What Would Tom Cruise Do? - When justice feels like a movie—and one public defender refuses to play the role they've been written.

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

Am I going to garner sympathy? Like, he's this poor homeless person. We had the facts of the case. They didn't have a story. We had a story. We had details. What they were going to throw out there didn't make sense. His word versus his word. And if you don't know what happens, then it's not guilty. But then he's like, oh, no, there wasn't a lot of people.

Then I'm like, isn't it your job to hand out pamphlets for this organization that's right down the street? Yes. And you are out in the street handing out pamphlets for this organization because people are walking by. Yes. In fact, there's three or four of you guys out there because there's that many people walking by. Yes. You know, like, okay, don't tell me there's not fucking anybody on the street. You know, like...

Welcome to Another Not Guilty. I'm David. I'm Nikhil. We're public defenders here to share 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.

Okay. Stories from the American criminal system from the forbidden point of view. The one that the man doesn't want you to know about. Also known as the point of view of the defense.

These stories are about the many not-guilties we public defenders get on a daily basis in an unjust criminal system with the deck stacked against us.

Hey, everybody. Welcome to another week of Another Not Guilty. We're changing it up a little bit this week. We're going to have MK with us. How are you doing, MK?

Doing great. Thanks for having me back. How's your week gone?

Week is going okay. I was going to start a trial that was not going to be featured on this podcast, but that was delayed a little bit.

So other than that, things are great. Good being with you again. I think our rapport, I think, is better than any other rapport.

I know. We're like among the two, I think, I mean, other than special circumstance death penalty cases in our office, right?

I think we probably are among the few public defenders that have tried a case together.

And yeah, we tried. We did not succeed.

Did not succeed. But, you know, it was a very epic experiment.

We have a very special guest with us this weekend or this week. I'd like to welcome to the pod.

It's David. Everyone, David.

Thanks for having me back, guys.

You may remember him from previous episodes.

So what brings you back here this week?

Whoa.

In a different chair. How does it feel to be in that chair?

I don't know. Apparently the producers loved me last time.

So you guys have me come back.

You know, I don't know who does the scheduling for your guests, but.

Tell us a little bit about, tell us a little bit about this case that brings you here today.

It's, it's assault, a deadly weapon.

Just one count felony, assault, a deadly weapon.

What makes the case kind of contentious or what that, why that's a big deal is because assault, a deadly weapon is a strike.

So what was the prosecution's case?

It was.

People know each other?

Is this a fight between people who know each other or a neighbor dispute?

The police receive a phone, 911, and the 911 person calls 911 saying that his friend that works for this organization was assaulted by someone.

There's someone on the street waving a box cutter around and the, the victim essentially says in the police report that he's walking down the street at sunset and, um, Vermont, which is.

Okay.

Tell us about sunset and Vermont.

That's, you know, for the, for the pod listeners at home.

In this city, uh, of LA, the, that's where these big Kaiser Permanente buildings are.

Okay.

That's where they're like, there's three huge Kaisers there.

And, uh, and, uh, then there's a huge, uh, Scientology building.

Oh, it's like, it's like the head center.

The head is the Scientology headquarters is located right there.

So the, anyways, this guy is walking down the street and according to him, he just, uh, is walking, uh, he's working and that he sees this homeless person.

Just as he's, as he's walking, the homeless person's back to him, he, he walks up and homeless person just turns around and starts waving a box cutter.

And then the, so then he stops walking and then the homeless person walks towards him waving a box cutter.

So he turns around and runs.

So I take it the homeless person is your client.

Yes.

And I'm, I'm assuming mental illness is, is a factor in this case.

It, you know, I, no, I mean, yeah, I'm sure there's some things.

There's some things of mental illness, but for a homeless person, like he has it pretty together.

I mean, for one thing is that he, he's also, uh, what, and by the way, I talked to him about this podcast.

He gave me full permission to talk about the case, anything that we talked about.

So he's, uh, he's also a standup comedian.

Oh, he's a street artist.

Yeah.

A similar, a similar background is, you know, it is Hollywood.

Okay.

Yeah.

You know, you're, our, our servers are, uh, are in the business.

Our homeless people are in the business.

Have you seen him around the circuit?

You know, I, I haven't seen him around the circuit.

He performs at, what he does is he's like a homeless guy, but he, he makes a street art.

So he, he like gets, uh, palm fronds or like the, when the palm trees, the leaves fall from the palm trees, he picks them up and he, they're still green.

And he'll, uh, kind of weave them into like a hat or leave them into flowers.

Oh, wow.

Okay.

A man of many talents.

Yeah.

And so, and so he carries a box cutter because of that.

Okay.

So, cause he has to cut the palm fronds in certain ways and he has like a stapler and he has scissors and, uh, anyway, so this guy on the street, uh, says that he's just walking on the street.

And out of nowhere, my client for no reason, just pulls out a box cutter, starts waving it at him like from 10 feet away and then starts walking at him, not chasing or running, not lunging, but just walking towards him with the knife.

And so then it causes this poor victim, this young man of 25 years of age to, uh, run in the other direction.

And then of course he, uh, turns out that he's a, uh, works for the Scientology center, I guess.

Um, and I, you know, I'm glad that no one's commented on Scientology yet because they have a right to be safe in this society as anybody else.

So that's not an issue, right?

No, it's not like I'm afraid to talk about them because, you know, they're have a reputation for coming after critics or with violence or with incredible litigation or bullying tactics comparable to the mob and mafia.

No, no, it's not, that's not why I'm not saying anything at all.

Right.

It's totally normal.

Totally normal organization, but you know, premised upon nonviolence and, and the destruction of, of families and relationships.

And we're big supporters of the Scientology.

Right.

I'm the celebrity center over there on Sunset.

Right.

Yeah.

Gotcha.

So what you've described already on paper, it doesn't sound like the greatest case just when you first read it, you know, where, where, where did that kind of evolve?

Well, you have something here.

Okay.

So when I first read the police report, you think my client is some crazy guy, right?

Because it's just like for no reason, he just turns around, starts waving this knife, you know, and then the victim turns around and runs away.

And it's like, and then they are able to arrest him because he's on the bus later, then the client gets on the bus and goes downtown.

So, uh, I meet the client, totally sane, the guy, he was just totally sane.

He, uh, he's probably like in his fifties.

Um, and, uh, just a regular guy, you know, who cares about his case.

He says, he tells me that that's not what happened.

He says he was walking down the street.

The guy, the victim was, works for a Scientology.

He's on the corner handing out pamphlets.

He tried to give him a pamphlet and, uh, and he told them to take that shit and shove it up his ass, you know, cause he hates Scientology.

