The Class That Cried Wolf - Seven child abuse charges. One public defender. Zero tolerance for shaky police interviews.

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.

This detective comes to school and he sits her down. He says, you need to tell me what happened and there will be consequences. She didn't want to get in trouble. So she repeated the rumors. So, I mean, I basically just like hammered home, you know, this idea that you're a trained SVU detective and there's forensic interviewing techniques.

Please tell me all about that. Tell me in detail all about that and why you do that. Oh, but you didn't do it here, right? All right, done. If you think that tapping a kid on the shoulder or putting your hand on their shoulder to make them sit down or tapping on the shoulder and telling them to pay attention to the teacher, if you think that's the job, that's being a teacher, that's dealing with 10 year olds, if you're there and your job is done, this is already a Not Guilty.

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

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

These stories are about the Not Guilty as public defenders get on a daily basis.

In an unjust criminal system. With the deck stacked against us.

We're not guilty.

All right. Nikhil, man, how you been?

Good, how are you?

I'm good.

Long time since we've been in the studio.

Yeah. It has been. But the wheels of justice have been turning. You know, also tonight, it's very exciting. We have another awesome guest host with us.

Oh, who's that?

It's you, sir. Omid.

Oh, hey. Hey, everyone. Glad to be here. Glad to be here.

Yeah. Glad you made it to the hosting slot.

Yeah. I'm very excited about it.

Rotated out of the chair, the throne, and now...

Very excited to be here. Very excited to hear this story coming up. This new Not Guilty.

Right. Or was it just another Not Guilty? Okay. Our guest tonight is Jacqueline. Jacqueline, hello.

Hello.

And you are a public defender, right?

Yes.

And did you just have a jury trial?

Yes.

And how did it go?

Very well.

What happened?

Got some Not Guilties.

Oh, more than one, huh?

Yeah. Seven to be exact.

Seven Not Guilty.

Whoa.

What were the charges?

It was seven counts of child abuse.

Wow.

Misdemeanor child abuse.

Okay. That's a lot of counts. Seven children, seven occasions.

Seven different children.

Seven different children.

Wait, really?

Wow.

Did it all happen on one day?

It allegedly happened in a seven-day period at a public school.

Seven kids in seven days.

At a public school.

Isn't that like...

This is very biblical.

Right.

This is very biblical right now.

Yeah.

The world is coming to an end.

Yes.

On the brink of doom.

And on the last day, did he rest or...

The defense rests.

Okay.

Wow.

Wow.

The dad jokes are strong today.

So that's intimidating.

Anytime you have that many charges and you want to go to trial, it's probably like, okay,

I mean, it's easy for them.

They only need one to convict, but you got to get Not Guilty on all of them.

Yes.

So tell us about the case.

Yeah.

What were the prosecution facts?

Okay.

So the client was a behavioral therapist for a student with autism.

And she was set into this classroom for a fourth grader as an undercover therapist, meaning

she was introduced to the class as a whole as a teacher's assistant.

And she had not been in this assignment for more than seven days.

She didn't even work for full school days.

It was a couple hour shifts at a time.

And on the seventh day, a parent concern letter was submitted to the assistant principal.

And the assistant principal started pulling students out of class, having them make written

statements, and ultimately called the police.

Really, we didn't know what the facts of this case were until we went to trial.

Can I ask you, why did she have to go undercover?

Or is it a she?

Yes.

Okay.

So the student had been diagnosed with autism several years prior and had a non-profit that

was working with the school to provide assistance to him.

So he had about five or six counselors total.

So there were two in there on any given day, some of which were directly, you know, prompting

him while others kind of sat back and took behavioral data.

So that was my client.

Taking behavioral data?

Yes.

Under coverage.

So she's trying to like observe without being like, you know, having the observations impacted

by the fact that she was doing more direct work.

So kind of, she's part of the regular classroom flow and she's keeping an eye out for what's

going on with your client.

Right.

Or the victim.

Just making sure, so to be clear, he was not a complaining witness.

In fact, he came to testify about how awesome my client was.

Oh, wow.

So the seven children are seven kids that are not serviced by your client.

Correct.

Oh, wow.

It was a 30 student classroom.

Okay.

I'm a little lost.

Yeah.

Oh, is that a surprise for everybody?

So your, your, your client is undercover, works as a behavioral therapist, undercover as

a student teacher, and then they start pulling kids out to write letters or complaints about

your client.

So.

Sounds like a great show, the undercover behavioral therapist.

So a parent writes a letter and says that her daughter told her that a TA had hurt her

and that she had observed this TA hurt other students.

So she, she, you know, the assistant principal calls the, the, the, the parent and finds out

more, pulls the kid out and the kid names some names.

The assistant principal later testifies, you know, he pulls this kid in class, sits her

down, says nothing to her, but write down what happened.

It's like, and how, what was the age of these kids that were nine and 10 year olds.

So it, it, it just, it totally blows my mind.

This idea that these kids in the middle of their school day would get pulled out.

He would say, write down what happened and they would immediately know that it was about

their TA hurting them.

So he was clearly lying about that.

So he had at least four students write a written statement.

This goes clearly against LAUSD policy.

It specifically says, do not have students write down what their allegations are or repeat

them.

So what are the kids writing then?

Um, you know, I was getting up during class to throw something away and, uh, she pinched

me on my shoulder and, or she grabbed me by my back and it hurt and, uh, she yelled things

of that nature.

Oh, so like pinching, like touching aggressively, like pinching, grabbing, pushing.

So there's a yelling, there's a response to this alleged abuse.

So there must be other witnesses that saw the yelling, right?

Right.

The class of 30, the teacher that's always present or perhaps the other TA that's always

present, but there was no corroboration.

Wait, wait.

Oh, so the, the testimony, so that, let me ask you.

So then I'm sure this case was generated by the vice principal submitting these seven

written statements to the authorities then?

So he calls police and a, uh, officer comes.

He's not like a trained SVU detective.

He's, he's a regular uniformed officer.

He's a patrol officer.

Correct.

And he sits down the entire 30 class at the lunch tables and says, who here was hurt by

this teacher and in front of everybody together, in front of everyone and the assistant principal

standing right there and teacher, are the teachers or TAs, any of the non-involved TAs present?

A family emergency had that teacher that's normally they're not present.

So substitute then?

Yes.

So substitute teacher and a patrol officer asking a group of 30 kids by the lunch area,

Hey, who's hurt by, this is like, I don't know if you guys are familiar.

This sounds like a lot, like the McMartin, a lot of the issues of the McMartin trial.

Exactly.

And we've all represented juveniles, right?

Right.

