Party Marty, Not So Smarty! – When Closing Arguments Seal the Deal

So I didn't plan on impeaching Marty going into the prelim because I wanted to save it for trial.

Another tidbit that my client shared with me during my client interview was that Marty is a party animal and his nickname is Party Marty.

Stop it. Hey, are we talking like meth party?

Not meth, but cocaine, alcohol, stimulants, poppers.

I saw the complainant come in. He was all buttoned up, dressed nicely.

That is not the image that I had in mind.

So midway through the preliminary examination, I wanted to see if I could get Party Marty to come out.

So I started impeaching him.

Welcome to Another Not Guilty.

I'm David Moore, here along with my fellow public defenders, presenting to you the untold stories of the criminal justice system.

Objection! That assumes there's justice in the system, which there ain't.

I prefer calling it the American criminal system.

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

And welcome back, everybody, to Another Not Guilty.

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

One Not Guilty brought to you a time to show you that the government doesn't know what the fuck they be talking about all the time.

And us public defenders got to put them in check.

That's what we do on a daily basis.

And guess what?

It happened again today, folks.

We're going to present another story for you to let you know how we do it across these United States, these red states, these blue states, these purple states, these states of unitedness.

For as long as we still have it.

Did that sound like Barack a little bit?

A little Barack-ish, right?

Okay.

That's right.

And that, of course, right there, guys, you heard it, is Lauren.

She's here today with us.

She's on this justice train.

Lauren, how are you doing today?

Hey, guys, I'm doing pretty good.

Doing pretty good under the circumstances.

Yeah.

Trying to stay away from the news.

I think that's two episodes in a row where I think I really nailed that intro.

It was pretty good.

I think I'm getting better at it.

I felt the energy.

Did you like that?

Yeah.

Okay, good.

I know you're talking about the news.

I don't want to gloss over that.

No, no, no.

We don't need to talk about the news.

I'm just saying.

I think we're all doing the best we can given the barrage of news stories.

You know we're kind of addicted to the news.

Today, I was like, you know what?

I need my daily dose of bullshit.

Let me go on the news and get upset real quick.

Better now.

Okay, good.

I like to get my panic attack out of the way first thing in the morning when I scroll through

the news.

That's done.

We can move along now.

That's right.

And we've got, of course, someone is here in the background, but let's bring them to

the front.

Our guest today is Glenn O, all the way from Detroit, Detroit Public Defender Services.

Is that the title, Glenn?

How are you doing today?

Introduce yourself to the A&G first.

Good.

That's correct.

We're called the Neighborhood Defender Service of Detroit.

Our parent organization is NDS Harlem.

Nice.

And your name is?

Glenn O.

Yep.

Glenn O.

How long have you been a public defender for?

I've been a public defender for five and a half years.

We've had someone from Detroit.

We've had someone from the neighborhood before, right?

That's correct.

Blaise Kearney and Hannah Berry.

I feel like we've heard that.

Blaise Kearney from the hood.

Alfred Hitchcock for the people, his murder case.

Defenders in the hood.

You guys ever call yourselves that?

It's such a cute name.

Definitely not.

Especially because Blaise is white.

It sounds so sweet, though.

Yeah.

He's from the neighborhood.

Neighborhood.

Yeah.

It's your neighborhood defender.

It's very unassuming.

And then you come in with the fire.

That's right.

I like it.

That's right.

All right.

Well, Glenn reached out to the podcast.

He's a fan.

He said he wanted to be on the show.

And I said, of course, Glenn.

You're a public defender.

You're a defense attorney.

You fight for our clients.

You fight for the community.

You fight for the people of the United States.

So, of course, you can come on the podcast.

So, Glenn, thanks for reaching out and being on the podcast today.

Happy to be here.

Right on.

All right.

So, Glenn, tell us about this trial you did.

You had a client.

You represented him to the fullest.

He was charged with something at first that the government got it wrong.

What was he charged with?

So, he was charged with two separate cases.

Each case had three counts.

The first was count one, aggravating stocking.

It's a five-year felony.

Count two, domestic violence, third offense.

It's a five-year felony.

Count three, felonious assault with a knife.

It's a four-year felony.

And then there was a second case, which occurred four or five days later.

And in that case, he was charged with home invasion, first degree, which is a 20-year felony, aggravating stalking again, which is a five-year felony, and then domestic violence, third offense, five-year felony.

Okay.

Is this all the same alleged victim?

It's the same complainant on two different dates.

But we also have the same alleged victim with the domestic violence charge and an assault charge.

Is that for the same conduct?

Or were they alleging separate acts?

So, for the first case, it's domestic violence, third, and felonious assault, but they have different elements, so they charge them together whenever there's a dating relation.

Oh, but it was the same conduct.

Yep.

Okay.

And what did your client allegedly do on both occasions?

So, from the police report, I'll start with August 8th.

The allegation or the prosecution version is that the complaining witness was at home.

He had a friend there, and they were smoking some weed.

And my client allegedly comes over to the house demanding some property back out of the blue.

The complaining witness says, I don't have your shit.

Get out of here.

Client allegedly gets mad, charges at him with a knife.

They engage in some kind of fight, and then my client grabbed a bungee cord from his pocket and begins to strangle the complaining witness.

There's a neighbor who witnesses this whole thing and breaks it up, and the friend who's smoking weed on the porch is just kind of just standing there.

Wait.

Okay.

So, can we just go back?

This is all happening on the porch.

So, it's outside in the open where anyone can see.

Not exactly on the porch.

The complaining witness and the friend are smoking weed on the porch, and that's when my client rolls up on his bike, and the fight happens kind of on the sidewalk in front of the house.

I'm already loving.

Your client rolls up on his bicycle and allegedly has a bungee cord that he just keeps in his pocket.

Okay.

And a pocket knife.

So, at this point, you have two other witnesses.

That's correct.

You have the complaining witness's friend, and you have a neighbor.

That's correct.

Got it.

Okay.

And so, and I'm sorry.

So, he rolls up, and he threatens him, and he pulls out a bungee cord.

What do you do with the, did he tie him up, or did I miss that?

He didn't tie him up.

He threatened to tie him up.

That's correct.

No, he actually, the allegation, he stands behind him and then chokes him out with the cord.

Okay, on the, and I think, Lauren, because I heard one of the first charges was burglary, right?

Or is that in the second case?

That's the second one.

That's the second case.

Okay, okay, okay.

The first case, this is the first case, and what were the charges for the first case again?

Aggravated stalking.

Okay.

In violation of a personal protection order.

Yeah.

Domestic violence, third offense notice, and then felonious assault to it, a knife.

Okay.

And what do you do with the knife?

Not the bungee cord.

The bungee cord becomes relevant later because they try to add charges at the preliminary examination.

Okay.

So, the charges for a knife, then, the assault with the...

Holds it against his neck.

Oh, holds, okay.

And all this happens on the porch.

Because of money?

No, the client goes over to the house demanding his property back, like his TV and like his,

yeah.

Because they broke up.

They broke up.

So, this is, this is the, do you want to give this person a name, the complaining witness?

We can call him, I mean, the name becomes relevant, so we can call him Marty.

Okay.

So, Marty and your client, do you want to give your client a name?

Let's call him Mr. P.

I have my client's permission to talk about this case, but I don't want to give the full name.

So, Marty and Mr. P were in a dating relationship, and Marty and Mr. P broke up, and your client,

Mr. P, went over to the house on his bicycle asking for a television bag.

He's going to load that right into the bag of the bicycle.

Yeah, I have that right so far.

That's right.

And, and when he rolls up, Marty is engaging in some herbal refreshment with a friend on

the porch, and the situation escalates to Mr. P allegedly choking Marty with a bungee cord

and standing behind Marty and holding a knife to his neck.

That's right.

So, you said that there was also aggravated stalking because there was a TRO in place?

Yep.

So, they were dating for 10 years.

It was my client who broke up with the complaining witness, and that becomes relevant later.

But in 2022, the complaining witness had taken out a personal protection order against my client

while they were still on and off, on and off, off again.

Did you have a copy of that TRO so you could see what the grounds were?

Yes.

The PPO was included in the initial discovery, and it was four prior acts of violence assaulting

the complaining witness.

Okay.

So, that's a bad fact for you.

Yep.

Okay.

All right.

So, then, that's the first incident.

Now, your client, does he just takes off after, after using the knife and the bungee cords

on him?

Does he, like, take off?

He takes off, rides off on his bike into the sunset, and the cops are called, but they

don't get there until the next day.

The next day?

Yeah.

That's the TRO for you.

You're lucky to just get the cops to respond at all.

There's no neighborhood police force?

Nope.

This didn't happen at, like, 11.58 p.m., and you mean by the next day they got there

at a quarter after midnight.

It did happen late at night when the sun was down, but they didn't get there until, like,

the next morning.

Not at, like, 1 a.m., like, maybe, like, 10 a.m. the next day.

So, the cops get there the next day, they take a report, and then what?

That's it?

They take a report.

Their interview with the complaining witness is caught on body camera.

And I can tell you about what's on the body cam now or later?

I guess now, sure.

Yeah.

So, it's only a 10-minute clip, and the complaining witness comes out, talks to the two officers,

and he says, basically, what I just told you.

But he includes that the whole incident is caught on his ring surveillance camera, and

you should look into that.

