Live at Penn: Uncle Biggie, Uncle Smalls, and a Whole Lot of Doubt

We want to thank you for being here today. Hi there, my A&G-ers. I'm feeling so grateful right now. The A&G team just recorded a live show at Penn Cary Law School from the University of Pennsylvania. The show was recorded this past March 18th, Gideon's Day, also known as National Public Defender Day. We want to thank Sophie Klorik and Scott Averena of the Decarceration and Youth Advocacy Projects from Penn Cary Law School, two of the biggest A&G nerds on the East Coast. We appreciate them and thank them for having us.

So, happy Gideon's Day, everyone. Enjoy the episode. Heads up, it's a little different from other episodes because of the introductions from Scott and Sophie, and my and Lauren's introduction to the live audience. And with that said, without further ado, here's our latest episode to you.

Good afternoon. My name is Sophie Klorik, and this is Scott Averena. And on behalf of the Decarceration Advocacy Project and the Youth Advocacy Project,

we're so excited to welcome Another Not Guilty to Penn Cary Law.

We'd like to start by thanking the Quatrone Center, the Toll Public Interest Center, the Penn Law Review, and Student Affairs for their support in making this event happen.

Another Not Guilty highlights the tireless work of public defenders and the Not Guilties they win on behalf of their clients every single day.

Today, we'll highlight the zealous advocacy of Anna Hinchman of the Delaware County Public Defender's Office, who will tell us about her latest Not Guilty.

We are holding this event on National Public Defender's Day, also known as Gideon Day.

63 years ago today, in its landmark decision, Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court held that all persons accused of a crime were entitled to the appointment of counsel for their defense.

The court invoked, in its words, the obvious truth that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person hailed into court who is too poor to hire a lawyer cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.

In doing so, the court gave concrete meaning to its observation 25 years prior that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel is, quote, necessary to ensure the fundamental human rights of life and liberty, end quote, and that without it, justice can never be done in our courts.

Gideon stands as a powerful reminder of the critical role played by public defenders in our legal system and in fulfilling the highest promises of our law.

Today, we will hear just one example of Gideon's promise in action.

Now, Scott and I first started listening to another Not Guilty before we each got to law school.

Both working in indigent defense, we found the stories to be captivating, inspiring, and hilarious.

A welcome change of pace in a field that is always difficult, often tragic, and where satisfying outcomes are rare.

Here, we're shining examples of public defenders giving their all and the legal system actually coming to the correct solution.

Reminders of the ideal that we wanted to strive towards.

When we realized in the fall that we were both fans of the pod, we had the crazy idea that maybe we could figure out a way to welcome the ANG team to campus so that our peers could experience the same joy and inspiration and honor the local public defenders in our area that we respect so much.

David is an LA County public defender and has been practicing for 15 years.

And he is joined today by his fellow LA County public defender, Lauren Marie Manning.

Please give them a warm welcome.

Is it on?

It is on.

Hi.

Hi, everybody.

Thanks for coming.

I mean, this isn't class.

You don't have to be here, right?

But thank you all for coming.

My name is David Moore.

I'm a Los Angeles County public defender.

This is my co-host, Lauren Marie Manning.

She's also an LA County public defender.

I remember when I started off as a public defender in LA County, they, you start off with a group of people when you go through training and like they gave you like the easiest cases.

And we were like taking these stupid cases of trial and winning left and right.

And then you go out for happy hour and like you, you know, like you talk about your cases and you just make fun of the police and the prosecution and the judges and the witnesses and the jury select, you know, whatever it is.

And it was just, it was so funny.

It was just so funny.

Like, and public defenders are always so, I mean, most lawyers are entertaining, but public defenders are a little special breed.

And I thought like, well, it's because we're crazy.

You gotta be a little nuts to do this job.

That's for sure.

Cause you're, you're constantly fighting mainstream thought, right?

The main, you're always constantly fighting mainstream narratives.

And so I thought, well, if we could just record this, cause I do, I am a standup comedian at heart.

I, so I thought, you know, in comedy, you're always fighting mainstream narratives.

And so I thought, well, just start a podcast and let's just record our not guilty verdict.

So our trials are into stories.

So that's why we're here.

So hi Lauren.

How's it going?

Yeah.

Good.

Yeah.

Was that good?

It was good.

Yeah.

Um, all right guys, get up for Lauren Marie Manning.

A little, just a little tell.

She is, uh, suffering a little bit from food poisoning for, uh, so.

I know no one wants to hear the details of that, but I am a public defender and I have rallied

and today's going to be fun.

Lauren.

Did you know that we are in Philadelphia right now?

I had heard.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, cause the, cause the, cause the, cause the, cause we're talking about due process,

right?

And freedom in this country.

And that's where it was born.

It was right here in Philadelphia.

Yeah.

You know that the declaration of independence is signed right here in this room.

I don't, I don't think that's accurate though.

The United States constitution was site was ratified right here in this room.

Maybe in the city, the city in the vicinity is in the vicinity.

It's the, you could tell.

Yeah.

We can still feel the energy though.

For sure.

For sure.

Anyways, we do represent freedom.

Um, we're public defenders in LA.

There's public defenders all across the States, United States.

It's all the same story.

It's all the same bullshit.

We fight.

So we thought we'd have as our guest today, a local public defender all the way from Delco,

which is right next door for the Delco County public defender's office.

Let's get up for Ana Hinchman.

Ana, say hello.

Hello.

Thank you for having me.

Very excited to be here.

Ana.

Um, so you're with the Delco, uh, introduce yourself.

Tell everybody how long you've been a public defender for.

And, uh, we'll go take it from there.

Sure.

So I work at the Delaware County public defender's office.

Um, I've been there for about five and a half years.

I started there right after law school.

Uh, I went to law school at Temple, grew up in the area.

Um, so I'm very excited to be sharing a little bit about, um, one of my trials today.

Okay.

All right.

So Ana Hinchman just got a not guilty guys.

Is it fresh?

Like how fresh is it?

This one isn't super fresh.

It was from about a year or so ago.

That's fresh.

That's fresh.

They need to be fresh.

Yeah.

One more time.

How fresh is it?

Very, very fresh.

It's very fresh.

Yes.

All right.

Uh, okay, cool.

So Ana, she went to trial.

She got a not guilty.

She's here to share that today.

Ana, let's start off with the charges.

What was your client charged with?

My client was charged with attempted murder as well as aggravated assault.

Um, two different counts of that and, um, gun charges for having a firearm that wasn't

licensed.

Okay.

And there's, go ahead.

Two different assault counts.

So two different victims.

Yes.

And these aren't charges that will merge.

No.

What was your client facing?

He was looking at, um, at least 20 years in jail if he were found guilty after the trial.

Um, but potentially more given the judge we were in front of was very harsh when it came

to sentencing.

Okay.

Attempted murder.

Two times.

Assault with what?

Assault with a gun.

Assault with a gun.

And then carrying a gun unlicensed.

That's right.

All right.

Is it more offensive if the gun is unlicensed in a murder case or does it matter?

Does that make a difference?

I guess it's never good to have a gun.

Okay.

In Delaware County, but.

Okay.

And then, and then who is your client?

If you can share, can you share that detail?

Yes.

My client, um, his name is Angel.

He was 18 at the time when he was charged with the case.

Uh, by the time I got it, he was 19.

Uh, but very young, um, kid.

Okay.

And if you can, uh, tell us what the prosecution's facts are, like what the police report read.

Cause that's, that's how it is.

You get as a public defender, you get the case, you see the charges and you read the police

report.

And then, of course, there's always a spin to it.

So what was the spin here?

Sure.

So the, um, allegations were that my client, um, again, he was 18.

He had a newborn baby with his girlfriend, um, who was about three weeks old at the time.

And he had gone over to his girlfriend's house.

They got in an argument, um, and her grandmother actually lived.

So it was an apartment complex.

Um, he lived, uh, she lived in the one apartment and her grandmother lived next door.

They didn't live together?

No.

Um, and then there was some sort of verbal argument.

Grandmother comes over.

It continues to escalate.

She calls the police.

They come.

Um, and then the girlfriend's two uncles come over, continue to escalate everything.

Um, eventually it spills out into the hallway and down the stairs and a gun goes off.

They charge my client with trying to shoot at the two uncles.

Um, and then police arrive shortly after there.

Um, and my client's on the ground.

The two uncles are holding him on the ground and say that he's the one with the gun and tried

and tried to shoot them.

Is that how the police report reads?

Like a gun went off?

It doesn't, it's not specific as to who, to who had the gun.

So they say that my client, um, pointed the gun at the younger uncle and tried to kill him.

Who does the police report say witnessed all of this?

Both the uncles, the grandma, the girlfriend, all of them saw the whole thing.

So the initial police report is very vague.

Um, when, and I should say, so we get the police report that just is the criminal complaint of very bare bones, uh, about the case.

And then once you get additional discovery with the incident report had a little bit more in there.

Um, the grandmother says that she witnessed the whole thing.

Um, the younger uncle is the one that was, uh, they said my client tried to kill.

So of course he witnessed the whole thing.

Um, and the older uncle it's back and forth about if he witnessed everything or not.

And, and how old is the grandmother?

