared

up.

I think it was because my dad was there and I think there was like a lot of emotion

and I felt bad for this kid.

So bad.

Yeah.

Did the jurors know your dad was there?

No.

Uh, like the trainer was like, well, why don't you like say that your dad was there?

And I was like, I thought about it, but I was like, no, the focus is like here.

It's like.

My client's family's here.

My family's here.

But it was fun.

It was cool.

I was glad he got to see a victory for sure.

And did you, uh, did you talk to the jurors afterwards?

Well, actually, so the jury was out for about two days.

Oh, that was my next question.

So they deliberated for a long time.

They did.

And they came back with questions.

And one of the questions was, wait, is it illegal to have the gun in the glove compartment?

And the prosecutor wanted to give them that penal code, which is directly on point and says,

yes, it is like, that's not allowed.

And I said that my argument was that no, that the jury should, you know, they were given the

law as instructed the law that we argued on this case.

And so giving them new law would, you know, uh, essentially be like a mistrial at that point.

Like it would just, it would ruin the trial that we've already done for the past few days.

And the judge agreed with me and was just like, rely on the evidence as it is.

But I love this case because I love that, you know, the prosecutor, they had the conviction.

They had, it was a diversion conviction.

It was temporary, but they had the conviction and he got greedy.

He wanted his gun case.

He wanted his gun charge, excuse me.

And he wanted, you know, time in jail and he wanted this and that.

And he came back and he got nothing.

I mean, it sounds like the jury did the right thing.

Yeah.

And the jury actually, I didn't speak to them.

I haven't like really spoken to juries like in any of my trials, uh, except the first one.

But since then, I don't think I've talked to a single juror just because I'm,

my focus is always somewhere else instead of like chasing after them.

But I guess one of the jurors, uh, two of the jurors spoke with my coworkers, a couple

of friends of mine.

And one said, you know, I know we're not supposed to take like the emotion into it.

I understand that that's what we're told not to do, but I guess we did.

And then the floor person was this like, you know, uh, older African-American gentleman.

And he told my friend, he's like, just tell that guy, this is a second chance.

And then that was it. It was, it was really wonderful.

That's great.

Well done, Cam. That's great.

I don't, I mean, I don't even know if I would have walked your client even now as a lawyer,

a more experienced lawyer, you know, like that's pretty good that you, uh, and also like

the fact that you just kind of are able to kind of deviate from the script a little bit,

go with what's the moment, what you're feeling, what the jurors are.

But yeah, it's all like, so case specific.

Cause you know, like this case was like a heart case, pure heart.

Like I wanted them like emotionally involved in the case.

I want them emotionally invested in my client, but then sometimes you got other cases.

Sometimes you got these DUIs where I just want people who are going to follow the law to a T

who are like science people and have no heart.

Um, so it's very case specific, but with this case, it was all heart all the time.

And it seems like, you know, from the moment you started selecting a jury that you,

you were aware of that.

Right.

Cause I mean, jury nullification is 100% okay.

It's something that jurors are absolutely allowed to do.

And it's basically an opportunity for the community to say, no, we don't think that this

is a just conviction.

And it sounds like you set your case up absolutely perfectly for that.

Um, with your argument, you know, with all of your cross.

So I think that that's really impressive.

Um, I'm a little suspicious, you know, about the, the shout out to, uh, host David.

Uh, did he pay you to say that?

No, I mean, the fact was I came up with that idea first.

I just asked him if I could do it.

Okay.

He just walked in.

He just told you it was okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

He said, yeah, people do that all the time.

And I was like, oh man, I thought I was real original.

Well, Cam, I think you're real original and I'm very impressed.

Um, this sounds like a great win for your client.

You know, uh, you've been a public defender for one year.

How are you enjoying the new journey in life?

How's it going for you?

Uh, I love it.

I love this job.

I love trials.

That's like the number one thing.

I just love doing it.

It's so fun.

They're different.

And like I said, like some cases are, I love how different everything, it's like such

like a, you feel like you're like one of these like NFL coaches, you know, with like your

week specific game plan.

And it's kind of cool.

Like coming up with like different strategies for every case and it makes it enjoyable.

What's been the most like, uh, interesting or shocking part of the criminal justice system

you've learned or realized now you've been in it for about a year.

Like what's the, gosh, the most shocking thing.

Yeah.

It's how like nobody cares about lying is pretty crazy on the stand.

Right.

I mean, you're talking about people who are civilians talking about people who are police

officers.

I'm talking about, you know, toxicologists, people have no issue with lying.

And it's crazy to me because I think like you get on that stand, they swear you win.

I would be worried about like picking up like a perjury charge, but people will just casually

lie all the time.

And it's crazy.

And I think it's gotta be like a disappointing experience for jurors to come in.

And then when they catch somebody in a lie, when they catch like a police officer in such

like, gosh, I mean, we caught this guy, but how often does this happen?

How often does this happen when it doesn't come to trial, when they're not on the stand

and get like, you know, crossed up.

All right.

And why did you become want to be a public defender?

Oh, okay.

Two reasons.

When I was a young guy, my favorite movie of all time is A Time to Kill with Matthew McConaughey.

Nice.

I love it.

The original jury null movie right there.

And so I love that movie growing up.

Then I loved A Few Good Men.

So I just love those like legal movies.

And I've wanted to be an attorney since I was young.

Then when I was, and this really like took a turn for that.

I was 21.

I was kind of like, you know, I was kind of a golden boy.

I was a senior at UCLA and I got arrested.

I got a DUI and it was like the worst thing that's ever happened to me.

It was so like, you're just like, it's like such a lonely, tough place to get like your first like crime.

And I just remember how I felt and I did not think that I would find like my little, you know, someone that I really related to in this like gun case.

But I did, you know, this young college student who's just really trying.

Oh, okay.

And so that's why this case was like so essentially like emotional for me.

Like it was very like, I don't know if I've ever been more like emotionally involved in a case.

Yeah.

Interesting.

Did you go to trial in your DUI?

No, I didn't know anything about it.

Right. You know, like I didn't know how this like game works at all.

I wish I had me as my attorney, like back in the day, I took the deal, man.

You know, I was just like, I was, I was part of the assembly line.

So, yeah.

Well, um, we're grateful for those experiences that happened to you.

Cause it sounds like you are an absolute amazing member of our public defender family.

So keep those not guilties coming.

I'll try.

Yeah.

Thanks Matthew McConaughey, I guess.

Thanks for being on the show, Cam.

All right.

Thank you.

Thanks, Cam.

Thanks for tuning in to this week's episode of another not guilty.

Shout out to Daniel Mark, creator of A&G's original theme music and our audio engineer, Chris Adams.

And guess what?

We have another not guilty story coming your way next week because we public defenders fight injustice every single day in the American criminal system.