He doesn't like what they stand for.

And, uh, and then he continues to walk down the street and then he sees a Scientologist guy following him.

So then he kind of just pulls out the box cutter just to kind of let him know, don't fuck with me.

Okay.

And that's what really happens.

So the client's guilty of maybe, maybe a brandishing at most.

And your client's homeless.

I'm assuming he's in custody.

Yes, he's in custody.

He's homeless.

Oh, so, I mean, your client have a serious record.

Why is he still in custody?

Well, uh, this 50, in his fifties, uh, he is, you know, I don't know why he was in custody.

You know, I, I thought I was hoping to get him out of custody.

I, you know, I know we made a pitch for OR, release on your own recognizance at the arraignment.

It was denied.

I was thinking going into the preliminary hearing that maybe the judge would OR him there, you

know, cause of the judge was a pre, was a previous defense attorney.

I thought maybe he'd be cool.

Yeah.

I mean, even, even if the conduct, if you take the victim's conduct, uh, victim's version

of events is true.

10 feet away, walking toward the victim, you know, the guy ran away.

Nobody is injured.

Yeah.

There seems to be some kind of like, you know, let's keep these people apart.

Maybe get him some services or housing, you know, like there, it doesn't seem like this

guy's like some grand danger to the community.

Does he have a felony record?

No.

Okay.

He has no felony record.

He has a drug conviction from 2001.

So 18 years prior.

Right.

And he has, which was, uh, uh, then he has a, I think he has a theft conviction from 1999.

So this is a wobbler.

This could have been charged as a misdemeanor.

Right.

And I'm assuming, is it because of the Scientologist who was very aggressive and trying to get the

prosecutors to pursue the charge?

Why would they have pursued this as a felony?

I, the weapon, I think the weapon, but it's all the deadly weapon.

It can't be a misdemeanor.

So like, well, I think it's a blade as opposed to like, you know, like a broomstick.

They like to charge two 45, a ones with any object.

Right.

And so, you know, when it's not really an inherently dangerous object, it's less, but if it's a

real day, like quote unquote, a real dangerous object, like a beer bottle.

Yeah.

Yeah.

They're going to say, Oh, you know, it's a knife, you know, essentially a box.

They're not distinguishing the box cutter from like a machete, you know?

Right.

So that's what I think.

Right.

So felony can't get him out of custody because his record is 20 years old.

He got some minor misdemeanors and, uh, let me actually in the police report, he says

he's walking by the bus bench, but then at the preliminary hearing, he says he's walking

by the subway, which is next, which is attached to the Kaiser building, which is a block from

the Scientology.

Who's saying that he's walking by?

He says, so the, so we do the preliminary hearing, right?

They want to strike.

Uh, and he says, as he's walking down the street towards the subway is when my client just

turns around and pulls out the box cutter.

So in the police report, he says it's by this bus bench on Vermont.

At the prelim, he says it's by the subway on Sunset Boulevard.

And why is that discrepancy so important?

It's just, it's just an inconsistent statement.

He says it happened here and then it happened there.

So, um, that's the only play we really had at the preliminary hearing.

Got it.

Even though I know, I know you guys didn't ask that question, but I just want, I just

forgot.

I want the backup and be like, Oh wait, no, wait.

That's the benefit you get from being a repeat guest on this podcast.

You kind of know where we might be going or you, you catch mistakes that we make and you

fill in the gap.

I know what the questions are.

I wrote them out for you guys.

You know, you're a great attorney, David.

He's so amazing.

No, nothing gets past this guy.

So, so where do you, so you don't get much play at the preliminary hearing.

What's your strategy for preparing this case?

I go out, I send out an investigator to look for some video, you know, they get video

from the subway, mega complex there, the hospitals there.

Right.

I get video from subway, but it doesn't show anything.

The subway or a subway?

The subway that it happened in front of.

Oh, the subway stop.

Subway sandwich.

Subway sandwich.

Okay.

That's what I was going for.

Sorry.

If I get the video.

This is a metro stop there.

I want to make sure we're clear.

Got it.

So pretty much this is one witness case.

It is.

And like, and that's the thing.

And like the, the witness testified at the preliminary hearing and he wasn't, he just seemed

like a punk kid.

He didn't really seem like he wanted to answer the questions.

What was he wearing?

He was wearing like a white shirt.

A white Scientology outfit?

Yeah, Scientology outfit.

Did he bring books?

Didn't bring any books.

Did he bring an e-meter?

Did it not.

But what's funny is then that the, at the arraignment, my client says, after the preliminary

hearing at the arraignment, my client says, David or Mr. Moore, I don't think that was

the guy.

He says, he's saying the guy who testified at the preliminary hearing was not the guy I got

the altercation with.

So this guy came to court and completely made it.

Right.

Everything up.

And it's, which when it's Scientology, it's possible.

Now you're like, that's a possibility.

Usually you're like, dude, are you okay?

Do you remember everything?

But now you're like, this, this guy, they could have just replaced this guy with another

one of them.

It could have been Tom Cruise.

They've got someone else coming here.

They could have a white shirt replacement.

They got, yes.

Member of the Sea Org.

Yeah.

And I, and I, when I requested 911 calls and the byworn video and the victim doesn't call

911.

It's some security guard for Scientology calls 911.

Oh yeah.

And describes the incident.

So some guy who didn't even see it is describing an incident.

Is now calling the shots on what happened.

And my client's like flipping out or like, like this big conspiracy of Scientology is happening

now.

And like, I'm like, okay.

You know, I don't know what to do.

Like I sent subpoenas to Scientology to get like records.

Oh yeah.

They, they never responded.

They have like some, uh, lawyer that takes service.

First off, the victim, the security guard and the two security guards that were witnesses

all had the same address.

That's a little suspicious.

They all had the same phone number.

Not even, not even, not even like that's not even just their business address.

That's where they live too.

It's like, yeah, it's like their home address was.

Like that's my apartment, that window, the one with the bars on it.

That bunk bed with 60 other people.

That's where I sleep.

Um, God.

Okay.

So they all have the same address.

Yeah.

Did you bring that up to the jury?

No, I didn't.

I mean, just things you point out, but how does it really matter?

The, what happened was after my client pulls out the box cutter, he, the, the victims,

my client says the victim just stopped in his tracks.

And then so the client walks across the street, he sits down on a bus bench and waits for

a bus.

Then the victim goes to the Scientology center, tells a security guard that security guard gets

on his like bike and runs down the victim.

The victim's on a bus, goes like 10 blocks towards the Denny's close to where Chris lives,

our sound guy.

And, uh, putting a lot of details out there for all the, I was watching this by word video.

