Smoking Ghost Gun – When Self-Defense Wins the Day

What's up, my A&Gers? We made it. Season 6 is upon us. A season of splendor and joy. A season full of fun and excitement. A season where in another Not Guilty will cross the 100 episode threshold. Wow! 100 episodes is a lot. And it's been quite the ride. To be honest, I'm not sure how long I can keep going with this podcast while wearing multiple hats. I think we need a producer, so I'm putting it out there.

If you're interested in joining the A&G team as a producer or know someone who might be interested, that'd be cool. Hit us up. There's multiple ways of contacting me. With that said, I want to say thank you to my team of editors who help with the episode production. Also, I want to say thank you to those of you who have joined the A&G Patreon team and have made donations to the podcast to help with the costs. I really appreciate you all for your love and support. If you would like to join the A&G Patreon program and make a contribution, please, if you would like to join the A&G Patreon program.

If you would like to join the A&G Patreon program and make a contribution, please hit us up on the website at anothernotguiltypod.com. I must say, I am blessed to know you and to be part of an amazing community of individuals who are down for the cause.

Speaking of which, I am super excited about this A&G Season 6 premiere because our Public Defender guest, he's a rock star and a reminder to us all of the awesome work we do.

This Public Defender is inspiring and the real deal.

And I am so grateful to be able to provide the platform for him to share his work with you.

So, sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride.

He's like the Spanish-speaking guy, and so he's like getting in his car, he did his shopping, and all of a sudden he hears, what's that, like gunshots.

The DA is just asking him all these questions.

She goes, is this like breakfast time, lunch time, dinner time?

And he goes, well, I don't know when you eat dinner.

He's like, I just know I eat when I'm hungry.

And then she goes, well, did you look up to see what happened when you heard the shots?

And he goes, as they say, curiosity killed the cat.

So, I did not look up.

So, it's so funny because he's saying all this stuff, and it's really matter of fact.

And then all of a sudden the interpreter starts talking, and you're like, this is really funny.

And the jurors are like shitting their pants.

Like, they are laughing.

They love it.

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.

The not-guilty.

And welcome back, everybody, to Another Not Guilty.

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

And, of course, we like all not-guilties, but when they're homegrown a little bit, not quite L.A. County, but California, we got a fresh not-guilty straight.

Where's San Joaquin County, anyways?

We got a public defender, San Joaquin County.

But before we get to him, let's introduce my lovely co-host, Lauren.

Hello, Lauren.

Angie, we already know who she is, right?

Hey!

How you been?

I'm feeling good.

I feel like it's been a minute since we've done a recording, so I'm excited.

Well, we all need that time off, the extended vacation.

Where did you go for your vacation?

To work.

To work.

Where did you go?

Oh, yeah.

It's just that little pesky thing in my job.

Yeah.

Job and home life.

Very exciting.

Yeah.

Very exciting stuff over here, Nate.

It's thrilling.

But today's public defender guests, and we have private criminal defense attorneys, too.

The podcast isn't just limited to public defenders, but public defenders tend to be the best trial

attorneys in the game.

We are better.

Yeah.

So, no surprise there.

From San Joaquin County, we have Zach Katajnik here today.

Zach, how are you doing today?

I'm doing great.

How are you?

Where the fuck is San Joaquin County?

I've heard of this place.

Is it in the middle of Central Coast?

It's right in the middle of Central Valley, just east of the Bay Area.

Stockton is our county seat.

Oh, Stockton.

So, a lot of stuff goes down.

I mean, I've heard things about Stockton, but that's just the media.

The news media, you know, they overhype everything.

They lie a lot.

There's a lot of fear-mongering going on in Stockton, California.

It's great.

I've never been.

They have a McGeorge Law School up there, too.

Right?

Is it McGeorge?

Is it in Sacramento?

I think that one's in Sacramento.

Never mind.

That was a nice try, though.

The news lies.

Do they have anything in Stockton, Zach?

Well, the University of Pacific, which McGeorge is in Stockton.

There it is.

Okay.

There it is.

All right, Zach.

And, Zach, how long have you been a public defender for?

Ten years.

Ten years.

Ten years?

Okay.

Great.

Great.

So, you're just now hitting the sweet spot.

Absolutely.

Right in my prime.

He says this every time, and I'm not clear that there is a sweet spot.

I'm not clear if that's true.

But it seems like you're still enthusiastic, Zach, so that counts for something, for sure.

I'll take it.

He's young.

He still has all his hair.

It's not gray yet.

He already has experience.

He knows what he's doing, and now he can just kind of assert himself.

That's what it is.

So, Zach, you're here.

You've reached out to another not guilty.

You said you had a not guilty to share with the audience.

Tell us about your case.

Yeah, let's hear how you asserted yourself.

Yeah, what were the charges?

What were the charges?

So, my client, Anthony Jackson, he was charged with murder with a gun, and that was it.

Just the one count.

First degree, second degree.

So, there's actually an interesting story behind that.

It was actually initially first degree.

Mr. Jackson had a trial with a different attorney where he was convicted of second degree murder.

What ended up happening was he ended up firing that attorney.

The public defender was appointed, and we ended up doing a new trial motion for him, my colleague Nelson Liu.

And we ended up getting a new trial for him.

So, it ended up being a second degree murder trial.

Okay, so just so that I'm clear, he was charged with first degree murder.

Yes.

And went to trial with a private attorney.

Yes.

And was convicted at that trial of second degree murder.

Yes, he was.

And then, like the white knights that we are, the public defender's office came riding in to do a trial now on second degree murder.

That's right.

And my colleague, he did an awesome job with this motion for new trial.

The thing was about 150 pages.

Like, he left no stone unturned.

And by the end of it, the judge was just like, I believe that the prior counsel was ineffective to the point where it shocked my conscience.

And he completely set aside that old verdict and granted a new trial.

So, he never even had to go to appeal, stayed in our courthouse, which is unheard of in our county.

I think it's unheard of in most places.

So, he was not guilty on first degree murder.

That stands, you know, so the motion was just a second degree conviction was thrown out.

Yes.

Exactly.

Okay.

All right.

Well, let's –

I am intrigued, Zach.

Yeah.

So, let's talk about this.

So, your client's charged with – was charged with first degree murder, not guilty, convicted of second degree murder, gets a new trial on that second degree murder charge.

So, your client here is charged with second degree murder with a gun enhancement, right?

That's right.

So, that adds –

Necessary.

Is that 25 or 15?

25 to life.

That's 25 to life.

Okay.

Yes.

That's 25 to life.

Plus a 15 to life on the second degree.

Yes.

So, he's looking at 40 to life.

That's right.

Okay.

Okay.

And what did your client allegedly do?

What did the police report say?

So, initially, the police reports are very kind of vague about what happened.

All there is is that they know is that there's a dead person lying on the ground at the Walmart parking lot in Stockton.

There's two of them.

This is the one on the east side.

And, obviously, at this point, they just don't know what happened.

At some point, there's witnesses, obviously, there.

This is the – even though it's 2020, height of COVID, it is the holiday shopping season.

Plenty of people in the parking lot, but nobody actually sees what happened.

At some point, the police, they get a 911 call.

It's from somebody who turns out to be a friend of the decedent who was there with him.

And he says something on the 911 call, which later turns out to be completely false, which is that they were there to sell marijuana to some guy.

They don't even know.

The decedent and the decedent's friends were the ones there to sell marijuana?

The decedent and his friend, yes.

Okay.

Sorry.

Go on.

Sure.

And that this person who they were selling to, just trying to rob him, shot him out of nowhere.

The person on 911 was like, hey, can you come back to the scene?

You're a witness to this case.

And the guy's like, I'm not coming back.

Drives away.

Then the next police reports go to the fact that detectives now are on scene.

They respond to this friend's aunt's house.

The friend is not there anymore.

The 911 caller.

The 911 caller.

They respond to his aunt's house.

Okay.

He's not there anymore.

He's now at a hotel.

But the car in which this homicide happened is present.

So now the police are learning a little bit more.

And there's a firearm there, too, that is given to them.

And what they're now.

Wait.

Sorry.

Did you say the car where the homicide happened?

Yes.

So they already know that the decedent who was found in the Walmart parking lot was actually killed inside this vehicle.

Yes.

Now they're starting to learn this.

So the aunt is giving them kind of like a half story.

Okay.

And she's not telling them everything that she knows.

But she's telling them enough so that they start looking at this car.

They don't go in.

But the police are examining it.

They see blood all over the driver's seat.

They see live ammunition in there.

They see shell casings.

They start taking photos of everything that they can through the car windows at this point until the car is towed.

And again, at this point, they have no lead on any suspects, nothing like that.

Eventually, the police, there's a report that they get a warrant.

They start getting into the phone of the decedent.

They subpoena Instagram, Facebook records.

And on the Instagram messages, they now observe a conversation between my client and the decedent where they talk about meeting up.

There's first some kind of talk about that the person has eight, which is the decedent.

It's not really clear what that means.

At this point, they're talking about meeting up at a Kmart.

My client doesn't respond for a while.

Eventually, he starts responding about, hey, we're going to sell a gun, which is now very different than the 911 call.

And eventually, it leads to them arranging to meet up at a Walmart around 6 p.m.

And after that, the messages go silent.

So at this point, now the police have their, have an understanding that now there might be, my client might be involved in this somehow.

Because it's the Instagram account.

The decedent is communicating with your client's Instagram account?

Yes.

So just so I'm clear, your client is not the person who called 911.

He is not.

The person who called 911 says that he went with the decedent to the Walmart parking lot for a drug sale.

Right.

But the police found the decedent's Instagram messages talking to your client about meeting in Walmart for a gun sale.

Right.

And it's also very different because the indication is that the decedent is the one trying to make the purchase, that my client is the one making the sale.

So that part is opposite of the 911 call as well.

Okay.

But this now has your client on their radar.

Yes.

Because the decedent's been shot to death and your client had a message to meet him there with a gun.

That's right.

Okay.

So then what happens next in the investigation?

So at this point, they have like an Instagram handle.

They have a description of a car.

So, and they kind of have a vicinity of where the car went, where it came from and where it went after.

The car your client was in.

Your client drove a zone car there.

Correct.

Okay.

Different from the car where they found all the blood.

Yes.

Okay.

So, yeah, my client is in a Dodge Charger.

The decedent was driving a Mercedes.

And what they start doing is then they start narrowing down all the chargers in the area that have been picked up by license plate readers and the registered owners until they finally come across my client.

Whose name is Anthony Jackson.

The word ant, followed by a couple things, is in the Instagram handle.

So now they're kind of making the connection that this must be the guy that we're looking for.

So now they start doing more investigation.

They start staking him out.

And eventually, two and a half months after the shooting, they do arrest him.

And they also see that the car that was driven by him at the time of the homicide was initially a dark gray Charger.

Now it's a light blue Charger.

So that's something that's very suspicious to them.

Based on his Instagram records that they got warrants for, they could see that Instagram handles were deleted, changed.

So now they're getting even more suspicious until finally they do arrest him, again, two and a half months after the shooting took place.

So they arrest your client because they know your client was talking to the decedent about selling a gun in Walmart.

The decedent's body was found in Walmart.

How did they know a Dodge Charger was linked to your client?

Or how did they know the Dodge Charger was at the scene that night?

So while there was no video of the actual homicide itself, they were able to get footage from this parking lot.

So there was cameras from Walmart down every aisle in the parking lot.

There's an adjacent McDonald's and a Chevron right across the parking lot from where this incident happened.

Again, these are all distant views, but they can see based on the behavior of some of these cars, when they're coming, going, how fast they're driving.

They had a pretty good idea about who or which cars were involved and then at which point they were able to determine, well, there was the Mercedes, which now they did know about.

And then now there's this other car, which was a Charger.

And some people did describe a Dodge-like vehicle as leaving the scene.

I guess probably, is that enough to arrest?

I don't know, but we're not going to get into that issue, I guess, in this.

Okay, so then what happens next?

They arrest your client, and what happens?

So they arrest him.

They bring him back to the station.

He makes up a bunch of lies about everything.

I mean, the only thing he's honest about is who he is, what he does for a living.

Wait, this is your client you're saying makes up a bunch of lies?

Yes, yes.

So he's very scared.

So he says he denies knowledge about anything, the reasons for why he painted his car, just makes up, and then everything.

Like, he lies about even the most mundane things, lies about why he deleted his Instagram handle.

And then eventually it was to the point where once they start getting to the meat of it, and he starts realizing that they might know a little bit more, that's when he asks for a lawyer and the interview ceases.

But all they have basically on paper is a bunch of lies.

But at this point, is your client brought in for questioning, or was he officially under arrest for the murder at this point?

He was under, well, he was under arrest.

They only told him what it was for during the interview.

But it was a huge scene when they arrested him.

They had an entire, basically, army of police officers taking out the apartment.

And then once he left for work, they all chased him down.

Well, it wasn't a chase, but they all converged upon him, and he submitted to them.

So then after your client makes some incriminating statements, at least he's not honest, he gets arrested.

Did the investigation continue, or did it cease there?

Because usually it stops right there, right?

Yes.

They get to say some things, and they're done.

So I guess I should backtrack just one second.

There was another report that actually had some meat on it before the arrest, where the aunt of the passenger, the friend of the decedent, did contact the police one time a week later.

