Grab The Bull By The Balls – When Police Brutality Backfires in Court

Here at Another Not Guilty, we appreciate your support. Don't forget to subscribe or follow us. And please visit our website at anothernotguiltypod.com. Do you have a Not Guilty story you'd like to share with ANG listeners? Visit our website to submit your info to be a guest. That's anothernotguiltypod.com. Now, without further ado, here's this week's episode of Another Not Guilty.

The judge goes, "Okay, come here." And everyone comes to the bench. She tells the officer to come to the bench. And then looks at the officer and goes, "This is what you need to say." And I was like, "Judge."

And again, I was a young lawyer. I had never experienced this before. But it's like, when you're young, it's like, if you know it's wrong, just say it. Because you're not that good on the law, you're not that good on objections, but like, just make a record, say what's wrong, do your best. And that's what I was doing. I was like, "Judge, you can't."

"Do that." And she was like, "What?" I was like, "You can't instruct the witness what to say."

Welcome to Another Not Guilty. I'm David Moore, here along with my fellow public defenders, presenting to you the untold stories of the criminal justice system.

Objection! That assumes there's justice in the system, which there ain't. I prefer calling it the American criminal system.

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

In an unjust criminal system.

With a deck stacked against us.

Welcome back, everybody, to another fabulous episode of Another Not Guilty.

It's your boy, David D. here, and I'm excited about today's episode for several reasons.

One being today's special co-host, my fellow comedian and friend, Ashley Ray.

Ashley, how you doing?

Good! I am so happy to share this story today.

I am a comedian, writer, and activist. I care a lot about reforming the justice system, and I think it is important that we share these stories of the cops being absolute bad guys.

And this is a story today about cops being bad guys.

Never been told before. Cops being bad. First time ever. Right here.

You know, I don't know why we gotta keep telling people, but we gotta keep telling people. Cops aren't always good guys.

And if you wanna hear a story about a cop being bad, just ask any public defender, and they got a story.

And our guest today is no different. She is a public defender all the way from Florida. Her name is Priya. Priya, how are you doing today?

I'm good. Thanks for having me. How are you all doing?

Great. And where in Florida do you public defender at?

West Palm Beach, Florida. So Palm Beach County, the whole county.

And how long have you been a public defender for?

Five years.

Five years. Okay. And you have a jury trial not guilty story to share with us today?

I do, yes. A pretty fun one, I think.

And actually kind of hinted to it, what were the charges in this case?

So there were three counts of battery on law enforcement officers, but it was charged as a misdemeanor battery and then resisting an officer without any violence.

And how many police officers were alleged to be victims?

So it was a total of three officers that were alleged to be victims.

So that makes up all the three counts. One cop per count.

Okay. And what did your cop beating up client do, allegedly?

He didn't do anything. So the cops were saying that, it's kind of a long story, I'll try to shorten it as much as I can.

So the officers responded to this apartment complex where my client lived with his girlfriend and his child.

And his mother-in-law, not really mother-in-law, the mom of his girlfriend, but he considered her a mother-in-law, made a call to the police that there was a domestic disturbance going on.

So the cops come, they talk to the girlfriend and she's telling him about like a text message that she found on his phone and kind of an argument that ensued.

And they say that my client was like running around the front being like, "Get off my property. What are you doing here?"

And so eventually they say, "Okay, he let us in, he calmed down, and then he kind of got agitated again."

This is kind of a weird part of the police report because it sounds very random, but I think that was part of their strategy was to make him sound erratic.

And so at that point, they say that my client, the whole time he's holding his daughter like in his arms, that he starts pushing one of the officers.

And then that officer sees him hold his daughter extra tight.

And the way they wrote it in the police report was, again, very strategically, like he held her so tight that she couldn't make a sound, like trying to make it sound like a child abuse.

And then that officer punches my client in the face, which is undisputed.

And then he's on the ground, they take the kid, give the kid to girlfriend, to her mom.

And then they just beat the living shit out of my client and then allege that during that, he grabbed their balls, two of them.

Like so, two, four balls, two sets.

At the beginning, you mentioned that there was a charge of resisting arrest without violence.

Right.

So where did that come from?

That's a good question.

So I think every public defender knows this.

Resisting without violence is literally anything.

I mean, the statute is so broad.

So the way they alleged it in here was at the end of the arrest, they're putting handcuffs on him and they actually put him in a hobble.

Like they tied his legs up and his hands.

And so during that, they're saying that he was like resisting as in, you know, you can drop your weight.

You can just be like, don't arrest me or, you know, anything like that.

And it pretty much counts as resisting.

So it was a very vague.

Or like holding your child and you want the police to leave your property.

That could be resisting arrest.

Anything can be resisting without violence.

It's actually a very annoying statute.

Did the, did you say that the police officer punched your client in the face while he was holding his, his baby?

100% correct.

Yes.

Wow.

And how old is his baby?

She was a toddler at the time.

I want to say maybe two, like she could walk.

Like it wasn't, you know, like she came to court and was walking.

So I'd say maybe two years old, two, three.

And they're saying what happened before the punch in the face is your client pushed a police officer while he was holding his kid.

That's what the cop is saying.

Yeah.

That he was getting agitated.

He was like, get out of my house, get out of my house.

And he started kind of pushing the cop on his shoulder.

And that's when the cop started to try to get the kid out of his hands.

And the three counts of battery on different police officers was two officers got their balls grabbed while they were struggling on the ground.

What's the third one?

The push to the officer in the beginning.

Okay.

The pre punch push.

Okay.

Three charges.

Okay.

Wow.

What kind of a crime scene investigation did they do?

Was there any fingerprints on the balls?

No, we didn't check their balls.

I didn't, I didn't make a motion to check the officer's testicles.

So we're just, we're just trusting the cops when they say.

But you know, Dave, I was a very young lawyer at the time.

So I just didn't know that that was even an option.

I don't know if you guys do that in LA.

Okay.

So battery on a police officer resisting arrest without violence.

But you're the public defender, you get the case.

And what do you see when you first look at it?

When I got the case, I knew that it was probably BS.

And that's because battery on a law enforcement officer is necessarily not a misdemeanor in Florida.

It's charged as a felony.

So when I see a charge like that, that by definition is a felony, and they've chosen to charge it as a misdemeanor.

To me, that's a little like ding, ding, ding.

Something's wrong here.

Otherwise, why wouldn't they just charge the case as a felony?

Right.

And at that point, you know, my client had had a lot of, I think, two attorneys before me.

And he was very, he really wanted his trial and he felt very wrong.

So for me, it looked like a trial very early on in the case.

And your client, I'm just curious, did he have any sort of history?

Was this his first run in with the cops?

Or was he just kind of like, I'm ready to fight this.

I know it's bullshit.