Um, I would say probably early sixties.

And she was pushed to the ground.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, all right.

And then, so your, the police show up, your clients arrested on the scene.

The police talked to the witnesses.

Does your client give a statement in the police report?

Yes.

Um, he gives a statement.

He says that he was just at his girlfriend's apartment.

Um, they had this argument over the baby.

Um, and he wanted to leave the uncles prevent, wanted to prevent him from leaving.

Um, and kept on trying to pull him, prevent him from leaving.

And eventually the older uncle, uh, pulled out a gun.

And that's when the struggle happened over the gun.

Did it say, did he say what the argument over the baby was?

Um.

Trying to kidnap the baby or anything.

He was trying to, it was his baby as well.

Um.

Still could be charged with kidnapping.

He was not.

Okay.

Um, but he was trying to bring the baby to his parents' house.

And how old is this baby?

Three weeks old.

What time of year was it?

It was December.

Okay.

And he wanted to take the baby by himself?

Yes.

Without mom?

Yes.

At what time?

It was about 6 p.m. that night.

Okay.

There's nothing wrong with that?

Sure.

There's nothing wrong with a dad trying to take his kids or a kid to the, to the...

Right.

But Lauren, you're a mother, right?

Yeah, there's no way.

How do you feel about this?

A three week old baby?

There's no way.

I mean, I don't know if the baby's breastfeeding or how the baby eats, but it's winter.

It's dark.

It's three weeks old.

Yeah.

I feel bad calling it.

It needs to be with mom unless some prior arrangements have been made so we know it's

taken care of.

So I understand why mom was a little cranky.

Interestingly, the issues about the baby were not a big part of the case.

Um, they didn't, they don't even really interview mom about the baby situation.

Um, and, um, that's really good for you because jurors really don't like that.

Definitely an advantage.

So, okay.

So you read, you get the case, you read the police report, you see your client submitted

a statement.

Um, did we talk about the, what your client's looking at with these charges?

Like what he's facing?

Yes.

So, um, at least 20 years likely if he's found guilty of all the charges after the trial,

uh, but potentially more depending on, um, if the judge chooses to run them all consecutive

or not.

So when you got the case, all you had were these police reports.

Is that accurate?

Um, so when I got the case, it was actually farther along than usual.

Um, he had a private attorney at the preliminary hearing.

Yes.

Um, who then did not represent him for the trial.

Unfortunately, that's very common where someone will hire a private attorney, but then not

be able to afford them for the trial, uh, level.

Call it a PC dump.

So.

Happens every day.

They just dump the case on you after prelim.

Here you go.

Yeah.

So.

Yeah.

Um.

I was happy because he at least had a preliminary hearing.

Um, sometimes when I mostly know though, so he did the bare minimum.

He showed up for the preliminary hearing and then said, okay, cool.

I'm done.

I'm done.

Look how nice she's being.

If once you do this for a long enough time, there's no more being nice to the private

attorneys who tell clients, oh, I can get your case dismissed at prelim.

And then that never happens.

And they dip out.

Yeah.

But thankfully then incomes on it.

Yeah.

So that I got the case.

Um, once he was already scheduled for trial.

Um, so the trial was scheduled, I think in about four months after, um, I got into the

case.

Can you, can you tell us what it was like when you first met your client?

What was Angel was his name?

Angel.

Yeah.

What was it like?

Um, so he was in jail, um, on these charges.

Uh, like I said, he was just 19.

Had he been in jail this whole time?

Yes.

So he'd been there for over a year already.

Yep.

Um, and when I had, when I had just got the case, I filed a motion to see if he could be

released, um, a rule 600 motion, uh, for nominal bail, where if you've been in custody for

over 180 days, um, the judge is supposed to release you.

Any guesses as to how that went?

He remained in jail.

Um, so I was visiting him at the jail.

He was a very small guy.

Um, probably about 5'8", 145 pounds around that.

Um, so he was, um, a very mild mannered, nice kid.

And so you've, I mean, you looked at his statement.

I know you've talked about it.

I mean, you can't really go into too much of what it was like talking about or talking

to Angel, but you kind of know you're going to go with a, uh, a self-defense.

Is that what we're kind of looking at here?

Or do you know like what the defense is?

Sure.

So it was somewhat of a combination between self-defense and also the gun was not his.

Um, because given that he was charged with the, uh, firearms without a license, um, we did

not want to concede even that he had brought the gun to the house.

So, but there's a difference between the gun isn't mine and I'm not the one who fired

it because he could have still fired it if it wasn't his.

So after you met with your client, your defense going forward was going to be that he wasn't

the one who fired it as well.

Correct.

Yes.

That he was straight.

I didn't do it.

Um, which definitely came as a surprise to the prosecutor.

Okay.

And you, and you noted his size said he was five, eight.

And then what were the sizes of the cousins?

Um, so the two, the uncles, excuse me.

Yeah.

Um, two uncles, one was significantly larger.

Uh, the older uncle, he was probably about six to 250 pounds.

Um, very, uh, muscular, strong looking guy.

Um, and the other uncle was also bigger.

Um, I would say maybe five, 10, um, 180 pounds around that.

So not huge, but definitely bigger than angel.

So was uncle Biggie or uncle Smalls, the one that they were accused, your client was accused

of shooting.

The younger, smaller one, uh, was the one my client was charged with trying to kill.

Uh, the older, bigger one is the one that my client says tried to, was with the gun and

tried to hurt him.

Okay.

Uncle Biggie's the scary one.

Uncle, Uncle Smalls is the pretend victim.

Correct.

Got it.

So, uh, you meet angel.

You've talked to him.

You're, you're going to be his knight in shining armor.

You're going to save him from the throes of the justice system facing 20 years plus.

And so what do you do when you start working on his case to get that defense going?

So I start looking through all of the evidence.

In this case, there was a lot, uh, because there were many different officers on scene

with body cameras, um, that caught different portions of the, um, the scene and the night

talking to different people, the different witnesses.

Um, several of the witnesses also gave statements aside from on the scene, the preliminary hearing

transcript statements on the body worn video, or there were additional police reports of

statements.

Um, so it was all on body cam, but some were at this, like at the scene in the apartment

complex.

And then they brought some of the witnesses back to the police station and did additional

interviews.

Like how many hours of video are you going through?

I would say probably hundreds of hours.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, do you guys have like evidence.com here?

Unfortunately not.

Yeah.

Cause in LA County we have evidence.com.

So I don't know if that's funny or not, but we just download evidence from, uh, what's

that?

Philadelphia is okay.

Evidence.com.

Yeah.

It's, uh, people who don't know, he's making it sound a lot cooler than it is.

It's a horrible system.

They send you a link and there's a million files in there and they're not labeled or organized

and they just, yeah, they just, they basically data dump all this stuff on you and you have

to figure out what's relevant or not.

And it's always awful when there's hundreds of hours of body worn because a lot of times

it'll be the same thing.

Like if there's two partner officers, but you can't not watch them all because someone might

have picked something up, someone talking in the background, some statement that could

be helpful.

Maybe they're facing a different angle, even though they're taking the same statement.

And it's just, it's painful to go through all of it.

That's right.

Lauren, we go through all the evidence that's part of the job.

That's it's just not the fun part of the job.

Right.

So you've got hundreds of hours and what are you, what are you noticing?

So I'm noticing slight inconsistencies between their statements.

Much more so than obviously the prosecutor wanted to let on.

Whose statements?

The uncles or the uncles and the grandma?

All three of them.

All three of them.

The uncles and the grandma.

Excellent.

And they're not super like obvious.

Some of them are, as you said, a person talking in the background or a 911 call and someone

that might be shouting in the background.

I always liked the byworn video of the guy who sets up the tape.

You know, like he just shows up and he's just like.

For the interview at the station.

Right.

No, he like sets up the yellow tape for police.

It's like he shows up and it's like, huh.

Then he runs back to the trunk, gets the tape and he sets it all up.

And there's even that.

So a little.

You mentioned a 911 call.

Who called 911?

The grandmother called 911 as soon as she goes to her granddaughter, my client's girlfriend's

apartment.

So she calls 911.

Grandma goes over to girlfriend's apartment because she hears them arguing.

That's right.

And she calls 911 right away.

Yes.

So the 911 call happened before she was pushed, before the fight with the uncles, or it was

happening simultaneously.

Simultaneously.

And then she is pretty much narrating the entire interaction until police arrive.

Which is terrible for Crawford.

If you wanted to exclude that.

Right.

Crawford being.

Can the hearsay statement be admitted?

Um.

In trial.

It's, you know, like purporting to narrate a, uh.

If they're.

Ongoing emergency.

Without cross examination.

Lauren, I wasn't ready for that.

Sorry.

The Crawford drop there.

Yeah.

It's basically if they're, if they're narrating the ongoing emergency, it can come in.

Um.

Like, oh my God, he's pointing a gun at me right now.

Yeah.

Ah.

Emergency.

It's in the moment.

As opposed to saying.

Some guy pointed a gun at me.

Yeah.

He, he left.

He's already taken off.

And he pointed a gun at me.

There's no ongoing emergency in that moment.

So then the statement doesn't come into evidence.

Even if the person who said the statement is not in court or not.