She said she hadn't heard from her nephew, but she actually did start providing more information about what he said.

And it started making it seem like it was much more than somebody shooting out of nowhere, like he said on the 911 call.

And essentially it said that they were there to purchase a gun and that they acquired this gun from this person.

And the whole point was essentially to try to take this gun from him.

How does the aunt know this?

Because the nephew came to the house right after the shooting.

Okay.

And told her.

Correct.

There's so many levels of hearsay.

Yes.

Okay, so the nephew or the friend, the 911 caller, they're all the same person.

They go to the aunt.

He goes to the aunt and says, what did you say?

And he says that they were there to, well, the friend was there to buy this gun.

He didn't even have all the money on him to buy this gun, so he was clearly there to rob him.

He didn't like the plan at all.

The guy basically, so his friend took the gun from my client.

He then asked that some bullets be provided for him because he just wanted to load the gun.

So the client then pulls out a gun, a second gun, takes out his magazine, starts taking bullets out of that magazine,

gives them to the decedent, who then puts two of those bullets in his magazine,

puts them back in the gun, the magazine back in the gun,

cocks the slide, and immediately turns around towards the client.

And then the aunt says that her nephew then said that the client then slapped that hand away

and started shooting at the decedent before the decedent could even turn all the way around with the gun.

He then, she then says that then the two started wrestling between each other,

her nephew, the friend, and my client before the, before my client was able to get away.

So they have this statement now, and they still proceed to arrest my client.

So then two months later, there is actually-

Just to clarify, just to clarify.

I mean, so the aunt tells the police that actually my nephew, the 911 caller,

came over after the shooting and said that they went to the Walmart parking lot to rob this guy.

They acted like they were going to buy a gun.

And so then when-

Which was already illegal.

Yes.

But then they decided to rob him.

Yeah.

So then, and then that when your client gets in the car with them, he gives the gun for sale to the decedent.

The decedent asks for bullets.

Your client gives him bullets.

He puts them in the, into the, what's it called, cartridge or the-

Into the magazine.

Into the magazine.

Thank you.

Puts the two bullets in the magazine, racks it, turns to face the client with the gun, but the client before could do that.

Not having that.

The client says, nope.

He slaps the gun out of his face, pulls out his own gun, and shoots him once, twice, maybe.

And then after that, the friend, 911 caller, nephew, then gets to a little struggle with your client.

And that's, that's it.

Okay.

And this is all happening in front of the, inside the friend's car.

This is all inside, yeah, the tight space of a car.

Okay.

So it's, so it's complete chaos.

Yeah.

Now we got, so we got like a self-defense sort of maybe baked in here.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

So what happens?

So that's what Stan said.

Then, then they arrest your client.

Your client gives a statement.

He gets arrested.

And then what happens?

So then, surprisingly in this case, there actually is another supplemental report after all that, which is the police get alerted that the friend or the nephew of that lady is now in the hospital suffering gunshot wounds.

And this is now two months after my client was arrested and the investigators end up going to the hospital and interviewing him.

And surprisingly, his statement is actually, again, very bad for his friend, but very favorable to the client.

Where, again, he says that they were, you know, that him and his friend were just selling the decedent, were just selling marijuana all day.

And while that was happening, his friend, the decedent was just text, started texting my client about buying a gun and they end up getting to this Walmart.

And when they are at the Walmart, they actually get out of the car and go there inside the friend divulges or the decedent divulges to his friend that, hey, I'm actually going to rob this guy of a gun.

And the friend is kind of in disbelief.

He's like, this is a really stupid plan because I know you don't even have a gun on you right now.

So I don't know how you're going to rob somebody of a gun.

And he said that, anyways, the guy texted, my client texted that he was there.

So they ended up meeting him in the parking lot.

They're waving each other over to their cars.

Eventually, my client's the one that gets out of his car and goes in the backseat of theirs.

He says that my client then gives his friend the gun.

The decedent then gives my client some of the money, $300, but not all of it, because the deal was for $800.

And he then says that his friend, the decedent, asks for bullets.

So my client, again, just like the aunt says, he pulls out the gun.

He takes out the magazine and starts taking out a bunch of bullets and handing it to him.

The friend says at this point, he's like freaking out because he's like, well, this guy now has a second gun.

So I'm just going to put my head against the window and pretend I'm asleep.

I like, because I don't want anything to do with this.

Wait, what?

Yeah, it's a bizarre statement.

He says that when the decedent starts loading the bullets into his newly purchased gun, he just is like, I'll pretend I'm asleep.

Well, it wasn't even purchased yet.

It was, he only gave the $300.

It was a negotiation for purchase.

Yes.

The gun he had put a down payment on.

He put on layaway with some guy in a Walmart parking lot.

Friend was like, I'm not comfortable with this scenario.

So I'm just going to lean on the window and pretend I'm asleep.

That's what he told the police.

Okay.

Okay.

And it was, he.

So can we start calling him possum?

Yeah.

So of course he said, well, he actually, and again, he said, it's the moment that the client pulls out his gun, the second gun.

And he's like, oh no, this is, this is too much.

That's what he's telling the police.

Instead of getting out of the car, he was like, I'm just going to, I'm going to go to sleep.

And then he says that then the decedent starts, puts two bullets into the magazine and he's saying that he's doing it kind of while he's in conversation to them, like almost as a way of like disguising that he's even doing it.

Very casually.

Right.

Then he puts that magazine back into the gun.

And then he's, then the friend goes, all of a sudden he cocks that slide and immediately turns around at the client.

And then of course he's like, the client slaps the hand away, points the gun at the decedent and starts firing.

And he said, it's a lot of shots to start going off.

He said at that point, he's freaking out.

He, he basically sinks into the floorboard on the front passenger side.

But then once the shooting stops, he sees that the client is trying to leave the car and he doesn't know what possesses him.

But then he puts his hands on the client's gun and they start wrestling over the gun.

Eventually the client is able to get away from that and runs off towards his car.

And then the final.

Why didn't the client just shoot him?

If he was, he had no problem shooting the other guy.

If the other guy's trying to take his gun from him.

Well, that.

Why wouldn't you shoot him?

Well, that was part of what the whole defense was.

Again, the only danger to the client was the driver, the decedent.

Right.

So he didn't had, he didn't want to shoot the passenger because the passenger wasn't posing any threat to him at that moment.

Once he felt like he had his window, he was trying to get away.

Did the passenger say to the police that he got into a struggle with the client then as the client was trying to leave?

He did.

And not only did he admit that, but he also said when the client got out of the car and was running towards his own car,

that he actually then noticed the gun that was for sale on the lap next to him.

And then he grabbed that gun and actually fired off around into the, into the, into the, at the client.

While the client was out of the car.

While the client was out of the car.

And the crazy part.

So there's just a shootout in a Walmart parking lot.

Yes.

And the, uh, the other crazy part was that he also said that he shot through the, um, driver's side window,

which is where the decedent was at this point slumped over to shoot at the client.

And he told the police that's when the window shattered, um, in the car,

which in fact was the case when they came upon this, uh, Mercedes Benz on the night of the shooting.

Sure enough, there was a broken driver's side window.

Did you tell us when this all happened?

Sure.

So this would have been December 14th, 2021.

What time of day?

Uh, the shooting was actually just at, just after 6 PM.

So it wasn't late.

So presumably people would be noticing if there was a full on shootout in the parking lot.

Yes.

Walmart around the holiday season.

Right.

Right.

So, so this was like a parking lot that was kind of further away from like,

like the main part of the parking lot, but there were still plenty of cars there.

There was a gas station with the McDonald's right next to it.

Uh, it's six o'clock.

It was the overflow.

I feel like there should have been plenty of people to notice.

And there were, and there were some people that the police did interview, but then again,

nobody actually saw anything.

They just heard some, well, something, you know, it was all the usual.

I heard something that sounded like firecrackers or, oh, I was driving and I saw some guy laying on the ground,

but there was nobody who actually saw what happened.

Is, um, the statement by the friend in the, by the possum in the hospital, is that recorded?

It was.

Can you hear the reaction of law enforcement of the detectives when he's telling the story?

You know, they seemed really not into it, which is kind of surprising because I'm like listening to this when I finally get the case.

And I'm like, this is, this is nuts, but they just, because, you know, usually if it's like your friend that's dead,

you're going to, even if he's dead, you're going to try to like make him not look that bad,

but he's making his own friend look terrible.

And this guy, he doesn't even know, look not too bad.

They had already arrested your client when this statement was given, right?

Yeah.

It was two months before the statement.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

So your client was arrested before this statement.

So the detectives are thinking like, fuck this, there goes our case.

Who are we supposed to arrest now?

I mean, your client, you know, this guy's given the detectives a pretty strong self-defense statement by your client.

Right.

Any other facts about the case before we move on?

As far as the police reports, that pretty much covers it.

Okay.

So then your client does the first trial.

He gets private counsel because he wants a real lawyer.

He goes to, he goes to trial.

He loses.

He gets, he's acquitted on first degree murder, but they get him on second degree murder.

Why was the case?

Why did the judge overturn the, grant a new trial, a motion for a new trial?

Can you tell us about that?

You, tell us about this whole motion thing.

What happened?

So, um, the interesting part was, um, one day I'm just handling my regular calendar cases and I get,

Just unassuming going about your daily life before your office dropped this bombshell on you.

Well, it's actually even funnier than that.

Um, I get a call.

The judge just goes, Hey Zach, um, they need you in this other department.

Um, cause they just need a public defender to pick up a case.

So, we've all been there.

You just stand in on this.

So, I'm like, so I'm just like walking up.

I have no idea what I'm expecting.

And of course I walk into this trial department and this thing is just packed, like full to the brim.

There's not a single seat empty.

And I'm like, you know, what the hell did I just walk into?

Uh, so it turns out that was the day that he was supposed to be sentenced.

So everyone's there.

You got his family there.

Yeah.

You got the victim impact statements, huh?

That's right.

So it's just, yeah, so it's just a complete madhouse in there.

And, um, so I walk in and that judge goes just in front of everybody.

Like, um, Hey Zach, just so you know, like this, uh, person, like he just, he was convicted.

Um, he was supposed to be sentenced today.

This is like in front of everybody in the courtroom.

And he's like, and he's firing his attorney.

He wants a new trial.

So we're going to appoint you for your office.

Have you done something to piss off these judges that they called you

into the middle of a sentencing hearing like this?

I think I just happened to be the random person in a suit in the courtroom at the time.

So, so anyways, I'm in there.

So then I start talking to the client and, you know, we actually, even in front of all

these people, we're chatting for like 15 minutes, but he's giving me like a mini rundown of everything

that we talked about and are about to talk about.

And, you know, I'm just like, this is, this sounds insane.

Did he say, did your client say why he wanted to do trial or what he thought was defective with the first trial?

So actually that was, I kind of started off that conversation.

I was like, Hey, is this like one of those, like, are you trying to say if your attorney wasn't effective?

That's one of those situations.

And he goes, yeah, that's absolutely what this case is.

And then he told me about what happened, which to me, again, signaled some kind of self-defense.

But he told me that there's no, there was no corroboration.

None of the investigation was done.

And he ended up getting convicted of second degree murder.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, you just sort of slipped that in, that he gave you a self-defense.

So he's basically corroborating Possum's story?

Yeah, that's what he was talking about.

He was saying that the Possum's story was the corroboration for him.

So he's already giving me what his actual defense is.

So in your very first meeting, in the middle of the courtroom where all of the victim's family are prepared to give victim impact sentence

because they think he's about to get sentenced on this murder, you're meeting this guy.

And he's telling you that, yes, he shot the decedent, but it was self-defense.

And his homeboy, Possum over here, is going to be a witness for my defense, actually.

Yeah, so that's basically...

That's what you're saying is what happened?

Yeah, so, I mean, it was wild.

That's a hell of a day as a public defender.

It was a hell of an afternoon to just walk into that.

No, I mean, it's wild.

So, I mean, I'll get up for it.

So, it's like a council table.

So, you got him sitting here.

You got his attorney still sitting here.

And I just kind of walk over to this side of him, kneel down and talk to him.

And he just can't wait to tell somebody something.

So, he's, like, I mean, obviously, he's whispering.

He's not proclaiming it in the microphone to the whole courtroom.

But he just, like, has to tell someone.

I love him, too, to sit up in there with you.

Yeah, he was saying how incompetent he was right in front of him.

He was that...

I mean, that's the place where my client was at at that moment.

What did he have to lose, really?

No, yeah.

Told you about the corroborating evidence.

Did he say whether or not that corroborating evidence came in the trial in the first trial then or not?

He said it didn't.

He said the only evidence that supported his self-defense that came in in his trial was his own testimony.

Oh, so he testified in his own trial, the first trial.

But the jurors didn't hear anything about Possum's statement in the first trial.

Did Possum show up in the first trial?

No.

Okay.

So that's crazy.

That's crazy.

But the police already had written the supplemental report of their interview with Possum.

Of that interview?

Where Possum tells the story.

Yes.

And of the interview with Possum's aunt.

So his private attorney had all that information?

Yes.

All that information was available well before the trial happened.

I'm starting to see why there was some IAC being claimed.

The aunt didn't testify in the first trial either.

She did.

She did.

However, she...

She couldn't say what Possum said.

She couldn't say what Possum told her.

She couldn't get into that.

And her testimony at that trial was completely all over the place.