He had only driving history, driving with licenses suspended.

So no violent history whatsoever.

He had one, I mean, this is another Florida thing, felony driving with a suspended license.

So that's a uniquely Florida thing, I think.

But other than that, he didn't.

He was pretty adamant on going to trial.

And I didn't mention this earlier that they took photos when fire rescue came.

He went immediately to the hospital.

So they couldn't even take him to the jail.

They had to take him to the hospital.

And there were photos which were used extensively by the defense in trial.

But there was this giant photo of his face that was just completely red.

Like they had just bloodied up his whole face.

And, you know, when you look at that, you're like, this is a ridiculous battery charge, which is why they're not charging it as a felony because it's embarrassing to take this to a felony courtroom.

So you get the case, you look at it, you know, it's BS because it's misdemeanors.

You see your client's bloody face.

What do you think of that when you see those photographs?

You know, I mean, I think it's disturbing, but mainly I was like, OK, obviously, this is a trash case for the state because clearly this man was beat up.

And there's no way this happened the way that the police report said that it does, which I'm kind of one of those that tends to lean on that anyway, whether I have the bloody photos or not.

So then what does your client say then?

You met your client then, right?

What did he tell you what happened?

So I met with him and, you know, his version was very different in that he said that the officers, the way he described it was like the officers were kind of coming, looking for a fight.

And it was undisputed that, I mean, for this like domestic disturbance call, like six or seven officers ended up responding.

And so all that stuff they said about him, like being erratic or agitated, he was like, all these cops were at my house attacking me.

And then they just tried to take my daughter out of my hands and then like punch me while my kid was in my arms.

So I think his position on, I think I know that he was like seeing it from the beginning as this like grave overreaction by the police officers that then became this very violent altercation.

Did, did he say how, cause this happened inside his apartment, the, the, the beating.

Correct.

Did he say how the police officers came inside?

Yeah.

So when they came outside initially, one of the police officers tried to like talk to my client, just like level with him.

And my client invited him inside and said, I'll talk to you, but it has to be like in here.

I'll tell you what happened.

And that's, and that was the officer that they alleged that he pushed on, on, on the shoulder.

So he brought one of the officers inside.

And so then the whole grabbing the child, everything is happening after the client has invited them inside his home.

Okay.

So he was, your client was nice enough to invite the police on the inside.

And then he decided that started acting like a fool.

According to the cops.

Yeah.

He's not like a cop, Dave.

Like what is this?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

It's like, I don't see why someone's going to be like, I want to beat up three cops with my kid in my hands, letting them into my house.

Right away.

I'm questioning the state and wondering why, why they would even want to go forward with this case.

Yeah, I did too.

It didn't work.

My, my, my questioning was not enough, but it was also one of those police reports that, you know, and we've all read them.

They're just trying too hard.

Right.

Like the, like, even when they talked about in the police report, him inviting the officer inside, they were like, he led me into his dimly lit patio.

I'm like, sir, like, what do you mean?

Like this happened during the day.

And, you know, with the child, it was like, squeezed her so tight.

We didn't think she could make a sound.

And it's like, I mean, did she stop breathing or not?

Because no child abuse was charged, you know?

So it's like, you could kind of reading the police report, you could see that they were kind of covering their asses after the fact, which also led me to think, okay, this case is BS.

All right.

So then it sounds like you, you know, you're going to go to trial and you have to prepare for trial, right?

So what are you doing to prepare your defense?

Are you going out and like interviewing witnesses?

Yes.

Yes.

So the whole incident happened at this kind of small apartment complex.

So we talked to, and some of the previous attorneys had already done this work, but my client had said a couple of his neighbors heard what had happened.

So I had the phone numbers of those people.

And then one of them, I went to go see, I just went to the scene in person with my investigator.

So we could kind of get a sense of like where the officers were in relation to everyone to try to understand like what this actually looked like.

And then I spoke with two of his neighbors that did end up testifying at the trial as well.

Okay.

And then what did the neighbors tell you?

One of the neighbors, it was a female neighbor and she lived, I believe next door to them.

She saw the beginning of it.

So as the cops are coming, she is seeing what's happening.

And so she was really important for the defense case because it, I hate this word, corroborated.

It supported the fact that so many officers arrived kind of, you know, ready to be aggressive.

And because, because she was like, I don't understand why there were so many there.

So she, you know, she was kind of there to set the tone for when these officers came, for lack of a better term, they were looking for a fight.

Yeah.

Did these neighbors, did they have anything to say about like, oh, we've heard them arguing before anything like that?

Did they, were they like, oh, we know them.

They have a reputation.

Not at all.

In fact, they were like, he's the nicest guy ever.

He loves his kid.

And, and that ended up, you know, they ended up testifying to that too, based on like how some of the rules work for self defense, but they, they loved him.

And it was a very kind of tight knit community in that apartment complex.

They all knew each other.

So they were all like, he is an awesome dad.

He's always there for his daughter, really good guy.

So they did not say anything regarding, you know, hearing fights or anything before.

So basically, he's a great guy making brownies for the whole apartment complex.

Right.

And then all these cops show up.

Okay.

Okay.

It also seems kind of the fact that there's like so many cops on the scene, like you're not going to take on 10 police officers as one individual.

Right.

Uh, and then do we get the, the race of your client?

My client was Indian, South Asian.

Wait, do the cops beat up South Asian people too?

Apparently no one, no one is immune.

I would think in Florida, you're brown, you're brown.

It's probably how.

Yeah, actually that's kind of a separate issue, but it's really interesting.

Cause when I pick juries in Florida, I always think that one of my girlfriends who's black, who, you know, we, we did a separate trial, but she asked me to pick the jury because a lot of the issues that we were talking about were about police officers and the reaction to black people.

And she was like, I want someone that's not black to do it.

And I was like, what do jurors think I am?

You know, like what do they identify me as?

And how does that affect cases?

I would, I mean, I also would think for your client, that's, that's going to be important as, you know, an Indian man, how he's perceived by the cops and them escalating this, this, this, this to violence, uh, how he's going to be perceived with the jury.

Uh, I'm curious, you know, for him, he, he'd never faced charges like this.

Was he afraid?

Is he worried about losing a job?

What's, what's his kind of mental state?

I think everyone is afraid when they're in trial.

His case had been open at that point.

I mean, the incident happened in June of 2015 and the trial happened in September, 2016.

And I probably got the case in like August, like somewhere around there.

So it had been open so long.

He was so ready to fight the case at that point.

Um, I think anytime you have an open criminal charge, it affects your work, but he wasn't someone that was, I don't think he wasn't concerned about the possible punishment, but he just so felt, he felt so, so righteous in his fight that I don't think that was the main concern for him.

He was like, no matter what we were fighting this case, I did not do anything to those officers.