And for once, this is a case that we love.

It, it goes our way a lot because a lot of times we want to keep the 911 call out because

it just doesn't sound good in front of a jury to hear them talking about the trauma they've

allegedly experienced.

So Crawford is a good tool as a public defender.

If you want it.

That's right.

So grandma is calling 911 before even really anything happening.

Oh, because she's taking the kid or he wants to take the kid.

That's why.

Okay.

But she doesn't really know that at the time.

She just hears some sort of yelling next door, which ends up being, you know, part of our

theory.

It's grandma's fault.

Yeah.

She doesn't like the drama.

Grandma.

Grandma.

And then the, her, her kid, the uncles, her, her boys are coming in cause grandma's

getting upset.

Okay.

All right.

What is her initial call?

Her initial emergency.

Is it just a noise complaint?

Is it just, is he saying that your client is about to DV her?

She is just yelling kind of on the call.

Like, ah, he's, he's here.

He's trying to take the baby.

Like, Oh, but not initially.

Like there's a lot of yelling before she gets to that point.

And then she says, you know, he calls me a bitch and she starts getting upset about

that.

Um, it seems to be a lot more, um, her personal feelings on the situation than concern about

the baby.

I mean, we're going to get to it in a second.

Was the 911 call played at trial?

Yes.

Okay.

Did you like laugh during it?

Or like, could you keep a stone face?

Like, did you roll your eyes?

How did you?

I did my best to keep a straight face.

I'm not sure how I did.

In other words, he's asking you, was grandma actually a bitch?

Okay.

All right.

She's too nice.

I keep trying to get her to say stuff.

Okay.

So, but she calls because he's trying to take the baby.

Had she called the police on him before?

Was there a history of that in your discovery?

No.

And again, I don't think she knew at the point that she called the police that he was trying

to take the baby.

She had heard some yelling next door and then immediately calls the police.

And then as she gets to the apartment, then she starts narrating what's happening.

I mean, that's a weird go-to if there's no history.

Right.

Or if she, I mean, she doesn't like him clearly then.

Right.

Do you hear her?

Do you hear her like running over to the apartment on the 911 call?

No.

Is she out of breath?

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

No.

And the girlfriend had just recently moved in there too.

The apartment was clearly not lived in.

There was just like a mattress on the ground.

So I'm not sure how many opportunities the grandmother has even had to intervene.

Okay.

And Lauren, can you ask her what the race people are?

Just because it's better when it comes from you.

I'm not sure what that means, but would you like to tell us the race of the people involved?

Sure.

So the, my client was black and Hispanic and then the alleged victims, the uncles and grandmom

were all black.

Okay.

Was that the reason they didn't like your client?

I don't think so.

I don't, I didn't get any indication of that throughout either the testimony or any sort

of.

They just didn't like him.

I'm guessing the 18 year old getting your granddaughter pregnant.

They weren't so happy about that.

I mean, he didn't do it alone.

Exactly.

So, all right.

So that's the 9-1-1 call.

And then like, how is your defense formulating at this point when you're, when you're looking

at all the body worn videos, like where, where are we at this point?

So, as I mentioned, there started to be a few different inconsistencies that were jumping

out at me, um, in terms of where the gun went off, how many shots there were.

Um, some of the witnesses said that there were two shots.

Uh, the older, bigger uncle said two shots, as well as the grandmother said that there were

two shots.

Um, and then the younger, smaller uncle said one, as well as my client said one.

Were they interviewed separately?

Um, they are all interviewed separately initially.

But when I say separately, they were about 10 feet apart.

Um, so they could have.

They could cure each other.

They were within earshot.

Uncle Biggie and, and grandma could have.

Right.

Talked about it together.

Yeah.

I mean, that's just what you're noticing.

Okay.

There's a discrepancy in the number of shots, two to one, but like, that's not, not guilty.

That doesn't lead to not, not guilty.

Right.

Is that a double negative?

Not, not guilty.

Um, so then what, like, like what, how is this developing for you then?

Yeah.

And then some other things I'm noticing is that it seems the uncles were very much escalating

the situation.

Um, at least based on my clients telling of it, um, that he just wanted to leave.

They weren't letting him leave.

Um, there were some different statements about, um, if my client had made a threat or not.

Um, at the initial night when the police are interviewing everyone, they don't mention any threats.

Uh, but later on at the preliminary hearing, they all say that my client angel said, I have

something for you.

And they took that to mean he had a gun.

Um, so.

All three of them said, your client said, I have something for you.

Yes.

Yes.

And without any indication as to why they all thought, well, that means he has a gun.

Right.

And notably, they never said that the night the police were there.

None of them did.

Right.

But they all said at the prelim.

Right.

Did you send out an investigator to get additional statements from these three witnesses?

Not from the three witnesses.

Um, and the reason being by the time I had the case, we had a lot of prior statements from

them already.

Um, that I thought was sufficient in terms of like, they're talking to police that night

later being interviewed, uh, the preliminary hearing transcript.

Um, so we didn't need to get any additional statements.

And were there statements?

I know you said that the statements between the witnesses were inconsistent, but for each

particular witness, did their statements change?

So like Uncle Biggie, did he give a different statement the night of versus later?

So you had those inconsistencies as well.

Yes.

And it definitely seemed that people were getting more certain as time goes on, which is of course

common in these types of cases that they tend to, um, know a hundred percent that it

was my client that had the gun and was pointing it in this way, even though they didn't mention

that that night.

Were the stories getting worse as the, as the stories were being told and they were inconsistent?

Were they getting more dramatic?

Were they getting worse for your client?

Yes.

Yeah.

That happens a lot too.

Interesting.

Okay.

So then like, where are we at in your, in the development of the fence?

You notice there's inconsistencies and, uh, like, like, like, is there any more work

you're doing to get ready for trial then?

Um, we do have an investigator go out to the scene and take pictures of the building, um,

the exterior of the building, just to get a better view of what it looks like.

Um, partially because when police arrived, um, the gun that was used was thrown by the older,

bigger uncle, um, underneath the car.

Um, what about evidence?

They said at least one shot was fired, right?

Yes.

So is there evidence that a shot was actually fired other than the fact that there was a

gun on the scene?

Yes.

Um, there was, um, a bullet casing as well as a projectile.

So the actual bullet, um, that went into the wall in the stairwell.

Um, so there was evidence based on the ballistics, uh, that one shot had been fired, but definitely

no evidence of a second shot.

So your investigator took pictures of the scene.

Did you have your investigator talk to the girlfriend?

Uh, yes, we did.

Did she say she saw what happened?

No.

And, um, she mentioned saying that she wanted to do anything to help our client and maybe

she might remember something if it would be helpful.

Um, which we did not end up pursuing true love.

Tell me what I have to say to have him go home.

Right.

Not great for you in front of a jury.

Right.

What about maybe you mentioned it.

So then did they do like any testing on the gun?

Yes, they did DNA testing, uh, which came back inconclusive because there was too much

of a mixture of, of, um, contributors separate from fingerprint testing.

They didn't do any fingerprint testing.

They, oh, no, just DNA.

Sure.

Did you get a, um, ballistics expert to talk about the angle at which the projectile was

found?

No, they had a, um, like a firearms expert, but there was no ballistics testing in terms

of location, um, or the direction of the, uh, projectile partially because it was at the bottom

of, um, so it was an apartment complex stairwell.

Um, and the actual projectile was found in the wall of the bottom, uh, floor.

Um, so it was clear it was at a downwards angle basically.

So that's where the shooting happened in the stairwell.

Yes.

Is the stairwell outside or inside the building?

It's inside.

Okay.

Say from a downward angle, you mean the, the shots were fired down.

The gun was pointing down.

That's right.

And did that support your theory or the prosecution's theory or neither?

So my client, um, when he's interviewed by police says he doesn't know how the gun, like

he just heard the shot go off, but he never says that anyone pointed the gun at him, um,

or anyone was trying to kill him or anything like that.

So for me, the actual angle didn't matter too much because my client, um, didn't have

a good idea about how the, how the gun was fired.

Um, and all of the witnesses, regardless of which version, um, were consistent in the

fact that it was a tumultuous situation.

Everyone's wrestling over the gun.

Um, so the actual angle of the gun, no one was sure on.

So your client says he just heard it.

He didn't see the gun go off, but he had seen the gun during whatever this confrontation

was.

It's not, it's not as if he never saw the gun and just heard a gunshot.

Right.

Okay.

Any other evidence that we want to talk about?

Um, the one other piece of evidence is there was, um, gloves that, uh, the older uncle,

our clients had put on before coming back, um, to the interactions.

There was this initial fight in the girlfriend's apartment.

The older, bigger, bigger uncle goes to, um, his grandmom's place for a little bit, a couple

of minutes and then returns.

And that's when the shots fired.

Um, and when he returns, he has these gloves on.

That is not suspicious at all.

Right.

That's a totally normal thing to do in the middle of a fight.

Is, how did that piece of evidence come about?

Is it like in the body worn video or like who, how do you know about this?

So my client told me about the gun, I mean the, uh, the gloves.

And then there is a photo with a glove kind of in the background.

Um, but no one.

Where the gun was found?

No.