Very nonsensical.

A lot of the things are...

Her testimony is wild.

And I mean, it's always...

Whenever she talks, it's wild.

But in this time, it's particularly wild.

And they don't really get anywhere with her.

And yes, she does not get into anything that the Possum told her.

So the jurors in the first trial only heard the fact that your client showed up in the car.

They saw Instagram messages about a gun.

They see video of a shooting and your client taking off.

And that's the basis for second-degree murder because nobody else knows what happened.

And your client testifies to self-defense.

There's no cooperation.

So the juror's convicted of second-degree.

That's right.

And then also, I mean, this is not something I talked about.

But the other issue with that trial was that he was so upset about none of that coming in that he started trying to himself sneak it in any way he possibly could.

Or not really sneak it in, but just try to tell the jury about everything else that occurred in this case.

Which made him look actually bad in a way, just because he was defiant.

He was defiant core orders.

He wasn't answering the DA's questions whatsoever.

So he just didn't look that good because he was just trying anything possible to have his story heard.

But not just his story, but just the fact everything heard.

So it really put him in a bad position.

That's crazy.

So, all right.

So you get appointed to the case.

And where does the case go from there?

So at that point, we have this awesome library attorney.

His name is Nelson Liu.

And I went to my supervisor with the case.

I'm like, hey, we picked up this case.

Like, you know, the client gave me like a little rundown.

It is completely insane.

I like this motion for new trial might actually be a winner.

I think we got to give it to Nelson to write it.

And sure enough, that's where it went next.

Okay.

Nelson Liu.

San Joaquin.

Shout out.

Shout out to their library attorney, as they call him.

Is that appellate?

Is that the appellate lawyer or what's the library lawyer?

Sounds like a basement maybe.

It's the guy you keep locked in there.

You know, he is like a walking encyclopedia.

He is my immediate like phone a friend if I'm in trial.

Like if something, some shit's going down in trial,

like I will be like texting under the table and it's hit him.

And he'll like give me pinpoints, like citations, like on the spot.

It doesn't matter what time, even if it's like 11 p.m.

and something comes up, this dude will text me back.

Like he is, he is incredible.

Nice.

That's great.

That's great.

Love you, Nelson.

So what is, how does, so Nelson is charged with doing the motion for a new trial then?

Yes.

Okay.

And it is his case at this point for all purposes.

That's what you think.

At that point, yeah.

So he does a motion and what, and the basis for the motion is ineffective assistance of

counsel, IEC.

So Nelson doesn't, he's not known for leaving any stones.

Okay.

Well, he's unsure.

And so he actually talks about judicial misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct.

Like he doesn't, he just talks, he goes into absolutely everything.

He just lays out everyone.

Yes.

And he writes this awesome motion.

I mean, the thing is like almost 150 pages, um, he fully investigates this case, like everything

that other attorney didn't do.

Um, he, um, then they have this hearing and this thing lasts days.

I think it might've been something like seven or eight different court days with witnesses

and including the client, um, everybody's testifying the old attorney.

And, um, um, eventually, um, the judge comes back, makes them come back for his ruling.

And while obviously he denies the motion based on the fact that the case wasn't proven or

that the, uh, judicial misconduct of himself or the DAs, he did find that there was ineffective

assistance of counsel.

And he, and he said that he found it to such a degree that it shocked his conscious.

He said that on the record, he said, honestly, I don't know what this attorney was prepared

for.

At the end of the day, like, why was it in effect of counsel, the, the, the evidence didn't

come in, but sort of the judgment probably made a ruling for it not to come in.

Why did this lawyer, what could this lawyer have done to get this evidence in, to get

the corroboration in, right?

And well, the funny thing is there's actually, it's, it's more than just that.

Obviously that was the biggest thing.

Um, he didn't really nothing to try to get this done.

Um, there was no due diligence, due diligence showed to try to get these witnesses in.

Um, there was also evidence that the decedent had prior, um, adjudications.

One specifically it was for an armed robbery.

Um, so again, very similar as this case, at least the defense, cause this again is self-defense

during an armed robbery and none of those witnesses were interviewed.

So there was that whole thing.

Um, but then in this particular case, and this is where it gets really bizarre is that isn't

effectiveness really dates back to even before, uh, charges were filed against the client.

So in this particular case, the client actually hires this attorney, uh, when everything goes

down because now he's sitting at home, he doesn't know what to do.

Oh, he knows it's coming.

Right.

And this person's advice, this attorney was to lay low and to get rid of his car, which

is the most.

To destroy evidence?

To destroy evidence.

The attorney was like, I'll take your money, but first, uh, destroy some evidence.

That was a mob attorney.

Is this Saul?

We better call Saul.

So the client never really got any clarification on what that meant, but what he did do was

he painted his car like blue.

Yeah.

Uh, so that's not the same thing.

It's a Dodge Charger.

You don't just throw away those cars when you're a young kid.

Okay.

Those are, he loved that car.

So this motion is granted for the new child, but the DA now has all of your defense for the

second trial.

They know everything.

Yes.

They know what he's going to say.

Um, and that was actually one of also the big contentions for ineffectiveness, um, was

that this DA, she just started asking the client all these argumentative questions, these questions

that had, there were, there's no reason that these questions should have been asked.

I know this would never be the only reason for a motion like this to be granted, but basically

the client was left to answer questions that were unanswerable.

All of them were argumentative.

And this attorney had nothing to object, nothing to protect his client.

And it again, just added to the fact that to make him look bad on the stand.

Has this attorney been disbarred?

Uh, my understanding is he is not practicing.

He is not?

That's my understanding.

Oh, good.

Okay.

So, okay.

So the attorney fails to bring up the fact that the decedent has a prior robbery conviction

or adjudication.

Right.

Uh, fails to, uh, or instructed your client to destroy evidence, uh, failed to even attempt

to bring in Possum, right?

Yes.

The corroborator.

Yeah.

And if he, and if, cause also like if, if they can't bring in Possum, if he fails to

even attempt to bring in Possum to do his due diligence, then they can't even bring in

his prior statements, prior recorded statements, right?

That's right.

As an unavailable witness or whatever.

He couldn't show it.

That was, that was the big thing.

He couldn't show unavailability at that trial.

Yeah.

So, cause if they showed unavailability, then the recording of Possum at the hospital telling

the police that they went there, that the decedent was going to rob client and the client

didn't self-defense, that would have came in front of the jury.

The video would have been played and could have been a different outcome.

So clearly your client was prejudiced and there could have been a different outcome.

And so that's why the judge granted a new motion.

Yes.

Moral of the story.

Go with the public defenders guys.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah.

Um, all right.

So then, well then, gosh, so Lou, Lou, uh, no, what was his name?

Nelson Lou.

Nelson Lou.

Nelson Lou.

150 page motion, uh, guys that's out there, Angie universe, if you guys need a motion, maybe

Nelson might share it with you.

Um, so, so now Nelson's going to trial, right?

So tell us about Nelson getting ready for trial.

So Nelson, uh, he doesn't really, he doesn't do that many trials.

He does, hasn't done them in a while.

And there's, you know, he, I actually have seen him in trial, but again, it's usually a

different kind of case, not murders.

So he, um, the moment that this trial, neutral got granted, um, he came to me and I thought

it was quite a compliment.

Like, I mean, he came to me to do the trial.

Zach, Zach, you're just falling for this.

Oh, I know.

I've been right.

Zach is just, this is such an honor.

Let me take this shit show.

The court calls Zach, Zach comes in, Nelson, Zach's the biggest sucker in the whole San Joaquin

County judicial system.

Zach volunteered as tribute.

He was like, put me in the Hunger Games, guys.

And of course my supervisor was like, thank God you took it.

But, uh, yeah, I mean, so he came, so he came up to me and I was like, fine, that's

it.

That's fine.

I'll do it.

I can't believe you just, you just agreed to it, but good for you.

Okay.

So, uh.

Maybe you are in that sweet spot, Zach.

I don't know.

I don't know how many of us would be volunteering for this nightmare.

Well, I guess it's kind of like this.

In San Joaquin County, we, we have no shortage of murder trials.

So it's like, you know, we're all carrying, unfortunately, about anywhere between three,

five, six murder cases apiece.

Like it's, it's kind of the same.

So, um, I mean, I already knew.

You're going to have to do one.

You were just like, well, I already know this one, I guess.

Yeah.

I got the 15 minute rundown from Anthony and I paid attention.

I did pay attention to the new trial stuff cause it was very interesting and it was taking

so long.

Um, so I was like, yeah, exactly.

If I was going to take anything, I might as well take this.

So then you get the case.

I mean, you said Nelson did a lot of investigation already.

He interviewed us.

What did, uh, with respect to the, what, uh, what kind of prep work did you need to do

on the case then when you received it in anything?

So at that point, my job was actually just to, I had to get, learn the case.

So I had to learn, um, everything that was done before, like in the old trial, had to

go over that whole thing.

the transcripts, you know what was out there, um, with the prelim transcript, I had to go

through all the reports, look at all the discovery, and then of course talk to the client, you know,

to, to the point where in private, maybe yes.

This time in private at the jail, you know, not on your knees, tell, tell us about meeting the client.

What was that like?

So when I met the client in private, that's my client.

Um, he, uh, you know, there was definitely a little, like, he had nerves for sure, because

he, you could clearly tell that he had some kind of like PTSD from what happened at the

last trial.

Like he, like there was still some disbelief that he was found guilty of murder the first

time.

And he was very concerned about that, um, happening again.

And he said that this time he was going to try to do his best to not be so hands-on like

he was last time, but trying to get all this stuff in, in his testimony.

But you could tell like when he's talking, he absolutely wants to be making all the strategic

decisions because he was so worried about what happened last time.

So that was kind of like the thing I knew.

I was like, yeah, so I was like, I, hopefully I was thinking like, I hope I can get this

kid's trust so that that's not the issue when we go to trial, because that could be, that

could come off very badly in many ways.

He can save his own ship.

Yes.

Um, which they never understand when you're like, could you please just be quiet?

Yes, absolutely.

And I think the other thing that I noticed is that he became very knowledgeable in the

law.

Um, I think he overcome, had to overcome or compensate for what his prior attorney didn't

have.

Um, as my colleague, Nelson says, by that point, we think that Anthony had more knowledge about

the law, especially murder cases than his attorney did.

Um, so you could just tell.

Uh, Zach, it sounds like my four-year-old had more knowledge about murder trials than his

first attorney.

That's not, that's not an understanding.

He would at least have objected, you know, but she would have disrupted the proceedings.

So, so anyways, yeah, so we had that conversation.

He definitely went into everything that occurred, um, you know, during this whole entire thing

from the very beginning of that day where the homicide took place all the way up to the

point where I was sitting there with him.

Um, and so we went over all that as well.

And then, uh, did you describe, did you tell us how old he was and stuff like that?

Like what's, so at the time that a little background going on, maybe what's sure.

So at that time when this all happened, he was 20 years old.

Um, so young guy he had, um, he was living with his girlfriend and their one-year-old child.

Um, he was attending community college, um, taking classes in electrical engineering.

And he also was, um, had some kind of job, which I think he actually now has again, where

he was installing high-end appliances in, um, various places in the Bay area here, uh, up

in Northern California.

And, um, so he was, again, he was, he was earning money.

My understanding, it wasn't bad money and he was going to school.

He seemed like he had his life going on some kind of direction.

He still needed a side hustle.

And then he was selling firearms.

Well, so what the client said happened.

So, and he said that that day, so, so what he told me was that he actually knew who the

decedent was prior to this day.

They were two people that went to the same school together.

Um, my client was two years older, two grades higher than the decedent.

He said they weren't friends or acquaintances, but they knew of each other.

And on the day that this happened around 10 in the morning, they ran into each other at a car wash in Stockton.

Um, and they just start talking to each other and, um, eventually the conversation moves to like,

some subject about like dogs and then, and then at the end, for some reason, the decedent brings up the fact that he's looking for a gun and the client just goes, well, you know, I have a few, like, I've been doing these like ghost guns.

They've been kind of interesting me, um, back then it was legal to just order them online, the kits and then finish them up.

And he's like, I sell you one.

That's so then all of a sudden that is when they connected on Instagram.

Um, and this conversation began later that afternoon.

Did your client have a record?

No, he had a juvenile.

Um, I don't even know if it was like an adjudication might've been just like something, but it was basically an arrest for selling marijuana when he was like 16 years old, but that's it.

Nothing, no adult record, no convictions.

So, uh, does your client, I mean, you go over the discovery with him.

Does he tell, what does he tell you what happened?

Does he say something?

I mean, I know he says what Possum said is what happened.

Does he add anything else to, or get more descriptive about what happened?

So he does.

Um, so he starts obviously telling me now what the meaning of all these messages on Instagram were.

So, um, he tells me that initially you could see that the decedent tried calling the client on a Instagram video.

The client said, I didn't answer that.

That's why it's only about 40 seconds.

And that's why he responds.

He responded with hello or yo.

And then the guy starts saying, I got eight.

Do you want to meet up?

And he's like the eight means 800.

Cause that's what we agreed upon at the car wash.

Um, they start texting.

And then the guy, the decedent goes like, Hey, let's meet up at the old Kmart.

And the client was like, this spooked him because Kmart in 2020 had already been closed down.

The property was abandoned.