I'm just like, I am aghast by this.

Were they offering McDonald's to the kids that stepped forward?

I mean, this guy was fully uniformed, badge, gun, and rewarding, you know, giving basically

these children attention.

There are nine children that stepped forward.

They are then taken in a line to the office where they are sat in a row.

Now, what we find out later at trial is that they're talking to each other.

They're talking about what, you know, the TA is.

While they're going to the given station.

What happened to you?

Oh, I heard this happened to so-and-so.

So the deputy takes them in individually.

He asks leading questions about what did she, how did she hurt you?

Are these recorded?

I'm sorry to interrupt.

Not one interview with any of the investigating officers was recorded.

Oh, that's.

When you say investigating officers, who are we talking about?

The patrol officer?

So we have this, we have this patrol officer.

And then within the next week, three different special victims unit detectives come and re-interview.

And it proceeds to go from what was seven, because the other kid wanted to talk about something else.

It then balloons to 14 kids who say there's allegations of child abuse.

Wow.

Yes.

So they pull these kids into a classroom, a large, not that large, but classroom.

And they sit in three different corners and talk to these children at the exact same time with the assistant principal present.

So it seems like the theme I'm starting to notice is the assistant principal seems to be present during all these interviews.

Right.

Right.

He's there for the 30 kids at the lunch table.

He's there now at the specialty victims unit interviews.

And so what are they, three kids are in a corner, they're like rotating and interviewing them?

So like they each took like a separate list of kids and while they were doing their list, they were simultaneously doing it in the other two corners.

And do you know this because it's in a report or is this what came out at trial?

In the report.

In the report, they talk about these procedures they follow or decided to do on their own.

Well, I actually take that back.

It was unclear.

It was somewhat confusing.

It did appear as if they were in the same room, but I really did not know a lot about what was going to happen until we got into trial.

Well, let me ask you this.

So your client's being charged with all these child abuse charges.

He's a or she's a teacher or undercover teacher.

How do you get like you get the case?

Like how like what was the inception when you first got the case?

My first instinct is to meet with the supervising district attorney.

I just can't believe that it's gotten this far.

So the reason I went to see the supervisor wasn't because I thought I was going to actually get anything beneficial to my client.

But why are there 14 children accusing my client of this and they're only charging five that I need to know?

Oh, OK.

So I go to her and I go, why?

And she goes, oh, well, it just seems like overkill.

This case isn't going to trial.

What?

And I looked at her and I said, it is.

And she's like, well, then we'll add every single one we can.

Nice.

So then you went back and told your client, hey, I got nine charges added.

Is that cool?

My B.

Yeah.

This case just got real expensive.

Well, I have a conflict.

My my thinking was since I mean, they they had only talked to these, you know, the last people they talked to was the detective.

They didn't talk to anyone else.

OK, they never called the parents.

The D.A. has never reached out to them like they never had second contact.

So my thinking was, how many of these kids really are going to go through with this?

Like, let's eliminate the kids that are not going to be there.

Let's not have this happen during trial.

So then what do you do?

So three weeks before trial, which was, by the way, four months after I had this conversation.

Right.

They amended the complaint to add three more for a total of seven.

OK.

Right.

But you weren't privy to any of those statements that parents because I'd be interested to know, like, if you're not filing this, did you have a conversation with someone who's related to the case?

Right.

And why is that not a statement that's turned over?

So another reason that I had to do, you know, six months of pretrial prep work was that I had an investigator out and talk to every single person I could track down.

Every single parent of every child in that classroom that I could get contact information for, I sent them, which resulted in about 130 hours of investigation work on this case, which made a huge difference.

Now, no surprise, none of the kids were spoken to that were alleged victims.

But we did speak to a couple parents who said, my kid told me nothing happened and I want nothing to do with this.

So this was another kind of wrinkle in the case was I wanted to speak to the kids that said nothing happened and that, as you guys know, is exculpatory evidence that has to be turned over.

So the prosecutor refuses.

She says, they're minors and you're not entitled to it under the law.

And the judge was just acquiescing to her stalling.

And so finally, the remedy that we worked out was she was individually going to bring these children into her office so that my investigator could interview them.

And only if they refuse to come in, would she give me the contact information.

So this was forced by the court.

Correct.

So you went to the court and you said, hey, they're not providing me statements and information that I think I'm entitled to.

And she said, I don't care.

And so you took it to the judge and the judge ordered her to this compromise of getting the kids in her office.

Right.

And it worked.

I mean, we definitely found some kids that we ended up calling who said she was great.

She helped me with my work and she was nice and, you know, like I never saw anything happen.

Hello, this is David from Another Not Guilty.

I have a favor to ask of you.

If you like this podcast, please subscribe and or follow us and also write a comment in the link.

Thank you.

I kind of want to just get an idea of the stakes for your client.

So obviously she was looking at the jail time and significant jail time because at this point you said there was seven charges.

So that's where it started.

Right.

When they when the case was handed to me, it was 90 days at five counts.

But once I had met with the supervisor, she did agree to remove the jail time.

So that was a benefit, I guess, from that conversation.

But I mean, not only would she can be completely barred from ever working in that field again.

Yeah.

She was very young.

I mean, she was in her mid 20s.

She was just starting this career of her.

She'd been doing it for maybe like two years, a year or two years.

But if she was found guilty and the judge really wanted to slam her, I mean, she could do seven years.

Right.

Yeah.

At half.

So we definitely knew the stakes were high.

And is she licensed to do what she does?

So she had to have a BA in psychology, but she had gone on extensive, extensive training like at this, like, you know, nonprofit that she worked with all about how to work with kids that have autism and, you know, all of the different techniques, you know, from least most intrusive using physicality.

Yeah, it means my wife is a therapist and like a lot of this training is about not using force with kids because back in the days they used to put kids in closets or like tackle them.

And so all these people that work with special needs children are trained in these special tactics on how to calm children down with using the least force possible.

So this is what was kind of shocking to me that you're telling me that she's accused of pinching them or pushing them because that's contrary to everything that they learned.

You know, it's almost like she's not even responsible for these other kids.

So why would she even be concerned with what they're doing to the point where she would physically abuse them?

Because she's only responsible for one kid.

Right.

And that was another argument, you know, I made during trial.

The prosecutor tried to make it seem like she just had a meltdown because she couldn't control the class, but it wasn't her job to control the class.

She was never in a position to have to do that.

Yeah.

So she always had the teacher there.

Right.

Right.

Okay.

Anything other pre-trial stuff that we're missing on or nothing great?

The only other thing that I can really think of that was of importance was I thought that an expert would be useful in this case.