In the stairwell.

Oh.

But a glove.

One glove.

Right.

A right-handed glove.

Like a, like a Michael Jackson glove or like Johnny Cochran glove.

I did not expect to see what kind of glove it was, but, um, it, there was a glove.

So we at least like use that to support.

Is there a picture of it?

Yes.

Was there like a picture of a glove on the stairwell?

Yep.

On the floor?

Was there a gun, a bullet, a casing next to it or anything like that?

I'm really hoping at trial you made Uncle Biggie try it on like an okay sense moment.

I did not because the younger uncle ended up agreeing, but we can get to that later.

So they don't, so then the uncle, the big uncle, Uncle Biggie?

Is that what you call it?

Uncle Biggie and Uncle Smalls?

Uncle Biggie.

The other one was smaller.

Uncle Biggie never says I left and came back, right?

That's just something you know.

He says he left to go check on his daughter.

Um, yes.

He told the police that?

But he doesn't say he came back with a gun and gloves on?

No.

But your client says that to you?

Right.

He told the police he left to go check on his daughter?

Yes.

That's in the body-worn video?

Yes.

Okay.

Why did he say he comes back?

I mean, at that point, why not just call the police again or, you know?

He says he comes back because he heard the gun shot go off and wanted to protect his little brother.

Did he leave?

He's a hero.

He ran towards the sound of gunfire.

Yep.

Like, I know they're just giving a statement.

The police are just like, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.

Or whatever.

You know, they're not really, you know, dissecting it.

But did he say they were fighting?

So I left to go check on my daughter to make sure she was okay.

And I left my brother who was fighting.

And then I checked on her and she was still sleeping.

And so then I came back?

Did she come out or something?

Was he like, oh, my kid is out.

I gotta take her away from here.

Well, the craziest part about it is that he says he went to the grandmother's apartment to check on his daughter.

And she ended up not being there, but was actually in the first apartment.

So she was actually with him.

She was there the whole time?

Yes.

How old is she?

Uh, four.

Week.

His four-year-old daughter was present for the whole fight?

Yes.

Unbeknownst to him, apparently.

Okay.

Where was the mother?

What?

Or did the uncle take her four-year-old daughter from the mother and bring her over that night?

I don't know what happened.

What a hypocrite.

Listen, what a hypocrite.

You know, nobody likes a hypocrite.

Did anybody notice a four-year-old in the middle of a struggle over a gun?

Any one of the people that were related to her and possibly responsible for her care?

No one says anything about it.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

So you have one little detail, guys?

Just, you know, you just gotta question it.

You know, you just gotta...

Well, it certainly makes him look bad.

Right.

And since your client is saying that he's the one who came out with a gun, we want to make

him look bad.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Any other facts we should know about before trial?

Any other pieces of evidence we missed here?

I can't think of anything else.

Okay.

So what we have is your client and his girlfriend fighting, living next door to grandma and uncles.

And grandma comes over because she hears them fighting.

She calls 9-1-1.

And then uncles come over and they start fighting with your client verbally only at this point.

And they are tussling around on the ground, like wrestling, kind of.

Just what guys do.

Yeah.

The fight spills out of the apartment.

Right.

Goes down the stairs.

And at some point between when it spills out of the apartment and they're all the way on the ground floor, there is at least one gunshot.

But there are different statements about how many gunshots there are.

Right.

And your client is saying the gun's not mine.

Uncle Biggie went back to get his gloves and his gun.

And the uncles are saying the gun belonged to your client and he tried to kill, not Uncle Biggie, but Uncle Smalls.

Yes.

Okay.

And they say that they are just trying to restrain my client until police arrived so that they could take care of him.

And they threw the gun behind a tire?

Behind a car.

Under a car.

Yeah.

The safest place.

Okay.

So these are the facts that we have.

We have no experts of importance.

Correct.

And now we're ready for trial.

Yep.

How do you feel about this?

I mean, your client's freedom, you know, is resting on your shoulders here.

So what, like, how do you feel about your case?

I'm definitely feeling confident as I've gotten more information from all of the different body-worn cameras and gone through that with my notes and my client's statement.

And I've started to notice some of the inconsistencies.

However, it's still going to be dependent a lot on how these witnesses come across at trial and if they will, what story they will tell.

What I love about this is it's such a classic public defender case in that she has no witnesses, no experts.

She's just going to go in and be like, "They're lying.

They're lying.

Please like me and believe me.

Thank you.

Vote not guilty."

Yeah.

Nah.

And she's confident about it.

This is amazing.

This is so classic.

Something's not adding up.

Nah.

Nah.

The prosecutor has not just multiple witnesses, but they're also all on the same side.

Right.

And so he is also feeling very confident about his case.

Your client is?

No, my, the prosecutor.

Oh, the prosecutor.

Yeah.

Do you want to tell us about the prosecutor?

Sure.

No names.

No names.

No names.

He is a, I guess, kind of mid-level prosecutor.

Had been working there for about 10 years.

And definitely, like I said, was very confident about his case.

Probably overconfident because he-

Chalker.

Right.

Was sure that they would all tell the same story, very consistent.

And how could anyone not find my client guilty when three people are saying he did it?

Three plus one.

Right.

Three plus one.

Yes.

Which one's the alligator going to go for?

Three.

Um.

They're always overconfident.

Yeah.

Is there, um.

And by the way, he's not allowed to say that to the jury.

We have three witnesses.

She has none.

I don't know if that needs to be said.

I feel like that's kind of obvious, but just in case.

Sometimes they try it.

Um.

So then, is there like any, like pre-trial?

So you've, like, what's like the pre-trial work though?

Like you've, uh, got all the videos transcribed, right?

The body worn video?

Yes.

Okay.

And by getting them transcribed, I was the one transcribing them, uh, myself.

So fun.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

And then, uh, anything else then?

Yeah.

Your pictures?

Your exhibits?

Um.

Really, that's it.

And just trying to organize everything, um, so that I would be prepared depending on what

story was told at the trial.

Okay.

And is there, um, was there a chance to settle the case?

You know?

No, I, the offer in the case was extremely high, um, and my client was really not interested

in any sort of offer.

By the time I got into the case, it was clear that that ship had sailed and that wasn't something

that was even really discussed.

Was there, I mean, like, what was the offer?

I believe the offer was eight to 16 years.

Okay.

And you, eight to 16, that's a pretty big, uh, discrepancy.

Like how do you.

The client's just a baby.

Yes.

Um, he's, this is the first time he's ever been in jail.

He's only 19 years old.

Um, so to me, that was kind of an insane offer.

Um, and the eight to 16 years here in Pennsylvania, the second number always has to be at least,

uh, twice the first number.

Um, so that's how you get that eight to 16 years.

Um, if he took that sentence, then he could be eligible to be released at eight, but that

would depend on the parole board and how he does in jail.

Um, so, but your client, you, you have a duty to tell your client the offer, right?

So you have to go and tell him the offer and you can take eight to 16 years.

He can reject it, but he also has to know his max.

If you go to trial and lose, you could, you're facing 20 plus years.

Right.

And that's the, so that's the rolling the dice.

You know, he has to take that risk.

You don't know what the, the, the jurors are going to be, who's going to be judging you.

And, you know, so if he loses, he could get that.

What now, if the prosecution, on the other hand, if the prosecution loses, what, what do

they get?

Nothing.

I like it when our clients ask for an apology.

Okay.

So, all right.

So then we're going to trial.

Any pre-trial motions?

There really weren't.

Motions in limini.

There really weren't any pre-trial motions in this case because my theory was to try and

get as much information as possible in, um, and show the jurors how confusing the situation

was.

Were there criminal histories of your client or the witnesses to worry about?

Uh, no, my client had prior arrests, but had never had any prior convictions.

Um, and that was part of the reason the prosecutor's offer was so crazy, despite the fact that he

had no prior record, um, because of these prior arrests that mattered.

And the DA's witnesses, did they have criminal histories?

No.

Wow.

And so.

That's not a public defender case.

Usually everybody has a, some type of records, so.

Yeah.

Um.

So wait, so you don't have any motions in limini.

You don't want to exclude the 9-1-1 call.

It was just very clear to me that that was not going to be excluded, uh, based on the

fact that she is just recounting what is happening word for word.

Um, and I think it also helped to just add another version to the stories.

So at this point, your strategy is, is muddy the water.

You want to put as much information out on the field as possible because there are so many

different statements.

Yes, exactly.

So you don't want to exclude anything.

Right.

Got it.

Okay.

And then do you know what judge you're going to be in front of at this point?

Like, how's it work?

Yes.

Um, so as soon as, uh, we go beyond the preliminary hearing stage, we're assigned to

one judge that will be the trial judge.

Um, and this judge was very notoriously Commonwealth friendly.

So she is definitely not on our side at all.

Um, and how unusual.

Um, so I knew any sort of motions would probably be denied.

And I was expecting at trial, any objections would probably be again, denied and, um, it would

be an uphill battle.

But you're still confident though, right?

Trying to be as confident as possible.

Okay.

Okay.

So we're already at jury selection.

We have no motions in limiting.

All right.

Um, how, how's your client been this whole time anyways, right?

Like, like by the time you got the case and you went to trial, like, are we talking four

to five months?