Um, it was like a completely, um, abandoned dilapidated building.

Like nothing was cared for in the parking lot.

And he was just like, there's going to be nobody there.

Um, I don't feel like a Craigslist exchange.

You want to be in a public place.

Exactly.

So the client at this point was just like, um, that's just not feeling good for me.

And he doesn't respond.

So, and sure enough, if you look at the Instagram messages after Kmart's proposed, Anthony doesn't

send any messages for two hours.

Um, the guy then texts him and says something like, Hey, you know, are you going to sell this

gun or what?

Uh, so now we actually do know that this is over a gun and the client still doesn't respond

for two hours until finally the guy's like persistent.

And he says, proposes Walmart.

And the Anthony is sitting at home and he's finally like, okay, fine.

I'll do that.

So everyone knows Walmart's a safe space.

Yes.

And I mean, again, it, it is again, the height of holiday season.

So it is much more public than an abandoned property.

So, um, Anthony does agree and he drives up to, um, the Walmart.

Um, and he parks again, like right, there's like an entryway and he parks right across from

the gas station that's there, the Chevron.

And he texts the decedent that he's there.

And he tells me the same thing that, um, he starts waving the decedent over into his car.

The decedent's doing the same thing.

And he's like, there were two of them in there, um, which actually was something that was talked

about.

The client texted him.

Are you going to be alone?

The guy said, no, I'm going to have my bro with me.

So the client's like, well, there's two of them in there.

I'll just go into that guy's car.

Um, the client says he went into the car and he just immediately gives the guy the gun.

And then, um, the guy gives him 300 bucks and he asks for some bullets.

And the client then reaches into his gun.

The other one that he had, which is in a holster.

And he takes out the magazine and just starts giving them a, like he says, he gives them

about half the, the bullets that were in the magazine.

He had 15 bullets in his magazine.

He gives them to the decedent.

The decedent puts two of them in the magazine and they're just talking at this point, nothing

really crazy going on.

The client doesn't think anything of it, but then he says all of a sudden the decedent

racks the slide of the gun.

He starts saying something loudly, but the client can't even make out what it is because

his instincts just start taking over.

And the guy turns with his left hand all the way around to the back seat where the client's

sitting and points the gun in his face.

So the client at this point is just saying like, I can't, I don't even know what I was

doing.

Operating on complete instinct.

He says he slapped away the arm that's holding the gun.

He pulls out his gun from the holster and then just starts shooting.

So he admitted to knowing the decedent.

Did he admit to knowing Possum?

Because that would be a question I had.

The stories are so similar, right?

That either means that it's because that's how it happened or they have collaborated in

their stories.

No.

So he says he actually had never seen Possum before in his life.

That was his first time ever, first and only time ever seeing him.

Okay.

So his instincts took over, he slaps the gun out of his face, pulls out his own gun, and

then he says he just shot at him.

Did you say how many times?

He says he didn't know.

He knows that he, at least one of them hit him somewhere in the head.

He knows one of them hit him somewhere in the hand that's holding the gun.

But he doesn't know how many he shot.

And then at some point, the decedent turns around and he kind of slumps over the steering

wheel and at that point, he stops shooting and tries to run out of the car.

And he tells me at that point, he has the gun in his right hand.

He has the right hand on the center console because he's trying to use essentially his

hand as leverage to get out of the car on the driver's side.

And he said at that point, because of where the hand is with the gun, the friend of the

decedent grabs, puts both hands on the gun and they start wrestling over it.

And at this point, there's still some bullets left in that gun, the gun that my client already

shot.

And the crazy thing here is the gun is now going between the two of them.

They're wrestling over it.

And because my client's fingers on the trigger, more shots start going off and the shots are

all going into the direction of the decedent.

It's a small car and there's nowhere else for it to go.

And it's so it's like a complete mess.

It's just complete chaos in the car.

And then finally, the client is able to get free.

He said the gun slips out, falls between the seats and the center console, and he just runs

out and he gets into his car and he drives away.

And he says he actually has no recollection of being shot out by the passenger.

He does not remember that happening at all.

Oh, man, that's nuts.

That is so crazy.

I don't know.

I don't know what to say.

Like, wow, that's just that's just this is PTSD.

I mean, are you sitting there during this, Zach, thinking I volunteered for this?

I volunteered for this.

So he said that he didn't even realize that the friend possum had shot at him.

He didn't know that.

OK.

He didn't know that.

OK.

Oh, man.

So then.

All right.

So how are you feeling after you talk to the client then?

Right.

Well, after I talk to him, you know, I'm like, I'm like, man, I'm like, because there's

like there's a stress of it.

I'm like, he said this to another jury.

And somehow I know that the corroboration didn't come in, but he got convicted.

But to me, I'm like listening to it.

I don't know if it's my public defender glasses on or, you know, whatever it is.

But I'm like, this really sounds like self-defense to me.

I don't even know if it's.

I mean, it could be a manslaughter.

But it sounds like it sounds like complete self-defense.

Hey, did you investigate the car at all or have the car checked out for any bullet holes

or anything that would could be used to add weight to your client's version of events?

So the interesting thing was the only real damage to the car with the bullets was the driver's

side, the front driver's side window, like the passenger talked about that he shot through.

Because the decedent took all the bullets and they didn't come back out.

Yeah.

And there was some question about that, too.

And then but then so there were some expended bullets that seemed to be the ones that went

through the decedent that were just laying on the ground in different places.

And oddly enough, and this is something one of the jurors was kind of curious about, too,

is they actually didn't really have any photos of the inside of the driver door, which to

me is kind of shocking, considering that's the trajectory of the two when they're wrestling.

But just based on the way that the decedent was slumped over, he was just so close to that

gun that there was just that's just where all the bullets were going to go.

Is there a piece of evidence that you're sort of honing in on or you're really like looking

into or looking at or reviewing that's really sticking out to you?

So to me, it's again, it's it's the fact that the client actually gives this guy a gun and

then actually gives them bullets.

And it's like if he's actually the one there trying to commit a murder or he's the one that's

robbing, why is he trying to make it a fair fight?

Like, why is he?

It's not like we're having a gentleman's duel here.

Well, I hope you said that to the jury.

That's good.

I did.

I did.

It's not a gentleman's duel.

There was no glove slapping.

So to me, it's like, I mean, that there's just like there was enough things like that where

I'm just like, it doesn't make sense that the client came out there to start trouble that

he can't.

I mean, obviously selling the gun illegally.

There's that.

But there's nothing in there that he's trying to do more than just this illegal transaction.

There's nothing there.

And I'm like, there's just all these little things that just don't indicate that my client

was out there.

But the only evidence that he gave a gun to the decedent is from your client at this point,

other than also the statement of the of the friend possum.

Is there any other corroborating evidence that he gave a gun to the decedent?

Did they recover the firearms?

So I only recovered one.

Which one?

They only recovered the gun that was for sale.

The one that the friend of the decedent shot at the client.

Did they have fingerprints?

They did tests for fingerprints.

Most of the things came back inconclusive.

Okay.

All right.

So the message, the Instagram messages also corroborate the fact that it's the decedent

trying to buy something and the fact that it's guns because of the whole when my client's

not responding, the messages then start going, are you going to sell the thing or what?

All right.

Then so then as we're gearing up for the second trial, is there anything you need to do specifically

or are you just ready to go now?

I'm just at this point clearing out my calendar and getting ready to go.

All right.

Then so tell us about the jury trial.

What judge did you get sent to?

So we get sent to a judge who just got moved to from juvenile to doing criminal trials.

He was a DA before, then became a private criminal defense attorney.

And it was interesting because he had just done his first life trial as a judge.

This was going to be his first murder as a judge.

So this was, for him, going to be a slightly uncharted territory.

So this is a different judge than the first trial.

Yeah, because the first trial judge ended up being moved to dependency court.

So he wasn't doing criminal anymore.

So the whole thing ended up changing.

Okay.

Oh, before we start talking about jury selection, let's talk about pretrial motions.

What were the pretrial motions in this case?

Motions of limine, 402s, as we call them in California.

Yeah, so there were actually some big ones in here.

The first one we had, and it was kind of, we had a lot of discussions about this, Nelson

and I, was what to do with trying to get in the statement of the friend, the front passenger.

And one of the things that the DA brought in in the first trial was the 911 call.

And one of the arguments that Nelson brought out in the new trial motion was that that should

have opened the door to the statement of the police, because the prior inconsistent statement.

So, but at the same time, the 911 call wasn't, shouldn't have come in anyway as a spontaneous

statement because he lies.

It's demonstrable that he lies.

And the whole aura of truthfulness that you'd expect from a hearsay exception no longer existed

there.

So it kind of created this like issue.

Do we bring up one to bring up the other?

Like, do we, how do we keep it clean?

So eventually we just decided to put it all on paper and just see what happens.

So we did the motion for, to exclude the 911 call.

And the judge was like, well, that's interesting because it clearly, it meets the elements of

a spontaneous statement, but at the same time, but you're saying it shouldn't come in anyway

because it doesn't have reliability.

He's like, well, you're just going to have to address that somehow with examination.

I'm going to let it in.

So then we're like, well, since the court is granting that, now we are bringing up this

thing where we're trying to get in the statement of the passenger at the hospital.

And again, we still couldn't get him to come to court because you couldn't find him or

he was not cooperating.

Both.

So at one time we were able to find him.

He actually was in custody in Los Angeles County on a 29, 800.

And so there was actually still a material witness warrant in this case.

So one thing I learned through this whole process, apparently those things are just local

warrants.

They don't get entered into the CLETS, the statewide system.

So we were trying to get, I immediately started emailing the DA.

I'm like, hey, we found them.

Like, can you do something to get a hold of so that we can get a hold of this guy?

Like, don't you want to have like the third guy that's in the car?

And she goes, oh, I'll get to it later.

I'm like busy writing a motion, things like that.

And I'm like, you got to be kidding me.

So of course, then I start going to the judge, trying to do an ex parte, like trying to see

is there any mechanism that we can get a hold of this guy?

The judge asked me to come back the next day.

Of course, by that time, the passenger goes to court.

He's O.R.

And we never hear from him again.

The next thing is that the aunt is now in contact with my investigator.

She doesn't really go into like facts or anything like that.

But what she does say is that she and her nephew, the passenger, they want to make things right.

That's all she says.

We want to make it right.

So now we're thinking like, oh, my God, this guy is going to show up like on the eve of trial.

Like we're literally already assigned out to the department.

Now there's like some kind of like we actually have a line on him.

And so we think that he's actually going to call my investigator, give a statement.

And we're going to call him and all this.

And then, of course, he gets spooked and the aunt loses track of him, too.

She's like, I now haven't heard from him either.

So now we're still back to square one where we don't have him.

But we've definitely put in a lot of effort to try to get him.

And now this judge says, you know what?

I mean, if you bring in this 911 call, you know, I think this is a prior inconsistent statement.

And because this has nothing to do with the marijuana purchase, it has to do with the gun purchase.

This has nothing to do with somebody shooting out of nowhere.

They know who this person is.

And this whole situation happens before gunshots go off.

So a huge portion of this statement that he gives police is going to come in.

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of the matter and usually is not admitted into evidence.

However, under the spontaneous statement and or excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, evidence code 1240, allows an out-of-court statement into evidence if it purports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant and was made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception.

Here, the judge allowed the 911 call to be admitted into evidence as an out-of-court statement because the judge found it to be a spontaneous statement and or excited utterance, since Possum appeared to be under distress of excitement on the 911 call while describing what occurred.

Moreover, the judge allowed the hearsay statement of the recording of Possum's statement to the police at the hospital to come into evidence under evidence code 1202 as a prior inconsistent statement, since Possum's statements on the hospital recording are inconsistent with this statement on the 911 call.

So now, of course, I'm, like, worried, because, like, what if the DA is tipped, like, you know, what if this makes her not want to play the 911 call, and then we're out of, you know, we're just completely shit out of luck and getting this statement in.

Yeah, because right now, the basis for the hospital statement coming in is because it's an inconsistent statement to the 911 call.

So if the 911 call comes in, then you get to play the inconsistent statement to the jury.

But if the DA elects not to bring in the 911 call, then now you can't – there's nothing – there's no inconsistent statement there to use it as.

So then what's the plan B for the hospital conversation?

We are just – I'm just praying at this point.

This was part of the big – this was part of our big dilemma in the beginning of this trial.

We also did a motion eliminate for getting the prior convictions in, and the judge did allow us to get in the robbery.

We had all the witnesses.

They were ready to go.

And he said, you can bring it in any way you want.

You can bring in the adjudication.

I'll take judicial notice of it.

Or, if you want, bring in the live witnesses.

So we're like, this is great.

We're going to bring it in and, you know, really muddy it up.

And then the other – the really big one was that the DA was trying to get in the client's prior testimony at the trial, which was all over the place because of the way she was asking questions without being checked and him trying to bring in everything because there was no – nothing else corroborating him at that trial.

And our basis for excluding it was ineffective assistance of counsel.

And the DA's argument was –

Interesting.

Yeah.

So the DA's argument was that, hey, like this – that was granted more because of the failure to investigate.

It has nothing to do with how he was on the stand.

So the judge asked us to come back.

He wanted to read the ruling of the other judge's motion for new trial.