I'm like, that's where Chris lives.

You know?

Well, there's all the, all the, another not guilty stalkers are going to know all the groupies.

It's exciting.

You know, like when you see, it's like, you know, wait, wait, I know where that is.

Yeah.

Like, wait.

So a superhero security guard bikes him down, he bikes him down 10 blocks from sunset in

Vermont to sunset.

And what sunset in, um, Bronson is it right there?

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's a couple of miles.

That's not right.

That's not short distance.

And he's like, he's biking and he's like, he's on the phone.

911.

I'm following on the bus.

Now we're passing, we're passing Wilton.

Okay.

We're going, you know, like the bus.

And so he, how does he actually apprehend?

How, how is following the bus?

So then the cops come and then they pull the bus over and then the clients on the bus.

And does your client give any bad statements?

So on the by one video, it shows him the cops get on the bus and then they're like, and

then right when the, the, the cops got on the bus clients, like the first person in the

seat.

And he's like, he like puts his hands up and they're like, Oh God, look, you know, the

guy was trying to sell me his Jesus bullshit.

I told him to stick it up his ass and that's all I did.

And he gets upset, you know?

It's like, okay, well, will you step off the bus?

Okay.

Let me get off the bus.

And he's totally cooperative.

So he's totally cooperative.

He gives him a, gives him a summary of what happened.

He even tells the cop like, yeah, he, he tried to get, push his little religion bullshit

on me.

And, uh, I told him to stick it where the sun don't shine.

And the cop's like, well, that's a reasonable story, but we're going to get to the bottom

of this, which not only is it a reasonable story, it's protected under the first amendment

and the core values of this United States of America.

Okay.

You can practice whatever religion you want.

You're also free to practice, uh, whatever curse words you want at whatever religion you

want as well.

Um, okay.

So you go to prelim, it's not reduced to a misdemeanor, right?

You, you try to find video, you don't find anything on the subway video.

Tell us.

So, I mean, you're pretty much just like, let's go to trial.

Yeah.

Test the evidence.

It's going to be his, his word versus my client's word.

My client, you know, doesn't have a record.

He can testify, you know, just fine.

Um, I think my client actually has stories more credible.

He actually tells a story.

This victim's story is like, uh, changing.

It's changing, yeah, a little bit, but also it's, it doesn't make sense.

Like nobody's just pulling out a box or waving in a note for no reason.

Even like crazy, crazy people on the streets don't kind of just stay to themselves.

You know, they usually are provoked when they do something crazy.

So how long does this case go to trial within the statutory period?

Yeah, he doesn't waive time.

And so your, your, your defense here is that he, he wasn't, he couldn't actually cause

harm to him because of how far away he was.

No, the defense was going to be, the only thing the client did.

Was just brandish it.

The, the box cutter.

He never, he never was waving it or anything like that.

Okay.

So he's guilty of brandishing.

And we tried to like just resolve the case for brandishing.

Uh, the DA wouldn't go for it.

And I thought like, oh, maybe I'll do a new pitch for OR or get bail reduced because that

new case law came out in between while this was happening that the judge would have let

him out.

No, so when you made the pitch for Humphrey, let's let me ask you this.

When you made the Humphrey pitch, you know, which is, you know, saying that this person

is poor, he doesn't have any money to afford bail.

And there are other ways to ensure his return to court.

What happened?

What, this is the trial judge, I assume, right?

Right.

So what did the trial judge say?

No, wait, this is not the trial judge.

This is the calendar judge.

The calendar judge.

My bad.

I guess the pre-trial.

Pre-trial.

Pre-trial judge.

Pre-trial judge.

What does the pre-trial judge say?

I think it's still a danger and a threat to society.

And, you know, what's described in the police report is dangerous.

So I'm not going to let him out.

Even though that's supposed to be more, it's supposed to be more than just the underlying

conduct.

Right.

Okay.

Got it.

I don't think the judges understand the new law.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, it's not, it's actually technically not a new law.

It really is the old law.

Right.

Okay.

So basically, more, basically just, they're trying to keep your client in because he's

just charged with any felony.

Right.

Right.

Which is kind of basically the perfunctory, you know, bail is now, if you have a charge

with any felony, you stay in custody unless you, you're a rich.

Right.

And so you have to go to trial or take a, right.

Right.

So it's the trial tax.

So we go to trial.

Well, also I would say the pre-trial offer from the DA was, cause it's a strike.

Like how about we just want a non-strike.

Actually, my client was like, I'll take a misdemeanor.

And the DA's offer was for him to plead to a felony assault and do a 90 day diagnostic

in prison.

What's a 90 day diagnostic in prison?

Well, he, he gets sent up to state prison and they determine at state prison, whether

he should stay in state prison or come back to County.

And who decides it at the night during the 90 day diagnostic?

Some, some like social worker that's from like 1950.

Some, I think it's a prison psychologist, right?

It's a prison psychologist.

The warden.

The warden.

The warden is to play a recommendation.

And he always recommends.

I don't think I've ever had a 90 day diagnostic heard of with the prison warden does not record

because it's like suitability for prison.

Right.

Isn't that the determination?

And so don't they, wouldn't they be criticizing their own institution if they say our, our

institution can't take this guy and rehabilitate him or, you know, or punish him appropriately.

It was a conflict of interest because they're, they're making money from having people come

to prison.

So, so the deal was if he goes, if he goes, if the 90 day diagnostic comes back and they

don't recommend prison, then he gets it reduced to a misdemeanor.

Oh wow.

That's a lot of variables.

But if he does recommend prison day, he's going to be stuck with a felony and he's going to

prison for two years.

Yeah.

But too many uncertainties there.

You can't, you're just giving them a blank check essentially.

And we have a good case.

Yeah.

It's a pretty shitty offer.

All right.

So that's, that's pre trial offer.

Right.

Which was revoked when we said we're ready for trial.

Dun, dun, dun.

Wasn't it like after you announced ready, they're like, we want everybody to know.

Yeah.

Your honor.

The offer of this many variables, 90 day diagnostic, go to prison two years, maybe a misdemeanor

is off the table.

No turning back.

So you, you reject the offer.

You set it for trial.

Right.

What do you, what's your angle now?

Are you, are you just trying to go to trial?

You're trying to get a better deal?

My angles.

No, I'm just getting ready for trial.

Uh, some things that I needed to do to get ready for trial was my client was telling me

that because the victim was saying that he, my client was swinging a box cutter at him.

And so, and then my client starts chasing him down the street as he's swinging the box

cutter.

My client's like, look, I'm homeless.

I have a lot of stuff on me.

I had my backpack.