I mean, we all know kids lie, kids are impressionable, but sometimes you just need someone with authority to say that to a jury.

A suggestibility expert.

Right.

Okay.

Through, you know, the resources that we have available to us, I had someone recommended.

And as soon as I, you know, contacted her and I told her a little bit about it, she was on it.

She wanted to hear about it.

She wanted to know.

Because she works with these types of cases regularly, and it's just she couldn't understand how something like this got to where it was.

And what was this person's job then?

Who are, like, what's their?

So she's a child psychologist who, for the most part, works with the prosecution.

She does, you know, the examinations of children who are victims of sexual abuse.

All right.

So you're going in the trial.

What's your, did you have a counteroffer at all?

Was your client willing to plead to anything?

No, you know, as the case got further along, her resolve built even more.

She was only going to accept a dismissal.

Okay.

And the client's, I mean, your defense is it just didn't happen, that all this just stems from one random parent having her kid write a letter that the parent teach me, and then it just spread like wildfire.

Well, so I guess, well, just to go back real quickly, that kid that told that mom, that wrote that first letter, eventually told the detectives that she was never hurt and she never saw anything.

She'd only heard rumors.

Wow.

Okay.

So the first domino in this series of dominoes basically said nothing happened.

Right.

Wow.

So I didn't know what to expect.

I mean, I hadn't gotten any secondary statements.

My investigator wasn't able to speak with these kids.

I didn't know what it was going to look like.

I mean, this was 15 months after the incident.

So when I, you know, started with the jury, you know.

Well, how about this?

Let me ask.

What was your voir dire then with the jury like?

Well, I didn't want to focus too much on child abuse, right?

Because, or like discipline, right?

I didn't want to say, well, what do you think about discipline?

Do you spank your kid?

Were you spanked as a child?

I didn't want to get too much into that because I didn't want them to think that what my client

did was discipline.

Yes.

But I did go into it a little bit just because you want to know.

I mean, if someone has a, you know, knee jerk reaction, they probably shouldn't be on

the jury.

But a lot of it was, you know, how do you judge someone's credibility?

How do you judge a child's credibility?

And what do you think about children's perceptions?

Are they accurate?

Do you think that it's possible that kids exaggerate, that maybe they misperceive things?

You know, what is your viewpoint on them?

What kind of jurors were you looking for?

Did you want parents?

Did you not want parents?

I wanted parents.

Okay.

I wanted people that were around children.

And knew how to determine if they were credible or not.

Well, like just knew that like kids lie and kids act out.

And it's, you know, because if you don't have a child and you're not around children.

You think there are super innocent angels of the universe that can never do any wrong

and there must be protected by all costs.

Exactly.

For sure.

And like, you know, I wasn't sure whether or not I wanted teachers, you know, because I

had, I had one teacher.

He was, I had, I had to just kick him in.

Tated or what?

I know he was like, there's, you never raise your voice at a child.

You never do this.

You never do that.

He was so judgmental.

So I was like, no, not him.

But then I got somebody who worked with preschool, uh, special needs students.

Got it.

So like, I was looking for people that kind of knew that.

And I was also looking for people that had, I don't know, use corporal punishment with

their children, had been corporately punished somebody who, or even somebody who had maybe

been, I took a risk.

There was a woman who had been abused as a child because I wanted somebody to have this

gut reaction of, of that is not abuse.

This is a waste of time.

The pinch is not the abuse.

There are children that actually need our help.

Yes.

So you do your opening statement.

Do you give it all?

Do you lay it all out there or do you?

I have no idea what to say because I don't have no idea what's coming.

So I basically just say this case is about misinterpretation and exaggeration.

You're going to hear it all, but you're not going to see a single thing.

We'll figure it out.

I like that.

Yeah.

What about the prosecutor?

What was her opening statement like?

These poor children sitting in this fourth grade classroom, learning, growing their minds

and she walks in there and they do this and she snaps.

I mean, you should have seen the jury's face when they heard the allegations.

They just kind of all looked at each other like they were waiting.

When she sat down, they thought there was going to be more.

They twisted their skin and then punched them in the face.

No, no.

Okay.

All right.

Okay, that's it.

Okay.

So the serial pincher trial commences.

So they start with the kids.

Okay.

Actually, I think they might have started with the assistant principal.

I don't remember.

The kids, okay.

It was bad.

It was real bad.

Bad for them or bad for you?

Bad for everyone.

Okay.

So, but you know, for several children, I mean, they were clearly very nervous.

I don't, I mean, I don't know what they're like outside of court, but they answered these

questions.

They were deemed competent and then they could not do it.

And we, one of the kids, we spent probably three and a half hours and she just could not do

it.

She couldn't do it.

So when you say couldn't do it, can you describe it?

Because I'm so curious how this is playing out.

Like we, you know, the prosecutor asked her a question and she's just like, uh, uh, uh,

just kind of non-responsive at all.

Like non-responsive or clearly like we're not responding like a yes or no when it should

be a yes or no.

Like she just, or like, how are you feeling right now?

Like she just can't even like articulate a feeling.

Like kids who are shy when you're asking like, how old are you?

And they run behind their parents and they're like, don't want to talk to you.

Like, just kind of like, like acting like a kid.

And like all of these kids have a victim support advocate that works for the district attorney's

office that's sitting right near them, drawing even more attention to their innocence.

Victimization.

Just to be clear.

Any stuffed animals or dogs?

No.

So just to be clear.

Okay.

You said there's a victim support advocate sitting right near them.

Are they at the witness stand with them?

No, we got them to, we got them to sit, uh, at a chair next to the jury.

When you said we got them, was this litigated?

Yes.

They wanted them to be behind them.

And I was like, they're 10, they're 10 or 11 at this point.

Like they're going to be fine.

Yeah.

And this is a pinching trial.

So let's kind of pump the brakes a little bit.

We're not talking about a sexual molestation.

We're not talking about like the allegations here are relatively.

And because what does it look like whenever there's a, you know, a victim advocate sitting

right next to the witness?

Rubbing on the shoulder of the witness, handing them the tissue, having the stuffed animal

ready for them.

It's suggestive and prejudicial.

Absolutely.

So, you know, one of the funny, the only funny story from this trial.

Um, so the prosecutor is trying to get this girl to describe a narrative to show that she

can do this.

So, you know, one of the common things she'll ask is, well, what's your favorite class?

History.

Okay.

Well, uh, what was your favorite subject that you learned about in history?

And she says the Donner party and the prosecutor doesn't know what that is.

Oh, and she goes, well, what kind of projects did you do about that?

And she goes, I drew a picture and she asked, what did you draw?