Yeah.

Yeah.

What, uh, what other pretrial work did you do?

Did you like getting like, uh, getting like police officer records for like history of violence or fabricating police reports?

I did.

So I pulled the internal affairs records for every officer in the case.

Um, one of them at turn, it turned out had previously shot someone, which was available on the internet.

You could just like Google his name and find the news article.

So, um, we did look that up.

That was the only really useful use of force kind of fact that we could use in, in case I remember.

Well, I mean, he just like shot somebody like, and it was found that he, it was a bad shoot.

It was a good shoot.

Was he reprimanded?

He was actually, it was found that it was a good shoot.

Um, so they, they found that the, it was a justified shooting, um, in that case, but it

was my position that we could still question him about it in the trial, but it was found by

the police department that it was fine.

Just because the police say it was a good shoot doesn't mean it was a good shoot.

I didn't say it was a good shoot.

Any other pre-trial work you may have done or investigation in this case?

Yeah.

So we filed, um, so there was another witness as well.

The, uh, there was another neighbor who actually saw the part of the incident when the officers

were already on top of my client.

So he was a neighbor that at some point was allowed to enter this crime scene.

I don't know how that works, but he did see it.

Or I don't know if he was standing outside, but he witnessed a lot of officers on top of

my client.

So our first witness, the female, um, neighbor saw the beginning.

And then this individual saw like more of the middle to end where they were already on

top of him.

Hey, A and G listeners, if you love another, not guilty, please give us a rating and review

on Apple podcasts.

This will help spread the word so we can bring you even more great stories from the trenches.

And don't forget to like, and follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

And then did any, like any other, uh, new evidence or pop up or anything like that?

Anything strange happened before the trial started?

Yeah.

Suddenly they were like, he was on drugs.

He was on Flocka.

I got an email.

Uh, it was email correspondence between one of the police officers and the state attorney.

It wasn't even a report.

It was literally just like an email between the two of them.

It was never even written in a supplemental report or the original report that they decided

that my client was high on Flocka and Flocka was very sexy in Florida around 2015, 2016.

It was all the rage.

All the judges thought everybody was on Flocka.

If they acted, if they were angry, if they were sad, like everyone's on Flocka.

So that became kind of a feature of the trial and ended up helping us a lot, I think actually,

but it was a ridiculous claim.

Like how can you decide at this point, like eight, nine months later that someone's high

on Flocka and just not mention it ever.

Yeah.

The police report didn't mention anything like, Oh, we should drug test this guy.

He seems like he could be under the influence.

Did it say anything like that?

They tried to make him sound like he was erratic and that he was having, it said in the police

report, like psychosis, but there were certainly no direct allegations of drugs.

And also he was taken to a hospital after.

Right.

So like if they wanted to know if he had drugs, like they could know.

Yeah, they could have known.

Like in his system.

So then why do you think they like eight months later or 10 months later decided to say, Oh,

he was high on Flocka?

Uh, that's a good question.

I don't really know the answer, but I think that the state was probably talking to them

that, okay, it looks like this case is going to trial.

It looks like you said psychosis in your police report.

What does that mean?

You know, the state attorneys are preparing these witnesses.

Maybe it's like, Hmm, why would one person try to take on 10 police officers?

Oh, he's high on Flocka.

Right.

Like the catch all reason for everything in Florida between 2015 to 2017.

Well, you said your client wanted to go to trial.

So let me ask this next question.

Then, um, did you even try to negotiate the case with the district attorney?

I tried to get him what we refer to as a deferred prosecution agreement, which is a diversion

agreement, um, where if he had done, it's usually like some community service hours paying

for something called cost of prosecution, which is a little ridiculous.

Um, the case gets dismissed.

So I tried to negotiate that.

Um, but their higher ups wouldn't even allow that.

So a lot of times with these like officer cases, you know, the officers are invested in

them being prosecuted and it, and it helps them not get lawsuits.

What about the prosecutor?

Like what was his attitude about the case?

The prosecutors changed throughout the case.

So the original prosecutors had like an offer of 180 days jail, which was not an option.

Um, and then they kind of came down to probation, which was also not an option.

The two prosecutors that ended up actually doing the trial, um, didn't want to prosecute

it at all.

And I find that to be a very frustrating kind of problem and that they made it very clear

to me that they don't think it's a good state case.

And yet they're in the name of office policy, which is what most excuses are for misdemeanor

prosecutors.

They just couldn't dismiss the case.

We also say it's pretty standard though.

Like a lot of people think that prosecutors are held to this higher ethical burden of proof

that they only bring cases that they think they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt when

really they just bring any case.

And it doesn't even matter if they think they can prove it.

If it, if the cops are involved, it doesn't matter how like what a shit case it is.

They're going to go to trial on it.

So absolutely.

Yeah.

I mean, it's just, I feel like clients always get really frustrated by that.

They're like, but how could they ever prove this?

I'm like, they can't, but they can charge it.

You know, they can.

And it's very frustrating for, for, for clients.

I'm like, if they have anything right, they can just charge the case and then you're stuck

in jail or stuck with an open case.

And he was actually arrested.

He was, he, he paid his bail.

He was able to pay his monetary bond, but initially he was taken to the hospital and then he was

taken to the jail where he bonded out pretty quickly.

All right.

Let's talk about the jury trial.

Then you said you had a couple of a pretrial motions though, right?

Um, so I had a couple, but the highlights were not allowing the officers to testify about

any drug use or a let like perception of drug use, especially the Flocka.

So at that point, the state had disclosed to me what that officer was going to say.

And I asked the judge to exclude that.

Um, I asked the judge to exclude any evidence of the officers kept saying like, he looked

like he was in a psychosis or something like that.

And I was like, who are you to say that?

So I, I tried to exclude that because I mean, it's just to make sure, I mean, make sure we're

clear because clearly like if someone's under a psychosis, I mean, a lay person can't say

that that takes a medical professional, a doctor to give that opinion.

So why would a police officer be able to get up there and testify that someone's under a

psychosis or under the influence when they don't do any drug testing or anything like that?

It doesn't make any sense.

Right.

And, and the judge disagreed with all.

And that definitely came into evidence.

Um, but yeah, I mean, these officers are just after the fact and, and they get away with

it because judges let them say stuff as long as it's, they started with based on my training

and experience, like based on my training experience, this is psychosis.

And you're like, based on what training experience, like the 13 months at the academy, like, what

are you talking about?

So I had that one.

And then I, I moved to exclude any evidence of a domestic disturbance that the fact that it

was a domestic call.

Um, and then one thing that ended up being very important in the trial was there was a

statement that girlfriend's mom.

So clients like mother-in-law, quote unquote, said to the officers that my client attacked her,

her, um, her attacks her kid.