I had my palm from France.

I had, uh, uh, like a hat and like, he's all, I wouldn't be chasing somebody with all

that equipment.

Oh, I had a radio.

Cause when he makes the palm from France into shapes, he plays music and tells jokes.

So he had like a boom box.

Oh, it's like a whole street performance.

He's a street artist.

Yeah.

Uh, so he's like, I, uh, I have all these things.

I would not be chasing him with all of these things, you know?

So I thought, okay, I need, what I need to do is prove he had all of these things on him.

And do you see these things in the body camera video on the bus?

Yes.

And that's how I did it.

So I, I, uh, looked at the evidence and, uh, there it was right there in the body word video.

He has, he has these, uh, palm from France.

When he gets off the bus, he has a backpack and he has the radio.

Oh, I think I remember, I think we were hanging out and you had to go out to, uh, you get a

release and try to get the backpack for trial, right?

Yeah.

And, um, I want to get his backpack.

So I, I, on Sunday I drove an hour up to Wayside and I interviewed, we worked on his testimony

and, uh, I got him to sign the release.

Well, let's, let's back it up real quick there.

He said you worked on his testimony.

What do you mean?

You, you prepped him for testifying a trial?

Yeah.

Like I wanted to know exactly what he was going to say.

Yeah.

Cause a lot of times we have these like kind of general conversations of what happened.

So I like, I kind of like wanted to know exactly what he was going to say.

Got it.

Um, kind of give him some ideas of what it's like to,

ask questions and the call and the kind of response method and what to do if there's

an objection, God, I just want to, I don't want there to just be any misnomer.

Is that where we're feeding a, no, I never, I never tell them what to say.

Never tell you.

I always tell my clients or any witness is to just say the truth.

And I think from, I think most attorneys do that even on the other side.

So you don't type out and prescript all the questions and get to them.

No, I don't type out anything.

It's not like a play.

It's not like a play where you're like line and then you're like, you're supposed to say.

Um, for a fact, none of that, nothing cry right here.

I get him to sign the release of his property and then, and then it's just a bunch of his

stuff, but there's no backpacks there, but, but it's okay.

Cause on the body worn video, we have pictures.

There's, you can see that he has a backpack that he has palm from fronds.

What did they actually keep?

Did they keep the palm?

They, no, it was just like the, the only property they had at the County jail of his was like

his, like his stuff you'd put in pockets, like a wallet and keys, a cell phone, um, just

stuff like that.

And then the actual, like his, uh, clothing and backpack were not there though.

So.

Oh, so did you ever find out where they went?

No, but that's okay though.

I mean, cause it was on the video.

We had the video.

That's, that's, that's okay.

And, um, that was just going to be like a goal by, was just to be kind of played up.

Like he's has all these things and he's going to work.

He's actually going to pinks hot dogs and he's going to perform for the, uh, the tourists

who are buying hot dogs, the long lines.

Yeah.

He's, that's where he goes.

You know, you can catch him on, on Venice this Sunday.

This is a, this is like a real, um, LA case right here.

It's like Scientology on sunset of Vermont.

We're cruising down sunset in the chase on Bronson, named after Bronson studios.

And then, you know, then pinks hot dogs, a street performer on Sundays, everybody, everybody's

in the business, you know, you, him, right.

Right.

Got you.

CCB.

I got you.

I love it.

I love, I love this.

Downtown where the OJ case was tried for this trial went.

Yeah.

Okay.

So let's go, let's go through the trial.

I mean, any, any meaningful.

Full 402s that you're working on?

I think that there was one.

I think you talked to me about one.

I, uh, I don't think I had a 402.

If I did, I don't really remember.

Maybe it was something like, don't bring up his drug conviction.

If he does, if he testifies or your stuff and standard stuff.

Like, yeah, nothing to like the DA probably wasn't going to do that anyways, or cause he

probably looked like an idiot if he did.

But, um, the DA had an interesting 402 and that was that I was not allowed to bring up

the fact that the victim was a Scientologist.

What?

They 402ed out that aspect of the trial.

And what did the judge, the judge agreed?

Well, the judge is like, Oh God, you know, the judge's like, you know, geez, man, that

is prejudicial.

I mean, anybody that's watched those documentaries knows how, you know, I think he even mentioned

one of the, the, the doctor, he's like clearing, going clear, going clear.

He's like, yeah, the, I definitely don't want the jury, uh, decided this case based off

the fact that that's so prejudicial.

I'm like, and why is it relevant counsel?

What, why would you want to bring that up other than just to make him look bad?

I'm like, well, that's, it's because that's why my client told him to take it and shove

it up his ass.

It's like, cause he doesn't like Scientology.

He needs to explain why he was an asshole to this person.

Right.

And the judge, he excludes it.

The judge excludes it.

He says, no, no mentioning of Scientology.

And so I'm like, oh, that sucks.

So your client just looks like an ass for coming up to someone and saying to some guy

on the street, Hey, stick that piece of paper up your ass.

You know, like it could be for like the Girl Scouts or something like that, or the YMCA

or who knows, like cancer research or anything.

Yeah, totally.

And not only that, can I not bring up the Scientology?

I couldn't bring up that it was a religious organization either.

Cause the judge was like, well, if you even say religious organization, everybody knows

by the sunset and Vermont by the Kaiser, everybody knows that's where Scientology is.

So if you mentioned religious organization, they're all going to know that that's what

it is.

So I was like, all right, so you can't do that.

Okay.

So just any implication of Scientology is so prejudicial.

Well, and I think we were, I mentioned this a little bit off the record is like, it's just

so funny because the goal of the trial is to protect, I think for the most part, you know,

you know, impermissible inferences about the defendant, right?

Cause the defendant is on trial and to some degree you want to give the people a fair trial

too, right?

Because yes, they have an obligation, but it seems a little bit ridiculous that you're

protecting these witnesses from permissible inferences about their credibility or who

they are or what their background is.

It's like, maybe we don't want to, we don't want them to take those inferences about the

defendant.

If the defendant has a prior history of, you know, being affiliated with some group, but

this is a witness who's accusing your client of something.

This is exactly what you want them to consider and saying that this guy is credible or not.

It explains his conduct.

I mean, the, the, the victim was working that day for Scientology.

His job was to stand on the street and hand out pamphlets.

His job was to get people to go into the Scientology center.

You know, that's his job.

Are these security guards, do they, does the judge now make it seem that they're unrelated

security guards who have no relationship with this person?

No, they're security guards of the same organization, but everybody knows not to mention Scientology.

The victim knows he can't mention it.

The witnesses, the security guards who come in and testify, no, they can't mention it.

The police, my client knows, you know.