And I'm just looking at the jury like, what is this little girl about to say right now?

And she goes, you know, people in wagons, starving, eating other people, eating other

people.

Oh my God.

We all know that.

We all live in a time of, I mean, everybody remember the Oregon trail game, right?

Yeah, of course.

That's how I remember the Donner party the best.

Oh.

Hey, it's me again.

I have a question.

Would you like to be a guest on our show?

Have you or someone you know ever experienced and not guilty before, either as a defense

attorney, juror, defendant, or even a prosecutor?

Then please visit our website at another not guilty pod.com and fill out the submission

form.

And while you are there, check out our cool A&G merchandise.

Thank you.

Can you give us like an example of what her direct examination is with one of the kids?

Like what is she asking?

What's their response?

So once they're found confident, you know, where do you go to school?

What grade are you in?

What's your, you know, what's your teacher's name?

So last year you were in this grade, right?

And you had this teacher.

Well, did you have a teacher's assistant?

Okay.

What was her name?

Do you see her in court?

And not all of the children, but most of them were able to identify my client.

Did she ever hurt you?

And I'm not even joking.

When I tell you two of the children, their first response was no.

Wow.

Now you would think, I mean, not, no one's going to remember everything, not even a child,

but if you have a traumatic experience, like being abused by your teacher, you're going

to remember it happened.

Right.

So some of the children, they can't remember.

So the prosecutor refreshes their recollection, which basically means shows them, you know,

something to remind them of what happened, shows them the written statements from the

assistant principal.

And some of them, she has to impeach with those statements because-

How does impeaching the children go?

Like, what are they saying?

They just don't remember.

Well, like, for example, let's say, okay, here's an example.

So there were two little girls.

They were friends.

They were sitting next to each other and they were allegedly talking.

Now they tell the officers, the detectives specifically, they did not make this statement

originally to the deputy.

So we're talking, she comes up behind us and she slaps us.

She slams her hand in her back, jolting my body forward, causing me pain and yells, shut

up.

Okay.

So that's what she tells.

Did you use the word jolting?

No.

You know that that was the cops.

Yeah.

That seems like a very advanced kind of description by the nine or 10 year old.

So this was just a statement to the detectives.

They hadn't made a written statement for this.

So then the one little girl gets up and says, she patted me on the back and told me to be

quiet.

So then they use the detective to impeach her saying, well, she told me, she slammed

me on the back.

Then the other little girl says, yeah, she hit me on the back and I stopped talking.

Like she just totally minimized it.

Like it wasn't even a problem.

So, you know, those were the types of examples in which these kids were being impeached by their

other statements.

And then are you responding?

What's your cross-examination like then?

So when you remember in particular?

Well, okay.

So we'll just back up real quick.

So there was one complaining witness that comes and she says, I was in this class and

all these students were talking.

She pinched me.

She pushed me.

She hurt me.

It left a bruise.

It left the mark.

And she was in class and she was doing something she shouldn't have been doing.

And the teacher came and she touched her on the shoulder and she waited in anticipation for

her to be hurt.

But nothing happened.

And then this detective comes to school and he's in a uniform and he sits her down and

he says, you need to tell me what happened and there will be consequences.

And she was scared.

She was intimidated.

And she told the detective what she thought he wanted to hear because she didn't want to

get in trouble.

So she repeated the rumors.

Whoa.

She said this whole thing?

Bless this little girl's heart.

Oh my gosh.

She just fed you your closing argument.

She did.

That's fantastic.

So that was probably the third or fourth witness.

So once I got a hold of that, I mean, everything after that was, well, what did you hear?

What were the everyone, what was everyone talking about?

Had you heard these rumors?

That's great.

Let me make sure I understand.

What exactly did she say the officer said about the rumors?

So the officer said, I, you know, there's going to be consequences.

You need to tell me what happened.

And so she had heard all these rumors and she was scared.

So before she went into the interview, she had heard from other kids that the officer

had threatened her.

The rumors had been circulating all week.

And not even that, right?

Because they're nine or 10 years old.

So it's even just the law enforcement persona, right?

It's like, they're so used to having this like air of like, you know, authority.

And like, I remember when I was a kid, right?

Like officers just, I mean, kind of scared me, right?

Like they're, they're big, they're muscular.

They have a gun, right?

Like, you know, they carry a badge.

They have so much authority, right?

So that you're already, you're already afraid.

You're taught to be honest and you're taught to be like, ah, whatever they say you do.

Right.

And so you think about it, even if it wasn't like, if

you don't do it, you're going to go to jail, like blah, blah, blah, blah.

You got to have this air of, if I don't say what this officer seems to imply, he wants

me to say, right?

It's like the crux of suggestibility.

Right.

And I mean, I utilized an expert to get to that, but I really wanted the jury to like

feel what these kids felt.

So when I was cross-examining them and it's like, you know, do you like your class?

Did you like this teacher?

And a lot of times they would say they liked her.

Most of the kids said they liked her.

I asked, would you let her, do you want her to come back?

Yeah, sure.

She can come back.

What kid says their abuser can come back?

I mean, that's stuck in the minds of the jury.

But like, you know, what did you, what were you talking about with your, you know, classmates?

What did you see?

What did you hear?

And, you know, have you talked about this with your parents?

Things like that.

So, you know, a lot of them were, you know, very open about the fact that they had talked

about it with a lot of different people.

And that, and several of them, she's strict.

She doesn't let me get up and do what I want.

So I kind of, like, they were feeding me my, my arguments about how, you know, these kids

are being disciplined.

They're being told to do something they don't want to do.

And they're misperceiving what is an appropriate action with inappropriate, you know, like, so

one of the things I said is, you said it hurt.

How?

It felt weird.

Why did it feel weird?

I don't like being touched.

That was one answer.

Another answer was, did it hurt?

It was kind of hurtful.

Why?

Well, my parents told me no one's supposed to touch me.

And like, that was their definition of hurt.

That was their definition of pain.

They just didn't have the vocabulary necessary between pleasure and pain to like actually say,

well, maybe I was uncomfortable.

So I didn't know a lot about what happened in that classroom, right?

And in that office with this questioning.

Okay.

The week of trial, I get a pre-printed questionnaire of what the detectives used in questioning them.

Now, this brings you back to McMartin.

They use pre-printed questionnaires.

But these questions were literally leading questions used by SVU detectives trained in

how to speak with children.

And they couldn't even formulate written sentences that weren't leading.

So I hammered that home with every single detective.

And, you know, they were candid about it.

Like, yeah, that is exactly how I asked it.

And each one of them, including the deputy, kept saying, I have children.