Oh, I was going to ask you if there was a ring.

Okay.

Yeah.

He also tells the police, which is caught on body cam footage, the knife that was used

to assault me is in the house.

Okay.

But the police don't ask for it.

They don't collect it and tap it.

Where did the knife come from?

So, if we're following the complaining witness's story, client must have had it with him when

he rode up to the house.

But for some reason-

But then he just left it?

Did he leave the bungee cord?

No.

He took that with him, because no weapons were recovered.

And do the police, in the video, do they respond, be like, oh, yeah, we'll get that video,

or, oh, yeah, let's go get that knife, or is there, like, an even acknowledgement that

evidence was mentioned?

Absolutely not.

Okay.

Okay.

They don't even acknowledge it.

They're protecting and serving at the highest level right there.

So, what, if anything, do the police do next with respect to the first call?

So, on body cam, the police officers are asking him, because they hear about this bungee cord

choking, they ask him, hey, did you lose consciousness?

And the complaining witness doesn't verbally respond, but it kind of just shrugs his shoulders.

And that's the extent of the body cam.

Did they interview the neighbor who broke this up?

Because I have lots of questions for the neighbor already.

You said it happened late at night.

The sun was already down.

On body cam footage, they do not ask for the friend's name.

They do not ask for the neighbor's name.

They do nothing.

And there's no interview statement by them as well, right?

Correct.

Were they, oh, they were there the next day.

So, it's like the friend and neighbor could have been gone the next day.

Okay.

But you would think, if you had any interest in talking to this case, you'd be like, hey,

can I get that person's name?

Seems pretty basic.

All right.

Anything else that the police may have done on this first case in that moment?

No.

Okay.

Wait, I have a question.

The stalking charge, is that just because of the violation of the order, or was there

more to it than that?

The more comes out at the preliminary examination.

Right.

But at this point, before the prelim, I don't know if the law is different in Michigan than

it is here in California, what the penal code is.

But you wouldn't get a stalking charge for one.

If there was a protective order in place here, there's a charge for that, violating a court

order.

But it wouldn't be stalking.

But you're saying your client was charged with aggravated stalking.

So, was there more in the report at this point, before getting to the prelim, that would explain

the stalking charge?

Or can I ask, like, what is stalking in Detroit?

You know?

Yeah.

What is that?

So, one second.

I have the elements.

I mean, it sounds very threatening.

And it seems like it would be a repetitive type of behavior.

So, it has to be more than one will-forced separate non-continuates acts of unconsented

contact that caused the person to suffer emotional distress, that would cause a reasonable person

to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, or harassed.

And the complainant witness actually felt terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or harassed.

And it has to be in violation of a court order, a personal protection order, or the individual

made one or more credible threats against complaining witness or their family members.

Only, but it could be one threat.

Then that was an or.

So, they can get to the stalking because of your client.

Your client said something, right?

Like, give me the stuff, and they had the knife to the throat.

So, that could be the one threat.

Yep.

So, that's how they got to stalking?

Yep.

Oh, that's bullshit.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'd agree.

Wait, it only takes one act?

Or it has to be one prior act, and then one act?

For aggravated stalking?

If there was no protective order, then this wouldn't be a stalking, right?

That's great.

It wouldn't be aggravated stalking.

Okay, just be regular stalking?

Yes.

So, one act can be stalking.

Two acts becomes aggravated.

So, it seems like you could have stalking on any alleged crime, right?

Wait, but he just said that it was or one threat of violence.

So, even though it was one act, it's still aggravated stalking.

If there is a personal protection order in place, or a court order or stay away order.

Right.

Okay.

So, the combination in this case of the fact that there was an order, you said it was put

in a place by Marty McFly before they broke up, and then your client allegedly made a threat

on that day, even though it was just that one instance.

That's how they got aggravated stalking.

Yes.

And also, remember that in the personal protection order, there were allegations that client had

assaulted him in the past.

So, there were more than one, even before we even talk about the August 8th incident.

Yeah, but could they use those?

If Marty used the prior acts to get the protective order, wouldn't, for legally for it to be stalking,

for them to say there was more than one incident, wouldn't it have to be incidents after the order was in place?

That's how you get to aggravate it.

So, before, it was just stalking.

The personal protection order getting put in place, that's what makes it aggravated stalking, if that makes sense.

Yeah.

Yes.

Got it.

All right, so then let's move on to the second incident, August 8th.

First incident, August 5th.

So, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, three nights, four nights later, what happens?

Yeah.

Please say he rolled back up on his bicycle.

We don't know how he got there.

Debo style.

That's what I'm imagining, yeah.

But client is also very frail and small and thin, so maybe not exactly Debo.

Debo, oh, okay.

Debo light.

Debo light.

So, complaining witness is at his house again, he's by himself this time, and again, client

rolls up unannounced, pushes in an air conditioner unit, climbs in through the window, damages

the frame, and then while complaining witness is sleeping, starts wailing on him.

And then client walks out the front door, complaining witness calls the police the next day, and this

time, they don't even dispatch officers.

So, there's a phone call.

I just have so many questions.

So, there's a phone call to the police.

Yeah.

Like, how long later, though?

You said the next day.

Let me look at the CAD notes.

So, he calls the police at 9 a.m., around 9 a.m.

So, he waits a whole night before calling the police, according to the CAD notes.

Can we just lay some groundwork here?

You said your client was tiny.

How old are we talking?

He is mid to late 40s.

Okay.

So, this isn't, not an old man, but this isn't a young person, and they're small.

And what are we talking about with Marty?

Is Marty around the same age and billed?

Marty is in his early 30s.

He...

Oh, a younger man.

Mm-hmm.

Okay, Mr. P.

He...

You've perked our interests a little bit there.

You've got to be interested.

So, Marty is younger.

Is he built larger, or is he also of small stature?

Not that bigger.

I'd say they're similar height.

Roughly the same size.

Yeah.

Okay.

And Marty lives alone?

He does.

He inherited the house from his grandfather, who passed away.

So, this is a house in...

Detroit.

No shared walls?

Nope.

Single family.

It's not a duplex of any kind.

It's just him in that house.

Okay.

And so, in case number two, Mr. P. arrives.

Where is this air conditioning unit that he puts in?

It's in his bedroom.

So, it's like a...

I don't know if you guys have this in California.

It's like a window unit.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But it's not...

This isn't like in a front window where the ring camera might be in play again.

Okay.

So, he goes around back to the bedroom and pushes this in.

And does Marty say he wakes up to him there?

He says that he is woken by the punching of the face.

That's when he wakes up.

So, the air conditioning unit being pushed out of the wall onto the ground, presumably making noise, doesn't wake him up.

It's a very sound sleeper.

I mean, at its face, the story makes absolutely no sense.

But yes, that's the story.

And it's dark, I presume, in his room.

Yes.

So, how did he...

Because it's night and he's sleeping.

He said he for sure saw that it was Mr. P.

He knew who it was, his attacker.

Yes.

Because after he gets hit in the face, he wakes up and then they engage in some sort of struggle.

And they've dated for 10 years.

So, identity is not really an issue in this case.

And says, yeah, that's Mr. P. who was false to me.

Did he say that your client said anything?

At the exam and in his written statement, there is no mention of why the fight occurred.

I get filled in through client when I talk to my client.

From what you know, when you're getting this case, there's literally no information except that he just, he rolls in through the window and beats him up and then just casually leaves.

He's like, all right, I'm done.

Yep.

Were they still sleeping together?

I can get into that.

Now or later?

Later.

Get into that later.

Okay.

So, then client runs out.

What's the name for client we're going with?

Mr. P.

So, Mr. P then leaves.

Does he go back through the wall again?

Back to the front door.

Oh, he goes through the front door.

I like the little.

Does he go through the, yeah, does he Superman out the wall?

He busts through like the Kool-Aid man, yeah.

But then Marty doesn't call the police until the morning.

And you said the police don't even respond.

They just go and arrest Mr. P right away?

Or how does that happen?

So, after the call is made to 911, police are not dispatched to the house.

And Mr. P isn't arrested until four months after these allegations allegedly occurred.

What, what does the, this, you heard a 911 call, right?

I don't have the 911 call is because the incident occurred in August.

Yeah.

And he wasn't arrested and arraigned on this until January of 2024.

And what, they delete him?

According to them, and we have this fight with DPD and prosecutors all the time, there is a 90-day retention period.

There is no fucking way.

Yeah.

There is no way.

No.

No bullshit.

No way.

There's literally statutes on point on this issue where they have to preserve that because it's evidence whenever there's an ongoing criminal investigation.

But there's no remedy for us.

They dig that, they dig up the oldest fucking 911 call.

There's no fucking way.

When it's helpful to them, they dig it up.

But when it's hurtful to them, they don't.

What is this?

Is this like 7-Eleven after 90 days of retention?

Is it the same company that's doing security?

What the fuck?

I smell a trombetta motion.

All right.

So, I mean, because I would love to hear that 911 call.

Don't worry.

Units aren't on the way.

The units will not be showing up.

That is not the officers at your door.

You know, we hear that all the time on the 911 calls.

Officers are approaching right now.

That's them knocking on the door.

You know, like, they're like, no, we're just going to go get them, Mr. P.

We have his, you don't need to tell us his address.