And he comes back and he says, listen, this judge said that that – he's like, I don't – he, again, read the thing I was telling you that I don't know what this attorney was even prepared to do, what was even ready to – what kind of trial he was even ready for, and how his performance shocked the conscience.

And he goes, I can't – so then this judge is like, I can't separate at that point one aspect of how he operated from another.

I can't say he was ineffective as how he investigated, but then he was fine during trial.

So he's like, at this point, it can only come in for impeachment, but I'm absolutely not letting it in.

That's a huge win.

And it was, yeah.

We were – it was a huge relief.

So at this point, we felt like we got a lot of motion to eliminate victories, except for the fact that we don't know now what's going to happen with a 911 call.

But at least we know, like – at least we are on firm ground.

He is already better off than he was in the first trial.

So now we're feeling much better.

And how's the client?

Because, you know, earlier you said he was having control issues.

He had PTSD from the other trial.

Is he hands-on, or does he chill back and just, you know, relax with Zach, you know?

Oh, man.

So it's kind of, like, inconsistent.

So at some point, he does say, like, Anthony's like – like, he's, like, definitely asking questions about everything, like, why I know how everything works.

But then he also tells – he's clearly thinking about it.

And he goes – he's like, I'm going to back off.

He's like, I promise you this is going to be the Zach show.

And I'm like –

Oh, the Zach show.

Zach attack, let's go.

And he even went to the length of, like, writing it down on his notepad, like, the reminder.

To remind himself?

So every time he looked down to take notes, he was like, Zach's the man.

So he was – so he was being good.

Like, and we're going to – I mean, obviously, we're going to get into the moments where he wasn't so good.

But for the most part, Anthony was, like – he was great.

He was absolutely part of the legal team.

He was, like, the man.

All right, all right.

Okay, that's great.

So we're doing good.

We're off to a good start with the pretrial motions.

Now it's time to select the jury.

Tell us about that.

So with the jury selection, I mean, my goal here was I wanted intelligent people who would understand the law.

But I was also looking for people who were lively, showed emotion, didn't mind.

Somebody who – people who would not only understand the law but understand potentially the predicament that Anthony was in, kind of see themselves potentially doing the same thing.

And that part was actually, I think, more even important than the kind of being able to understand the law.

But I was definitely looking for that combination of both.

Right, right.

I mean, people – I mean, because self-defense, people have to be okay with your client shooting someone in self-defense if that's the only – a lot of people think that, like, oh, did he do everything else he possibly could do to protect himself without killing the person?

And it's like, no, no, the law doesn't say you have to, like, exercise every other reasonable option first.

You know, you can just – if you can just use force to protect yourself in the moment if you're – if you have an imminent fear of some type of bodily – substantial bodily injury or death, you know, like – and so, period.

Plus, you need them focused on how he was feeling in the moment and how that was a reasonable reaction and not focusing on why he was there to begin with and saying, no, he doesn't get it passed because he was there doing crime anyway.

And that actually brings me to the next thing.

So, I had – one of the things I like to do in jury selection is I like to focus on the good facts.

I kind of like to get their heads thinking about it.

But I also really want to get into my worst facts.

So, hopefully, to try to nullify that with them.

But in this case, there was something in the pit of my stomach that made me really afraid to tackle do you get self-defense, do you still get self-defense if you're maybe doing something illegal.

I don't – like, there was something in my head that I just kind of concerned me about, all of a sudden painting him as doing something illegal at this point of the proceedings.

So, I stayed away from it at first.

So, then an interesting thing that happened was the DA brought it up.

She asked one of the jurors, like, hey, like, so what about if there's something illegal about the gun?

Like, do you think then a person should get self-defense?

And then this lady was just like, well, you know, I mean, yeah, I mean, some people, like, I don't know if it's, like, not registered or it's, like, if he's a felon or whatever.

He shouldn't be having a gun.

I mean, obviously, that's really bad.

But those are two separate things, whether or not they should get self-defense.

So, the DA at this point is like, I'm not asking anyone else about this.

That's a terrible answer.

She put it out there for you.

So, now I'm, like, asking the next jurors.

Now, I'm back up there.

You know, we've had our next jurors come up there.

I'm like, tell me more about that.

And everyone, now all of a sudden, I'm hearing that everyone's in agreement.

Like, yeah, I mean, we don't want to hear about anything illegal.

That would suck.

Like, if he's a felon, shouldn't be having it, things like that.

I mean, we're not going into all the facts.

But at the same time, they're like the self-defense thing.

That's its own thing.

We can completely not think about anything else and just concentrate on that.

So, this is another big win for you already.

Before you've gotten into opening statements, even, you have another big win.

Yes.

And so, I definitely felt comfortable about that.

And then, this was grueling.

I mean, it took three days to pick this jury.

But finally, like, we got it, and I felt pretty good about it.

That's great.

So, I feel like we didn't really ask you about the DA in this case.

Have you worked with this DA before?

What are they like?

She is...

The devil.

She would probably take...

I heard it in the hesitation there.

So, she would probably take great pleasure in the fact that she is by far the most difficult person for me to deal with.

I did my first ever murder trial with her, too.

It is a constant fight about absolutely everything.

Even what's in the questionnaire that we gave the jurors was probably about 20 emails going back and forth.

But this is the same DA on the first trial?

Yes.

Okay.

So, she kept it.

So, new judge, new defense attorney, but same DA.

Yes.

Got it.

Yes.

So, I mean, and we have a bunch of cases together.

This is one of, at that point, one of the three murders I have with her alone.

And it is just, like, we're trying to keep the peace at least as long as we can.

But it is, like, there are moments where, at this point, it's already contentious.

Let's get into it.

Let's talk about opening statements.

How did that go?

So, the DA's, she just kind of gave, like, a very simple thing.

Talk about the law a little bit.

Say that nothing that we say is evidence.

Which is kind of, like, a weird opening statement.

Doesn't really go much into the facts.

And then I start getting up there, and I want to, of course, tell them what they're going

to hear about self-defense.

And pretty much starting with maybe, like, my third sentence in closing, she just starts

objecting to every single thing I say as argumentative.

And, of course, I'm just trying to tell them what I think the evidence is going to show.

And apparently, everything that I said stretches, for her, stretched the line.

So, I have, like, literally everything I'm saying is being objected to.

I, for me, it just actually just made me more, like, impassioned.

I was getting really pissed off up there.

You know, and every time the judge overruled it, I just repeated what I said last time.

So, some of them were sustained, which actually pissed me off even more.

So, then I'm starting, now I'm getting pissed off at the judge and the DA.

So, now all of a sudden, like, when I started off pretty calm, by the end of it, just my

opening, I'm just completely fired up.

And, like, just completely, like, sweating into my suit, just like, and I'm like, and

in my head at that point, I'm thinking, like, well, considering this is a murder case, I

might not even get to talk the rest of this week.

I was like, I might as well just let it all out right now.

I love it.

Then you sit down at your council table, all indignant.

You got your yellow pad.

You're, like, ready to go.

Yes.

We're going to the first witness.

Let's go.

Exactly.

Exactly.

I'm ready.

Yeah.

But, I mean, everybody was, you could tell, like, jurors were pissed off by it.

My colleagues who were watching were pissed off.

Like, people, like, really did not like how that whole, I mean, it was, like, three minutes

and people hated how it went down.

Nice.

Nice.

All right.

Well, let's talk about the people's case.

Tell us about the pertinent witnesses they put up in evidence.

Well, funny you should say pertinent, for the first.

Uh-oh.

Oh, man.

I asked that first.

I purposely chose that word.

The first.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

I do want to mention this.

The first few days were filled with officers who literally just got on the stand, talked

about which direction they came from to get to the Walmart, how long it took them to get

there.

They showed it on the map and what they saw when they got there.

And that's literally all we heard for days.

So.

Come on.

Jesus.

Cumulative.

Very cumulative.

But then we started getting into some very interesting characters, the people who were

actually at the Walmart and saw or heard something.

So we had this lady.

She came in.

She heard something that sounded like firecrackers, saw cars going away.

And then she, as she was driving out of this parking lot, she saw a guy laying on the ground.

And what's interesting here, what happened was she started saying, you know, this guy,

he was like talking to her on the ground, from the ground saying like, hey, can you help

like, can you help me?

Can you pray for me?

Can you get me some help?

Like all of this stuff where this, you know.

I thought he was slumped over unconscious in the car before Possum pushed him out.

And that's the whole thing.

And that's what, and she said this guy in her prior testimony at the prelim, in her,

the police report, she never mentioned anything about a conversation.

And if she even goes to the stretch of saying like, he thanked the paramedics before being

put in on the gurney and taken away in the ambulance.

Didn't you say he got shot in the head?

So the headshot was actually a graze that went like this way.

The fatal shots were actually into the back, which we'll get to in a minute.

For the record, when Zach said the shot went this way, he did a, he took a, his index finger

and went across the middle of his forehead, across the top of his head.

For the listeners, I want to bring that courtroom talk.

For the record, so the court reporter can take this down.

We're on video here, so it makes me, so.

Okay, so she said there was this whole conversation that happened.

Right, so my client is, this is one of the moments, so he is losing his shit.

And like, I'm just trying to listen to what's happening.

I don't even care.

Like, none of this even matters.

I mean, everything that mattered already happened.

But she, but he's just like, he's like, she's trying to elicit sympathy for them and

like all this stuff.

And it's like, she's lying on the stand, lying about all this shit.

Like, I, like, like, you've got to impeach her.

Like, you've got to fuck her up, Zach.

And I'm just like, in my head, I'm just like, it doesn't matter.

But I'm also thinking like, you're right.

I mean, in a way there is a little point where it is eliciting a lot of sympathy for this

decedent.

And it's stuff that didn't happen.

So, but the client is so animated and he's so loud that then when we come back the next

day and this witness is still on the stand, the DA now starts starting to ask this person

questions and trying to correct her, which she wasn't doing the day before.

I don't know for sure, but I wonder if it's because Anthony was that loud, that that was

something that was picked up on.

So this kind of, now I have a little light bulb thing go off and I'm like, you know what?

I think I can work with this situation.

So she's like, would this refresh your recollection, would that refresh your recollection?

I'm like, judge, can we approach?

And I was like, judge, she never said she needed her recollection refreshed.

This is completely improper.

She is standing firm that this is what happened.

So then the DA is like, what, am I supposed to impeach my own witness?

And I'm like, absolutely.

So now it's the-

You have to do it all the time.

So now the DA is, now she's like confronting this person about the fact that she actually

never said anything about this stuff before.

And so now all the stuff that Anthony wants to come out is coming out, but it's coming

out with the DA and they are now fighting.

And now all of a sudden this witness hates the DA and it's like 30 minutes of them just

yelling at each other.

And it is just complete, it is glorious just sitting back and watching this.

It's glorious.

What's the DA impeaching this witness on when the witness is just talking about stuff

that doesn't really, doesn't matter, right?

But she, to her matters, she, the fact that she, she didn't want me to get out, I guess

that some, that she's never said any of this stuff before.

Yeah.

She wouldn't want you to make her look bad.

Yeah.

So now she tried to confront it, but it backfired.

Yeah.

So now the client gets what he wants without me looking like a bad guy.

So then I just asked her like a couple of questions.

She's laughing with me.

And then I was, I sit down and I was like, that actually went out pretty well.

Um, she, did you ask her like, were you holding your, your holiday Christmas bags for shopping

or what did you like?

Well, well, the, well, the one thing I was trying to establish with every witness was that

none of them went through the decedent's clothes because I wanted to make sure that he didn't

have this extra $500 to buy the gun.

Like I needed, cause it was a robbery.

So I did ask her if she, if she stole anything from this dying guy and she thought that was like

the funniest question in the world.

So that was it.

One question, sit down.

And that was, so it ended up working out.

Um, what's the next piece of evidence that the DA put up?

So then she brings in this other guy who was shopping, um, this, um, really funny dude.

He's like the Spanish speaking guy.

And so he's like getting in his car, he did a shopping and all of a sudden he hears, what's

not like gunshots.

And the DA is just asking him all these questions again.

It doesn't matter, but there's such funny interactions where she goes, is this like breakfast

time, lunchtime, dinnertime?

And he goes, well, I don't know when you eat dinner.

He's like, I just know I eat when I'm hungry.

And it was, and then she goes, well, did you look up to see what happened when you heard

the shots?

And he goes, he goes, as they say, curiosity killed the cat.

I didn't all look up.

Is this through an interpreter too, right?

This is through an interpreter.

So it's so funny because he's saying all this stuff and it's really matter of fact.

So you have no, like, and then all of a sudden the interpreter starts talking and you're like,

this is really funny.

And like the, and the jurors are like shitting their pants.

Like they are laughing.

They love it.

It's fun to hear, but also super helpful because now your jury is in a much more lighthearted

mood.

Absolutely.

As opposed to focusing on the fact that someone's dead and they want someone to do it.

And they want someone to pay for it.

Yes, absolutely.

So then the DA brings in the medical examiner.

And at first, obviously this is, this is not pleasant because there's all these photos.

I try to keep a lot of the autopsy photos out, but the judge, I think he let in a little bit

more than he probably should have, because there's like stuff with like medical apparatuses in

there.

And I'm like, this is a little much.

So anyways, they're seeing this.

The guy has a lot of bullet holes.

I think it was 10.

So the, so they're seeing like all these angles.

There's, and the DA will show like five pictures of the same bullet hole.