I'm around children all the time.

I know when they're being credible.

They maintained eye contact.

And they, you know, answered questions this specific way.

So they're being honest.

And the judge let that in as an opinion.

Wow.

So basically the judge allowed these detectives to be designated an expert in child honesty.

Child honesty.

It blew my mind.

The deputy, this deputy, who we know is newer, he came across so well.

Like, he was like the nicest dude.

Like, even my supervisor who would be watching my trial, he liked him.

And he was like, I have nieces and I have nephews and I spend time with them.

And when they do this, this is what happens.

And I know these kids are telling the truth.

So, I mean, I basically just like hammered home, you know, this idea that you're a trained

SVU detective and there's forensic interviewing techniques.

Tell me all about that.

Tell me in detail all about that and why you do that.

Oh, but you didn't do it here.

Right.

All right.

Done.

What did you ask the assistant principal?

Because he's the one that kind of did all the writings, right?

All the kids the right stuff.

I must have asked him 20 times what he asked the kids when they first walked in.

Because I just could not get this idea that he said, write down what happened.

Like, that could be.

So I really pinned that home.

And then the other thing was the LAUSD policy.

I mean, he went on and on about it.

He's been an assistant principal in administration and public schools for decades.

And he's this, this, that, and the other.

Like, I know everything.

I'm so great.

And then, okay, but you get biannual training in this, right?

And you completely violated this policy from the get-go, right?

And then that was it.

I was just like, I'm done with you.

Oh, so very like, that's kind of a small, short cross-examination just to show how outside

of policy you want.

What's your, what's your, I'm done with you move in court?

Like, what do you, do you walk away?

Do you-

Is there like a snap of the finger?

Do you pick your papers up?

Do you shuffle your papers and you're like, I'm done?

Nothing further, your honor.

Do you drop the microphone onto the ground?

Or do you say, I'm done with this witness?

Or I'm done with you?

Yeah.

I'll look at the jury and I'll just be like, no further questions, your honor.

Nice, nice, nice, nice.

And you can't see it at home, but she kind of just gave a little flip to the head, side

eye to the imaginary jury.

Sweet side glance there.

Our partner's here, I feel like, I know why you guys are together.

Yeah, I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it.

That was a good look.

So, go ahead.

Oh, okay, so then like, so you start your case out then with what?

So get this, so you think, right, you know, this case happened in the classroom, who

is going to call the teacher?

I called the teacher.

The, the, what teacher?

The teacher of the actual classroom that was present for the entire seven day period that this

allegedly occurred.

The person in charge of the whole classroom?

Right.

Okay.

So she's my first witness.

I call her and she is this wonderful, nice little elementary school teacher, very relatable.

I, it's my, I'm a mandatory reporter.

I would, if something was going on, I absolutely would have reported it.

No parent said anything to me.

No kid said anything to me.

I never heard an ouch, you hurt me.

Don't do that.

Don't touch me.

I saw her.

She was great with the kids.

I never left her alone.

So, so devil's advocate, why isn't this teacher coming in to protect one of her own, possibly

to preserve this underground pinching ring that she's running with other, uh, teachers?

Like prosecutor didn't even go into it.

She didn't even touch it.

Oh, okay.

So I didn't have to deal with it.

Okay.

Oh, she didn't cross.

What did she cross her on?

Uh, well, you step into the hallway sometimes, right?

Oh, it's like the failure to observe because she wasn't there the whole time.

Right.

You go to the bathroom sometimes, right?

And then you had obviously had spoken to the teacher before.

You were with them the whole time.

No, LAUSD prohibited all of their employees from speaking to us.

So I didn't know if she's going to be a friendly witness.

Yeah, no, you're just going to throw up there and just find out what happened?

I had a brief conversation with her over, like right before I called her.

I mean, this is the life of a public defender.

You don't know sometimes that you have witnesses until you're in trial.

Like one of the children's parents, so all the children's parents were there during

their testimony.

They were allowed to sit in there.

And I, obviously, they had to disclose this to me after this little girl testified.

The mom got so upset.

Why did no one speak to me?

My daughter told me nothing happened.

Like, how dare you not reach out to me?

Like, I have asked her a hundred times and she never said anything happened.

Why is she up there saying this now?

And I almost called her.

Like, I literally had her, I subpoenaed her immediately.

I had an investigator come and interview in the hallway to decide whether I wanted to

use her.

Is your client kind of guiding you?

Like, hey, this person, they're cool.

They'll say good stuff about me.

Yeah, I mean, she did her best.

You know, a lot of it was unknown to her, too.

She'd only been there seven days, so she didn't quite know.

Like, she didn't know the assistant principal.

She didn't quite remember all the children.

But she was literally the best client.

I mean, she's my co-counsel.

She took notes on everything.

She was giving me feedback constantly about what the jury was doing, about who she wanted

on the jury.

Oh, that's great.

She was great.

And really insightful stuff for the jury.

Because sometimes I have clients that give me some stuff, like some real racist or sexist

stuff about the jury.

And I'm like, cool.

Thanks for that suggestion, man.

Or woman, I am not going to follow this.

So you, at this point, you've put up two witnesses.

You've put up...

So I have the teacher, okay?

Then...

So I told you my client had just started seven days prior.

Yeah.

I pulled the previous TA that was in her position, the behavioral therapist, and I called her.

Ooh.

Okay.

Under what theory?

So she was a character witness, and she opined...

Character for unpinchingness, I'm just trying to say.

So she was, one, able to talk about, you know, this was my training, right?

The same position.

This was how I was trained.

These were my jobly duties.

I was never left alone either.

These are the problematic kids.

Got it.

That sort of thing.

So I called two of her supervisors, both of which were like supervisors with kids with

special needs, and with all three of them, tell me about redirection.

Tell me how you're trained to use redirection through verbal prompting, gestural prompting,

physical proximity, and finally, touching, from least to most intrusive.

If someone's aggressive, what are you taught to do?

Show me how you hold a child when they're trying to hit you.

And did your client give you, like, kind of the background on how to, like, how this

was, how did you know to ask these, or get this context in front of the team?

I worked with kids with autism when I was in college.

Okay.

So you have some background with this.

Yeah.

So you were kind of, like, almost the perfect lawyer to get this case.

For this case, a little bit.

Yeah.

I definitely had some background knowledge, and then, you know, I was like, well, tell me about

this.

What did you learn about this?

And she was just a wealth of knowledge.

I mean, she had to, you know, get this degree.

She had to go through intense, like, training.

And then she had to go through supervised training.

So she had been there for a full year.

Oh, her, like, CT or whatever they call it.