And then they don't even get them until four months later, so.

Okay, listen, I never want to be the one to defend the cops.

But to be fair, by the time Marty called, there was actually no ongoing emergency, right?

Marty waited hours long after Mr. P had supermanned out the door before he called the police, right?

Hilariously, I looked up the police report again.

He doesn't call 911.

He calls the telephone crime reporting unit, which is a non-emergency line.

Oh, the non-emergency line.

Yeah.

I mean, it doesn't seem to me like Marty's really that concerned about anything.

Was there, I mean, I mean, because now did Marty have injuries on his face?

Were photographs taken?

Did they corroborate?

Did they do any police work, Glenn?

So, on August 31st, he goes down to the police station and gives a written statement and gives his account of both incidents.

So, we were three weeks later.

Yes.

And when he talks about the August 13th Superman jumping through the window incident, he says that I was punched in the face, kicked, and I had bruising underneath my left eye.

But there are no photographs.

There are no medical records.

He didn't take any selfies.

Not for this case.

There are selfies for a 2019 domestic violence conviction that my client was convicted of against Marty, which becomes relevant at trial and forms of 404B evidence, but no photographic evidence for this case.

Is your client a documented citizen?

Yes, they're both citizens.

I'm just trying to think if there might be any reason for the complaining witness to be making up stories to harm your client.

There's a very good reason.

Oh, okay.

At this time, I'd like to give a huge shout out and thanks to Kendra Klein, our newest member to the A&G Patreon program.

Kendra, thank you for your recent donation.

It helps with keeping the lights running over here at the A&G Studios.

If you, too, would like to donate to the podcast, then please visit our website at anothernotguiltypod.com and click on the Patreon link.

Also, if you'd like to be a guest on the podcast, then visit the website again and click on the submission link.

Thank you.

All right.

So then what does that police report look like, though, with the August 8th incident, the Superman incident?

Like, this is just like, we got a call and then we arrested someone months later.

Like, how does that read?

It's 13 pages, six pages of which are the information and charges.

The police report paragraph is three sentences saying, Marty called, made these allegations, cops not dispatched.

Cops not dispatched.

Yeah.

Okay.

So then there's, after this phone call, nothing's, is anything done on the case until Marty's arrested four months later?

Or do we just jump in straight to the arrest of Marty?

Nothing else is done.

No investigation.

No one does shit.

Okay.

All right.

So then four months later, how does Marty get arrested?

They have an arrest warrant for him and they go to his last known address.

It's a SWAT style arrest for this stupid allegation.

There are six officers.

Three officers are hanging back.

And this is all on body cam.

Are hanging back with assault rifles pointed at the house.

And there's an entry team with two officers wearing SWAT light vests, knock on the door and the sweetest old lady comes out, which is my client's aunt and says, oh, what are you guys here for?

And they ask for Mr. P and Mr. P slowly walks outside and just surrenders.

Yeah.

Cause there's fucking guns.

I would too.

Yeah.

So four months later, they're like, they want to make sure that the evidence was destroyed, that the 90 days had lapsed.

And then they went and arrested him.

Okay.

All right.

And does Mr. P give a statement to the police?

He does not.

They don't actually even bother interrogating him.

They don't ask him any questions.

Oh, my God.

Oh, my God.

Cause, cause the neighborhood defenders do such a good job of educating the public on asserting their rights to, to self-incarnation.

They already know that people aren't going to be talking.

Yeah.

Cause of the neighborhood defenders are on it.

So that's right.

I like that.

Um, all right.

So then what happens next is Marty has a case filed and he's arraigned in court.

Can you tell us about that?

So there's a different division of Wayne County who handles the arraignments.

Um, so I don't actually come into the case until after he's arraigned, but before the preliminary examination.

All right.

Tell us about that.

The, the, when you meet Mr. P, what was that like?

So I don't actually come into the case until after he's arraigned, but before the preliminary examination.

Um, Mr. P is kind of quiet, reserved, and doesn't really have a lot to say until we start talking about the relationship dynamic.

Then I don't know if you've had this experience with DV clients where they sort of just unknow the full history of the relationship.

But in this case, it was actually really helpful because it helped me understand their dynamic.

So at the initial client interview, he goes into their dating background.

He says they've been dating for 10 and a half years.

It was Mr. P who had broken up with Marty around 2020 during COVID.

Um, and at that point, Mr. P had moved to Akron, Ohio.

He was dating a new younger boyfriend in his 20s, but he didn't officially break into it.

He likes the younger guys.

But he was not honest with both partners because he was dating both of them at the same time when he really should have just broken up with one of them.

Mr. P is a player.

Mr. Player.

Mr. Player is what they call him.

Okay.

Um, and they ran in the same circles because the gay community in Detroit is not that large.

So I don't imagine it's very large in Akron, Ohio either.

So, uh, Marty finds out, uh, that Mr. P is dating this new boyfriend and that's the source of conflict.

And that's the motivation, at least to us.

A lover scorned.

Yes.

That's crazy.

So he knew, so Mr., so Marty found out, but Marty was living in Detroit, found out that Mr. P, who's now living in Akron, Ohio, is dating a younger person, but still is with, with Marty at the same time.

Yeah.

Because, uh, Mr. P eventually moves back.

Mr. P moves back.

Okay.

And Marty had actually gone to visit Mr. P in Ohio.

So they were still seeing each other.

Damn, he had them in not just different area codes, but different states and still couldn't keep it straight.

He still got busted.

Okay.

All right.

So, but that happened like two years ago, ago, or three years ago, right?

Yeah.

So the breakup happened in 2020, but in the interim period, they were dating each other and this allegation.

They were still hooking up.

Yes.

Up until the present or up until the case was.

Up until.

August 8th.

Mrs. Marty made these allegations, yeah.

So then.

So wait, did your client say that Marty wanted to be officially back together with him?

Yeah.

So.

It is.

So yeah.

So they're still hooking up, but Mr. P was out playing and was not committing, recommitting

to Marty after the breakup.

Mr. P was just keeping Marty as his booty call and his, his bench player.

And Marty wanted to be called up to the big leagues.

That's exactly right.

And Mr. P said no.

And now.

Which was essentially our defense theory at trial.

Yeah.

There it is.

So that's what Marty said.

He became the side chick when he was the main chick.

Yeah.

Right.

Okay.

Dude.

How many cases, not guilties do we get because of a side piece allegation?

It's like, cause these boys, y'all just can't keep it in one place.

We got to do, we got to start appointing counsel, right?

When people start dating, you know, they need to know the legal revocations of that first

date.

Okay.

You have a right to an attorney.

So Marty is a lover scorned.

Marty is salty, wants Mr. P all to himself and can't have it.

So we're approaching this as Marty is making all of this up because Marty is salty.

Yeah.

Yes.

And that's basically the conversation that we had about the August 8th incident.

The first set of charges where client says that he was at the house with Marty and he

was getting ready to leave to go to work and Marty got upset because he was triggered.

After hooking up.

Right.

Yep.

They were drinking, smoking all day and hooking up.

And when he's getting ready to leave, the complaining witness says, you're not going

to work.

You're going to go fuck that other guy.

Which is probably accurate.

Let's just be real.

Let's be fair to Marty.

So did, did Mr. P confirm that there was a third person there?

No.

According to Mr. P, it was just the two of them all day.

Okay.

So, all right.

So Lauren just did a great job of laying out the theory, the defense for Mr. P and Glenn.

What do you do to get ready for his trial to present that defense?

I like to do a lot of pre-exam investigation because it just expands the facts that we're

working with.

We tried to talk to Marty.

He was not having it.

We tried to track down the neighbors, but in this neighborhood, people are very distrustful

of police or investigators or really anybody trying to get into their business.

So they didn't talk to us.

What about the Ring camera?

We tried to subpoena the Ring camera footage.

Ring said, fuck you.

We canvassed the neighborhood to see if there were any other Ring cameras who had an active

membership where they would have stored their cameras and their footage.

None of that existed.

So all our investigation pretty much recovered nothing.

Did you go to the prosecutor with a discovery request to have them get their IO to provide

the witness information?

Yes.

And that was met with negative results?

Yes.

Yeah.

Unsurprisingly.

Because, I mean, it sounds like this witness never existed.

Also, if they did, it doesn't sound like the police were super concerned with finding

them.

No.

I mean, they didn't even recover the weapon that was allegedly used.

So they're not tracking down this witness.

So I must have missed that.

There's no identifying information for the neighbor or the pot-smoking friend.

No.

There's no identifying, like, lives in that unit across the way, lives in this home over

there.

Okay.

All right.

So then, anything else you do to get ready for the defense at this time?

No.

You know how defense works?

All right.

We go into the preliminary examination.

Okay.

And what are your goals at the prelim?

Wait, wait.

I just want to back up.

You said that there were no pictures after he had been hit in the face, but there were

no photographs after the first incident, too, right, where he might have had marks on his

neck from the bungee cord or the knife.

That's correct.

And there was, I mean, luckily, there was body cam footage of the police talking to Marty

the day after it happened.

And Marty's on body cam saying, he choked me.

Look at my neck.

And the officers lean in, and you can get a glimpse of his neck, and there are no injuries.

Okay.

So you're going into prelim right now with nothing, really.