So like, there are like, I kid you not, there were probably around 50 pictures of the autopsy

on there.

And I'm just like, I cannot believe there's this many that were allowed.

So, so we're there, we're looking at all these photos and, you know, and of course the guys

talk about how they're all like, a lot of them are in the back and those are the fatal

blows.

Sounds not good for the client.

But once we start, once I start the cross-examination, he does, again, he, you know, he says the whole

thing.

I can't tell you which order they went in, but he does confirm that the one that went to

the top of the head did come from the front, which was huge to corroborate what the client

said.

Because the, the decedent was turning around to point his gun at the client.

Right.

So that's important because if all of the shots were just in the decedent's back, then that

undercuts your client's story.

Right.

And then also his friend did try to minimize it just a little bit in that interview in the

hospital where he says that the decedent didn't quite turn around yet before the client slapped

his hand away and started shooting.

Now that's very much disputed because the, you know, he's looking right at him or at least

the gun is.

And there's a, so there's some type of injury on the decedent's forehead that indicates

that the bullet, he was looking right at the gun or right at the decedent or right at their

client when the client shot him.

Right.

He was literally facing him.

They can tell that by the injury.

Right.

That's pretty cool stuff.

And he did also agree.

Yeah.

And he did also agree that the, we're such nerds.

That's pretty cool.

That's pretty cool.

Right.

This stuff does get super interesting.

Yeah.

And he did agree that it is absolutely possible that the shot that the guy took to the left

hand could have come from the front while he was holding a gun.

So again, something that corroborated what the client was going to testify about.

So, and then, so then the interesting thing was that all those gunshots at the back were

like in different places, different angles, different distances.

Like some of them, you know, you could see like the ring around it as if it was not the

muzzle was on it, but very close.

Some of them looked like they were from a distance, but we're talking about in a side of a car.

So the medical examiner gave it to me that these things, you know, this all indicates that

a gun was moving, that the shooter possibly could have been moving, that it was all indication

of a chaotic scene.

Which substantiates your client's story of the struggle with possum.

Right.

So now all of a sudden, I feel like a little bit better about this testimony.

Despite the fact that now the jury has seen all these terrible photos that, you know, normal

people just don't see every day.

So then the DA is, the next day after this, the DA all of a sudden is bringing up this thing

outside the presence of the jury where she's saying, we've been trying to serve the aunt

of the passenger and we can't get ahold of her.

She's dodging us.

So we want a material witness warrant issued for her.

And of course, my investigator has been talking to her as far as trying to set up this interview

with the, with the actual passenger.

And, you know, all, all she says is we want to make it right.

We want to make it right.

And he just has this hunch.

My investigator is like, I can call her right now and she'll be here.

And I'm like, I don't know.

I mean, she was so off and like all these other testimonies like that.

I just like, she's just such a wild card.

And my investigator was like, I just really have a good feeling about this.

And I was like, all right, do it.

So he calls her up.

Then that same morning, she shows up in like 15 minutes.

How did, how did he know, how did your investigator know that the aunt would show up if your investigator

called?

Did they establish some type of rapport or relationship?

I guess so.

Yeah.

They had just been talking because trying to set up this interview with, uh.

I love that she wouldn't come for the DA, but she came for the, for your defense investigator.

Right.

And so then the DA, of course, trying to fuck with her now.

And she goes, well, I want to order her present the next day, not call her like that day,

the day she was supposedly intending on calling her and get this warrant.

So sure enough, she does come back and she gets on the stand.

And it just gets on there.

She's like super animated.

And she goes, this ain't right.

That's the first thing she says to the jury.

And the DA just completely like overlooks that and just starts going into the questions she

wants to go into.

Oh my God.

Can that be the name of this episode?

This ain't right.

This ain't right.

And so of course, all the DA wants to go into is the fact that the nephew went there.

That's how the car got there.

She's the one who called the police and gave them the gun and gave and like gave them back,

like showed them where the car was.

And that's all the DA was hoping to get out of the aunt.

But of course, the aunt starts going into why this ain't right.

And she starts going into the statements given to her by her nephew.

So now...

That was an objected to by the prosecution?

It was.

It was absolutely objected to her.

Wait, at this point, had you been...

Had you been...

Had you dealt with the recording from the hospital?

Yes.

This was...

So we did that.

So the hospital recording came in already?

No.

It had not.

The DA...

The DA actually never brought that in.

Okay.

So you can't even offer this as a prior consistent statement that he made this statement to the

aunt and it's exactly the same as the statement he made to the police.

Right.

Could not.

Okay.

So it's just hearsay.

She can't actually get into it even though it's helpful for you.

Right.

But the interesting thing that happened here was that the...

So yeah, we called a break in the action and we started having a 402 hearing about what

we can get in and what we can't.

And the cool thing about when the DA was bringing up everything else is her...

The aunt admitted that or testified that when her nephew came in, he was pale on the face

that in a way she's never seen him before.

He was completely beside himself.

He was...

Excited utterance.

Yeah.

He was rolling on the ground, pounding it with his fists.

So at that point, once we were able to establish that and the fact that her nephew told her

that this was basically shooting happened, he drives over, calls 911 on the way there.

And this is immediately when he gets to the house, which is just a couple minutes away

from the Walmart.

And the judge lets it in as an excited utterance.

So now all of a sudden, the jury comes back in and the DA is not touching it.

But once we start getting into the cross-examination, it all starts coming in.

That's great.

And you can do it through...

You can ask leading questions.

Right.

Through a cross.

It's on cross.

And the other thing that was cool about it was that now it comes in for the truth, whereas

the prior inconsistent statement would have actually come in only to show the inconsistencies on

the 911 call.

So now all of a sudden, we are really sitting pretty and the aunt is just saying stuff I

had no idea she even knew about.

So now I'm like, the second statement she gave to the police where she gave them more,

she has now even more information that corroborates the client where she's talking about them wrestling

over the gun and the bullets flying out, which nobody said in any police report.

And she, of course, admits that she doesn't know anything about the client.

She talks about how she actually does know the decedent, how she knows her mom from the neighborhood.

She makes funny jokes that they're both part of the Dope Fiend Society of Stockton.

So she's very, she's a very like animated and entertaining to the jury.

She talks, she admits to having, because now the DA is trying to impeach her when she gets

her on redirect, she admits having angel dust that same day that she makes, that the nephew

comes over.

And it was such a funny interaction.

She goes, well, didn't you, you didn't tell the detective that you smoked angel dust that

day.

And then she just calls the DA by first name.

I'm not going to mention it here, but she goes literally like, come on, you think I would

tell the detective that I smoked angel dust?

Angel dust.

Wow.

So she.

How's the jury reacting to this?

I guess.

They are really watching this.

They are like very focused, you know, because she starts going into the, so I'm like, why,

why did he tell you that, you know, he, the decedent was going there and she goes, cause he

was there to rob, he was going to rob the boy.

So, and she was saying about how the, um, her nephew was pissed about this whole thing

that he was put into this predicament.

Um, and she just lays it all out.

And it's, there's some things that are a little different again, cause she's hearing it now.

It's through the nephew or nephew.

But a lot of the things are very consistent with what all, what her nephew said and with

what the client said.

What else happened with the jurors?

Um, so with the jurors, um, well, just before that, there's one last thing I wanted to mention

because the DA tried to impeach her saying like, you never said this, like to us like

this before, like at a prior proceeding or, um, to the police.

And she said, well, the night of the shooting, I needed to talk to my lawyer cause I didn't

want to get my nephew in trouble.

All I cared about was my nephew's wellbeing.

And then she talked about the material witness warrant for the trial.

She didn't mention trial, but she said, I just had surgery because I broke my leg.

My femur was literally sticking out of my leg.

The moment I got out of the hospital and I was hopped up on my meds, you had me arrested

and placed in jail.

So she was like, at that point, I didn't care about any, but myself.

When she said that in front of the jury.

I just said whatever I wanted to.

She did.

So she was blaming her for that.

It was good.

And, and the jury is just like, now we got something to really pay attention to.

Like, this is, this is what we came here for.

And so the crazy thing that happened at that point is like, this is now the beginning of

the second week.

They stopped taking notes, which I'd never seen in a file before.

The jury.

You know, we just started looking at them like day after day after day.

And everyone's just sitting there just looking, just watching.

And it was just like, cause this lady was out of control.

So like, she was really like out there.

So like, I mean, I'm like, she's, I think she's brutally honest, but I don't know what

a regular juror is going to think of this just might be my.

Defend, you know, again, my defense brain on, but they are most of them, I think like maybe

all but one or two are not taking notes anymore.

I mean, it was the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.

I'd never seen anything like that.

And, um, there were a lot more of those types of officer witnesses.

The, um, the detective started getting called multiple times to talk about where they were

in the investigation.

Nobody took notes.

Nice.

Um, so as far as the DA case, um, a couple of witnesses that were really interesting.

She called the phone expert to, from the DOJ to talk about the Instagram messages and the

phone dumps, things like that.

And that's when the DA started bringing out the Instagram messages between Anthony and the

decedent.

And she, the DA, who was white, started reading the text messages.

Uh-oh.

Oh no.

In what you would call a black sense or trying to sound like she's of a different race.

Oh, okay.

Oh no.

Oh no.

Great, great.

How did that go?

It was...

Well, wait, what is the makeup of your jury?

Oh, they, they're completely mixed.

Okay.

Um, our San Joaquin juries are always very, um, there's like a little bit of everyone in

there.

Okay.

So there's going to be people of color on there who are going to be like, what is this

lady doing?

Got it.

There were a couple, there were a couple of these.

I guess.

For the record, Zach had his, his hand over his face.

Yes.

Um, you know, and it wasn't, the bailiff, the bailiff did that with the hand over the face.

Yeah.

It was, uh, it was, it was an interesting moment.

The, the objection went nowhere, which was kind of upsetting.

Wait, Zach, let me ask you this.

When she did her accent, was that, was, could you tell that she had done that accent before?

Was that her first rodeo with that?

Or was she comfortable?

Does she feel very comfortable in that or?

I had done a trial with her in the past and the, my back client was African American too.

And there was, this is, that was before RJ.

That would have been in 2020.

And there was some of that going on.

She's a repeat offender.

Yeah.

She didn't drop any of the N-bombs, did she?

No.

God, no, no.

And then go, no, I said it with an A, just like in the text messages.

Well, that one actually, there was none of that in the messages.

But now I'm wondering how that would have went.

Not well for her, it sounds like.

Yeah.

So, so yeah, the objection shockingly went nowhere.

So, so that, so, but it was very surprising.

Um, definitely a few people were caught off guard by that.

Um, then the, one of the coolest moments I thought that happened in the trial was she called the DOJX that did the, uh, uh, the firing pin impressions.

The, for like the, the, looking at the shell casings.

So going back to the beginning, when I was talking to the client, when I was first talking to him about the case, he was telling me about how there's like discrepancies with how many shell casings there are, like something went missing.

He's like, he's like, there's some kind of like tomfoolery going on in this case.

And I'm like, I still couldn't quite grasp what he was saying.

And eventually when we're getting to the point where she's bringing in evidence tech after evidence tech, um, there's all of a sudden the guy who's going through the Mercedes, the decedent's car, uh, they talk about how there's a, something, uh, shell casing that he pulls from the front passenger floorboard where the, uh, the friend was sitting, the friend of the decedent.

And he mislabeled it as a live cartridge.

It turns out it was actually a shell casing.

Um, yeah.

So at that point he just thought it was another one of the live rounds that were, that the decedent didn't put in the gun.

Now all of a sudden we have this thing and it wasn't tested by the department of justice.

Um, so the department of justice expert, she's testifying.

Um, she always does a great job.

I've had her in a couple other cases and she's saying that she has, um, these six shell casings and they all are consistent coming from the same gun.

They are not consistent with coming to the one gun that they recovered, which was the gun that was for sale.

Um, so now it's time for cross-examination and I bring up, Hey, did you ever get this other shell casing that's mislabeled?

And then she goes, no, it doesn't have like my department sticker and all that.

And I was like, and earlier when we were doing the testimony with the evidence text, I'm like, there's something about this impression that even to my naked eye looks very different than the others.

The one that's mislabeled.

So I'm like, would you mind analyzing this shell casing right here, right now?

And she's just like, uh, I don't know, you know, usually I got on a microscope and I got to do this and blah, blah, blah.

And I'm like, well, you testified some of the things you could see with the naked eye.

And she, then finally, she's like, okay, I'll take a look at it.

And in my head, I'm like thinking like, well, we have nothing to lose because at this point, if it does match, well, then we just have another bullet that came out of the same gun.

If it doesn't match now, all of a sudden we're corroborating the passenger story that he shot a gun from the seat and now everything's kind of fallen into place.

And I bring it to her and she goes, you don't even have to show me the other ones.

This is not consistent.

This was fired out of a different gun.

Yeah.

And it happened right there.

Like, boom, there's the Zach attack.

The Zach attack, baby.

And it was just kind of like, I've never tried anything like that.

I was definitely sweating.

I was like, I hope this pull this off.

And it was just, it came out and it was like, awesome.

That's that sweet spot PD time right there.

That's what I'm talking about.

That's what I'm talking about.

Your younger self wouldn't try that.

I don't know the answer to this.

I'm not going to ask.

So then the DA is like pissed.