Right.

So client attacks his girlfriend, according to her mom, mom didn't testify.

So I was saying that is a violation of the confrontation clause that I don't have an opportunity

to cross-examine this witness.

They're not calling her.

Why should the officer get to talk about this?

And I got denied on that too.

Oh.

I got denied on everything in this trial.

I'm just curious.

The, the girlfriend and the mom, are they continuing to support your client?

Are they just saying, you know, I, we don't want to testify.

We, we, this all just got out of hand.

Uh, are the, are they just kind of angry that, that this guy is, has been painted so violently.

Girlfriend was very supportive.

She was there from the beginning.

She watched the entire trial.

The daughter was there as well for the whole trial in the audience.

Um, mother-in-law, girlfriend's mom, I wasn't as in touch with.

And I don't know if it's because she just didn't like my client, which kind of, which had nothing to do with his criminality or lack thereof.

Just like she didn't like her son-in-law, which seems pretty standard in life.

Um, alternatively, I mean, she was older, so I don't know if she didn't want to come to court, but she definitely wasn't like a, a helpful witness for the defense.

Um, and she didn't see very much after that.

So I think she just didn't want to get involved.

So you, you're losing these pretrial motions.

Uh, what, could you tell us a little about the judge then?

What's, what's she, what's she like?

Uh, yeah.

So that was the judge that I was in front of the entire, for months.

So that was my division that I was in and I was in front of this judge a lot.

And, you know, things were very hit or miss with that judge.

Sometimes it would be great.

And sometimes things would be very bad.

In this particular case, the judge definitely had it set in her mind that the state was right.

And I was wrong.

So to the point where I think at one point I was describing the case to the judge off the record,

probably emotions and limiting as a police brutality case, like this is a police brutality case.

And she yelled at me and said, this is not a police brutality case.

This is a case where your client grabbed these officers by the balls, like really had made a decision about how things went down.

And I think that when judges do that, um, their rulings affected.

I also think that in misdemeanors, I mean, now I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm in a felony courtroom and I see this judges are just more likely to give you a bad ruling because they know that if you get an appeal by the time it comes back, your client has probably served the entirety of the punishment that they got.

So they just don't, they just care less, I think.

Um, okay.

So tell us about, tell us about jury selection and a police brutality case.

What was that like?

Uh, it was very interesting and I was a much younger lawyer then.

So I, I don't, I look back probably and I cringe at how that jury selection went down, but I was pretty limited in what I could ask about officer violence towards individuals.

The judge just cut me off a lot.

Um, so we kind of had to do your standard or, you know, what do you think about officers lying?

Those types of questions because we were so hindered in our ability to, uh, pick a jury kind of that would buy our theory of defense.

Um, so I remember getting objected to a lot.

The judge cut me off a ton.

Um, and I just kind of got used to that throughout the trial because it continued to happen.

And putting the jury together then, you know, knowing you, you have a, an Asian client.

Did you, uh, think about race?

Was that a concern?

Uh, I, I am probably stereotyping Florida is racist.

So I would think that, that I would be concerned about that on the jury and people stereotyping him.

Uh, was that, did that ever come up?

Yeah.

So what ends up happening in jury selection, right?

Is there's two ways to knock jurors.

One is, can you be fair or not?

Not.

So if there's someone in the jury that has been personally like brutalized by a police

officer and is saying, I will never believe a word that a police officer says, period.

They're probably going to get knocked off on what's called a cause challenge.

The peremptory challenges are, I don't want you on my jury for whatever reason.

And what ends up happening in jury selection is everyone that's super good for me is knocked out by the state.

And everyone that's super good for the state, I knock out.

So like the cop's wife that says she can be fair, I'm going to get rid of her, right?

So you end up with kind of this like middle kind of group of people that you just kind of cross your fingers and hope we'll be able to buy your defense.

So I think you're right that that's a concern, but normally you're able to kind of weed those people out.

You know, and Priya, we were you and I were talking a little bit before the show started today.

You actually like Florida juries, right?

I do.

I have had the privilege of also picking juries in California.

And, you know, I think Florida juries are just a little they're more honest.

Yeah, I could see that.

Yeah, I was telling Dave, I was like everyone in California is like, I'm fair.

I donate to the ACLU.

I'm fair.

I donate to SPLC.

And I'm like, I don't think that makes you fair.

I think it makes you rich.

And like, you know, like, so it becomes very frustrating.

I think Floridians are a little bit more open about their own personal life.

Yes, exactly.

And I think that makes it easier to pick a jury here because people just there's a safer space to say things that may be unpopular.

And San Francisco, it's like they'll just end you if you say anything like that.

We got the cancel culture out here.

So everyone has to be perfect.

Everyone has to be PC.

No one can say anything that deviates from the norm.

Exactly.

All right.

Well, let's let's talk about opening statements then.

So the prosecution goes first.

They do kind of a recitation of the police report.

Nothing, frankly, particularly exciting.

And obviously they are downplaying what happened to my client because there were kind of undisputed injuries.

Like I talked about, you know, that were in big, bold colors.

There was red all over my client's face.

He had like rashes all over his body or like bruises all over his body.

So I had all those photos.

And so after the state was done, I literally just put up a giant blow up like a giant photo of my client's like bloody red face.

And was like, this is what he looked like when those officers, you know, beat him up.

Good question.

When you do your openings and you have to like have giant blow up photos like that.

Do you guys have to like pay for that yourself?

Or do you like go to Kinko's or?

The office usually pays for it.

I think different offices are different.

But if you're at like a pretty well funded office, you just email it and they do it for you.

Nice.

I always I always wondered about that when I'm watching Law and Order.

I'm watching Law and Order.

I'm just like, do they just have to like go to an office depot?

And they're like, could you just give me horrible photos?

Yeah, I think our IT has like they have giant printers because I'm able to get photos within like 20 minutes.

So they hate me because I email 20 minutes before I need them.

But how big of the of a poster board was your clients beat up face on?

I mean, like a big one.

Like when you think of a big poster board that you would buy at the store.

I just yeah, I can only imagine the statement that makes after you see the process, you hear the prosecutors going on and on about this guy's psychosis and possible drugs.

And then you just see the photo of him covered in blood.

Exactly.

At this time, I'd like to thank and acknowledge Lori Zobrak, our newest member to the A&G Patreon program for their support and contribution to the cause.

If you, too, would like to become a member and receive a shout out on an episode and or the unedited version, which usually contains extra facts, analysis and banter.

Then please visit our website at another not guilty pod dot com and click on the Patreon link.

Thank you.

So tell us about the state's case.

How do they roll out the evidence?

They just had their officers to call.

So they called every so the three officers that were the victims of the battery.

One of those same officers was the victim of the resisting without violence.