Before she'd even gotten this assignment.

And this wasn't her first assignment in a school setting either.

So I brought in two different parents that had worked with her, whose children had worked

with her to talk as character references about what a patient and caring and nonviolent

person she is.

So let me ask you, what does the DA do?

And when, like, when you put all these witnesses on, they have all this wealth of information.

They're giving this great context about how, you know, at least the most intrusive and,

like, what is gestural cueing and all these types of things.

All these things they're going through, highly technical.

What's the DA's cross to this kind of stuff?

You don't teach them to pinch, do you?

Oh.

You don't teach them to push, do you?

You weren't there that day, were you?

You've never been in that classroom before, have you?

So are you, is this week three at this point?

Is that where we're at?

Yes.

Jesus.

And week one was your selection.

Week two was the prosecution's case.

Now week three is all your case?

Week three, they bled into two days.

So I start on day three.

Ooh, bled into.

Interesting choice of words.

Could have been pinched into.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Hey, don't twist her words.

Ooh.

My ego's bruised.

I'm sorry.

Anyway, sorry for those terrible jokes.

Quit crying about it.

Okay, so.

Get our CD.

Another not guilty.com.

So week three, who's the next witness?

What's the next thing you put up?

My final character witness is a youth pastor.

My client has been teaching Bible study to 10-year-olds for the past 10 years.

Oh, man.

I just don't believe this case is real.

I think you're making up about this case.

Wait a second.

No, she gets up there and she says that my client teaches the word of God to these children.

And you just can't.

I mean, it's just like the icing on the cake.

Yeah.

Just making this woman like this God-fearing, like, you know, Jesus-loving woman.

This woman who's dedicated her life to working with children.

I mean, it just, it was perfect.

It was amazing.

And that was your last witness?

No, no, no.

Okay, sorry.

So at some point in there, I call four children.

Okay, I call her client, or the kid with autism.

The kid that she was there for.

And I told you, you know, all these kids are having trouble.

They're having trouble articulating themselves.

They're having trouble having this conversation.

This kid, this kid with autism.

Hold on, this kid's with autism, right?

He was so just, he was the best witness.

He was so articulate and thoughtful with each question.

And he had told the, you know, they asked him during, you know, the detective's investigation,

had he seen anything?

And he had said, yeah, I heard her screaming.

And his dad, who was really on my client's side, felt very, very guilty about this whole

thing, really was passionate, like, you know, took his kid out of school during, like, you

know, exams to have him testify.

And he says, you know, I talked to him.

And he just doesn't understand the difference between screaming and raising the one voice to

be heard.

So it clicked.

And I was like, do you know what the difference is between raising your voice so you can hear

me to get in line and saying, screaming at someone to get in line?

And he was like, yeah, I do.

And I was like, which wasn't?

And he was like, she was just raising her voice so I could hear her.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

And so the kids, the kids were really well.

Some of them, you know, a lot of them talked about the rumors.

A lot of them talked about the good positive contact, how much they liked her, how great

she was.

So then the next witness after that, my client testifies.

So did you talk to your client beforehand to plan whether, whether she was going to testify?

Was it a spontaneous decision?

We'd been talking about it since I was assigned to the case.

I was preparing her for the decision that she needed to make.

Okay.

I mean, ultimately, it's a client's decision whether or not they testify.

I can only give a suggestion.

And I did agree.

I thought the jury needed to hear from her.

I mean, she was, oh, she was perfectly dressed every day.

She was short, my size, tiny woman.

I mean, she is so sweet and articulate.

The jury needed to hear from her.

So, you know, we had gone over it multiple times, you know, so that she was familiar with

the format.

I'd had a colleague cross-examine her so that she was familiar with getting confronted.

And she did excellent.

She starts without, I didn't even know.

We hadn't even practiced this.

All of a sudden, she starts going into about how she was physically attacked by a teenager

with autism, but very, you know, at the beginning of her career and how she responded to that

and how she was trained after that to deal with it because of how invasive and traumatic it had been.

And, you know, the prosecutor just was trying to rile her up.

Isn't it true you did this?

Isn't it true that you just got overwhelmed because everyone was talking and no one was listening

and you just wanted them in line?

And she just, like, she stayed cool.

She stayed calm.

And she just, no.

Like, these are kids.

They're going to have energy.

Like, it's okay.

I would, I'm going to tap them on the shoulder and tell them to go back.

So the process, go ahead.

Did she de-escalate the prosecution's cross-examination?

Expertly.

Expertly, just kind of, like, lower.

Like a behavioral therapist should.

Right.

Yeah.

Just kind of, like, control the prosecutor, like.

Because that's, you know, the strategy.

The prosecutor wants to rile her up to show that she can lose her temper.

And she didn't take the bait.

But she snapped.

Yeah, she snapped.

And then started pinching.

Did she pinch the prosecutor at any point?

No.

Okay.

So my expert, this expert that I had cultivated over months, can't testify.

So I had made the decision for my client to testify.

And then the expert to testify the next week.

Week four.

Okay.

Because I thought, you know what?

They don't need to hear my client last.

They can hear my client.

They can go home for the weekend.

And then they can come back.

And they can hear the expert.

And that be the last witness they hear.

Okay.

So we adjourned for the weekend.

We come back.

And, oh, my God.

This expert was.

She was.

I mean, she was a professional.

I got her to.

And you can imagine the objections that followed.

But I got her to talk about the McMartin case.

And how this was so factually similar.

Wow.

By asking her.

Well, okay.

You have these best practices.

How did we get here?

What research?

What major events occurred for us to develop this?

The McMartins were a family who operated a daycare.

And were charged with sexually abusing children.

Accusations were made in 1983.

Arrest and pretrial investigation ran from 1984 to 1987.

With 360 children claiming they were abused.

And the trial ran from 1987 to 1990.

Resulting in no convictions.

And all charges dropped.

Making it the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history.

Later, research determined that the methods for questioning the children.

Were extremely suggestive.

Leading to false accusations.

Do you have a 402 or an objection outside the presence of the jury about that?

Did she try to go to the bench and be like, this is absolutely inappropriate.

We shouldn't be talking about this other case.

Oh, yeah.

She 402'd out McMartin.

Who?

The prosecutor?

The prosecutor.

She's like, I do not want any mention of McMartin.

The judge was on board totally.

And so.

She did it in the beginning of the case.

Yeah.

Like, because, I mean, it was so obviously the connection was so clear.

Wait.

And like, I had brought.

The judge had actually brought it up during our in-conference chambers at the very beginning.

He was like, this.

This.

Remember the McMartin case?

This sounds very familiar.

Wait.