And she goes, well, don't you need a microscope to tell that?

She goes, no, no, no, no, no.

She goes, this is so different.

It's obvious.

She goes, well, what about if I bring out you another one and compare them?

And she goes, no, they're different because this one's like this.

And this one's like this.

And I don't know, like the DA is so pissed that she then takes like the two different

ones and puts them on the overhead projector, the Elmo in the courtroom.

So now they're just blasted like on this like 90 inch screen in the courtroom.

And it is so obvious.

Even the jurors can see it now without any training.

Right.

And then at that point, I mean, that's pretty much it.

That was the, that was the DA case.

Nice, nice, nice.

And then how'd your client react to that?

It was the end of their train wreck.

Oh, he was so happy.

Because he was that, this thing that I didn't really quite understand what he was trying

to tell me now all of a sudden he's like, oh, Zach understands what he, what I was telling

him.

And he pulled this crazy thing off in court.

So now he's like really happy.

Now he's like, okay, now we're getting somewhere.

Um, all right, so, uh, the prosecution's done time for a motion to dismiss 1118 motion by

the defense, which actually there is a good grounds for dismissal of least the, uh, I mean,

with the, the, the prior consistent statements coming in, the hearsay exception statements

coming in of the, uh, of the possum, the judge could take the evidence and say, there's

no first, there's no second degree murder.

Maybe at most, this is like a manslaughter.

So, but the judge probably denied everything.

So that's fine.

Yeah.

And that was Nelson's argument.

That was exactly what it was.

And, uh, it's all right.

So we had hope.

Maybe this time.

Maybe this time.

Yeah.

Maybe this time it's going to happen.

All right.

It was denied and you had to go back to work in the trial.

We did.

So then we, uh, so now we have our case.

So first we call the, um, from the prior armed robbery can, um, adjudication of the decedent

and we call a witness.

Uh, so the incident is what happened was the, the, when he was still a juvenile a couple of

years before this, um, shooting happened, he and two of his friends, the decedent and two

of his friends were outside of someone's home in Tracy, which is another city in San Joaquin

County.

And it's basically, it's a husband and wife and their two-year-old.

They came from an emergency room.

Wait, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

This is the, these are the witnesses for the prior robbery conviction of the decedent.

Yeah.

The people he robbed in the past.

Okay.

Yes.

Family with a baby.

Family with a baby.

Okay.

All right.

So the dad, so we only called it.

And this is relevant to show what?

How's this coming into evidence?

Like it's relevant to say that this decedent, this is what he does.

This is character evidence, 1103 evidence code, 1103 evidence.

Exactly.

Exactly.

So generally character evidence isn't allowed to show somebody has a propensity to do this.

When it comes to acts of violence, um, by the decedent, this is something, you know,

in a situation just like this, a self-defense case, it is relevant.

Yeah.

It comes in.

Great.

Under section 1103 of the evidence code, a defendant in a criminal action can attack the

character of the alleged victim by introducing evidence of prior violent acts of the alleged

victim here.

The defense is bringing evidence of the decedent's prior violent acts of robbery with a gun as

evidence that the decedent behaved in a similar manner on the day in question.

Great.

Okay.

So you got this dad coming in to testify.

Yeah.

And he, you know, he, we don't keep them up there too long, but he testifies about how

he came home.

It was close to midnight.

Um, his kid was sick.

They were at the emergency room and they were coming back from the emergency room.

And he parked in his driveway.

He just got his kid out of the back seat and three guys with guns came out, up to them

at gunpoint and asked for their money and eventually also took the car.

Nice.

And he, and the, this one just couldn't like necessarily identify the decedent right in

that moment.

No, no, you just said, Hey, I was robbed by three dudes that have gunpoint.

But he was able to testify that the decedent committed an armed robbery and carjacking

while he was holding his child straight home from the emergency room.

So that's, I mean, that's pretty great.

And I, I don't know if the jury caught on immediately what it was about, but then once they came in,

the actual facts of the adjudication through the judge, then they're like, Oh, that's.

So, I mean, you couldn't have scripted that better.

It could have been any kind of robbery, but holding his two year old straight out of the

ER is just.

Oh my God.

It's pretty.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It could.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's, that's fantastic.

So that came in.

Then we, so then the thing that you were just talking about, Lauren, is we, um, we recalled

the detective for, to bring in the statement from the hospital, from the passenger.

So we have this DA case where for every step of the investigation, she keeps calling this

investor, the lead detective over to talk about where, where they were at in the investigation.

Just mundane minutia.

Right.

Just mundane, stupid bullshit.

Right.

The detective.

Right.

Like today we pulled out, we looked at all the security camera footage that showed nothing,

stuff like that.

And, um, so now he's testifying.

I want to say for sure the fifth time, maybe even the sixth time, but now it's that we called

them.

And now we bring up the fact that the passengers spoke to the police.

They had no idea up until that moment.

And the jurors, like some of them really had that look like we had the wool pulled over

our eyes this whole time.

Like that is crazy.

So this guy testifies four times before the prosecution talks about stupid shit.

Yeah.

The jurors don't give a fuck.

Then you called the detective and then, and then you elicit the most important piece of

evidence here.

And the jurors are like, Holy shit.

Why has the prosecutor been like, wow.

Okay.

Yeah.

So here comes Possum's statement.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So this time it's not even through the aunt.

This is now from the horse's mouth from the detective.

And so we go into it, like, obviously we've pieced out what the things that are actually contradictory

to the 911 call and a whole, but it's a whole bunch of it.

It's a huge chunk of it comes in.

And now they're like, man, this is like really corroborating, like a lot of stuff that at least

the defense that we were expecting to hear, um, and it all comes in.

So now, and so we did that.

And then we called our investigator to basically very simple.

All he talked about was that he went to the Kmart that the client was concerned about.

He took pictures.

It was completely abandoned.

Like the asphalt was like cracked weeds coming out of it.

The, you know, the store itself was boarded up.

Um, like it just looked like a completely abandoned property.

Um, again, that's just to, so that we could support the client's state of mind for when

he's going to get up there and testify.

And that of course was the next thing that we did after all those, those three witnesses.

Great, great, great.

Terrifying moment when your client takes the stand.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh my God.

Yeah.

I did not sleep like the night before I knew that was going to happen because I just know

the way this DA is.

I know that my client can be a hothead.

And he, he was like talking to me and stuff like, I can't wait to get payback over half

of the last trial.

And I'm just kind of like, I'm just like, you, that's not your concern.

Like your concern needs to be about going home.

And he goes, I had to say that to him maybe like 20 different times until it finally sucked

in.

But he, he was like ready.

He had like all these things planned on how to like do all these quips.

Oh man, that is bad.

That is bad.

That never goes well.

No.

But I could see where Anthony was coming from.

Like I've never been in his shoes, but I could see it.

I'm sure his feelings were valid.

His goal was not.

So he gets up there and the, this is something that him and I talked about.

So I had done a trial with this DA before he had obviously done a trial with this DA before

and her thing on the cross-examination is she starts off like really loud and aggressive

and says, you killed so-and-so try to just make him admit it.

And it's like one of those things that's, it's so visceral, it's hard to do.

And it makes you look bad when you have trouble doing it.

It's probably very effective in a lot of trials.

So one of the things that we discussed was that we're going to do it.

We're going to head off that way.

And so, so Klein takes the stand, you know, I'm just shuffling my papers.

And then finally I'm like, Anthony, let's just get this out of the way.

Did you kill so-and-so?

He's just like, yeah.

Was that your first question or just in that moment you thought of it?

Was that your first?

No, that was my first question.

You wrote that down as your first question.

I like it.

And then, because for us, it was, for us, it really was about, that was the one thing

where like, we're going to get one over on her, the DA, take away her thunder.

But, you know, once like it actually happened, I'm like, man, this actually, it was like,

it really took, it was the elephant in the room.

It was still there just enough to where that, that was gone.

And a lot of people, like, including like people in the court, the juror, we spoke to people

and just watching, we're like, that actually was very powerful.

How it turns out, it's probably something I'm going to end up using now forever.

Yeah.

Because it really just set the tone.

Like, we are not hiding anything.

We are just bringing it up.

Great, great.

So how did the rest of his testimony go?

So he did really well.

He went into, like, he was, I thought he came off extremely sincere.

He talked about everything.

He, you know, there's some things he didn't have an answer for.

And he was just, you know, he was okay admitting that.

Like, he didn't, like, he actually was, like, in the end, despite all those conversations

we had, he came off extremely humble and honest.

And the whole thing just really worked.

So then, and we admitted literally every wrongdoing about the car, about the lying of the police,

about the, what's it called?

The messing with his Instagram account.

Like, everything that he did that was, that looked shady, we just went into.

Were you able to talk about, I mean, they don't know, the jurors don't know that there was a prior trial, right?

So were you able to talk about, like, one of the shady things he did was try and change his car?

Were you able to talk about how a lawyer sort of had previously advised him, or just?

So I started asking questions about that.

And all I was able to get to without being completely stopped was that he did hire an attorney while he was waiting to get arrested.

I tried to get into the fact that he was told by his lawyer to get rid of the car.

And for some reason, I was stopped from doing that, which to me was crazy, because that's the client's state of mind.

That's why he did it.

So, yeah, I mean, we, so he didn't, we didn't get into that.

I remember I was really, I was really pissed off about that rule.

Yeah, so, but, I mean, you got him to own up to all the bad things, which I think builds credibility with the jury.

But it was unfortunate you weren't able to get in, that some of the bad things he did weren't his idea.

He was actually taking advice from someone whom he should have been able to trust.

So that's the way it stood.

So he, there were still some explanations for it, because he was, overall, he was scared.

He was scared of the police.

He was scared that they wouldn't believe him, because he thought that if they did talk to the friend of the decedent, that he would have lied because it's his friend.

He also saw a vigil at the Walmart for the decedent on Instagram, and a whole bunch of people were out there, like, they were holding out their guns.

And he's just like, I don't know if I want to be known right now.

So that was another, that was another thing that came into the calculus for him to just not make himself known.

But there was the, but the car really had to do with that more than anything.

That was the advice he got from him.

So, I mean, it ended up being couched into the sphere of everything else, which was true, and it did play into it.

The car, the majority of the reason for it was because that's what his attorney told him to do.

How did the DA cross him?

Did they butt heads a lot?

Oh, my God.

That was something else.

So, the, so, where I ended the direct was, you know, before going into, like, how he feels now, because he definitely has issues from the whole incident.

Can't handle confrontation.

Loud sounds make him extremely uneasy.

But right before that, we talked about his interview with the police and how he admits that he lied to them and he regrets lying to them.

So, she starts going, what is it that you regret about?

And then she just starts going in all his lies over and over and over.

And, like, a lot of questions are sustained objections to, but then a lot of things she is able to get away with.

And he's having a lot of trouble answering her argumentative questions in a non-argumentative way.

So, it leads to a lot of talking over, a lot of raised voices.

And it culminated into this crazy moment where the DA is saying, she's trying to say that he's not living in the house that he's saying he's living in, which was this really bizarre thing that she was trying to do.

And she's pointing out these license plate readers.

And she goes, well, you're saying that you're only at your house late at night and leave in the morning to go to work?

Well, then she goes, well, how do you explain this license plate reading at 5 p.m.?

And then, if you look at them, of course, she puts that on the overhead.

And the client's like, I was at work.

That's in Pleasanton.

And so, you can see it.

So, then she, like, quickly takes it off the Elmo.

Now, they're just going at it.

And the judge is just, like, in front of the jury.

He's just like, we're going to take a break.

He just yells.

So, then they leave.

He yells at the DA.

He yells at the client.

And then, like, just as he's about to finish, my client is just like, but what am I supposed to do when she's just trying to deceive everybody, you know, about what happened?

And then the judge just yells at him.

He goes, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

And I'm just like, oh, my God.

It's a valid question.

It is.

Just the wrong bad timing.

Interrupting the judge.

The judge should just be like, that's what the Zach attacks for, baby.

And he actually did say something like that to the degree.

He's like, your attorneys, we'll get a chance to talk to you again.

Like, just, you know, just calm down.

And so, that happened.

But then it's still, like, I mean, we go into the next day.

The cross takes.

It took almost a full day of court.

And she is just trying to, like, get him to say something that's just not true.

He is holding his ground.

He's super consistent.

Objections for, you know, for her being argumentative and being vague or getting sustained left and right.

Oh, so the judge is tired of it, too.

At some point.

The judge is sustaining objections against the DA.

He's done with it, also.

They get so much leeway.

They get the most leeway.

And at some point, he even tells the DA, in front of the jury, he goes, he's like, can we move on?

Like, can we actually get to what happened?

Because right now, we're not getting into what happened.

And there was even another interaction where.

Because the DA doesn't want to get to what happened.

It's not good for her.

No.

No, because she just asked the same question just a million different ways.

And then finally, she, like, mutters something under her breath to the point where the judge in front of the jury goes, did you just say something?

Like, very loudly.

And she just goes, no.

And it was, I mean, it was quite the, I mean, it was, that was by far the most contentious part of the entire trial.

I mean, it was, it was nuts.

But he called his own.

Great.

He came off.

I think he came off looking great.

Was that it for the defense case?

Yeah.

It was a relief once that was done.

Dumb it.

All right, then.

So let's talk about closing arguments, then.

How did that go?

It went.