Like how much time has elapsed?

Yeah, I would say about four to five months.

Okay.

And then just what's your relationship been with him during this time?

Um, so our relationship was good.

Um, I'd been out to the jails, several countless times visiting him, um, and talking to

him about his case.

I think he was definitely very happy at the time that I got the case that I was ready

and, you know, willing to go to trial and wasn't trying to talk to him.

Nice change from the private attorney.

Right.

Not trying to talk him into taking any sort of crazy offer that he made very clear he was

not interested in.

Okay.

Um, so let's talk about jury selection.

How does it work in Delco?

Um, so jury selection, um, we don't get anything ahead of time.

Um, that day we get a bunch of questionnaire forms that everyone fills out kind of about

their background.

Um, and then another set of forms with more specific questions, um, that are kind of geared

towards how they would be as a juror, such as, are you more likely to believe a police officer

than another witness?

Do you think the client has to testify?

Those types of things.

Are these form questions or do you get to decide you and the prosecutor?

What questions are put on these forms?

No, I would love to be able to do that.

But unfortunately, no, they have to be these very form questions.

Can you ask to add anything?

No.

Occasionally the judge will allow, um, will allow you to like, once the, all the jurors get

there, ask something to the entire room.

Um, but that is very limited.

And this judge typically does not allow that.

So you didn't actually get to talk to anybody.

You're just looking at their answers on paper.

So everyone answers the questions on paper and then they kind of double check to make sure

everyone, we have all of the right answers.

So they will go through the questions again in the room, um, with like a hundred different

people and they will have to stand up if they've answered yes to any of the questions.

Um, so I have kind of a notepad indicating if juror one stood up for this question.

If they're racist.

Um, and then no one stands up.

This is the problem I think with these forms is no one writes down the stuff that's socially

unacceptable to say.

Right.

And you just, is anybody in here racist?

Do you feel like you can't be fair because you're racist?

No one's going to stand up except for the people who are just going to say whatever they

want to get off jury duty.

And that's entirely obvious when that happens.

Right.

So the goal is seeing if they have answered yes to any possible question, because if they

do, then the judge will allow us to bring them to sidebar and ask kind of additional questions

of that.

Do they fill it out with pencil or pen?

Pencil.

Is it like an eraser mark?

A lot of erasers?

Like you couldn't get the answer right?

Well, it's carbon copy.

So a lot of times you can hardly even see.

Carbon copy?

What?

Yes.

What year is this?

Okay.

So you don't get to talk to the jurors at all then?

Not unless they answer yes to any of the questions.

They bring them to sidebar.

And then it's only a sidebar.

And then it is.

And your client's not there at sidebar.

Right.

And then it's the judge leading.

How are they supposed to know if you're going to like you?

You get no vibe check this year.

Yeah.

It's like a vibe thing.

Very difficult.

Yeah.

Like who's vibing you?

I don't know how many attorneys are going to admit this to you, but a lot of jury selection

is just vibe check.

Like when you're, when you're standing in front of the panel and you're talking to them

and you see somebody looking at you, like you've run over their cat.

There's someone you want to kick.

Like that's just some, some people just don't like the defense.

You can tell like, Hey, the sky is blue.

And the juror is like, I guess so.

All right.

You're a prosecution juror.

Get out of here.

You know, like, we're like, yeah, yeah, it's blue.

Yeah.

All right.

You're on my team.

Let's go.

Conversely, some will like you and they'll flirt with you and you want to keep them.

I'm a feminist.

I promise.

That's just still a good tip for trial.

It's like, it's like high school.

Who's going to hang out with you and who's going to hang out with the prosecutor.

So we all have our, you know, like, you know, do you know who, who likes me in jury trials?

Soccer moms.

No, just like, just, but just like, you know, like moms that drive vans, you know, that's,

that's my demographic, you know, that's, that's so tracks.

Yeah.

That's, you know, like in mom jeans, just kind of like, that's, that's my juror.

That's my juror.

Yeah.

So there was one potential juror that said that she had a medical condition.

So couldn't be fair and impartial.

And when we went up to go talk to her more, she said that she had such crippling anxiety.

She would never be able to deliberate with the rest of the jurors and would just go along

with what everyone else said.

Um, so naturally the judge responds by, um, bullying her into saying, I promise I will

be fair and impartial and do exactly what you say.

Judge.

Without.

So.

In any way.

Just entirely missing the irony there.

Right.

Making her go along with what he said.

Right.

You will be fair.

You are a fair juror.

Yes.

You kicked her.

Yeah.

Um, can we pause for a second?

Okay.

We got these shirts right here.

Oh, okay.

All right.

We got, we have some shirts guys who.

All right.

We don't have a little trivia.

Uh, right now on his client is asserting his right to a trial.

What amendment on the constitution guarantees someone a right to a jury trial.

This is Penn.

You university of Pennsylvania, Carrie law, the most smartest kids.

Okay.

Hold on.

Raise your hand.

Yell it out.

Somebody right here, right here in the, in the black.

Okay.

Yes.

Oh, you got to pick one.

I need one.

Six.

Yes.

The sixth amendment.

All right.

Okay.

That was fun.

Huh?

That was fun.

I wanted to do that.

We couldn't get the funding for a t-shirt cannon, but that was good enough.

So.

All right.

Okay.

Um, all right.

Okay.

Go back.

Okay.

Okay.

We're back to business.

Okay.

You had one juror.

You kicked because what a mess.

And that was the only one of significance that you got to talk to at the sidebar.

Essentially.

No one else.

Um, was really that of no.

Well, there was one, one, but other potential jur.

Um, when they, there's a question of if you've ever been either a victim or, uh, or charged

with, uh, the same or similar crime, um, and a person came up and said that he really

feel like those should be separate questions, but go on.

Um, that he had been charged with homicide.

Um, but he beat that case.

Uh, of course the prosecutor.

Yeah.

Was able to get him kicked.

Um, for that reason.

Like by the judge or himself?

By the judge.

Shockingly.

Because that person said they couldn't be fair.

Oh, they said they could be fair.

And the judge was like, you can be fair.

Or the judge.

The judge said, no, I think that would still probably bias.

Wow.

In his analysis of the facts.

All right.

So we know where the judge stands.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

It's like.

Right.

Interesting.

The first 12 in the box.

Then aside from those two that were.

It was really a random assortment of people that I didn't know much about in terms of my

jury.

That would make me so anxious starting trial.

Who you kicking then?

Do you remember anybody you kicked?

My goal was because I didn't know anything about these people was to just try and get

an assortment of different ages, different racial backgrounds to hope that at least someone

in there could be on my side.

Interesting.

Okay.

You're just, you're just trying to get options because you're shooting blind.

Yeah.

Basically.

Gotcha.

Okay.

And you said this prosecutor, he's, is he, you say he's 10 years and is he like a little

bit older than you?

Yeah.

A little bit older, maybe five or so years older than me.

Okay.

Okay.

And Ana, you know, I, you look very nice and you know, good looking person right here.

So then does that play into your factor of how you choose your jurors?

Like with, like with men or women or anything like that?

I guess so.

I mean, I think you want anyone that is tending to respond well to you, uh, whatever that

means.

Told ya.

All right.

So then we got our jury, right?

Um, anything else?

Okay.

No.

Opening statements.

Yeah.

Let's talk about opening statements.

Full speed ahead.

Yeah.

Right.

Very vague because my, the DA still goes first in, in Delco, right?

Right.

Oh, I guess.

I know you guys had carbon copies and stuff, but the DA still goes first.

Yes.

Um, so he over promised in his opening statement, um, talked about how my client, um, tried to

kill these two people just because, um, he wanted to leave and, and wanted to, I guess,

hurt them on his way out.

Um, and he said that he was going to be calling, um, all of the witnesses that he was going

to be calling.

So he said specifically that he was going to be having the grandmom testify as well as

both the uncles and that all of their stories would maybe not line up perfectly, but would

line up very closely.

And if they were not consistent, it's because of how emotional they were.

I have a question here is the DA's theory that the uncles were trying to keep your client

there because grandma had called the police and then he pulled out again.

Yes.

Because it sounds like he's saying he just wanted to leave.

I mean, it doesn't make sense to me.

Why not just leave?

What, how is the DA explaining that instead of just leaving since he doesn't leave there

that he decided, no, I think I'll shoot someone on the way out.

If there is really no explanation aside from that they are trying to be upstanding members

of the community and keep this person there so the cops can do their job.

Your client is a dirty, dirty person who just wanted to shoot someone for fun.

Right.

So the DA is coming out strong with an opening statement that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Did you think he was over promising in the opening?

Like did that stick out to you?

Yes, because I was surprised that he said as much as he did about each of these witnesses,

prior statements, and that they would be lining up.

Because I knew, regardless of what story was told at trial,

that there would be inconsistencies I'd be able to point out.

So his second mistake, which is very common for the DA's to make,

is that he didn't own his bad facts.

Right.

Did that change your opening statement at all?

Not so much because I had worked with this prosecutor several times before.

So I don't think I was shocked with him over promising in his opening statement.

And given that my theory was going to be hoping I could make all these people look like liars,

I didn't want to come out the gate and just say exactly that.