I mean, there's just, the case is going to be your client's word against the complaining

witness, because there's no corroborating evidence of any kind.

That's right.

Wow.

You know, it's almost like the police don't believe Marty, too, right?

If they're just, like, haphazardly, they're not doing shit, really.

I mean, maybe they're just trying to let it go.

Is it incompetence, or did they have a gut feeling that Marty wasn't telling the truth?

Hard to tell.

And since when does an alleged victim not tell, you know, not telling the truth to go to stop

the cops from arresting somebody?

So, okay.

So then let's, what are the goals at the preliminary hearing?

So I wanted to lock in his testimony, because at this point, I at least know the statements

on body cam footage are going to differ from his statements, the written statements that

he provided August 31st.

So I just wanted to see if he'd make a third inconsistent statement.

I didn't go into the preliminary examination.

Wait, I'm sorry.

You said he hand wrote a statement?

August 31st.

That's when he went down to the precinct and provided a written statement for both cases.

Oh.

And was that, and that was different from the body cam?

That's right.

In what way?

The consciousness bit.

When he says, when the officer asks him, did you lose consciousness on body cam?

He sort of shrugs his shoulders and doesn't give a definitive answer.

Right.

But in his written statement, he says, he choked me.

I almost passed out.

I was faint.

Hey, did your client say that between when the second incident was alleged to have occurred

and when Marty went to the police station that anything happened?

Like, did they have a fight or a confrontation about their dating relationship or anything?

No.

Okay.

I was just wondering if there was an event that was a catalyst for him going down to

the station to write this statement.

If I had to guess, I'd imagine the detective was like, fuck, I haven't done any work on

this case.

I should at least get a written statement from this guy.

Okay.

And so at the prelim, though, yeah, you just want to, like, lock in the complaining witness

or alleged victim, see if they'll make a third statement, say something that's inconsistent

with the other two statements.

So that's all you're going to do is just questioning them.

And Marty, I'm sorry, Mr. P is in custody, right?

He is not.

In Wayne County, you'd be surprised at the number of clients who are out of custody.

Free to play in the field.

All right.

That's great.

That's great.

You know, people get really upset about that whole no bell, you know, like the whole bell

issue and people, they're just letting all the criminals out of jail, you know?

Okay, great.

Great.

And do you find, I mean, do you want to make a, get in your soapbox and argue for no,

you know, like people being out of custody pre-trial?

You want to, like, say it's great or?

Yeah.

I am actually super interested to see if there are any long-term studies about recidivism

or violating bonds when in counties that have really liberal bond situations.

At least for us, we're keeping the data and we have the benefit of having a computer scientist

turned lawyer who tracks all that information for us.

So in about 10 years, hopefully we can use that to advocate.

Okay.

Good, good, good.

Just got to wait those 10 years.

Yeah.

Just come back to court, guys.

Don't miss your court date, please.

Okay.

All right.

So tell us about the preliminary hearing.

How's that go?

So I didn't plan on impeaching Marty going into the prelim because I wanted to save it for

trial.

I know that's a strategy call sometimes we make, but another tidbit that my client shared

with me during my client interview was that Marty is a party animal and his nickname is

Party Marty.

Stop it.

Hey, are we talking like meth party?

Not meth, but cocaine, alcohol, stimulants, poppers, you know.

But when he, yeah, it's all that has to have some recreational lore.

Okay.

So when I saw the complainant was come in, he was all buttoned up, dressed nicely.

He was presenting very well.

That is not the image that I had in mind.

So midway through the preliminary examination, I wanted to see if I could get party Marty to

come out.

So I started impeaching him, but he kept his cool.

Did your client tell you that he could lose his cool or was there something he said that

there's a client trying to tell you stuff that would make him lose his cool, things like

that.

Some button to push.

Yeah.

So we glossed over this fact on the August 8th incident, my client told me that there

were, he was there all day.

So at one point during the day, he went into the backyard to have a cigarette and he saw

two used condoms with semen in them in the backyard.

And so when Marty confronted Mr. P about leaving to go fuck his new boyfriend, he threw that back

in Marty's face and said, you're fucking guys too.

What are these used condoms?

Seriously, Marty, you can't be mad.

Yeah.

But I didn't want to bring that up at the preliminary examination because that gives my client all

the motive in the world to, you know, assault Marty for being angry that he's sleeping around

this wall.

So I just left that.

It's also a misdemeanor battery.

You threw a, definitely an, I mean, why, why would Mr. P?

Gassing if there was bodily fluids, that's a gassing.

That's definitely an offensive touching.

But that means Mr. P picked up dirty condoms on the ground and threw them.

Well, I mean, they've also been dating for like 10 years.

And so, but you, you were not able to let him lose.

Yeah, but whose dirty condoms were they?

Ew.

You weren't able to get, Marty Party did not lose his cool, right?

He did not.

Glenn, I really respect the fact that you came on this show, said your goal of the prelim

was to do, was to have him lose his cool, and I was not able to.

Usually the lawyers on this show follow it up with, and I got him lose his cool or something

like that.

But I, I appreciate that.

Much, much, much prox, you know.

It's also a lot how it goes.

We try stuff, right?

Like, we just got to try stuff.

It didn't really work, but.

That's just, that's the real story.

That's the effort, yeah.

The real, real story of the public f***er experience.

You guys, the beyond the wince.

All right.

And then what about the, was the judge okay, the prosecutor in the prelim?

Like, you tell us about them.

How, what's the judge like?

The prosecutor's fine.

Okay.

The judge we're in front of is, I'm not going to say his name, but if you just look up the

article I'm talking about, you can easily find him.

He has a YouTube chat that goes on during all his hearings, and he calls it blank corner.

He selects people in the YouTube chat to become moderators, and it's kind of like a cult following.

And he got in trouble recently and was suspended because, I'm sorry, Lauren, you're making a face.

I'm just, I'm trying to, I'm trying, you're, you're telling me that he, like, live streams his courtroom while he's on the bench?

That's right, yeah.

And then he engages in a chat with the people who are tuning in.

That's right.

While he's presiding over matters.

Yep.

And they could chat, they could chat back at him?

Yes.

This is interactive.

Just okay in Michigan?

I don't know.

This is why he also got in trouble.

During, he had invited some grade school kids, elementary students, to observe court.

One of the kids had fallen asleep, and instead of being compassionate and sympathetic with this sleepy child, he holds this kid in contempt, threatens to put him in Wayne County greens.

A fourth grader?

And then, an elementary student.

I don't know exactly how old she is, but she is in elementary school.

And tells her classmates, please raise your hand if you would like to see your classmate thrown in jail for disrespecting the court.

What the fuck?

Yeah.

Wait, you knew all this before the prelim?

This happened a couple months after the prelim.

But this particular judge has been problematic.

So he's a former Wayne County prosecutor, so he's very prosecutor friendly.

So then, was the prelim then was televised on YouTube then, presumably?

Yeah, this prelim, all his prelims are televised on YouTube, and they're still up, I think.

This is crazy.

It is crazy.

And so then, your prelim, this particular prelim we're talking about, was on YouTube then?

I believe so, yeah.

Okay.

Other than, I mean, did anything happen during your preliminary hearing with respect to this judge or how things went down, or was it just a normal prelim?

It was a normal prelim, but the prosecutor tried to add assault with intent to do great bodily harm by suffocation or strangulation for the bungee cord.

But because of the several impeachments that happened throughout the preliminary examination, the judge said, I don't find those allegations credible, so I'm just binding or holding them to answer in California terms as charged.

So, did Marty testify inconsistently again, or was his testimony consistent with his written statement?

His testimony at preliminary examination got worse.

The facts and the story grew.

Always does.

Yeah.

Every time they tell it, there's suddenly more dramatic and dangerous.

I think one thing that I remember specifically is that, regarding the weapon that was used, in his written statement, it was a pocket knife.

But at the preliminary examination on direct from the prosecutor's questioning, he says it was a sword knife that was, and he holds up his fingers, 12 inches, like the ones they use in action movies.

Not even a kitchen knife, a sword knife.

Action movies.

That was his testimony.

Where did that come from?

This motherfucker rode up on his bicycle.

He had like a sheath, he pulled it out of.

A machete?

Where did that come from?

And he also testified that he definitely lost consciousness.

That was the big thing, too.

Definitely.

And then how was your client during the preliminary hearing?

Cold.

I always advise my clients when they go into the prelim, because the judges are so difficult, they just keep a poker face and don't react.

All right.

Okay, so then, you said you'd impeached him several times.

So what did you impeach Marty with?

When he testified on direct that he definitely lost consciousness, I used the written statement in the body cam to impeach him that you didn't tell that to the officers.

It's not included in your written statement.

And then I impeached him with his written statement about the sword knife versus pocket knife.

I mean.

That's cool.

I mean, that's good that the judge didn't add charges.

Yeah.

Well, so it seems like no one really finds Marty too credible so far.

The cops didn't.

The judge doesn't.

But he's held the answer to the charges.

So now we're going to head over to the trial phase.

Anything you.

Go ahead, Lauren.

Were your charges wobblers?

Could you.

Did you make a motion to reduce them to misdemeanors?

No.

Is that available to you?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

So now we're held over to answer for trial now.

Anything you're doing to get ready for trial?

I filed a motion to quash, I think, in California.