And those were the only officers that they ended up calling.

What were they testifying to?

So one of the officers was the officer who got who is the first person to talk to my client and got taken in the dimly lit back patio and who my client started pushing.

Right.

So they needed that battery.

Right.

So they had the officer just testify mainly about my client's behavior.

Right.

So they wanted him to seem erratic, out of control, like they had to treat him how they did in order to control his behavior and keep everybody else safe.

That was how they were trying to get the evidence out.

And what did you do on cross examination?

So cross examination of the officers ended up being pretty similar for all of them.

There was no dispute as to the amount of officers that came.

I think it was six or seven officers responded.

And by the time and there was also no dispute that they punched my client in the face with his kid in his arms.

Right.

Every officer testified to that.

There was no dispute that during the ball grabbing, he was on the ground with like six officers beating him up, like trying to handcuff him, you know, pushing him.

So so that all came out with no dispute.

The really tricky part.

I would have been like there were six or seven.

Maybe one of the other officers grabbed your balls.

You know, like.

Yeah.

How do you know?

Maybe they grabbed each other's balls because it was the two of them.

You got to do on fingerprints.

There's no DNA here.

Right.

Right.

Exactly.

The tricky bit ended up being that first battery that they alleged.

Right.

The push that happened in that back patio, because with the ball grabbing, I had undisputed evidence that they punched him in the face.

He was on the ground.

Six officers were on top of him.

So it was very clear that either he was kind of acting in self-defense that he was just trying to get them off of him or he acted inadvertently because there was really no dispute that he was like flailing on the ground because that's why they were trying to cuff him and had to hobble him.

Right.

Because he wasn't cooperating.

Did the officer get up and testify about the FLACA?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

So one of the officers was what they call in Florida, a drug recognition expert.

And normally those are the officers that when you have a DUI, they do like the finger test where they they put their finger in front of your eyeballs.

It's called horizontal gaze nystagmus.

And then they magically figure out whether you're on drugs or not.

So they're essentially trained to like do certain tests to determine whether you are under the influence of drugs, unnamed drugs, by the way, they can't really identify what they are.

So the judge let this officer just talk and talk about how he decided my client was on FLACA on direct examination.

It luckily made for a very, very fun cross examination.

Well, please tell us.

Yeah.

So the officer.

So you have the initial report, right, where the the FLACA is never mentioned.

Then you have one of the officers made a supplemental report where the FLACA was never mentioned.

And then you have an email months later, right before trial, that was sent to the state attorney saying, I think he's on FLACA.

So it gave me, again, as a young lawyer, it's like so fun to get to do these kinds of cross examinations because it was just so clean, right?

Like it wasn't in the first report.

It wasn't in your second report.

You never wrote any reports.

It wasn't until X amount later that you just put it in an email.

Like you still didn't put it in a police report.

You know, you guys didn't check the medical records.

I mean, so there was so much that they didn't do that it ended up looking like a really big lie.

And I think that what the state did in this case generally is they just like did the most, you know, like you're doing too much.

Like you're just trying to build this thing up so much that it looks like a lie.

Yeah, personally, I have a new goal in life, which is to test a drug perception officer or whatever, a drug recognition officer.

I want to see how good they are.

Right.

Come on.

It has to be like with different drugs.

Like one day it's weed.

One day it's cocaine.

Yeah, I want to mix it up.

Let me really see if he's getting what I'm throwing out.

Don't do it in Florida because that's a felony of any drug except for marijuana under 20 grams.

So like do not recommend.

Okay, okay.

I'm going to keep that in California.

Yeah, do that in California.

Okay.

And what about the the officer with the shooting?

Did you bring that up?

Yeah, so that came up.

That was one of the officers in that was the officer in the resisting without violence charge and he had one of the batteries.

And my friend, my colleague, so I did this trial with a colleague.

He did a some research that even substantiated claims like claims where the officer was found to have done no wrongdoing are relevant in a resisting without violence case where you're claiming unlawful force.

So write a defense to resisting without violence is I didn't resist or you were using such force on me that I had to resist because your force on me was unlawful.

So that was the defense in this case, just given how the facts came out.

And, you know, in defense of the judge, I think I did it very inartfully.

I just kind of like made it my last question and was like, you shot somebody, right?

Like, I don't think it was like a particularly well done cross.

It's another thing that makes me cringe, like looking back.

And it ended up being the most dramatic thing ever.

So I mentioned the shooting.

The judge stands up, yells at the jury to go to the jury room.

And as they are walking out, but still in the room looks at me and says, you better have a damn good explanation for this.

Then my colleague who was doing the trial for me as the jury is after the exit, pulls the mic towards him and says the jury has now exited the room, which felt hysterical.

But then I had to ask for a mistrial.

I was like, judge, like, you yelled at me in front of the jury.

So now we have to start this whole thing over and you need to grant a mistrial.

And the judge was like, I did not.

And I was like, in fact, you did.

My friend here pulled the mic and said, you know, exactly that.

And then I looked at the state and I was like, the state was there to judge.

And I remember them looking at me like, why are you dragging us into your bed?

And then I just got reamed out, frankly, throughout the whole trial.

But I got yelled at for being unethical.

I got yelled at about how it was a good officer.

I got yelled at about how this was a bar complaint.

I mean, really just like, it was a very intense like moment in my career.

You said that the judge was saying it was a good officer.

Yeah, she kept saying this is a good officer.

And then she actually had the officer come back on the bench.

This was without the jury there.

So it's outside the presence of the jury.

And it kind of sounded like she was either doing one of two things or both.

She was either giving the state exactly what to say in their redirect examination.

Or she was just kind of trying to preserve the dignity of the officer in that moment.

Because she kept asking questions like, was that substantiated?

Like, dah, dah, dah, dah.

Like what happened with that, you know, that complaint and whatnot.

Oh, okay.

So she's asking the police officer about the shooting.

Correct.

Okay.

So that ended up being a really, I just got yelled at a lot.

She really tried to save the officer.

And then the jury just came back and she said, disregard what she said.

Sorry to cut you off, but like, I know, like, being in that moment where you're just, you know, putting on the best defense for your client and doing everything you can for your client.

And just having the judge yell at you and saying you're unethical when you know that you're just, you're in the right.

Like, how does that feel in that moment?

Because you said you're a brand new lawyer or at least a new lawyer and no one wants to get yelled at, right?

Yeah, I think it always feels bad, even now, if a judge is mad, and I'm like such a people pleaser, which is kind of not a great trait for a public defender, because you're really not pleasing a lot of people in this job.

But, you know, I, you just feel bad, because there's no way to not feel like maybe I did something wrong, or like maybe, and you know, you don't want people to, at the end of the day, no matter how much you fight or whatever, you want to make sure that people respect you as an attorney.