So of course you're looking for what's the most creative way you can hint to the jury that

this is a Scientology.

Right.

Oh yeah, I know.

I, it's not, I'm not, yes, yes.

I, you know, I just wanted to get it out there and I, and I did on my cross examination.

Um, if you guys want to talk about it now or we could go to the jury selection.

Like, I mean, was there anything really memorable about jury selection?

Okay.

On voir dire, my goal was to humanize my client and explain that like, you know, cause it's

not self-defense.

My client didn't brandish or pull out a box cutter in self-defense.

My client is homeless.

He's, he, he has a rough life.

You know, he gets assaulted and attacked, you know, weekly people, you know, try to take

advantage of him.

So, you know, that's a strong reaction.

Like if you're walking down the street, if I tell, if, if I'm walking down the street,

I tell someone to shove something up their ass, which is something I'm not going to do,

but that that's what he did.

And then he continues to walk and then that person's following him, not talking to him,

not getting close to him, just following him from a distance.

And my client pulls out a box cutter then, I mean, that's a pretty strong reaction.

Yeah.

And so in talking to the client, he's like, well, look, I, you know, I, I'm mugged, you

know, I make money on the streets.

I'm a street performer.

People know that they try to like rob me all the time.

I've been assaulted.

I've been beaten up.

And so I just don't trust anybody.

So that's just who I am.

So if someone's following me and especially after I just cussed him out a little bit,

I'm going to get a little scared and I'm going to pull out my box cutter.

It's like, it's like cornering a cat or a dog, right?

Like you get people in these survival instincts and you're like, you got to show them that

these people are surviving on the streets and you got to, sometimes you got to, you got

to bark a little bit to protect yourself.

Yeah.

I mean, yeah, I got it.

And so I, during the voir dire, I was asking like some jurors, like, you know, we're all

different people, you know, we're all human beings, you know, and we all have different

experiences and, you know, we all come from different places and where we come from may dictate

how we perceive events, yes, and may dictate how we react to events, yes.

Juror number three, we're from different places, yes.

If something happens, you would perceive it differently from me, yes.

And you may react differently from me, yes.

That's just, that's just who we are as people.

You agree with that?

Yes.

You know, like an idea with a different juror just for them to kind of like, and then I

also, I also wanted to be like, just because my client does, is guilty of one crime, doesn't

mean he's guilty of the assault of the deadly weapon, because the evidence was going to show

that he maybe was guilty of brandishing.

And so I didn't want the jurors to convict him of assault of the deadly weapon just because

he committed a brandishing.

He's only charged with assault of the deadly weapon.

So I also wanted to make sure the jurors knew that just because they hear evidence of something

that they don't like that my client did, or that even it could be evidence of a different

crime, that they can't convict him of assault of the deadly weapon, you know, so they all

agreed to that.

So I just wanted to like, kind of make sure that those ground rules were, were met.

And then I just kicked off anybody that seemed like they were going to be a dick.

Since you're playing the homeless angle, do you dress your client differently because of

that or no?

I didn't, I mean, I didn't play the homeless angle because I just, I didn't know what to

do with it.

Like, I mean, am I going to garner sympathy?

Be like, he's this poor homeless person, you know?

Oh, I, it wasn't really relevant.

I felt like we had the, the, we had, we had the story on our side, you know, we had, we

had the, we had the facts of the case.

They didn't have a story.

We had a story.

We had details.

They had that what they're going to throw out there.

Then it makes sense.

So I did like his word versus his word, you know, his word versus his word.

And if you don't know what happens, if you're not sure, then it's not guilty.

You know, if two reasonable versions, well, you know, one, if, if victim story is

believable, client story is believable.

If you don't know who to believe, not guilty.

Or if you believe one more to the other, is it still, it's still not guilty.

You know, even if, so it was just kind of like, uh, that was kind of like what I was

saying.

So.

Got it.

So, um, opening statement, you prevent your client's version, which, which wasn't really

a secret, right?

Because that's on the body worn video, right?

Like, I mean, the DA knows what's coming, right?

Like your client gave a version of what happened.

And so you give that.

And then what, who do they put on as their witnesses?

They put the victim up first, the victim up first.

So, uh, how'd that, how'd you cross go with that?

Like, I just tried to cross him on the details.

So like, you know, I know he's lying.

At least if I believe my client's version, he's lying.

So I just cross them on like, I mean, he tells a story about walking on the street and

then, um, all of a sudden he gets 10 feet away.

This guy turns around, pulls out box color and starts go move, swing it back and forth,

not trying to hit him.

So he's, he sees us and stops walking.

And then our client's just waving it back and forth and then starts walking towards him.

So then he turns around and runs.

So I'm just kind of like crossing him on the details.

You know, I don't know about, I'm not sure what to get out of it, to be honest.

I mean, I was just kind of like crossing him and then I'm like, okay, so he turns

around and he pulls out a box cutter.

Yes.

All right.

And then you stop.

Yes, I stopped.

And then he takes a step, step, a step towards you.

Yes.

And then you turn around and ran.

No, I stayed there.

Okay.

You stayed there.

You stayed still.

Then he takes another step towards you.

Yes.

And he's still swinging the box cutter.

Yes.

He's still swinging the box cutter.

Okay.

So after the second step, then you turn around and run.

No, no, I don't turn around and run then.

Okay.

Well, then he takes a third step toward, okay, well, okay.

Turn around and run.

I don't know when I turned around and run.

So you can't tell you, say, when he turned around and ran.

Okay.

Which hand was he holding it in?

I don't know.

This is Kaiser.

This is Sunset.

There's a lot of people around.

That's the other thing I wanted to point out, the fact that there's a lot of people.

But then he's like, oh, no, there wasn't a lot of people around.

I'm like, there's not a lot of people around?

No, no.

I mean, isn't it?

Then I'm like, isn't it your job to hand out pamphlets for this organization that's right down the street?

Yes.

And you are on the street handing out pamphlets for this organization because people are walking by.

Yes.

In fact, there's three or four of you guys out there handing out pamphlets for this organization because there's that many people walking by.

Yes.

You know, like, okay, don't tell me there's not fucking anybody on the street.

You know, like the whole point of being there is to get is to get all the people walking by.

You don't have a job if there's no one on the street.

Okay.

You are wasting money.

There's a downtime.

There was nobody on the street.

And I was like, does the DA object when you're going through this?

No, because I'm saying organization.

I'm saying organization.

I'm like, don't you try to get people to go into your headquarters?

The headquarters is right there.

The headquarters for your organization is right there next to the Kaiser building.

Yes.

It's this huge, tall building.

It's big, big building right there.