This is a closing argument on a self-defense case.

So what is that, you know, just let us know what, what does the Zach attack do with that?

So there are two, kind of like two big things that, like, I try to, like, go into this.

Like, first of all, it's just, because the DA is always, when they say that it's not self-defense, I mean, you can, especially when there's a decent argument, one of the things I try to argue is that they're basically trying to say that in this kind of situation, you just have to let yourself die.

Like, you just have to, like, that is what they are telling you.

That's the simple version of their closing argument.

And, again, it's, then I bring back the whole thing about what we talked about, which ended up being great at jury selection, was, like, just because he may have been doing something illegal doesn't mean he had to let himself die.

He was in danger.

And, you know, he took appropriate actions.

The big thing in self-defense cases is that burden of proof, because, man, that instruction in murder cases, it's Calcrum 505 for self-defense.

It is awesome, especially that part where it says it's the DA that has to disprove self-defense.

And I just, so I talk about that over and over in multiple different ways, even, like, for instance, in the beginning of my closing arguments in these kind of cases.

Like, I love going into, like, the circumstantial evidence instruction, which talks about, again, if there's a piece of circumstantial evidence.

Two reasonable interpretations.

That's right.

Who does, is there a public defender anywhere who doesn't love that instruction?

And so what I always do in the beginning is, like, there's an overarching way to look at this in the self-defense case.

And I was, like, if you think that there's any kind of reasonable conclusion that points to him acting in self-defense, even if you think it's less reasonable than the opposite, if it's reasonable, it's not guilty.

And it's a big thing that I go into.

And then at the end of closing arguments, the one thing I like to do in general in non-self-defense cases, when I talk about the burden of proof, I like to go, like, you know, if you think, you know, if you think somebody likely did it, or, you know, it's not guilty.

If you think they probably did it not guilty, maybe not guilty.

You know, you just kind of go through the thing.

Here, I kind of like to do the opposite thing, which it's kind of like, if you think absolutely that he acted in self-defense, it's not guilty.

But if you think he likely acted in self-defense, he's not guilty.

Probably, maybe.

But even if you're to the point where you think, like, there's just even the slightest chance he acted in self-defense, but it's a reasonable thought, that's not guilty.

The only way you can get to not guilty is if you think there's absolutely no way this guy acted in self-defense that's reasonable.

And at that point, the jury, I assume, are thinking, like, well, I don't think we can get that.

We can't get to that in this case because the guy acted in self-defense.

It's simple but so effective and much better than just trying to explain what the legal definition of beyond a reasonable doubt is.

How long was the jury out for?

So they're actually, they were only out for two days.

So they went out at 9, like around 9.45 in the morning.

We had to finish reading instructions.

The closings took a while.

We like to hear ourselves talk.

Yeah.

So.

So while we're doing a podcast.

Yeah.

So, yeah, they get it like a little bit after we have to finish reading instructions the next day.

They get it like around 9.45, 9.50.

And we don't hear much from them that day.

And then the next morning we get, or sorry, the next afternoon we get a note that says that they are deadlocked on manslaughter.

Oh, the rest are included.

So they're not guilty on second.

That's what it sounds like, right?

So we're, we are now.

So I'm like, this is awesome.

Like we're already, we're already like, you know, life is off the table.

Huge relief.

Like I feel like I'm feeling good now.

He's already better.

He's already better off than last time.

Are you high-fiving the rest of the defense team at this moment?

Well, I want to, but so for some reason my, so my team's freaking out.

They want the all or nothing win.

Well, I'm the one who's like, like, we need to just keep, we just keep marching on.

This is great.

Like, but so first, you know, before I even get to the client, Nelson sees the instruction too.

And he is like freaking out because he, we, he was arguing at the instruction conference.

We need involuntary manslaughter too, because it's the act of giving the bullets could have caused the death.

Like we need to give them every lesser possible.

So he's like, we need to ask for re-instruction on this again.

Like we need to ask for it again.

And I'm like, I'm like, Nelson, we're winning now.

Like this is, we are, we are at the home stretch.

And he's just like, and then like, so we have this interaction.

They bring out the client.

He's having like family trouble at home.

Is this in the courtroom this is happening, this conversation?

This is.

So you bring your client out from lockup.

Okay.

Yeah.

Cause he's about to, cause we're about to have the judge come out to go instructions.

The DA's not there yet.

And he's like saying that, you know, he's having some like trouble at home with the mother

of his child.

And he's just like, I gotta, I gotta get out.

Like things have got to get right.

I I'm ready to take a deal if that's the case.

And I'm like, you know, and I'm like at this point to both of them, I'm like, you both.

Like need to stop fucking panicking cause we need to figure out what's even going on here.

And I'm like, so, so Nelson and I have this one conversation, like, so he's finally on board.

Then we talked to the client and he's on board.

And this really funny interaction happened just before we talked to the client where, you know,

cause we're in court and it's not that quiet.

Everyone kind of, kind of here.

The court staff is very good about not divulging if they do hear something, but the court reporter

after the client was taken back so we could talk to him in private was like, he's like,

he can't take a deal over a woman.

So I go to the client, I'm like, that's what she said.

Like she, the court reporter told you, she's like, he's like, she said that.

And I'm like, yeah, she did.

And he's like, all right, all right, all right.

I can't do that.

I'm going to, I'm going to ride this through.

I ain't no bitch.

And he's just like, I'm like, I can understand there could be reasons why you might want to

take a deal, but this is not, you're not thinking rationally right now.

So he backed off.

He told me, don't ask for a deal anymore.

So they bring out the jury and we find out that they're deadlocked.

We don't know which way, seven to five.

So now at this point, I'm a little, I'm actually a little disheartened.

It's fucking crazy.

With this, as well as the trial went, with all the good evidence that came out, it's just

like when your client was convicted of second degree murder earlier, based off his story,

like, damn, he's, so it's five to seven.

I mean, either there's seven people that think he's guilty or five people think he's guilty.

But that's a lot of people, given how well this case went.

I'm still not panicking, guys.

I'm still feeling like this is winning.

And so then we asked the jury how many votes and if it's changed.

They said it went from six, six to seven, five.

And at that point, I'm feeling like, okay, I think that has to go in our favor, considering

they also admitted they were not guilty and we took that verdict on the murder at this

point.

On the second.

So on the second.

Okay.

So great.

So we're already past that.

So now the life, the life charges are gone.

Now we're just in manslaughter land.

Okay.

Right.

So now they start throwing tons of questions at us.

We read them that instruction, like, hey, try new methods of deliberating, things like

that.

They now are talking about force.

They're talking about all these terms that aren't even in the instructions, like excessive

force.

So we're kind of like getting what they're getting at, potentially.

Like, is this too much force for the situation?

Things like that.

But we don't really know.

So the judge brings them back in and goes, hey, this is the end of the second day of deliberations.

He goes, right before we send them home, they're like, do you think it would help if you heard

more argument from the attorneys on a specific issue?

And the jury seemed kind of open to it.

So we came back the next morning.

God, I hate that so much.

I know.

So I spent all night, like, preparing, because based on their questions, I knew what this was

going to be about.

So the judge told them to go back and write some questions out that they want answered

in for the argument that he would give each side 15 minutes.

This is the first thing in the morning on the beginning of the third day.

But then right at about the same time, like 9.30, 9.45, that they went out two days ago,

they came back instead with a verdict.

Oh, okay.

Great.

Great.

So no re-argument.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

How does it sound in the courtroom?

We had, like, two buzzes in the courtroom.

It's from the jurors.

Oh, bad verdict.

It was just kind of like a little phone call.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, to the bailiff's phone.

So this brings up, like, a whole wide array of emotions as well.

Yeah.

I'm thinking, like, I'm thinking, like, I still have my, like, I got my glasses on from the

trial.

Like, I, like, I am, I am still drinking the Kool-Aid.

I'm like, this is, this is it.

Um, my colleagues, not so much.

Nelson's very nervous.

Um, Anthony still has PTSD from the last trial.

Also, he's, he's expecting the worst.

Anthony's focusing his energy on trying to be quiet in the courtroom right now.

Yeah.

So, and I'm, so, like, you know, I'm, and I was just trying to, like, calm down.

I'm, like, saying, like, you know, the jury had been coming in and they seem like they're

in a good mood.

And I'm, like, usually if you're going to condemn somebody to prison, they assume that's

going to be what's happened.

They're not going to be jolly in front of you.

So I'm, like, I assume this is the way it's going to be.

But, I mean, there's still, like, that worry.

Like, once the jury, you know, once the jury actually came out, you know, then it's, like,

hands on the desk, you're all sweating.

You're, like, I don't know what this is going to be.

Like, we already went through this once yesterday to make sure that they didn't do something

stupid by finding him guilty of murder, but then still arguing the lesser.

And they read the verdict and it was not guilty.

Yes.

How did Anthony react?

Oh, my God.

He, you could just see, like, he just completely, like, you could just see all the weight, like,

leaving his shoulders, like, the stress that he'd been carrying for, this point had been

three years that he'd been in custody.

And he, you could just see his shoulders just slinked out, like, just completely slumped

down, his head's now down in his hands.

He just crumbled.

Just crumbled.

Like, he's, he's getting, like, a little hotter.

His eyes are watering up.

And he, like, you could see, he's just feeling it, like, right there.

Like, just so much emotion coming out right at that point.

Great.

That's great.

That's so cool.

So, did he get to go home that day?

He did.

Right on.

He absolutely did.

He, uh...

That's such a good feeling.

Yeah.

He was a little upset.

He told me that he got released at 10.30 p.m., even though the verdict came, like, at 10.30

a.m., but...

Yeah.

...when I was finally read.

But, you know what?

In the end, he's just happy he's out.

Nice.

And then, um...

So, then, have you been able to see him or follow up with him since?

Yeah.

Actually, we've been talking the whole time.

He, um...

We went out to lunch, like, very shortly after that, like, the next week.

Because the verdict came on a Friday.

Yeah.

Uh...

We already had lunch that Wednesday.

And, um...

So, he turned 21 while he was in custody.

So, he actually let me buy his first, uh, legal beer.

Yeah.

You buy him.

He should have bought him.

Oh, no.

He hadn't had a job in three years.

Fair enough, I suppose.

So, uh, he, uh...

Yeah, no.

He was very thankful.

I talked to him.

Actually, after we had our, uh...

Dave, after you and I talked, he called me randomly.

And he actually, now he's talking about going to law school.

Because, I guess, this whole situation kind of...

Oh, I love that.

Inspired him, yeah.

Wow.

Wow.

Look at it goes, Zach.

Look what you did.

That's awesome.

That's great.

So, yeah.

So, he's, yeah.

So, he's working again.

He's already...

He's trying to enroll back for next semester after the summer.

He's...

For school.

So, he's...

He seems like he's on the right track.

He's not taking his second granite life for granted.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, what a nice way to end the story.

Yeah.

This is a great story.

This is a great, great trial.

We went over time by, like, an hour.

But it was all good, compelling stuff.

There's no fat to trim on it.

It was just good.

A great trial story.

And I love the theatrics.

I love the...

Usually, like, the trials aren't as interesting as the...

I don't know.

They're just such a good...

I love your Perry Mason moment.

I love the fact that you went for it.

I like the fact that the DA looked bad.

I like the fact that you got the judge to get...

Always love that.

Yeah.

It's...

Yeah.

This is a great story.

And I'm so happy that you were on the podcast and you came...

That you reached out to us to share it, Zach.

Thank you for doing that.

I appreciate you saying that.

And just so you know, your podcast is a huge hit in our office.

Like, we fucking love it.

So, like, everyone is excited about it.

That's great.

That's great.

Well, wow.

Zach, you put San Joaquin County on the map.

San Joaquin!

You guys know how to roll.

You guys throw down in San Joaquin.

Now we do.

Okay, Zach.

So, you're the sweet spot.

You're 10 years into the biz.

You've been a public defender for that long.

And tell us, so why did you become a public defender?

It's a question we ask all our guests.

Absolutely.

So, the big thing for me is I actually was born to children of refugees that came here a long time ago now.

But, so we didn't have anything growing up.

Like, you know, I grew up pretty poor.

Either studio, housing, projects, things like that.

And then, you know, it's like one of those things.

You know, you see people get marginalized by society.

So, you know, at some point, you just want to help.

The courtroom thing was something that appealed to me.

Just kind of, you actually get to fight it out.

So, that was, you know, the combination of those two that ultimately is what made me want to be a public defender.

Well, I'm glad you made that choice, Zach.

Yeah.

That's great.

Chose the right career.

Thanks for being on our team.

Yeah.

Glad to have you.

This is great.

That's great.

That's great.

Well, thanks for being on the podcast.

It was a pleasure.

Thank you.

Lauren, always good to see you.

You too, David D.

And one last, one last thing.

Sure.

Because I supervise a team.

We're called Mainline Felonies.

So, it's the MFers.

So, I wanted to give a shout out to my MFers out there.

I love my fucking team.

They are the best.

That's kind of amazing.

And I just want to say what's up to them.

Oh, man.

You guys rule hard, man.

Yeah.

MFers go down.

What's up, MFers?

MFers.

Represent.

All right, guys.

Thanks for being on the podcast.

This is good.

Thank you so much for having me.

All right.

Bye, guys.

Bye.

Thanks for tuning in to this week's episode of Another Not Guilty.

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.