So it was more so a general opening statement without too much.

But he played right into your hand by saying they were going to see X, Y, and Z,

and it would all be very consistent.

Right.

So then how'd you say it?

Like, ah, there's going to be, you know, there's going to be some evidence.

She said what we all say.

Keep an open mind.

Nice.

Yes.

Keep an open mind.

Reasonable doubt.

It's their burden.

There are a lot of ugly things, but keep an open mind.

Yes.

Okay.

All right, then.

Time for the prosecution's case.

They have the burden of proof.

Oh, I should have done a t-shirt on that.

Who has the burden of proof?

I mean, if they don't get that, I would be really, really sad and scared for the future

of the bar.

Okay.

So the prosecution does have the burden of proof, so they go first.

And how does their evidence roll out?

Um, so the first person they call, I think is just a responding officer to kind of set

the scene.

But the first, um, witness of note is the grandmother.

Um, and she is the first person that goes through the chain of events, um, as the prosecutor

sees it.

Okay.

Is, is grandma, when you say grandma, what kind of grandma are we talking about?

Is this a sort of vital witness or is this a witness who is, you know, shuffling in and

you have to be careful with her in front of the jury?

She's only in her sixties.

That, that could mean a number of things.

She's, she's definitely, um, not a typical grandmother, I guess you could say.

Okay.

In the body camera, she's wearing zebra leggings.

Um, and.

I love this.

Very eccentric.

Um, and.

Earrings?

I believe she had earrings.

Um.

Okay.

So this isn't, this isn't a witness.

The, the DA is not starting with a witness that you have to be careful about coming for

because she presents as sort of fragile or delicate.

Not because of being fragile or delicate, but I was still a little bit hesitant.

Um, given the facts of the case that she would probably be emotional, concerned about,

um, her sons.

Um, so I didn't know exactly how she would play.

Um, but in terms of like her age and just the way she looked, I wasn't so worried about

that.

So then, uh, so she came in and testified and how did she do?

Um, so she changed her story once again.

Um, and told the worst version, um, that she'd ever told at trial.

She testified at the prelim though, right?

Yes.

So this is her second time testifying under oath.

Yes.

And she changed her story even from the prelim.

Yes.

Wonderful.

Right.

Um, so she explained that, um, she had gone over to her granddaughter's house or granddaughter's

apartment because she heard the yelling.

Um, she said that she didn't call the police until she actually got in there and saw what

what was happening and my client pushed her to the ground, uh, which was clearly inconsistent

with the actual 911 call, um, where she's recounting.

She narrated the whole thing.

Right.

She left out in the 911 call that he pushed her to the ground.

Right.

Um, so then she says that she, um, that her older son, the older, bigger uncle came over

because he heard this commotion and tried to restrain my client.

Um, which again is, it was different from the 911 call because in the 911 call, you can

hear her screaming his name, asking him to come into the room.

Um, and she said that it was just kind of like he heard what was going on and came over.

Um, so this is all playing into my theory that they are the ones escalating the situation,

not my client.

What's her demeanor?

I mean, is she angry?

Is she crying?

So on direct examination, she is crying, very upset, um, emotional.

I would say on cross examination, once I started to point out some of these inconsistencies,

those emotions went away.

Let's talk about the cross examination then.

Like, like how did that go down?

And did you impeach her with that?

Some of the evidence?

Yes.

So I impeached her with the 911 call, um, as well as the body camera.

57 different statements at this point.

Right.

And, uh, like how does she respond to the inconsistent statements?

She pretty much accepted them.

Um, she didn't give me a lot of pushback, but as time went on, she, um, started to shut

down more and more.

And by the end said, I really don't even remember what happened that night.

You can just play the statement.

Wow.

Yes.

You can just pick a statement.

Right.

Wow.

So she just, you just kind of boxed her in and she just kind of gave up at the end?

Yes.

Okay.

What a great quote for closing.

You can just pick a statement.

Yes.

And then did you say nothing further?

How do you, how do you do that?

That was really one of my last questions.

So I think I just ended after that.

Great dramatic finish.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So then who text us by next?

Next, it was the older, bigger uncle.

Uncle Biggie's up.

Yes.

On deck.

Okay.

Um, he probably told the most consistent story out of all of them, um, that, you know,

he's told a story about the daughter and how he had to go back to check on her in the

middle of this fight.

Does he ever admit to going back and getting gloves?

Uh, he never says he went back and got gloves.

He does say he went back.

Um, and he says that when he came, um, back to the scene the second time, it was because

he heard the gunshot go off.

Um, but that he was in the grandmother's apartment when that gunshot actually went off.

Did you ask him about the gloves?

I didn't.

Let's hear about, we testified on direct first.

Sure.

So, so on direct examination, he says that, um, there was this fight in the granddaughter's

apartment.

Um, he heard the fight going on, comes over and tries to restrain my client, um, is able

to hold him on the ground.

He said that there was some tussling between the two of them, but no, uh, punches were being

thrown or anything like that.

Um, and then his younger brother comes in and kind of takes over restraining my client while

he decides it would be a good time to check on his daughter.

Um, and that sometime during that whole situation, uh, the younger uncle and my client fall down

the stairs and a shot goes off.

He says he doesn't see any of that.

Um, but then when he hears the gunshot, he runs down and tries to intervene.

And he says that when he intervenes, um, then my client tries to shoot, um, his brother again.

But why does he say that he was holding him down before he goes to check on his daughter?

Uh, for police to arrive.

He wanted to keep him there until police got there.

For what crime had he committed at that point, according to this uncle?

I guess shoving the grandmother?

There you go.

Okay.

Battery.

Battery.

Yeah.

Um, and he says at some point he's able to disarm my client and then runs outside with

the gun and throws it.

Does he admit to throwing punches when he, when at the client then?

Or, um, he, he, he never says explicitly throwing punches.

They all describe it as a tussling, um, like wrestling.

Did any of them have any physical injuries?

No, my client had a couple like red scratches on his, uh, shoulder.

But aside from that, everyone is pretty much fine.

I mean, cause that's his mom.

Right.

Mom was pushed.

Right.

And he's just like, yeah, my mom was pushed.

So, uh, you know, we kind of got into it or I feel like you would be like, I beat his

ass.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, okay.

So cross examination.

So on cross, did you ask him about the gloves?

Um, I actually did not, um, because I knew that there was a prior statement where his

brother mentioned the gloves and I assumed he would deny it.

Um, so I didn't want him to try and give him any opportunity to either explain, um, or anything

like that.

So I'm assuming then you didn't also ask him about if the gun belongs to him.

I did not.

He's the one who brought the gun to the fight.

I did not.

Okay.

Do you have two witnesses or anything else on cross that came out?

Um, not, not for him.

And you did, you didn't play many inconsistent statements or impeach him that many times.

Um, not really.

I think the only, um, issue might have been the, when, um, where he was, when the gunshot

went off, if he was at the top of the stairs or in the apartment.

Cause like both witnesses so far didn't witness the gunshot.

The grandma didn't witness it.

Um, testify to it.

Right.

So the grandma, um, she was, there were a lot of different statements about if she saw

it or not.

Um, at the trial.

Yeah.

About during the testimony at trial, at the trial, she said that she saw it.

She did see it on direct.

Yes.

On direct.

Oh, how did she describe it?

Um, she said that my client had the gun.

Um, he pointed it at the side of her, uh, younger son.

So the younger uncle, um, kind of like this, like just pointing the barrel of the gun at

his side.

Um, and that then they were able to like kind of push him away.

Um, and that's when the gun went off.

She said they, as in both of them were present.

Yes.

So she said both her sons were present.

Yes.

Okay.

And then, but then Ana came in on cross exam and shut that shit down.

And then, and then Biggie says he wasn't there.

Right.

The shot went off.

Okay.

It's difficult because each of them probably gave three different versions.

So you could really almost pick a version.

So on your cross of uncle Biggie, it seems like your strategy was to not impeach him at that

time, but to use the other witnesses inconsistent statements as impeachment about what he was

saying.

Right.

And he was just sitting there with him and saying, well, on this day you said this.

And on this day you said this.

Yes.

Because there weren't as many clear, like perfect impeachments that I felt there would be no

way for him to wiggle out of.

Um, so I knew I could get the things I really needed from the other people.

I mean, the jurors can see it, right?

It's right there in front of them.

All the different inconsistent statements.

Right.

I think it's, it's possibly more effective too.

I mean, you have the different statements that he made, but to use his own brother against

him.

Yeah.

That that's super impactful in front of a jury.

Right.

Okay.

So.

All right.

So that's time for the, uh, little big zebra grandma and Uncle Biggie have testified.

Now it's time for Uncle Smalls.

Uncle Smalls is next.

Okay.

Um, so he comes into the courtroom and is stumbling into the courtroom.

Um, he appears to me to be under the influence.

Um, and he gets a trial at the trial.

Like obviously under the influence.

Yes.

Um, does he need help walking through or grab onto the table?

He's holding the sides of the aisle as he's walking up.

Wow.

Okay.

I love this for you.

Yeah.

Um, and everyone is pretty much silent as he's walking and because they are shocked.

Um, so every trial needs a little levity, right?