It's called a 995.

Okay.

Is that right?

Yeah.

So you're saying that they didn't prove, present enough evidence to substantiate the charges

that the prelim, your client should not have been held to answer the trial.

Yeah.

And they laughed at you as they laughed at us.

That's right.

I mean.

It's the same here.

Did you think you were going to win?

They said, give it to the jury.

Yeah.

No, absolutely not.

I mean, I filed the just, guys.

But sometimes you win these Hail Mary of Emotions.

Why say, why close the door on yourself?

You miss every shot you don't take.

Exactly.

Hey, A&Gers, can you do me a favor and follow, like, subscribe, and leave a rating and review

and a review wherever you get this podcast?

It would really help the podcast out.

And if you want, you can watch this episode and other A&G episodes on our YouTube channel.

So check it out and watch us have a blast making fun of the government.

Okay.

Back to the show.

Okay.

So did you do any other work?

Anything else?

Investigation?

Last-ditch effort to talk to the government?

Talk to witnesses?

Or actually, you got a sense of Marty at the prelim.

Did you think, like, oh, I can get this guy at trial?

He's not credible?

Like, what were you?

I mean, my client and I felt pretty good going into trial because we had three different versions of his story now.

And we had a strong motive for Marty and we had a strong motive for Marty to lie.

So I have a question that David might want us to wait until we get to 402s.

But were you prepared for the prior acts then to defend against the prior acts as well?

Yeah.

So before trial, we had a final conference in a motion hearing and the prosecutor filed a 404b notice to introduce the 2019 misdemeanor domestic violence conviction that my client was convicted of against Marty.

You didn't tell us there was a conviction.

Yeah.

Sorry, I might have glossed over that.

But it was a conviction.

He pled guilty to a misdemeanor.

This is also the PD way.

We bury those bad facts.

We don't lead with that.

So there weren't just prior unreported acts that were referenced when Marty got a protective order.

There was an actual conviction for misdemeanor domestic battery.

There was.

That your client had, Mr. P. had.

Was it also with Marty?

Yep.

Oh, dear.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

And so there was a hearing to introduce that as evidence to what was the hearing you had with the judge before the trial?

With respect to the prior act, the prior conviction.

So in Wayne County, we do all the motions in Lemonade the day of trial, which is super annoying because sometimes it actually affects your theory of defense.

But we held the motions in Lemonade.

I filed the motion in opposition to the 404b evidence.

My request was denied.

The 404b evidence being the prior domestic violence misdemeanor conviction.

Yeah.

I also filed the motion in Lemonade to exclude the photographic evidence that came with the 2019 conviction.

Because in that case, there were selfies that Marty had taken and the injuries were pretty bad.

There was severe bleeding, bruising and cuts underneath both eyes.

It was the pictures made the misdemeanor seem much, much worse.

Did you win that?

So his ruling was kind of weird.

He ruled.

My argument to exclude the photos was that there's already a conviction.

You don't need the photos because typically at a pre-trial or pre-conviction posture, prosecutors use photos to corroborate the allegations.

Right.

But because there was a conviction, we don't need those photos.

The judge ruled that I'm not going to allow a certified copy of the conviction to come in.

I'm just going to allow Marty to testify about the 2019 allegations and let the prosecutors use the photo.

Really?

Yeah.

So then that seems kind of silly because, well, now that means you can contest that factual scenario, really, because there's no conviction to back it up.

But can we just explain the law when it comes to prior acts of domestic violence and domestic violence cases, right?

As Detroit or Michigan, I'm sure, is probably similar.

It's pretty uniform, it seems like, across the United States that you can bring in a prior bad act of domestic violence to prove a current act of domestic violence, right?

Which is an exception.

You guys call it 1109, right?

Yeah.

Normally, you can't do that.

Normally, you can't bring in prior bad acts to prove the current bad act.

But if it's domestic violence, you can.

So now you're having a hearing to see whether or not it's okay to do that.

In this case, the judge said, yes, you can bring in evidence of the act, which would be through Marty, but you can't bring in the criminal conviction itself.

Yeah.

Okay.

I think the requirements are pretty similar.

It's subject to 403.

It can't be too prejudicial.

It has to happen within 10 years.

There's an analysis as to whether or not the conduct is kind of similar or not similar.

Okay.

All right.

Any other motions in limine?

You said you wanted to exclude the picture from the 2019 conviction.

Okay.

Any other motions in limine?

Nope.

Wait.

Okay.

Are we in front of the same judge who did the prelim?

No.

So that was a district court judge.

And after we get bound over how to answer, we go to circuit court.

And we get blind drawn or assigned to a trial courtroom.

The first judge that we get assigned to is a judge that I've tried cases in front of.

She's a former prosecutor, but really good on the law and will actually grant motions.

On the morning of trial, she's doing a homicide.

So we get spun out to a different judge, which is not as good of a judge.

I hate when that happens.

Just to give you a taste of what kind of person this judge is, he's an Irish Catholic guy.

He's an old curmudgeon.

He's kind of retired who just is a visiting judge to fill vacancies.

That's the judge you're in front of now.

Yes.

Okay.

402 seemed kind of normal.

So far, so good.

Right?

Yep.

So I guess we're going to talk about the trial now we're going to do with Vaudeer.

Is there anything that we missed before we talk about the jury trial that we forgot?

Maybe it was just a question we asked the right question.

Was there anything you want to share up until now?

No, I think we covered everything.

Okay.

All right.

And is Mr. P excited for trial?

There was no pre-trial negotiations?

No.

The only offer that they came at us with was 6 to 20.

Yes, years in prison.

Is it 20 years for this?

Because the statutory maximum of the top charge was home invasion first degree.

Okay.

And Mr. P said that the only offer that he would accept was a non-custodial offer, which probation versus 6 years.

Yeah.

We were far apart.

Yeah.

All right.

So let's talk about jury selection then.

Tell us about what was your voir dire like?

Did you have a certain strategy that you go with or anything particular in this particular case?

Like where you're focused on?

So I do the Colorado method of deselection.

So I try to identify the bad jurors.

And I try to pre-try my case as much as possible during jury selection.

So there were four main topics that I wanted to hit.

Number one, I wanted male jurors who had like an unsophisticated or problematic view on gay relationships.

Next.

The reason I wanted that is because one of my coworkers pointed out that it would be good to have straight males who don't believe domestic violence can occur between two males and divy between gay couples just working each other.

I'm not judging.

It's just a fact.

You want bigots.

Next.

Yeah.

You want some Joe Rogan listeners.

That's right.

Yeah.

People who I wouldn't want to hang out with.

Yeah.

The real alpha male types who are making their little TikToks about, you know, how to be more alpha male.

Yeah.

We've audited on domestic violence.

We got rid of a lot of jurors because it's surprising how much domestic violence people experience just in day-to-day life.

We got rid of a couple people who were victims of aggravated stalking for four-cause challenges.

You could say thank and excuse.

You don't have to say got rid of, you know.

Yeah.

We totally tossed to the curb.

We sniped him.

We battered those battered deevee victims out of the courtroom.

No.

David, Glenn-O's trials are a little bit like squid games.

Like, if you're not making the jury, he pushes the button and you're done.

He got rid of you.

Yeah.

Did you voir dire on relationships other than the gay stuff, like for cheating?

Did you try and weed out the other scorned lovers?

I love that you asked that because that was a whole area of voir dire.

And I got a really great answer, which is not what I was expecting.

I asked if anybody here has been through a messy breakup where they were a victim of retaliation.

Spill the tea.

Juror number one is a big, burly, white dude.

And he says, yeah, my long-term girlfriend broke up with me and she's just dragged my name.

After the breakup, I got hit up by my close friend calling me a terrible person.

How could I do this to her?

So that juror was right on brand and was right on board with me.

He said, would you like to be our four-person?

And they didn't kick him for some reason.

He made it onto the jury.

Nice.

Well, um, any other, is there any other actions or particular, uh, yeah.

Oh, hang on.

Go ahead.

That's a good question.

So we know what your strategy is, right?

That they're still hooking up.

We know what your defense is going to be.

But you said that Marty didn't give you any statements.

So did you have any indication that Marty had told the police or the prosecutor that they were still having an on-again relationship?

And anything that might have given the prosecutor a heads up to what your defense was going to be.

So I asked all those questions at preliminary examination, but he denied all of them.

I said, you were still dating.

You knew about Darian.

You had text client.

You were trying to get back together with him.

You were hooking up.

And he said, no, no, no, no, no.

So our theory, I think, I mean, if you read the transcript, was that pretty out there.

Okay, so the prosecutor should have known and should have gotten rid of that juror, but didn't catch it or wasn't quick enough.

That's right, yeah.

Any other interesting interactions with jurors while you did voir dire?

There was one funny moment when the prosecutor, in our jurisdiction, prosecutor's voir dire is heavily food-centric for some reason.

Oh, the chocolate chip cookie with the crumbs and circumstantial evidence hypo they like to do?

Yeah, if there was a muffin on your kitchen counter and there's a bite out of the muffin and your kid has crumbs all over his mouth, who's the most like?

It's like in the prosecutor playbook.

And then they expanded to beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I told you an alien could have come and zapped the muffin, would you think that's reasonable?

Yeah.

No, but the dog could have snatched it off the counter, I'm just saying.