Blue.

Gold letters.

Gold letters.

Right there on Ron L. Hubbard Way.

You know, right there.

I think it's L. Ron Hubbard Way.

L. Ron Hubbard Way, whatever the fuck his name is.

You know, you know, it's like, don't you try to get people in there to do personality tests?

You know, and I thought I'd get objected on that one.

Oh, are these real questions?

Yeah, I know.

You asked the personality question?

Yeah, I was like, I didn't say L. Ron Hubbard Way, but I did say like, you try to bring him into your organization because you want him to join your organization.

Yes.

And the new personality test.

Yes.

You know, like, wow, he didn't object.

I mean, technically, you weren't breaking anything.

I wasn't breaking, yeah.

You know, because he's saying there's no one there.

I'm like, there's fucking people there.

Your whole reason for being on the street is because people are walking by.

And at this point, if he objects, he looks like he's hiding something there.

So, yeah.

He's making a bigger deal of it than it is.

Nice.

Okay, so you cross him on that.

Yeah.

Any other major points?

And then you cross him on the details of how the, you know, what hand, how many steps.

Yeah.

And then, like, how many seconds elapsed between you seeing the blade and running.

You know, like, in one version, he said eight seconds, and then three seconds, and then 20 seconds, depending if it was direct or cross or redirect or recross.

Do you impeach him a lot with what he said at the preliminary hearing?

Not really.

I mean, at the prelim, he said it was in front of the subway.

On the stand, he said it was in front of the subway.

And then I just said, like, well, didn't you tell the police officer on the day of that it was by the bus bench?

And he said, I might have told him that.

And that was good enough.

Yeah.

Okay, so I was like, well, if it's in a police report, would it be wrong?

He's like, no, I don't know.

I don't think it'd be wrong.

I was like, okay.

So, not a big impeachment.

You know, on the stand, he said, like, maybe five feet.

I'm like, well, at the prelim, didn't you say ten feet?

It's just so stupid.

I felt so stupid when I did that impeachment, you know, but I did it anyways.

How's the jury responding?

Are you getting a sense of how the jury feels to his testimony?

No, not really.

Yeah, no nodded heads.

Nah, nothing.

I wasn't really looking at it.

Because the trial was fast, too, though.

Like, he testifies.

I go up there.

I do my thing.

Oh, another thing I established was the fact that he had the backpack and pom-pom-poms and the radio.

I did that through the victim also.

Oh, so he admitted that he had those, what, in his hands and his body?

Well, he's all like, he's like, oh, I don't remember.

I don't remember pom-pom-poms.

I don't remember.

I show him the pictures.

You don't remember that?

No.

This backpack.

You show pictures, what?

Still frames from the body worm video.

I showed him that.

He's like, I don't remember that.

I don't remember that.

He's like, but I do remember music.

He was listening to music.

I remember that.

I'm like, okay, cool.

So he's listening to music, and he just turns around and starts swinging a box cutter for

no reason.

Okay.

Do you get what kind of music?

He couldn't remember what type of music it was.

And I think I asked that, and then I was thinking like, oh, gosh, I hope he doesn't answer it.

I don't know, because I didn't want to like, I didn't want the jurors to be laughing or

enjoying the testimony from this guy.

You know, I guess it would be humanizing my client a little bit.

Yeah.

Please listen to a little Margaritaville.

Okay, so he testifies, and then who's up next?

The security guard?

Yeah, the hero security guard officer.

Bicyclist.

Yeah.

So he just gets up and testifies to the victim coming back, reporting whatever it was he

was reporting, and then him going and chasing down the bus.

And what's your goal here on cross-examination with this witness?

You know, I think the only thing I try to do is just get the palm frond fronds and backpack.

And so he admits to that.

Oh, wow.

Okay.

Did you get him the same address connection or no?

What do you mean?

Saying that they lived at the same address?

No, I didn't.

I left that alone.

How many bunks away does the other guy sleep from you?

Oh, okay.

So then they put on those two civvies and then...

Arresting officer.

Yeah.

Did you really go hard at the officer?

Just kind of get the...

Just have a test to his report to confirm your impeachment, your minor impeachment point?

Just to be like, oh, I established that my client, like, didn't smell of alcohol and he

was cooperative.

Yeah.

Oh, because the victim tried to say that he was drunk or something like that.

Got it.

So I was like, he didn't smell alcohol on him, didn't put in your report, he was cooperative.

You know, that was it.

Got it.

Oh, and also to establish the palm fronds and the radio and the backpack again, too.

Got it.

Okay.

And then how long did the people's case last?

Did this was like a one and a half day thing?

Like a day.

Wow.

Yeah.

So jury selection a day, evidence a day, and then closing and instructions probably the

third day?

Yeah.

Client testified also.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

In your case.

So do you put in any other evidence besides your client?

No, just my client.

Yeah.

I think that was it.

So do you have any major concerns having talked to your client about testifying?

Any concerns about how he'll perform?

No, not really.

No, because we kind of went over his testimony and I feel like...

You know, he was consistent.

He was able to answer the details.

So I put him up there and he did.

He was just kind of straightforward.

He's like, I was walking down the street.

He owns it.

He's like, you know, I was a dick to him.

I was a jerk.

I told him to take it and shove it up, stick it where the sun don't shine.

He's all, you know, this organization is highly offensive to me.

I don't...

I'm totally offended by it.

You know, I almost think they're a cult.

They're...

They're...

They're...

They're...

Objection!

Objection!

And then the judge admonished it and, you know, because he can't say cult.

So the...

That was too much for the...

But whatever.

He said it.

Yeah.

So...

Ring that bell.

Yeah.

Okay.

So then he says that and then he owns it and then he admits to, what, bringing out the

knife?

Yeah.

He says, like...

Oh, bring out the box cutter?

You know, he was about 20 feet away.

I see him.

He's following me.

I just...

I was just rude to him.

I'm homeless.

You know, the streets are mean to me.

It's rough.

I make money doing this X, Y, and Z with the palm fronds.

You know, I had him explain why he carries a box cutter.

It's not like he's just a weapon.

It's a tool for him because he uses it for making money with the...

Making shapes and designs with the palms.

Palm fronds.

Yeah.

Nice.

Nice.

Okay.

And then...

So you get him and get him the whole story.

Now, I want to know because I always...

This is my favorite part of a lot of trials when I put my clients up is watching the DA

do their best impersonation of a cross-examining lawyer.

So...

And usually it's just a repeat of everything that the client just said.

And you said you did this.

Yeah.

That's what I said.

So what did it go?

How did it go down?

So you just...

You just...

He tries to approach you with literature.