So it felt horrible. But I think in the moment, you're just like, I have to keep going. Like, I don't know what else I'm going to do. Like, I'm not going to not do what I think is right.

You know, I'm not gonna. So, you know, I think in the moment you go from like being upset to being like, I have to just keep moving right now. And then later, I think I processed it more. But it's definitely not a good feeling.

Yeah. And what about your client? Was his faith a little shook? Was he like, Oh, you're a bad bitch. It's cool.

No, I think that their faith does get shaken in those instances, because at the end of the day, like, and you know, judges, I think need to be more conscious of this in general, even in like regular court, not trials that, you know, our clients already believe that they're getting appointed attorneys, right?

So like, they are in this, they didn't get to choose their lawyer. And then for judges to treat public defenders, like they do, is just really offensive to us as attorneys, because it's like, why would you shatter my client's faith in me in this moment, right? Like, there's a way you could have handled this, that was professional, that didn't require yelling, that could have just been, I sustain that or make the jury, you know, that could have all been handled in a different way by the judge.

And it just wasn't. I don't think I had the wherewithal to figure out what my client thought at the time, I was hoping my co-counsel was just managing that. But I think that they do get their faith shaken when they see the judge treating their attorney like that. This judge in this particular case did everything from the stuff I've said to like literally instructing a witness what to say on the witness stand, which was another crazy moment during the trial.

What, yeah, what was that about?

So one of the officers, so in the beginning, I talked about that motion in limine that I filed to exclude that statement from girlfriend's mom, that client attack girlfriend, right? But the judge said, no, the officer can testify to that. And during the direct examination, the state is trying to elicit that information, but the officer isn't telling them that it happened.

It's like, oh, no, that he's like, oh, I don't remember anything that she said. And so they weren't getting out that information, because they really wanted it to seem like my client was attacking his girlfriend so that it could justify the officer's actions, right?

That he was aggressive from the outset. But the officer wasn't giving them that information at all. So it wasn't an evidence. And the judge goes, okay, come here. And everyone comes to the bench. She tells the officer to come to the bench, and then looks at the officer and goes, this is what you need to say.

And I was like, judge. And again, I was a young lawyer. I had never experienced this before. But it's like, when you're young, it's like, if you know it's wrong, just say it. Because you're not that good on the law. You're not that good on objections. But like, just make a record, say what's wrong, do your best. And that's what I was doing. I was like, judge, you can't do that.

And she was like, what? I was like, you can't instruct the witness what to say when they've said they didn't hear anything or didn't remember. But what ended up happening is the judge truly believed those were the facts, even though they were not the facts. And that's not what happened at all. So she ended up just going, okay, sit back down. And then everything just happened. But it was just this ridiculous moment. I've never experienced anything like it.

So there was a powwow, like in front of the jury, like you guys are all doing, going to the side with the witness?

Correct.

The judge was telling them what to say. I've never heard of that either.

I haven't. I've never experienced it before or after. It's insane. So the, you know, the state put on the rest of their witnesses. And then it was strange, because it was like nothing happened after that. I just got yelled at and then just continued to get yelled at for the entire trial.

We moved for a mistrial to try to make, you know, the judge to move for a mistrial and end the trial, because she yelled at me in front of the jury, which she denied and denied both yelling at me in front of the jury and denied the motion for a mistrial.

So then what happens next then?

So after that, the state ended up, after they called their police officers, the state rested, and then it was time for our case.

Oh, okay. Time for the defense.

Right. Exciting stuff.

How are you going to rip this apart?

Yeah.

So we called all the witnesses that I talked about, right? So we called the female neighbor who talked about the officers upon arrival.

And we called the other witness who was another neighbor who ended up seeing everything that happened inside.

And he was a really sweet guy.

He spoke Spanish.

And he, in the middle of my direct, was like, it would be so much easier if I just, like, reenacted this for you.

And I was like, okay, sir, like, go ahead.

And then as the interpreter's, like, going, this man is, like, on the ground, like, reenacting what everyone is doing.

So he's, like, on top of people, like, with his fist up.

Like, that's what the officers were doing.

And, like, clients laying down.

So he gave a very, like, descriptive interpretation of what happened.

He's reenacting the pummeling that your client's getting from these officers?

Exactly.

And then did your client testify in this trial?

He did. He did testify.

Okay. And how did you prep your client for testifying?

So we had gone over – I mean, I had met with him multiple times in person.

And then when I'm prepping for a direct, I – I mean, I try not to be too strict on question and answers because I just know actual directs don't work out like that.

So you never want someone to sound uber prepared or memorized.

I will say that in this case, my client was very upset with the police.

And very upset at any allegations that he was trying to harm his daughter.

Because even though child abuse wasn't charged, it became, like, a feature of the case that they were trying to remove his daughter from him, right?

Because they were worried about her.

So he would get very, like, hyped up when he was talking about that.

And I would have to kind of be like, look, like, when you are being cross-examined by the state, if you look agitated at them accusing you of anything, what is it going to look like to a jury as far as your behavior at the – like, on scene, right?

When the officers were kind of coming at you.

So that became kind of an important thing for me is that I don't want the jury to look at just a prosecutor asking you questions and then you getting, like, so defensive and angry that it looks like you're an aggressive guy.

And then how did your client testify then?

I think he testified great.

I definitely think – you know, I think everybody comes off as, like, a little defensive.

It became, like, a very emotional testimony as well.

And he definitely went on more tangents than I preferred.

But I think that always happens.

So, you know, his version of events was that, sure, there was a call made and, like, we did talk about the fact that there was no violence and he never harmed his girlfriend or anything like that because we needed to clean that up the way that it came out in trial as a domestic call.

And then how when the officers came, it was like they were ready to attack him, right?

Six or seven officers are coming and, like, multiple squad cars into his home.

And so it really kind of contextualized why he – you know, the officers wrote in the report that he was like, get off my property.

What are you doing here?

And it's like, yeah, if, like, six squad cars, like, come into your home and are, like, coming at you, you're going to be like, who the hell are you?

Like, why are you here?

Nothing happened.

So I think it contextualized a lot of that.

And then we really had to kind of slow down and talk about how he felt when he was being kind of, like, hit by these officers and especially the punch when he had the daughter in his arms, right?

Because we had to explain so much about, you know, for a possible self-defense instruction, like, how he felt and how he felt in fear of the officers.

And then, obviously, he denied ever pushing the officer initially.

Okay.

That was – I mean, that's kind of interesting that he supposedly pushes a police officer while he's holding his daughter.

Right.

It sounds ridiculous.

It just doesn't make sense.

Right.

So was that your last witness then, your client?

Yeah, that was the last witness.

My client was the last witness.

Okay.

And where's the bloody picture of the face right now?