Right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, so he got, how excited were you when he walks in though?

I was trying not to smile.

Um, so he takes the stand and, um, very soon after starting to testify, uh, the DA asks him

to identify my client as the person that tried to kill him.

Um, and he says, I can't see.

I'm actually going blind.

Yes.

Um, so he's unable to identify my client.

I mean, how, wait, how old is he?

Um, early thirties, early thirties.

Okay.

How's he dressed?

A child is starting to feel like a cartoon to me.

Yeah.

How's he dressed?

Just average jeans, you know, a shirt, um, nothing of note.

And his speech, is he, does it flirt at all?

He was definitely like talking very slowly.

Okay.

Um, but, and his eyes were clearly, I think that was what gave it away to me.

The glassy eyes.

I feel like we're about to go through the DUI checklist when you get this DUI reports.

Yes.

Um, bloodshot, bloodshot, watery eyes, glassy eyes, the odor of alcohol emitting from his

person, slow response time.

Yeah.

Um, so he kind of tells a very short version of events.

Uh, but I think at this point the DA realized that he probably shouldn't be up there for too

long.

Um, I love it when their victim just has like a small, just a small part of it because

they know there's trouble.

So, right.

Um, so he says that there was, you know, this fight in the, um, in the apartment.

Well, I have to ask you though, how intoxicated is this guy?

Cause when he comes in, I'm sure that was a thrilling moment for you, but was he so intoxicated

that you were concerned because we just talked about how you didn't go hard at impeachment

for the other uncle because you were going to get stuff out through this uncle?

Were you, was he so intoxicated that you were concerned you weren't going to be able

to get through cross with him?

Definitely.

And even, um, when I started cross examination, the judge pulled us to sidebar and said she

didn't think he was going to make it through my cross examination.

So could I just wrap it up?

The judge said that?

Yes.

So offensive.

Yes.

Not even break and come back later.

Can you, can you not provide your client with a proper defense?

Right.

Because I'd like to help the DA with their intoxicated victim right now.

And even there at the DA, I mean, he agreed with me.

He said, I think she has a right to cross examination.

Um, so we're going to have to figure it out.

Hold on a second.

What right under the United States Constitution guarantees a right to confront and cross examine

witnesses?

Okay.

Right here.

Uh, Scott.

Sixth amendment.

All right.

So effectively the judge didn't care that her client had the right to confront the witnesses

against him because it would be really inconvenient for the guy who was clearly too drunk.

Was the trial going well for you at that moment?

Like, was the judge being like, all right, this is innocuous.

Let's just wrap it.

Or like, what was.

I'm not sure.

You think that makes it better?

No, I think it's like.

I think she saw that it was going badly for the prosecutor and wanted to intervene.

I mean, I think at that point, usually like if the judge is going to say like that they're going to interfere like that, they try to settle the case.

Like, give this guy two years.

Let's just move on or something like that.

But she said like.

Never.

Why don't you just dismiss this, Mr. Prosecutor?

That's true too.

Why don't you just make a lower offer that might make him put us all out of our misery before he gets a not guilty?

By the way, the judge has it can dismiss the case, too, after the people's case as well.

So we have more T-shirts for that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

But I don't know if the law school knows that one.

Anyways.

So then what was your.

So the prosecutor stood up for the Constitution and said she has the right to cross examine.

That is correct.

So then I was able to kind of resume my cross examination and mostly ended up playing one of his prior statements that he made to one of the body worn camera and then asked him a couple of follow up questions just to point out how his story that he told the prosecutor on direct was different than his story.

He told that night specifically about when the shot went off, like the location of it, who was there and those types of details.

And then you were able to get from him that the other brother, Uncle Biggie left and came back with gloves on.

Right.

Because that was on the body worn camera that he mentioned the gloves.

Oh, that's what you played.

Okay.

So his level of intoxication is slightly less concerning when you already have the statement.

Right.

That you can play with him sitting there.

Yes.

Right.

So there wasn't a ton of questions I had to ask for him, but I had to have him physically be there.

How are you setting up your impeachment?

Are you saying, do you remember talking to the police?

Right.

Did you give a statement to the police?

Yes.

Do you remember this right now as you sit here?

Yes.

Do you have any memory right now?

I think for any...

Are you conscious?

Are you conscious?

Did you make...

Or are you blacked out right now?

Yes.

I did try to ask if he was intoxicated, which was objected to and sustained.

I thought it was relevant.

How is that not relevant?

That's so relevant.

Are you under the influence?

Yes.

Are you able to...

Right.

Yeah.

I just had a judge when I took a plea the other day to talk about, you know, of sound minds.

It only matters if your client is so that they can knowingly and intelligently waive all their rights.

That's interesting.

Okay.

So that was objected to.

You try to talk about intoxication.

Yeah.

So how do you set it up then with your impeachment?

So typically, I think it depends on, like, how confrontational the person is going to be.

But in this situation, I said something to the effect of, like, do you remember, like, you gave a statement to police that night?

And that statement, the officer was wearing body-worn camera.

And if you saw the statement played to you, you'd remember it.

And then, you know, I played it.

Okay.

Did he remember it?

After he saw it, then he said, I guess I said that.

That looks like me.

All right.

All right.

His vision being miraculously restored.

Right.

Right.

Any other cross-examination with this witness?

Not too much.

Again, just kind of playing his statement and getting in those couple big facts.

And then the DA tried to rehabilitate at all?

With his preliminary hearing transcript, which interestingly, I mean, it really just added another version of events to the story.

So I don't think that was too effective.

It's never good when the DA has to impeach their own witness for credibility issues.

Well, especially when their impeachment makes their case worse.

Right.

Brilliant move by the DA.

Right.

Because our whole defense was that as time went on, their stories got more consistent with each other and worse.

So, you know, they were playing, they were showing this preliminary hearing transcript from a hearing that had happened about three months after the actual incident.

Sounds like you had a lot of assistance inadvertently from the DA in this case.

Right.

Yes.

Any other any other evidence from the DA?

After that, they just called a few of the officers that were there on the scene talking about their investigation, about the DNA report, how it was, you know, inconclusive.

They couldn't tell much from it.

And kind of that.

But the case in general was important, except they don't have the evidence to convict my client.

Right.

Right.

What about the glove?

Did the picture of the glove come in evidence?

It did.

And I did ask if they did any DNA testing or anything on that, which of course they did not.

Okay.

All right.

So that's the people arrest then?

Yes.

Okay.

Now, in between the people's case and the defense case, there's a motion that we are required to make.

What's that motion?

We asked them.

Do you all know?

Does anybody know?

Ooh.

Ooh, striped shirt.

Oh, okay.

That's correct.

That's not right.

Is that rule 29?

In California, we call it an 1118 motion.

So I don't know what rule 29 is, but you said the right words.

Very nice.

Very nice.

Spread an applause.

Here we go.

We're in the Ivy Leagues now.

They know.

Yeah.

That was great.

Okay.

So I made the motion.

It was denied.

With that judge, I'm surprised.

And then the only piece of evidence I played was another body-worn camera.

There was a stipulation between me and the district attorney.

So this is a defense case now?

Yes.

So you played body-worn video.

Yes.

They didn't want to have the cop come in to authenticate it or anything like that or have

me ask questions of him because he was on-

He laid a foundation for the video.

Right.

Because he was on vacation.

So I ended up playing his body-worn camera and he was helpful because he kind of went through

the scene and talked to a lot of the different officers and some of the things that were captured

on the body-worn camera were officers saying how they don't really know what happened.

Oh, that's excellent.

And those types of things.

They are laughing about the gun, making it seem very unserious and the cops weren't taking

it, you know, seriously or caring about the case.

So I was honestly shocked that the prosecutor agreed to allow me to play all this.

I mean, at this point, your trial transcript is basically writing the closing for you.

Right.

You don't know what happened.

If you don't know what happened, how can you say the prosecutor has proven their case

beyond a reasonable doubt?

The officers who were there, the officers who were on scene to collect the evidence and

see it firsthand, they have no idea what happened.

That's brilliant.

And then do you, are the transcripts you made, are those, are they reading this from the body-worn

video too?

Like the audio in the body-worn video?

We're just following along.

Just following along.

But you had to make, you made transcripts, right?

Yeah.

So the transcripts, they weren't like perfect court reporter transcripts, but they were,

you know, with each, I would say each 30, 30 second increment and kind of like a sentence

about what was said.

So it was more for my use than.

So the transcript had the cops laughing?

Yes.

Say ha, ha, ha.

Parentheses.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Nice.

And then did your client testify?

No.

Okay.

Did you ever consider him testifying?

Was that a decision you made last minute?

Or did you know going in, he wasn't going to testify?

So we had conversations with him about testifying.

Um, I prepared him to potentially testify and kind of like what that would be like, ran through

what the direct and cross-examination would be.

Um, but our, the def, the plan was definitely to not have him testify unless something went

horribly wrong.

So he, your client didn't testify.

Right.

He asserted his right to testify under.

Oh, someone's already raising their hand.

What a man of the constitution.

You're so far away.

Here we go.

I liked that enthusiasm.

Oh, miss.

You know, it's limited.

It's limited.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

That was tough.