Yes, that's right.

And...

You told him to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Yes, that's right.

Oh, and because you are offended by his organization.

Yes, that's right.

Oh, okay.

So you just get offended by something and then you could just say something like that?

Yeah, I said that, you know.

You could just say something.

Oh, okay.

And then you continue to walk and then you pull out a box cutter.

Yeah, I pull out a box cutter.

Okay, so now you get to pull out a box cutter because you said that.

Yeah, so that's...

Well, I was afraid and blah, blah, blah.

I mean, that's about it.

So he just tries to make the story seem like a big deal.

Like every little stuff seem like a big deal.

Which I guess is what he's trying to do, but they're never really good at it, so...

Got it.

And so that probably implodes a little bit for him and then, you know, your client probably

just sticks to his story.

Yeah.

Nothing, no great cross-examination.

It was like anti-climatic.

You know, even like my direct was just kind of him telling his version and then the DA getting

up and crossing and he kind of sort of trying to get dramatic but didn't really go anywhere.

The jurors just kind of seemed flat.

Yeah.

No clue.

You didn't have that.

You didn't feel like we won this.

This is like a slam dunk.

You didn't feel that way?

You know, I was...

Okay, so the trial before this, the previous week I was in a different trial and I lost

that trial.

And I thought I would at least get a hang on that trial.

And so going into this trial, my confidence was a little rocked.

And so I was trying to think the worst the whole time.

So I wasn't trying to think if I was going to win or I had this in the bag.

I was going to be like, all right, I got to keep doing as much as I can to keep because

who knows?

You never know what this jury's thinking.

So I just did my best in closing argument.

That's all.

So your strategy here is it's a brandishing, not an assault with a deadly weapon.

What exactly is the difference between the two?

So assault with a deadly weapon is...

Okay, so brandishing is just displaying a weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening manner.

So you just pull out a weapon and you have to do something rude or threatening or angry with

it.

That's all it is.

I mean, if you shake it or something like that.

Or even just show it and like, you know, you're angry and you're yelling or angry.

Right.

You're yelling or angry.

Yeah.

That's a common way.

Assault with a deadly weapon is you do an act with a deadly weapon that if you actually

are able to come into contact with somebody, it would cause serious bodily injury or death.

So if I try to...

So if I throw a knife at you and miss, it could be assault with a deadly weapon.

It could even be attempted murder, I guess, really.

But like, if I would have...

You know, it's like if there would have been contact, you're actually trying to hit somebody.

You're trying to make contact.

That's how I would describe assault with a deadly weapon.

And you have the ability to carry out...

Right.

...that assault.

And if that assault was carried out, actually, you might actually be injured.

Right.

More than might, you could be injured.

So, yeah, you could be injured.

So if I swing at you and miss with a knife, that could be assault with a deadly weapon

because I swung at you, I missed.

Now, had I made contact, then you would have had serious bodily injury or death.

And so brandishing is only a misdemeanor?

I think so.

I think it could be a felony, too.

No, it's a misdemeanor.

With a knife, it's a misdemeanor.

With a gun, it's a felony.

So it's only a misdemeanor.

So...

So is that the reason why the DAs don't have this as an additional charge?

They don't want to...

Right.

...lose the felony and win the misdemeanor?

The DA wants a felony strike convention and send someone to prison.

That's their goal in this case.

My goal is to have my client get a misdemeanor.

So...

And even then, it's not a lesser-included offense.

So your client's only facing the assault with a deadly weapon.

Right, but I asked the judge before we did closing the argument.

He's like, I said, hey, judge, why don't we add the brandishing instruction?

We have assault a deadly weapon.

Let's add, as a lesser-related, let's add brandishing.

The DA objected, said, no, we don't want it.

The judge said, I don't have to give it, so I'm not.

So there you go.

So the DA got greedy.

The DA got greedy.

The judge had no backbone.

The judge had no spine.

Even though there's evidence of a brandishing, my client Godwin testified that he only brandished

the knife or box cutter.

So we had the...

It's like, all right, so it's all or nothing.

And the thing is, though, the case law is designed to prevent this all or nothing scenario.

That's the language they say.

Hey, you know, judge, you should give these other counts, these lesser-included or lesser-related

instructions because we don't want all or nothing.

We want these verdicts to be accurate, to properly reflect what's in the evidence.

Anything remarkable from the prosecutor's closing?

No, nothing remarkable at all.

Just my guy's right, his guy's wrong type of thing.

Yeah.

It's also, he did a lot of...

This is probably objectionable, but he was doing things like, you know, teach my client a

lesson that you can't just pull out box cutters because you don't like someone's organization.

You know?

That's what this case is about.

Showing him that you don't get to just pull wave weapons around in the air when you don't

like something.

That was his closing argument.

My closing argument was an actual story of facts and, you know, at least my, you know,

how their version doesn't even make sense.

And my client, you know, like, oh, he just pulls something out like a crazy man and starts

swinging it for no reason.

If you're going to believe the people's version that my client just, for no reason, just pulls

the knife out and starts swinging it and then just starts walking, not running, doesn't

run after him, walks after him as he's swinging it.

Then you're going to have to say my client was crazy, but that's, there's no evidence

that he was crazy, you know?

Like, yeah.

So like, that's what a crazy man does.

Or that he's on alcohol or he's alcohol.

Yeah.

He's out of his mind.

He has to be so out of his mind, you know?

Like, so did the prosecutor try to explain why he had all these items, the palm fronds and

and, and no, so he, he just says he's attacking him with all these items and on his, in his

possession.

No, the, the, what the prosecutor did was what, when he has bad facts or facts that are

aren't in his favor, he does what most prosecutors do.

Ignore.

Ignore him.

Pretend like they're not there.

So, um, he just never argued it.

I was like, oh yeah.

And he, my client would have had to run after him.

He was going to work that day.

He was going to go to pinks.

He was, he had his backpack.

He had his music.

He wasn't, he had no reason to be mad at this guy.

I mean, to just randomly like start swinging at him as they claim.

So, so.

So your confidence is shaken from the last one.

You're probably feeling pretty good right now after your closing.

You know, I, again, I, I felt pretty good after my last closing.

Not really, I guess, but now looking back, but like, yeah, but it's just, I, I probably argued

for like a half hour on like a real simple case just cause I really wanted to let, make

the jurors know I care about this case and they needed to make the right decision.

So, um, and they, they, uh, let's see.

It was probably, they probably got the case like at three something in the afternoon and

then they came back.

They, at four o'clock they went home.

Oh, wow.

So they went overnight.

Yeah.

So it wasn't a quick verdict and then they came back the next morning and I think they

deliberated for another hour and it was not guilty.