An alien, probably not.

Go ahead.

On the food topic one, they also use a peanut butter sandwich analogy to talk about elements of a crime.

And so she opens a question up to the jurors, says, ma'am, what do you like to cook?

And the juror says, Persian food.

And she says, okay, let's talk about peanut butter sandwiches.

And all the jurors are like, what?

Smooth.

Nice transition.

But that's basically how well her body went.

She got nothing out of that.

Did, and just to get to know the prosecutor, have you worked with this prosecutor before?

She was fairly new.

Okay.

I think she had just started about a year ago.

Did the prosecutor have a certain like attitude towards the case or confidence that that was sort of, that you noticed?

She is a true believer, domestic violence prosecutor, where she believes her victims and our clients are evil, which explained the six to 20 offer.

Okay.

And did that come across?

But just during the voir dire though, she just did all the food stuff for them to like her, right?

Yep.

And it didn't work.

Does the prosecutor go first in voir dire or do you go first in voir dire?

They go first.

Oh, gosh.

I wish they did that here.

We have to go first in ours.

And then as defense attorneys, we always have like the most difficult part to explain like the burden of proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the right against self-incrimination and all these things.

It's before we can even get to the theory of our case and all these stuff.

And then the prosecutor just gets to follow us to be like, hey, look at the mouse and the cookies and all the things and na, na, na, na, na, na, na.

And they always get to have a more lighthearted experience with the jurors.

It's a shame they're just not very personable.

But it's so robotic.

I've never seen a prosecutor voir dire land very well.

I've seen there twice in my career, twice I've seen a good prosecutor voir dire or maybe just one that didn't suck.

But it can happen.

It's a low bar.

Yeah.

Okay.

So let's move on then to the opening statements.

How did that go?

So my theory of defense was that Marty was angry and vengeful after a messy breakup and he's making these false allegations to get revenge on Mr. P.

And I have a pretty strict formula.

Not formula, but I lay out my openings pretty much the same in every case.

It's theme theory, defense story, look for these things, and you're going to have more questions than answers.

Not guilty.

The more questions than answers is a classic.

And the prosecutor's opening statement?

Pretty expositional.

For my opening, I did, if I can find an illiterate triplet that matches my theme, I try to use it.

So in this case, it was revenge, rejection, retaliation, to frame my theory.

They were in a dating relationship.

He got screwed over because he was dating this younger guy and cheated on, and he's making these allegations as revenge.

That was like my framing device.

Dude, it's almost as if you had Eminem right at your foot, you know, like that was beautiful.

Exactly.

I wrote it on 8 Mile for Inspiration.

Okay, good.

So both incidents, August 5th, August 8th, are all into one criminal information.

So both incidents are being tried.

And so let's talk about the prosecutor's case.

They have the burden of proof, and how do they go about it?

They put on the responding cop first.

Oh, to the first incident.

The August 8th incident.

Okay.

And I get what she was trying to do.

She was trying to steal my thunder by asking all the questions that I would have asked about lack of investigation.

And she goes through that.

And at the end, the police officer says this for the first time.

He says, actually, I did canvass the neighborhood for witnesses, but it's just not caught on body cam.

Or documented in a report or any way otherwise notated.

I mean, the prosecutor probably talked with the officer before they testified in it.

What was the point of the testimony?

It didn't really establish anything other than the fact that they talked to this complaining witness.

He made these allegations.

If anything, that officer was hurtful to their case.

So then did you get to cross-examine at that moment?

Of course you did.

So tell us about your cross-examination.

I went through the litany of lack of investigation.

You didn't track down this eyewitness.

You didn't track down the friend.

You didn't recover the weapon.

You didn't look to see if there was a ring surveillance camera.

You said that you went to go canvass the neighborhood, but it's not notated in your report.

It's not caught on your body cam footage.

Actually, your body cam policy says that if you're conducting an investigation, you should leave it on, which you didn't do.

So you made the officer look terrible.

Yeah.

But you got out what was necessary, too.

It sounds like the prosecutor did in front of the jury, like that there had allegedly been a ring video.

And none of this was available to them.

No.

And I love when cops do this, the responding officers, they say, it's not my job.

It's the detective's job.

And so when he says that on cross, I say, oh, this detective sitting right here at council table.

Oh, the IO.

Yeah.

And he's like, yeah, it's her job.

You're all shit at this.

Did you bring out the lack of choke marks on the neck?

How or they looked at that?

Did you show the body worn video of that as well?

The prosecutor admitted the body cam footage.

So I just touched on that in closing.

Wow.

I love it when they do your job for you.

Right.

You just get to sit there and look at the jury like, I don't really have any questions.

That has got to be the worst opening to a trial I've ever heard of.

I can't imagine what that was for.

Because sometimes I think they'll put up the cop first.

If they don't think their alleged victim is credible, they might try to bolster it with showing there was this investigation done.

And all these things are done.

Just that way, people can start buying into it early and then may believe the bullshit later.

But it's kind of tough to believe this bullshit if this cop can't even deliver anything.

So off to a good start.

All right.

Who testifies next pertinent witness?

It's the complaining witness next.

And the case just gets worse for them.

Go, Marty McFly.

Let's go.

Take us back to the day in question.

So Marty starts testifying and he talks about the August 8th incident.

And he goes through and says, I was assaulted.

Mr. P came up rolling on his bike and he was carrying around this 12 inch sword knife.

And he talks about the bungee cord and says, he was choking me, but I did not lose consciousness.

And the prosecutor impeaches her own witness.

Because for her, it's better if he lost consciousness.

So impeaches Marty with the exam transcript and the written statement.

So this is Marty's fourth time.

Explaining what happened.

Yeah.

You have the initial contact with the police.

You have the written statement with the police.

You have the preliminary hearing testimony.

And now this time.

And in the first encounter with the police, he shrugged when asked if he had lost consciousness.

But in the next, the two subsequent times, he said he'd lost consciousness, right?

That's right.

Or he had felt faint.

And this time he's like, nope, everything was good.

It was just a little tickle.

I mean, if we're trying to be charitable, maybe he like reviewed his written statement or looked at the body cam footage and like, I got to be consistent with one version.

But at this point, like you pointed out, there were three different versions and they were all diametrically opposed.

So no matter what he said, it would have contradicted something.

I mean, it's a big.

The thing is, is the prosecutors like to say that we pounce on these little details that are easy to sort of flub.

But in your particular case, there are two really big changes.

First, from a pocket knife to a sword knife, which is mind boggling to me.

Those are never going to be confused.

That's not a minor mix up.

And from not losing consciousness to losing consciousness, that's also a really big thing.

If you lose consciousness, that's a big deal.

So these aren't minor.

I don't know.

He hit me with his left hand when it was actually before I said he hit me with his right hand.

I'd agree.

And then the next thing he talked about was the August 13th incident when he testifies a trial that Mr. P came into the house, pushed in the AC unit and punched me with brass knuckles.

And I was bleeding profusely from my face.

What?

Brass knuckles now.

So he downplays the losing consciousness, but adds in a deadly weapon?

I mean, it's hard to keep your story straight when there are so many lies.

I mean, that to me feels like a thing.

If there's somebody who's broken into your house and is punching you with brass knuckles and you're bleeding profusely, that feels like a thing you don't wait several hours to call the police about.

That feels like this could escalate very quickly and I could lose my life, so I would like to have the police here now kind of thing.

Yeah.

I'm just saying.

And did the prosecutor impeach him with a prior statement?

Not this time, but there is also a funny thing that happened.

I impeach him with this written statement, which he says, I was punched and kicked and there's bruising under my left eye.

After all my cross-examination is over, the prosecutor gets up on redirect and tries to rehabilitate the impeachment and approaches Marty and says, didn't you include that you were punched with brass knuckles and you were bleeding from your face in your written statement?

And Marty reviews the written statement that's in front of him and he says, yeah, you're right.

I did.

What?

Wait, did he?

No.

I'm so confused.

I was also equally confused because the written statement definitely does not include that.

Was there another written statement you didn't have?

It's the same written statement that's always been in discovery.

So when the prosecutor walks away from the witness stand, I gently tap her and say, I'm about to point this very embarrassing fact out for you, but it does not include that.

Do you want to bring it up or I will bring it up?

Oh, that was kind of you.

I would have destroyed the prosecutor.

So when the prosecutor slinks back the witness stand and impeaches now the witness for the second time, your written statement doesn't actually include that you were punched with brass knuckles and you were bleeding from the face.

And he says, yes.

Oh, man.

And at that point, there are multiple jurors laughing.

Oh, that must have made you feel so good.

Juror number one, the guy who is on board with our theory of defense is like gesticulating and throwing his hands up in the air.

It's like, what?

This is the guy that the prosecutor should have kicked.

Yes, absolutely should have kicked.

And now literally laughing out loud.

Yes.

This is the LOL trial.

So, Glenn, when the prosecutor first said you did include the brass knuckles in your written statement and the witness said yes, did the prosecutor say nothing further?

No further questions?

And then walk back to the table?

And then that's when...

Where the jurors saw Glenn talk to the prosecutor.

And then you...

And I was looking at the jury this whole time.

They understood what was happening because they were laughing.

So, then did the prosecutor then say, oh, one more question, judge?

Or look, can I...