Wait.

So he said, like, this is very similar to this grotesque miscarriage of justice that

happened in the late 80s.

Let's not reference it at all.

This miscarriage.

This injustice that my office.

Yeah.

Perpetrated.

My own office.

Not only did I not learn the lesson, but I don't want anyone to hear about it.

Yeah.

That's crazy.

Because, I mean, I don't think, like, because it's happened so long ago, I think that it's

not as common known.

But if you're, you know, between a certain age group and you're from, you know.

This area.

This area, then.

You do know about it.

Yeah.

So the judge said you can't bring up McMartin?

Yeah.

He was like, do not ask about it.

Do not inquire about it with your expert.

But that didn't mean that the expert couldn't bring it up herself.

Sneaky, sneaky.

Or that she relied upon it, informing her opinions, discussing the best, you know.

Right.

Well, the best practices are based on child psychology and our understanding throughout history.

of why we can't be suggestible.

And, like, there are these impressionable kids can't have these certain tactics.

So you get it.

So she starts bringing it up.

And there's her immediate, like, objection.

We go to the, you know.

Yeah, and he's like, move on.

And then she just starts going on and on about all of these facts and how this is an improper

thing to do.

Like, don't use leading questions.

Or don't have these children speak in front of school administrators or people of authority

who initially, you know, took the outcry statement.

Or, you know, not having them talk in the same room because of these levels of contamination.

I mean, just all of the stuff that wasn't present in my case, she started talking about that.

So it was all through hypotheticals.

She wasn't actually able to say, well, this was messed up in this case.

Yeah.

But she said, these are bad tactics.

And this is what it can lead to.

So.

And that was my last witness.

Wait, what was.

Why can't you ask her just directly?

I mean, if she looked at the evidence and reviewed the.

Why was she prohibited from offering her expert opinion about actual tactics in the case?

Well, so I did.

I said, you know, have you reviewed anything in this case?

Yeah.

And she said, yes, I've reviewed these reports.

And I said, and from that report, what's your opinion?

And she was like, well, I don't know.

Like, I, I, what, you know, I see what the kids wrote or what, what they said being written down, but how did they say it?

And what were the questions before it?

Because the officers didn't write that part.

So she talked about, you talked about a lack of information.

Your opinion at what, what, what opinion of what, that they were valid, that they were reliable statements.

Conducted according to best practices when, you know, questioning witnesses between, you know, the, you know, around the age of 10.

And, and also what effect, if any, does that have on impressionability and suggestibility and therefore what ultimately is the credibility of the statement?

And she said, I can't tell you.

Yeah.

Because there's missing information.

But then I was like, well, hypothetically, since I learned this, you know, all these kids.

Was that the answer you wanted?

I got every answer I wanted.

You wanted her to say, I can't tell you?

Yeah, because I wanted the, the, the jury to see that these officers did such a shitty job in writing the report in the first place.

Like they didn't include the information necessary for the defense to prepare because what?

They just were passing the buck along.

Because the, the, the, the police testified that these were reliable statements.

These kids were honest.

Because they're around nieces and nephews and other 10 year olds.

Right.

Because they care about children, David.

Right.

Nieces and nephews.

I only see the best of my nieces and nephews.

I don't live with them.

So, you know, like, yeah, they're all great.

I love my nieces and nephews.

So, okay.

So, so your witness ends, the entire courtroom lets out a sigh of relief.

Standing, standing ovation maybe.

Like it's over.

Four weeks in.

Right.

And so going in the, how was the prosecutor's closing statement?

Okay.

So, I mean, I thought it was pretty incoherent to be totally honest.

She used a PowerPoint, of course.

And like each slide is the kid's name and she's going over the allegations and as she says them out loud, I just, I can't believe to myself that this is happening.

Like, is that enough?

Like what she's saying, is it really enough?

And she's just building this image of my client being so flustered and so upset and just so discombobulated.

And then the climaxes and she pinched her and she pushed her and, you know, this bruise and it hurt and it's painful.

And you can't do that to children and you need to send a message.

That's not okay.

That's what's good about this comic right there.

All right.

And then what about your closing argument?

How was that?

Did you have a PowerPoint or anything like that?

What, what, like a chalkboard?

What do you have?

I just stand in front of the jury and walk back and forth and I make contact with every single one of them.

Wow.

That's like real old school.

I take them through this narrative about how my client even got there, about her training, about, you know, about working with children, about what unique experience it is to be working with special needs kids and about, you know, redirection.

And how touch is something that's acceptable in a classroom.

You give high fives.

You give pats on the back.

And this is a matter of children just groupthink, infecting, you know, a classroom of 30 with, you know, these allegations of abuse that these good intentions by the, I mean, I shouldn't have done it, but the good intentions by the assistant principal and the deputy and the detective, they each just, they, these kids felt it.

They felt it was true.

They didn't have the nuance of language.

They were corrected.

They felt uncomfortable.

They used the only word they could, which was pain.

And they believed it.

So the assistant principal believed it and the cops believed it.

But it's just a matter of like, if you're colorblind and you say a red jacket is brown, well, you're not lying.

To you, it is brown.

But to everyone else, it is a different color.

Are you swallowing, I mean, do you really feel like the good intentions here of, of all the parties involved, like all the players?

Did you say that because, because you mentioned something right now, but you're talking about it.

So this was like, this was the trial that was going on.

So everyone was coming in.

So all my colleagues and my supervisor were constantly giving me feedback about what they saw.

And everybody liked these officers, especially the initial deputy.

They really liked him.

They felt that he was honest.

And I didn't, I didn't feel like it.

I thought he was clearly not.

Yeah, you were like, I'm trying to break this guy down.

And my client is subject to these charges based on this bullshit.

But like, you know, I just felt like the jury, they, I didn't want to demonize them.

Because sometimes, you know, like demonizing law enforcement doesn't always get where you want to be.

Yeah, I think the core values, and this is, I have a, I have a, I argue sometimes, like if you accept the law officers lying or was doing malicious,

and that's a core value we have, that the police are out there to protect and serve.

And that's a hard argument to sell against certain, in certain communities, right?

And so, it's like almost a tactical decision.

And I didn't think it was necessary for them to reject who the officers were.

I mean, their tactics were clearly flawed.

Yeah.

And that's just, that's a fact.

And I didn't make it seem like they were malicious with it.

But I did kind of make the DA seem like they were malicious.

Because it's like, this happened 15 months ago, and not a single person reached out to a parent, to a doctor, to anybody.

And now you just wasted four weeks of your life.

Like, you know, you, you are the one that is going to make this check and balance.

That's why you're here.