All right.

Client's response.

Oh yeah.

It's the first time that's ever happened.

He literally like jumped out of his chair and was like, woohoo, like, like Homer Simpson.

He's all, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Like that.

And, um, the jurors like walked outside.

Um, did you talk to the jurors?

Yeah.

Because this particular prosecutor always tries to talk to the jurors in trials.

So he, as the jurors are leaving, he's like, Hey, it'd be great if you guys stuck around

and talked.

You don't have to, but I always like to know how, how I do.

And so if they're going to be stuck around talking, then I'm going to go hear what they

have to say.

So like seven jurors stuck around.

And, uh, and so the prosecutor's like, all right, guys, he's a really nice guy.

The prosecutor, he's a very nice guy.

Um, but he's a prosecutor, but he's, um, he's all, all right, guys, were you, were you

guys able to guess what the organization was?

And they're all, yeah, we all knew it was Scientology from the get go.

Oh, okay.

You know, like, so what was the point of even like having a 402 to say this can't even come

to evidence?

We all know it's Scientology.

The only thing that did was just prevent my client from saying how he felt and why explain

his actions.

That's the, that's the effect of that judge's ruling.

It was like the dumbest ruling ever.

So did they explain whether they were caught up on the assault with a deadly weapon versus

the, the alternate stories?

So this is what they believe.

They think they said like, I mean, they pretty much went my way except for they think it was

a little more of my client did a little more shit talking.

And they, they think they obviously that that guy was doing, doing something also.

So they said they didn't like the victim and they didn't like my client is what they

said.

Okay.

So they were looking for reasons to, to find a not guilty.

Well, they were like, you know, they, they're like, look, there's just not enough evidence

because the, the prosecutor's like, what more do you need?

Like, well, if there was video, they're like, we just didn't buy the fact that he was

swinging a box cutter on sunset Boulevard.

You know, that's a busy street.

It's a busy intersection.

There's nobody.

I mean, nobody saw this.

That's kind of weird that nobody would, uh, that there's nobody on the street that would

see this guy swinging a box cutter and not call 9-1-1 or something like that.

So, which is one of the points I made.

I don't know if I brought that up earlier or not, but yeah, it's like sweet.

I always like when the jurors repeat something you said.

Yeah.

And you're like, yeah, I said that.

You really, you really believed my persuasive abilities.

And then one of our jurors was a acting coach for kids, for kids.

Yeah.

He does theater for kids.

He's a acting instructor or theater instructor for kids.

And then he's like, Hey, to me and the prosecutor's like, Hey, um, you know, I also teach acting

for lawyers.

And I think both of you guys could use some of that.

Nice, nice, nice plug for his business.

But then the, the jurors asked, how does, they asked the prosecutor, how does a case like

this get this far?

I mean, clearly the guy was lying and the story doesn't make sense.

Then the prosecutor like explains, you know, like how he does, how he doesn't get the case

until right before trial.

And how he has no discretion.

So he has no discretion and no choice.

And then the jurors ask, well, why didn't you charge him with brandishing?

I wonder why not.

Did he give an explanation?

Yeah.

And he, you know, like, does he, like, he, he asked the question, like, honestly, he's

like, well, I knew if I gave the brandishing, then you guys would have voted guilty on brandishing

and not guilty on the assault, the deadly weapon.

And I wanted you to get convicted of assault, the deadly weapon.

Oh, very honest.

But I wanted a more serious offense that I could not prove.

So I didn't charge the actual crime.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And the jurors like, oh, okay.

You know, like, because he's, they're like, yeah, because we would have definitely convicted

him of brandishing, but it wasn't on there.

They're like, we would have convicted him of brandishing, but you didn't charge it.

Wow.

But I think this case is about just like the DA's office, like not caring what about putting

up a credible story, not caring at all, getting stuck on a charge.

They want their strike because if it's a strike, then they can say they convicted someone of

a serious offense.

And then they can say they got someone dangerous off the street and they can send someone to

prison.

And it's like, it's all about these sentencing enhancements and stuff.

So what was the, what was the maximum your client was facing at?

What?

What's that?

Two, three, four?

Plus the?

Plus one?

Plus the one for the knife?

No, no.

Because the knife's part of the element.

So it's just four.

Four years.

Four years?

Yeah.

In prison?

And then we got like a DA who, the DA who I'm negotiating with like doesn't do trials.

She just sits around, doesn't do anything.

So she doesn't have to actually negotiate the case and they don't, you know, they don't

have to do anything.

You know, she had said that the deal was off the table.

Did they ever come back with the better offer before the trial?

No.

So the, the DA that actually did the trial said his offer was two years.

So if you want a non-strike, it'll be three years.

Oh, so if you want your rocker cleaner, you have to spend another year in prison.

Yeah.

And you're still, let me ask you this.

So your guy was released right away, right?

Yeah.

He was released right away and I gave him his property back that I had and I gave him some

food because he was homeless.

Nice.

So you just have his property in your office this whole time?

Just for the trial because I went down to get his property and then, you know, I had

it.

So I gave it to him.

So now you, you mentioned that he gave you permission.

To talk about the case.

So what's been going on with him after this case?

I don't know.

We should go to visit, go down to Venice and take a look on Sunday.

He said, if he said, if I bring my lady, he's going to hook me up.

So some palm fronds, maybe some roses, but yeah, I mean, is there any takeaways from this

trial?

No, it's just disabled.

Just a bunch of crap that gets flung in the court.

And the only risk that the only person that has a risk is my client.

His life's on the line.

You know, sometimes I feel like if the other side actually had a risk.

Like if they go to trial and lose and they were to actually pay the price for something,

then maybe they wouldn't be putting this crap up here, making people this work.

But they don't.

I really feel like I feel like the DA's office needs to suffer or be punished for losing trials

because then maybe they won't put crap up there and waste people's time.

The only concern I have for that is then they might cheat more or do more things to win

because then they'll be like, they have a direct incentive to avoid losing as opposed to now

they have such informal incentives, you know, like these norms and values are really their

incentives.

So if they're penalized, think about kind of the games that we play with evidence or Brady

stuff, you know.

That's true.

Um, yeah, I feel you, man.

Well, thanks for coming on the show, man.

Hopefully we'll have you back.

And congratulations on the win.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Another Not Guilty.

All right.

Well, thanks for having me, guys.

Thanks, man.

All right.

Thank you so much for coming in.

Thanks for tuning in to this week's episode of Another Not Guilty.

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

Chris Adams.

And guess what?

We have another Not Guilty story coming your way next week because we public defenders fight

injustice every single day in the American criminal system.