May I reopen?

Or how did that happen?

Like, what...

How did that happen?

There's a weird, like, verbal tick that we say in Wayne County.

We say courts indulgence.

I don't know if that's a thing in California.

I don't think I've ever heard it, but...

I'm going to start saying it, though.

I like that.

We can adopt it.

Indulgence.

It sounds very decadent.

So, she says that and says...

Yeah, but it's the court sometimes.

That's very formal.

So, she says that and says, I actually have a couple more questions, judge.

Can I continue asking questions?

And then that's when she points out, you actually don't say that in your written statement at all.

So, you know what I love about this?

Wow.

Is I would have just gotten up on cross and destroyed the prosecutor and then argued to the jury.

Like, you have a witness that isn't credible and a prosecutor who's trying to mislead you.

So, this is bullshit.

But you, you played the gentleman.

You had the same effect of pointing out that all of this was bullshit while also appearing to be kind and gentlemanly in front of the jury, which is chef's kiss.

It's well done.

But also at the same time, pocket knife versus 12-inch action movie sword knife.

Lost consciousness, not lost consciousness.

And then you have the witness whose name that he can't remember, even though they're friends.

And then you have the rings.

Well, they were smoking weed.

But you're fated.

Yeah, it's hard.

Burns your memory cells.

And then they have the ring surveillance footage, which he explicitly tells the police about, which doesn't exist or he can't produce.

So, at that point, he has no credibility whatsoever.

So, I don't really care who impeaches him.

So, did you ask the complaining witness?

Did you ask Marty?

I know the police didn't get the ring footage, but did you save it?

Like, you're saying you're the – if I had – we have cameras at our house.

If I have video footage of someone committing a crime on my property, I am going to tell the police that.

I'm going to turn it over.

And if they don't come to take it, I'm going to save it for myself.

You can download that and save it away.

And you asked all of this of Marty.

I did.

He said he doesn't remember.

And he was like, oh, I didn't feel like saving it.

Oh, come on.

Which is a big point that I made in closing.

Come on.

Yeah.

So, then, did you – after the prosecutor corrected herself with Marty, did you – what did you cross on?

Just – did you have any –

I had no recross, no.

What was there left?

Oh, okay.

This sounds like a pretty easy trial.

Pretty quick, too, I would say.

Is this just all happening in one morning?

This was two days.

Two days of nothing?

How is there two days of what?

There's nothing that happened.

There's no police work to testify.

There's no injury.

There's – of what?

There's no evidence to present.

How is this two days?

I guess really one and a half days because the first day it was just for a year and then we opened and then we went on to the next day.

So, just – okay.

So, the testimony is one day.

This is just one day.

Okay.

Yep.

That's what I mean.

Okay.

I just sort of imagine you in court, like the DA finally sits down.

She rests for the second time with this witness and the judge says to you, you know, Mr. O.

And you just look at the jury like, I mean, do I need to?

Yeah.

I don't think that'll be necessary.

I also should have mentioned before trial, we approached a conversation of client testifying or not testifying.

And we had prepped a mock cross-examination and it went horribly.

Okay.

I'd like to ask a clarifying question.

Yeah.

The client's priors, when you did your motions in limine, were those ruled to come in regardless of if your client testified or only if your client testified?

They were coming in regardless.

Okay.

So you didn't need to put your client, you didn't need to consider that when you were deciding if your client would testify.

No.

Okay.

Any other stories with respect to the, or, you know, with Marty, any other, anything else happened during Marty's testimony you want to talk about?

Not during Marty's testimony.

Okay.

All right.

So let's, so what was the next pertinent piece of evidence that the prosecutor put up?

So the prosecutor endorsed four witnesses for trial.

And in Michigan, there's something called endorsed versus non-endorsed.

And if an endorsed witness doesn't show up, then made defense gets an adverse witness instruction.

So on day two of trial, she was having witness problems because two of the officers did not show.

Wait, can you explain that to me?

So the endorsed witness, so like, so here we have a list of potential witnesses.

Yep.

And the judge will say to the jury, some of these witnesses may testify, some of them may not.

Like, this is just anybody who could.

But you're saying you have endorsed witnesses, which sounds like the prosecutor's making a promise.

These people will be here.

Yep.

And your prosecutor had four endorsed witnesses.

Yes.

And you're saying that if, if someone doesn't show up, you get an adverse witness instruction, which says what?

That their testimony would have been helpful to defense and hurtful to the prosecutor.

Oh, shit.

Unless the prosecutors can establish that they did due diligence in securing the witness's presence.

Who decides if someone's endorsed or not endorsed?

Who makes that call?

The prosecutor.

Really?

Do you get to argue for or against it?

No.

So the prosecutor...

Sounds like you want them to add as many people on this list as possible, because if they don't show up, the jury gets to hear that they were actually going to be testifying in your favor.

Yes.

And the prosecutor is ethically supposed to, like, go through the evidence and see who may have favorable defense and then make them an endorsement.

Just like they're supposed to go through the evidence and turn over anything that proves that someone is innocent or passed down on the case.

So they have these obligations.

Some prosecutors treat, make them, you know, actually go through with them.

Some aren't as diligent.

I love this.

I want this in California.

I think it's really great, because, I mean, sometimes the witness list initially are, like, 30 people long.

They just do it.

They pat it.

Right.

Yeah, they try to make it look like, well, what's the defense's witness list?

They have no one.

The defense witness list is usually just, like, someone with the same last name as your client, you know?

It's his mom.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

So she had witness issues.

All right.

With how many of the four?

Which, two.

So half of her witnesses.

So did you get double the adverse witness instruction?

So she came to me and it says, and I tried to leverage her witness problems in my favor.

I said I would stipulate to removing them from the witness list if you agree not to introduce the photos from the 2019 misdemeanor conviction.

Nice.

But she wouldn't do it?

Okay.

She agreed.

She said, if you allow me to unendorse my witnesses, I will not use the photos.

Great.

And just use.

So you miss out on an adverse witness instruction there, but the jurors don't even know what the hell that is.

And you ended up keeping out those photographs, which would be very damning for your client.

Yeah.

Nice move.

That's a great move.

I love that.

Because you don't need...

There's already enough adverse things happening for the prosecutor during this trial.

What's just like...

You know, the only thing that could sway them is if they see some fucked up photos maybe.

Yeah.

That was the big concern.

That was brilliant.

That was your only concern.

Well played.

You get greedy and try and get all the extra stuff.

Yeah.

Kept it cool.

You know, and also because maybe you helped her out too when you said, hey, you might want to fix this up.

The statement, the written statement doesn't say that.

So, you know, good job, Glenn.

Wow.

You get more with honey or honey or something like that, you know?

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

Okay.

I've been hearing that my whole life.

A lot of vinegar PDs out there.

A lot of PDs who love vinegar.

Hello, hi.

How are you doing?

I'll tell you what.

I did have vinegar on my turkey sandwich today.

I'm not going to lie.

I'm fucking vinegar, fucking PD.

I'll fucking take the prosecutor's nose and rub it in that pile of shit that they fucking present in court.

No problem, but not Glenn.

I can learn something from today.

No, we're joking, but it is actually commendable because it can be hard when you see them fucking up like that.

It can be hard not to gloat and rub their face in it because they're such dicks so much of the time.

When you have that, it can be hard to not just, yes, I'm running with this.

I know.

Okay.

Okay.

Nice restraint there, Glenn.

Okay.

So that's a good, that's the art of the deal.

Take notes, president.

All right.

Yeah.

Now, all right.

So what happens next in trial?

So.

Yeah.

We're closing up.

We're approaching the end of the prosecutor's case.

Okay.

I forgot to mention this.

Before the trial started, my client is on a GPS tether, and I asked my client and the tether unit to either deactivate the tether or turn off the volume because sometimes when you're sitting through a trial and the battery is getting low, it starts beeping.

And you don't want the jury to know.

And you don't want the jury to know.

Because it would be prejudicial, just like the same way we protect custody status.

Right.

And so I brought this up to the court.

I said, this might be an issue, just so the court is aware, so we could put some procedures in place.

As Marty's testimony is wrapping up, the fucking tether starts going off.

Oh, no.

Just like I advise the court would.

And the court clerk who's running, like, point on all the things in the courtroom is kind of new, English second language, and I have co-counsel at table.

As soon as she hears the first beep, she goes up to the court clerk, lets her know what's happening, and the court clerk just sort of looks at my co-counsel and doesn't know what to do.

And so while the tether's beeping, the judge has the brilliant idea of saying, oh, Mr. O, is your computer beeping?

Let's take a break so you can take care of that.

Nice.

Nice cover.

Okay.

Okay.

So when we break, that's when the conversation about the unendorsed witnesses and the stipulation happens.

Okay.

Wow.

That was fortuitous timing.

Yeah.

And a solid to the judge for cleaning that up.

Now, wait.

Before the trial started, you said, hey, judge, this could be – and then was there something you wanted to do?

I wanted him to remove the GPS tether to just get rid of the problem.

And the judge said no.

He said no.

So, yes, kudos to the judge for fixing a problem the judge could have avoided in the first place, and that Glenn alerted him, too, beforehand.

But, yes.

Yeah.

Thanks so much.

I guess – we're just trying to have a fair trial, judge.

You know?