Everywhere.

It was probably the last thing that I put up.

So I tried to end every cross and every, you know, direct that I could with that photo just because it ended up being kind of a theme of, like, ending with it throughout so that when I sat down, it was up.

And we had photos of kind of damage to his body as well.

I mean, he had bruises all over.

But that bloody photo of his face was just so striking because of the red.

So I made sure to utilize that.

All right.

It's time for closing statements then, right?

Right.

Do you remember the prosecution's closing statement?

They, you know, they said that he was crazy and he was on drugs and, therefore, he instigated a fight.

It really – you know, I think that they really didn't handle their bad facts as well as they could have because you really have to explain

why the officer is, like, later saying that there's Flocka and you have to explain.

I mean, and I think – I don't know.

I think prosecutors sometimes, like, forget they have bad facts and defense attorneys, like, were so acutely aware of bad facts.

Yeah.

So I think that they just sometimes take for granted that people are looking at those bad facts and thinking, how does this make sense?

So he's pretty much arguing that your client, he was just out for a fight that day.

He's getting in fights with his family.

He's high on Flocka.

He's getting in fights with the police.

He's pushing people.

He's just that kind of guy.

Yeah.

Also, I'm curious about this Flocka thing because then were there ever any questions of, well, why wasn't he charged with possession?

Why didn't – they didn't find any drugs in this, like, crazy fight that happened?

They didn't find anything on him?

Like, that's – where is this drug thing even coming from?

Yeah.

I mean, it was – right.

And they were in his home.

So, like, you wanted to – if you wanted to search his house, you were in there, right?

Like, you have, like, so much room.

But, like, there was no evidence of drugs.

I mean –

Yeah, and I just assume Flocka would have a smell or something.

Like, I think of it as, like, a fake marijuana type deal.

Like, wouldn't they be like, we smell – like, just some sort of indication and they just don't address any of it.

And they're just like, trust us.

He's some – he's an angry guy.

He wanted to fight.

He's on Flocka.

All right.

Well, it's time for your – how was your closing statement then?

It was great.

It was the best.

It was the best.

That's right.

Best you ever heard.

No.

So, it was – you know, I've talked a lot about the defense.

But a lot of it was about his injuries.

We obviously had to say that that first push – I mean, that for me was our worst fact.

Because I was like, if we lose this one battery, this judge will max him.

You know, it became very clear that he was going to go to jail if we lost.

To me.

You know, just the way that the judge was acting, the anger that she had towards me,

the positions she had taken on everything that I said.

So, you know, I felt a lot of pressure for that reason.

And in the middle of my closing, no objection pending.

Like, the state didn't object.

The judge was like, just called me to the bench.

And I was like, okay, like, why are you interrupting me?

And so, I go to the bench with the state.

And it was that part of the trial where it didn't come into evidence, right?

That an officer talked to the mother-in-law and the mother-in-law said,

my client attacked his girlfriend.

None of that was in evidence.

Because that officer said that he was like, no, like, I didn't.

He either said I didn't talk to her or she didn't tell me, you know, like, what she told him was not that fact.

It was something benign.

So, that didn't come into evidence.

So, when I'm talking about it to the jury, I'm like, they came in and there was no allegation of violence, right?

There's a domestic disturbance.

You know, I said something along those lines that six or seven police officers are coming for a run-of-the-mill domestic call.

Like, there's no reason to believe that you need that many officers for a call like that.

And the judge called me to the bench and said that I was lying to the jury.

And I was like, judge, I'm arguing.

First off, I'm not lying.

This is actually what happened despite your belief about it.

And two, and I think the state would agree with me on that, that, like, that what I was saying were actually the true facts of what happened.

That aside, it is not my job to argue the truth.

It is my job to argue the evidence at trial.

So, you know, just these kind of very consistent accusations of being unethical were very frustrating.

And so, she couldn't make a ruling because I wasn't doing anything wrong.

And then she just, like, sent me back to finish my closing.

So, the judge sends you back to argue.

Go ahead.

So, then I finished my closing.

I ended on the photos again, sat down.

All right.

So, then the jurors get the case.

Did you talk to your client?

Like, how was he after you finished your closing statement?

I think he was, I mean, I think he was nervous.

He was a pretty confident client and that he really, truly felt wronged.

I definitely think I felt more pressure of losing than he did because, you know, I think sometimes when clients feel like what has been done to them is so profoundly wrong, they just can't even imagine that a jury would ever not agree with that.

Or can't even imagine that.

And, you know, it's very frustrating when you're defending people because it's like, juries do, in fact, agree with that all the time.

Luckily, that was not the case here.

But, you know, I think he, and I was very lucky that he was out of custody and his family was there because I am the worst waiting for a verdict.

I'm so nervous.

I don't want clients to see that.

I'm agonizing over everything.

And it's like, I just don't need you to see me like this because, like, we just need to be, like, hype right now.

And I always tell clients, this is the worst part.

You just got to wait.

And I do give them a little pep talk that, you know, if you are found guilty, this is what the judge will likely do, you know, just to, like, prepare them before they have to, like, sit and agonizingly wait for the verdict.

So tell us about the reading of the verdicts when the jury came back.

Like, how long did they deliberate for?

Probably, like, half an hour, 45 minutes.

It was not, like, a super long.

It was not very long, but it wasn't, like, a five-minute verdict coming out.

I felt like it was, you know, it wasn't unique in any way in that sense.

And I have never cried during a verdict, ever.

I definitely teared up during this verdict because that whole trial was just – I think back and I felt ridiculous doing it because I'm still not an emotional person like that.

But that whole trial was such a fight from beginning to end.

Like, his case was a fight.

It was a fight for me.

We were getting so knocked down on every single ruling.

And I was, like, you know, the version of this case that came out is, like, not necessarily, like, the worst case version, but anything that we could be taken from the defense was taken from the defense.

Yeah.

Which is a very frustrating feeling.

And, you know, I think I had gotten very invested also in his story.

Like, I really felt like he was wrong in this case.

And so I got emotional after the verdict.

And I have some good friends that always come to watch my verdict.

So I had one of my best friends there who – she still comes to watch all my closings and my hearing.

It's fun.

But she told me – she goes, it was so cute.

You just cried.

I was, like, yeah.

And it's fun when it's for not guilty, right?

Because it's, like, count one, not guilty.

Count two, not guilty.

Now, when it's guilty, it's horrible.

But it does feel good when it's, like, multiple count not guilty because you get to hear it each time.

Yeah.

I am a little curious.

You said the jury only deliberated for, like, 30, 45 minutes.

I guess, like, my civilian understanding is usually if it's that quick, if it's not more than, like, a few hours, it's, like, oh, no, this is bad.

Freak out.

They're probably going to side with the prosecutor.