And I made it their responsibility.

So, if what you heard, if you think what you heard isn't child abuse, if you think that tapping a kid on the shoulder,

or pushing them on, you know, putting your hand on their shoulder to make them sit down,

or tapping them on the shoulder and telling them to pay, you know, pay attention to the teacher,

even if it is with pressure, if you think that's the job, that's being a teacher, that's dealing with 10-year-olds.

If you're there, then your job is done.

This is already a not guilty.

But if you're kind of on the fence, if you think to yourself, you know, I don't know, is this credible, reliable, trustworthy evidence?

Something clearly happened.

Is it child abuse?

Well, that's a reasonable doubt as well.

And, like, you heard the kid who said that they heard rumors.

You heard about the contamination.

And you heard about all this good work that this woman does with all these different children on the spectrum,

teaching these kids the, you know, the word of God.

I was like, you can take that into account, too.

And that's reasonable doubt.

That's also a not guilty.

And then I dropped the mic.

Nice.

Awesome.

Awesome.

Now, let's tell us about deliberation.

How long does it take you to the verdict on this?

30 minutes.

Ooh.

30 minutes.

Ooh.

That's like, probably 25 minutes.

That's like the LeBron.

Yeah.

That's four minutes per account.

Yeah, because they have to fill out a lot of paper.

There's a lot of paperwork.

Yeah.

There's a lot of paper.

They have to find a four-person.

That's at least, and it's been four weeks, so they probably want to talk about, like, outfits and clothes and hair.

Yeah, right, yeah.

I've heard of a lot of juries want to talk about clothes and stuff.

I'm talking to my client, I'm explaining about what's to happen.

I'm like, you got to be here, you got to be close, I got to be able to find you.

Yeah, don't go to the park for too long over there.

My colleagues are coming up to me, I like this, I like that.

I'm like, I want to smoke a cigarette, I need a cigarette so bad, like, this is the most intense trial of my life right now.

Like, I need a cigarette.

I did not even get my heels off before I got the text message from the clerk to come back to court because there's a verdict.

Wow.

And you knew, right?

And I knew immediately.

You knew 30 minutes was not guilty for you.

I mean, that's what I felt, but, like, you know you can't accept it until you get it.

You're not telling your client that.

Yeah, but, like, I kind of, I had my suspicion.

I was feeling good at that point.

So when they come in, did they look at you?

Yes, and as soon as they looked at me, that's kind of when I knew.

What was the look?

An acknowledgement, like a head nod, like a sign of respect.

Oh, you know, you're here.

We got you.

So then, you know, you hear seven not guilty.

Oh, my God.

Can you just say it seven times so I can hear it?

What was your client's reaction?

She looked up to the sky and thanked God, and then she started to cry, and she gave me a hug.

There we go.

So she didn't thank you first?

Well, it's okay.

She thanked God first.

Yeah.

Calm down, bro.

Thank God for putting you in her path.

There you go.

That's how God had to do this situation.

Yeah.

That's awesome.

That is awesome.

So then, you know, all the whole jury sticks around.

I walk out the first thing.

The first juror comes up to me, and he goes, can I hire you?

Oh, wow.

That was the only time that's ever happened.

For his own case?

Yeah, for his own case.

And I was like, well, sir, I'm really, really flattered right now.

Thank you.

Maybe you should have disclosed that interest.

Because this same prosecutor is actually charging me with child abuse.

That's awesome.

That is like the ultimate badge of honor to hear a juror that sat through the entire trial

want you to represent them.

Yeah.

And of course, you took his money, right?

Yeah, well.

What else did the juror say?

So they stayed around for like 20 or 30 minutes, just as long as they were deliberating to talk

to me.

So my colleagues came out, and we were trying to get as much information from them as they

can.

And they were, one, why were none of the parents there?

Like during the entire trial, if it was their kid, they would have been there.

Where were the other children that said that these allegations happened?

Like where were they?

They kept repeating that.

The other seven, the 14 total, right?

The other seven.

But there was a couple whose name came up more.

Like this one kid's name came up and over and over again.

And one of the jurors says, where's this kid?

And I go, who?

Like I didn't even know who she was talking about.

Like it just slipped out of my mind.

They definitely focused on the fact that there was no like physical evidence.

Like these kids said there was bruising or, you know, redness.

Like nobody noticed.

There's this lack of cooperation.

And they just were all about this whole idea of, you know, the suggestibility issue.

Like it was evident to them why that would be an issue.

But they were all like, your expert was great.

She made so much sense.

I'm so glad you brought her in.

Oh, that's awesome.

So was the prosecutor around for any of these comments?

Were they like?

She didn't even come out to speak to them.

She went into the back hallway and went down the back stairs.

Wow.

Anything else in Jersey?

Anything?

They asked what my client got her wardrobe.

They thought she was impeccably dressed every day.

They were very impressed.

Oh, wow.

Which is funny because, you know, like, you know, for our custody clients, we are often put

up, obstacles come up for our clients in terms of the bailiffs don't let them wear shoes.

They don't let them wear belts.

You know, they're like so aggressive.

Like, you know, we have limited outfits.

And it's like, you know, I think it makes a really serious difference.

Presentation matters.

Yeah, right.

And it's like, it's not just that they have any shirt and tie on or, you know, or a suit

on or whatever.

It's that it looks good.

It's fashionable, right?

Like, if you can relate to that person, they look like, you know, that they take care of

themselves or whatever, then, you know, they have a haircut.

They look alert.

They look awake.

Those types of things all help in the jury seeing humanity in your client.

It humanizes your client.

And, you know, when I was talking to them, a lot of them were like, how did it get this

far?

And I'm like, I know, you know, this was a complete waste of a month of your life.

And one of them literally looked at me and said, no, it wasn't.

Your client needed us.

So, Jacqueline, I want to ask you, you know, you did an amazing job in this trial.

Why did you become a public defender?

Well, when I was in law school, the work I did was with people in prison and just what

they have to go through, the conditions that they live in.

It was a very difficult job to work in.

And I realized that I wanted to keep people from being in that position in the first place.

Was that a job in law school you had or did you like volunteer at a clinic?

It was an internship at a nonprofit that provided services for people in prison.

They're regular people with families.

And, you know, you think we live in America, but the prison system is it's it's not a good

place to be.

It's very archaic.

It's I mean, we think we've done away with the dungeon, but it's still alive and well.

Nice.

Well, thanks for thanks for the work you do.

Yeah, thanks for coming on the show.

And Omid, thanks for bringing your awesomeness.

Happy to be here.

This is a great.

This is a great story to listen to.

Yeah.

Not guilty.

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.