That was a tough one.

Um, so your strategy for not having your client testify was what?

Your decision.

Um, what was that based on?

He had given his account of what happened that night on the body worn camera.

So they were already getting his version of events through.

When?

Um, that, so the, one of the prosecutor's witnesses was a cop that they played his body

worn camera.

Oh, okay.

That included my client's statement.

All right.

We skipped over that part when we said they weren't important.

So the prosecution.

I guess that was slightly important.

Yeah.

So the prosecution's case, they played your client's defense.

Right.

And that gets in to evidence because?

Um, well.

Should we ask the crowd or?

Does anyone know the hearsay exception?

Got more t-shirts out, out there.

Oh, we stumped him.

It's a hearsay exception.

I see some.

Okay.

Up here.

Right.

And that's why I was happy that the prosecutor played it.

Um, because I had some concerns about how I would be able to get it in if they didn't.

All right.

You get a t-shirt outside.

Okay.

Yeah.

This is also a great example of, of good trial strategy, right?

Like you want to get this in and you don't want to have your client testify.

And the DA was dumb enough to put it up himself.

So you just sat there quietly.

Yes.

Excellent move.

All right.

Um, okay.

So then, so you just played the body worn video.

Your client doesn't testify.

Any other evidence for the defense?

Wait, she was answering the question.

You didn't have your client testify because you got what you needed out of his statement

being played from the body worn video.

That's right.

Yeah.

There was no reason to risk putting them up there.

Right.

And then like, how, how has your client been throughout the whole trial?

Like, was this a couple of weeks, one week?

How long was the trial?

One week.

Okay.

Yeah.

But he's, I mean, nervous, understandably.

Um, but it's definitely feeling like it's going well.

And I think he was hoping that we would be, you know, getting the result he wanted.

That doesn't really mean much though, because they always think it's going well.

Right.

Even when you are on a desperately sinking ship, they turn to you and they go, this is going

great.

No, it's not.

But in this case, it seems like it was going well.

Yes.

Okay.

So then time for closing arguments.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

How's the prosecution's closing argument?

Um, so they.

Disappointing.

Yeah.

I mean, it's just kind of going again.

It was very similar to their opening argument saying that all of the stories were pretty consistent

and any inconsistencies can be explained by their emotions and how traumatic this situation

was.

Um, he brought up how, you know, he, this, the victim, um, was drunk because that's how

he testified.

He doesn't say he's drunk, but he said he was clearly emotional and struggling.

And it's a result of this traumatic incident.

Um, so blaming it all on my client, all of the issues that were in his case.

It's coping mechanism.

Yes.

And then still didn't, he still didn't own his bad facts though.

He still just tried to assert to the jury that it was all, it was all cool.

All of these different versions that they testified to.

Right.

And then under the guise of just emotions, people forget things over time.

Um, they didn't, they were more sure.

Right.

All right.

And then how was your closing argument?

Um, and that at the closing argument, I could finally kind of get into the details of

the different inconsistencies.

Oh, can I ask you this?

Um, during the prosecution's closing argument, what was the jurors body language like?

Like, can you tell if they were vibing him or not?

Um, well, I mean, so here I do my closing argument first.

Um, so.

Oh, you go first.

Yes.

Wait, I'm sorry.

So you each get to only go once then.

Yes.

Okay.

In California, at least in LA County, prosecution goes.

Defense goes.

Prosecution gets the rebuttal.

And that's it.

We don't get to do a rebuttal.

Which is terrible because they get the last word.

But the burden is still on them.

You don't have to actually say anything.

And you have to go first.

Yes.

Okay.

Hello, Delaware County.

Um, so I mean, the prosecutors, again, his closing was very, like, over promising.

And then I was kind of going through all the inconsistencies.

Um, I definitely feel like the jurors were responsive to me.

And then kind of when it got to his turn, he was going on for a very long period of time.

And I don't know how, how, how many notes they were taking at that point.

Um, but again, it's hard to tell.

I guess that's the benefit of going first.

Yeah.

Wow.

Okay.

Okay.

So then that was it.

And the jurors, they, they got the case.

Jury's jury instructions were normal.

Everything was cool with jury instructions.

Okay.

Yeah.

Any dreaded questions?

Um, I don't, I think the only question they, the jurors asked.

Um, during deliberations was if they could find someone guilty of aggravated assault,

if they found he didn't have the gun.

Um, and the judge just said, like, that's for you to decide.

Okay.

Interesting question.

Yes.

Although if I were you, I'd be excited about that.

I felt like it was a good sign that they had thought maybe my client didn't have the

gun, but it could have been due to, you know, the struggles in the, in the, um, apartment

or the, you know, the, the physical fight aside from the gun.

Mm-hmm.

So then how long did they, uh, deliberate for?

Um, I think it was about half a day.

Half.

Okay.

That's not bad.

What time did they get the case at?

We just closed in the morning.

I think maybe I just had put that body camera in and then we did closings.

Um, so by the time they got the case, it was probably, I don't know, 11 o'clock or around

then.

Was it a Friday?

Yes.

Dun, dun, dun.

Okay.

And interestingly, it was our office Christmas party that night as well.

Does Delco get crazy?

Well, everyone was there at the Christmas party while I was waiting for the verdict.

So then, uh, tell us about the, the reading of the verdict then.

Like how'd that go?

Um, so, I mean, they read their verdict.

Wait, you get the call or is it a text message?

Uh, a call.

You get a call from the clerk?

Yes.

Verdict?

Yes.

They say verdict?

Okay.

And, um, I was waiting at our office, which is, um, about two blocks away from the courthouse.

Um, so.

I always get like a, like a feeling on my stomach when the verdicts come, right?

Just like this pit, like this void or something.

I don't know.

It's terrible.

So I have to run over and, um, hear the verdict.

My client is in custody still.

Um, so they have to bring him up first to make sure that none of the jurors see that he's

in custody, uh, with the sheriffs.

Um.

And he was stressed out throughout the whole trial, right?

Like in a suit or at least a button up shirt.

Right.

Okay.

Um, and then the jurors come in after that.

Okay.

And so how do they file in?

That's like, that's a, who cares?

Who is the?

I have no idea.

I blacked all of that out.

Okay.

Just like little details you might remember of this moment or no, or like, was your client?

How was he when they, when they, when he entered the, uh, before the verdict?

He was definitely very nervous.

Okay.

Um, and really not.

It's such a moment of high tension.

Right.

Yeah.

So then tell us about the reading of the verdict.

Um, so they read their verdict that it was, you know, they start with the attempted murder

charge, not guilty, and then kind of go through all the charges.

And I'm holding my breath that it's going to be, you know, not guilty on all of the accounts.

Um, and it was, and then, you know, my client was very happy and tears.

It's not guilty guys.

Come on.

A Christmas miracle.

Yeah.

Yeah.

For Angel.

Yes.

And Angel did get his wings.

All right.

His freedom wings.

That's right.

Um, great.

So then how was Angel after the reading of the verdict?

Very relieved again, like, you know, he had been in jail for over a year at this point.

Um, when he went to jail, his baby was only three weeks old.

Um, so I think he was obviously very happy.

Um, unfortunately he had to go back to jail that night and wait to be released until the

next day, which is kind of crazy, but, um, still very relieved.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Right.

Wow.

So that's it then.

Huh?

Is that it?

Oh, so then you went to the party then, right?

That night.

And then all the public defenders got to celebrate.

Angels win.

Right on.

Right on.

Well, that's a great trial.

That was, that was awesome.

Great work.

Thank you.

That was super cool.

I like it.

That was, I mean, you just, like, you just, like, you just, you don't know what's

going to happen at trial.

You just, you just have to be ready.

You just have to know every piece of evidence and you got to know what's being said.

And if you're going to follow this video, you got to know what minute marker the plate

out, or maybe you cut out, maybe you slice it all into one.

But if the case of the witness goes this way or that way, I'm going to go this way or that.

You just got to kind of just have to be ready and just, you know, cause you don't know

what's going to happen.

So, um, good job.

That was great.

Thank you.

That was awesome.

Um, any other comments on the trial?

No.

I think that about covers it.

That was pretty awesome.

Yeah.

Anna did great.

Yeah.

So, Anna, um, thank you for being on the show.

Really appreciate it.

Thank you for coming here and sharing your story with us.

Um, it was definitely worth the, worth the travel trip for us to come here.

Um, so we'll leave now with the, the last question we asked all our guests that are

on the podcast.

Um, Anna, you've been a public defender for five years.

And what, why did you want to become a public defender?

Um, to fight for people that, that need it.

Right.

Um, I want to be able to provide the same representation that any person can get depending on, you know,

regardless of income.

Um, so being able to fight for my clients, even against the judges that don't care about

their rights, um, even the DAs that don't care and kind of provide that representation

and humanity to my clients.

Nice.

I can respect that.

Well, thanks for being on the show and university of Pennsylvania, Cary law school.

Thank you for having us.

Until next time I'm David Moore.

This is Lauren Marie Manning.

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

Shout out to Daniel Mark, original A and G theme music composer and Mike Grimm for the

remix.

And guess what?

We'll be back in two weeks with another not guilty straight from the trenches.

Yeah.