So I just – you just were, like, oh, that's totally normal.

I just thought you showed incredible calm there.

I think I try not to engage in, like, the voodoo of juries because it will just make me insane.

I think that for, like, a run-of-the-mill misdemeanor where there's not that many facts in dispute, you know, and our juries are of six.

They're 12 in California.

So unless you're in a capital case, then you'll get 12 jurors in Florida.

But other than that, it's six.

So, you know, like, six people coming to an agreement on, like, a set of facts I don't think takes that long.

But, again, I just try not to, like, engage too much in it because otherwise I'll go insane.

I've never heard of a six-person jury.

That's crazy.

What is Florida?

What?

Is that normal?

Is that a normal thing?

Yeah.

Yeah, totally.

I've never – a 12 angry man jury, 12, 12 people, lottery 12 people.

What?

Yeah, you don't have to have 12 in the box.

Is that the only state doing that?

I don't think so.

I think other states – because you need at least six.

I think six is a minimum for a unanimous verdict.

I think there's some –

Can you be like, I want 12?

That's a good question.

Yeah.

I'm just thinking of all the times it's like, oh, there's one person, and it's like, we got 11 out of 12, and if you could just be like, cut that number in half, just give me this verdict, we're done.

So you're crying.

How's your client reacting?

Is he consoling you?

No, it wasn't a sob cry.

It was more like a relief teardrop.

He was just – I think he felt vindicated, you know, and I think he was definitely happy, but it was kind of one of – I feel like in retrospect, the reaction was more like, this is what was supposed to happen, and it happened.

Yeah, yeah.

That's great.

So he thanked you, and you guys went your separate ways then, huh?

Well, I got yelled at, but he went his separate ways.

Again?

Yeah, I just kept getting yelled at.

I had another jury trial set for, like, that day, and the client was in the courtroom at the time, and I actually confirmed this with my best friend who was there because she was my co-counsel on that case, and I wanted to make sure my memory –

You're saying you had a separate jury trial starting, and the client from that other trial was in the courtroom?

Correct.

So his trial, like, his speedy trial was going to run, and we didn't know how long this trial was going to go.

So that client was there for court.

Even after the verdict, after the verdicts of not guilty, the judge is still yelling at you?

Yeah, all the time.

The judge even said after the verdicts, I'm glad I don't have to get that appellate record, and then I got to talk about, like, my credibility and integrity and your reputation is all you have, yada, yada.

But at one point in the trial, it was either while we were waiting for the verdict or after the verdict, I was getting reamed out.

And I had another client who was waiting on his trial in the courtroom, and my colleague who was doing that trial with me was also in the courtroom.

And the judge literally, and again, I confirmed this with my colleague because I thought it was so crazy in retrospect that it even happened, asked that other client, do you want this person as your attorney?

Wow.

And he was, like, a homie.

And he said, yes.

Because I really was like, bro, like, do not let me down here.

And so my friend and I still were like, he is awesome for doing that.

But it was really a traumatic trial experience.

I mean, I really haven't experienced – I've definitely experienced being yelled at or being cut off or all sorts of things, but it was just a lot all-in-one trial.

That's what people want.

They want their lawyer to stand up for them and fight them and not cowardly judges or prosecutors or be scared.

You know, you've got to be fearless.

Right.

Which it sounds like you were.

Like, you got – I mean, you got beat up.

You weren't rattled, though.

Maybe on the inside you were rattled, but you probably didn't let it show.

Right.

I hope not.

And that's what – you know, I think that's what being in trial is about because you're always nervous, right?

You're always – I always think before trial, like, why do I do this?

Like, I feel you just want to puke.

Like, you're so – you're always, like, rattled them for a judge to just, like, continue to, you know, give you hits during that.

It's just such a traumatic experience, but you just have to keep going.

I mean, you don't have an option.

Your client certainly doesn't have an option.

They're there, so.

You know, this kind of segues into the end of the show here in our last question.

But before we do that, Ashley, anything you want to ask or topics or –

I think we covered everything from the trial.

I'm just shocked that judges can show so much bias that they can, I don't know, just discipline you like angry principles like this.

It just seems so unprofessional and I think, I don't know, just really reiterates how we're supposed to believe judges are so fair and impartial and really they obviously have the same biases.

They can obviously side with the prosecution and they can side with cops and straight up say, that's a good officer.

So, please, just, like, calm down, please.

And that, to me, I think is just something people don't think about.

Yeah.

My dad always says, he's like, who holds judges accountable?

And I'm like, you do.

So, to the extent that this makes the podcast, like, if you have elected judges, like, look into that stuff.

Ask your public defender and legal aid friends because I truly believe this.

Like, how judges treat poor people says more about them than how they treat corporations any day of the week.

So, I hope this makes the –

Well, Priya, you've been a public defendering for four years.

How do you like it still?

Yeah, I love it.

I love it.

I actually had a little stint in private that was horrible for six months and I cried every day.

So, I love this work very much.

And what drew you to this work?

Why did you want to become a public defender?

I think the practical answer is when I was in law school, I started on our trial team and I really loved trial law and I started interning.

But I think kind of the broader answer is, like, I'm not sure that my parents would have given me, not specifically to public defense, but an alternative.

And I always tell this story.

It's so weird.

I was in the seventh grade and someone had – I had heard that someone had taken money out of my wallet.

And so, I did what you do when you're in the seventh grade.

I snitched.

And so, I went to the principal and I said, I heard so-and-so.

And I told my parents about it and they were like, well, make sure you don't tell on him.

Maybe he really needed the money.

And, like, that's just my parents, right?

Like, we've always – I just feel like if I had gone to law school and not defended people who needed it, they would have disowned me.

You know, like, it's just not how our family is.

And so, I think that once I started realizing that I like trials and that I really enjoy talking, public defense became such a clear avenue because I think it is the best way to get – you know, you advocate, you're in court.

I love talking, so you do a lot of that and storytelling, but you do it on behalf of people who really need it.

And I definitely think that's how I was raised by my parents and my grandparents.

Nice.

Okay.

Well, thanks for being on the show today.

Great.

Thanks for sharing your story.

Thanks for having me.

Yeah.

This is a wonderful story, I think, of someone so clearly, clearly wronged.

And you did everything you could to really fight for them, even getting yelled at yourself.

So, thank you so much for sharing this story.

And like you said, I really love what you said.

We really do need to make sure we're looking into who we're voting for for judges.

I know there is the Girl I Guest Guide for all 50 states.

You can look at that, and it shows you progressive judges you can vote for, people who have good voting records.

That's really important.

Absolutely.

Hope you all enjoyed the episode this week.

Special thanks to Daniel Mark for the music and Mike Grimm for the remix.

Your next A&G episode will air next month on the second Sunday.

Peace.