We're just trying to, you know –

That pesky little constitutional right.

All right.

So then – so that's great that that's how that went down.

Anything else happened during the people's case?

Any other witnesses that were worth talking about?

Or just no, period?

That was the whole case.

Two witnesses.

We called the two.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

So then motion to dismiss.

Denied.

Fervently made, but denied.

No.

The judge is like, no, I think there's some credible evidence here that could go to the jury.

There's enough evidence to go to the jury here.

Enough credible evidence.

Okay.

So then now do the people rest at the end of the day?

So you have all night to think about if you're going to put on a case, if your client's going to testify?

So it was only a one-and-a-half-day trial.

Well, we wanted to open the first half day, and then the second day was a full day.

So after the prosecutor rested, I made my pro forma half-time motion, put it on the record that my client's not testifying.

And then we went straight into closing arguments.

And then what was the conversation with your client like for him not to testify?

Because you said you guys did a practice run-through, and it wasn't so good.

It didn't go well.

It went awful.

He started volunteering information that was absolutely terrible for our case, and it wasn't even like a blistering cross-examination.

So he was not testifying.

And we wanted to call his boyfriend to establish the fact that there was a dating relationship and that Marty—

Mr. P's boyfriend?

His new boyfriend, the younger boyfriend.

Okay.

Oh, right.

I forgot.

But he didn't want to testify either because Mr. P and his new younger boyfriend were having some relationship problems.

So, you know—

Because Mr. P was beating him, too.

I'm not going to say yes or no.

Yeah, okay.

That's fine, Glenn.

I will neither confirm nor deny.

This is about what the prosecution can prove, okay?

Not what actually happened.

Yeah, that's great.

Ken's always keeping himself—keeping it real.

I appreciate that, Glenn.

All right, so people—defense rest.

Now it's time for closing arguments.

So tell us about your closing argument.

I just had so much to work with.

I have actually stolen a lot from this podcast.

I use the chart.

I talk about the three pillars.

And—

Do you mention another not guilty to the jury?

Yes.

I name you specifically.

Do you say—

According to my mentor, David Moore, who I've never met.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

But there was—it's a pretty standard closing.

You know, you talk about the escalating burdens, how—if they want to—I—the specific example I use is lawsuits between mega corporations for billions of dollars.

It's this standard.

If they want to rip your kids away and tear apart families, it's this standard.

It's a good one.

Yeah.

Because people think that's a—that's a pretty high standard.

They're going to take your kids from you.

Yeah.

But beyond a reasonable doubt is even higher than that, folks.

And then I—I mean, so much of this job is just plagiarism.

I also stole a line from Blaze Kearney, who was also on your podcast, where he likes to quote Sandra J. O'Connor from a case called Victor's Fee, Nebraska, where they define reasonable doubt as a kind of doubt that makes you pause or hesitate in an important or grave decision in life.

So I used that to segue into the skydiving analogy.

I don't think I know the skydiving one.

Yeah, what's that?

So the skydiving analogy is—imagine you're 10,000 feet up in the air, and the flight instructor opens up the door to the plane, and the cold air is rushing in your face.

And you turn around, you look at your parachute.

You're having some concerns because you're about to engage in some risky behavior.

So you want to ask the flight instructor some questions.

And you look at the flight instructor, and it's Marty, who packed your shoe.

And then I use the fact-specific analogies, like Marty tells you that he has footage of him packing the parachute, but he doesn't know where that footage is.

He says he packed the parachute with this particular equipment, but then he changes.

I like that.

But then he changes what his story is.

And also, that gives you some concern.

So you turn to the flight instructor supervisor who's supposed to check Marty's work.

And they say, I took Marty at his work.

I didn't do any independent investigation to verify that his story is true.

That's the cop?

That's the cop.

Okay.

If you wouldn't trust your life in Marty's hands, then don't trust Mr. P's.

Glenn.

I think I'm plagiarizing next time.

I love that.

That's really great.

It works so well when there is an inconsistent-

It's beautiful.

Yeah.

And that closing line there, then don't trust Mr. P's life.

Oh, I like it.

Yeah.

And when I was delivering that line in closing, there were two jurors that I was making contact

with, and they were shaking their head and laughing.

I was like, okay, this case is fucking done.

Oh, God.

They said, Marty's a joke.

We're not jumping out of that plane.

And then how did the prosecutor's closing argument go?

She-

Boring.

I think this is also a universal experience.

When they feel like the case is slipping away from them, they start getting angrier and

yelling at the jury.

She started doing a lot of that.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

They do.

I do, in stand-up comedy, when I feel like I'm bombing on stage, I start cussing more.

It's just natural, right?

It just comes out.

It's just, yeah.

It's the panic.

It's the desperation.

It's just like, yeah.

I just start, you know, like, you're just losing.

I know exactly what you mean, though, where they just get angrier.

They just get louder and they start yelling at the jury.

Like, you have to commit.

You have to convict.

You have to.

Yeah.

All right.

So then how long were the jurors out for in this case?

They were out for about 20 minutes.

But before they even started to, oh, wow.

Okay.

Before they even started deliberating, the judge started dropping hints.

Like, he's not very good at concealing his feelings about the case.

He told me and my client to not go very far because he doesn't think this deliberation

is going to take very long.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

But the reason I don't feel good is because while the final instructions are being read,

apparently behind us, the complaining witness has this whole family in the pews, and my client

has his friends and family in the courtroom.

And apparently there were some nasty exchanges or nasty words.

So the deputies had to get involved and separate them.

So when the jurors come back with a verdict, there were 10 deputies in the courtroom.

Oh.

Yeah.

It doesn't look good.

Also, when they expect a bad verdict, meaning a guilty, where there's going to be an explosion

like from our clients, they bring all the deputies in.

Right.

But I didn't know that.

It would be quite intimidating to be sitting at council table and have 15 deputies walk in

with their handcuffs and their hands on their weapon.

And yeah, we've all been there.

But it was jarring for me because I didn't know why the deputies were there because they

never told me that this fight was happening in the background.

Ah, okay.

Okay.

So then you, I mean, so 20 minutes later you come in, you're feeling good, but then you

see all these deputies, but then the jurors come out and then, are they like happy and

jovial?

Yeah.

Was that one guy your four person?

He wasn't actually.

It was juror number 10 who was a four person.

Did, did Mr.

Going back, did Mr.

P say anything after, after the closing arguments and you guys were waiting?

Did he talk to you?

Did you guys talk and he say like he felt good or?

Or anything like that?

He was pretty stoic throughout the trial.

What also was happening, which, because I was just focused on the jury and the witnesses

throughout the entire trial.

I found out after from the jurors when we talked to them that my client was nodding in

and out of sleep throughout the trial.

Oh.

Oh, wait, wait.

So he was sleeping.

He was so bored.

Yeah.

Wasn't even bored.

He was like, you got this.

Marty was so unbelievable.

He was so bored.

He knew this was in the bag that he was like, I'm just going to.

There's no way.

There's no way.

There's no way that guy Superman through the, through the air conditioning event.

What?

Okay.

So then the jurors come back, they read the verdicts, not guilty on, on six charges, was

it?

Or something like that?

All six charges.

All six charges.

All right.

Did your client react?

He was happy.

We hugged.

We shook hands.

But yeah.

Okay.

It felt really good.

Now you see, you talked to the jurors afterwards.

They said Mr.

P was sleeping.

Anything else?

Eight of them stayed behind.

They were very eager to talk about the case.

Two of the jurors said that they had decided it was a not guilty after opening statements,

which you're not supposed to do.

But that's why they're important.

Thank you.

That's why it's important.

That's why you do it.

You know, they love the burden of proof chart.

The dumbest chart ever.

I mean, it's effective.

It's effective chart, but there's nothing special about it at all.

Sometimes it's a pyramid or, you know, might as well be a food chart.

You know, I don't know.

Okay.

The juror who said that she loves Persian food really wanted to ask me about the peanut butter

sandwich analogy because she was so confused.

It really stuck with her.

She's like, do you remember that moment in Boatier when I said I like cooking Persian food?

And then she pivoted to peanut butter sandwich.

What was that about?

Oh, I almost feel bad for the prosecutor.

Yeah.

Almost.

No, you shouldn't.

They brought this case.

They shouldn't have charged it.

Yeah.

Okay.

So any other interesting things that the juror said?

The foreperson was an older black guy who was very machismo and he took Arthur and ran

with it.

He said, if there was some domestic violence, you think your client, a man, is just going

to sit there and take it?

Or actually vice versa.

If Marty is a man, he's just going to sit there and take it.

He would have fought back.

Yeah.

He's got your Joe Rogan listener.

So, yeah.

All right, Glenn.

Thanks for reaching out to the podcast and sharing your story with us.

It was fun hanging out.

Kind of nice.

Kind of easy trial, you know?

Not to say that the trials are easy.

The prosecutor did a lot of the heavy lifting in it.

Like, for Glenn, the gentleman.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, that's great though, Glenn.

So, okay, Glenn.

So, we're going to wrap it up now.

We're going to end it with asking you this last question, which we ask all our guests.

You're a public defender over at Detroit, the Neighborhood Defense Team.

I'm sorry, Neighborhood Defense Services.

Is that right?

Did I say that?

Neighborhood Defender Service of Detroit.

Neighborhood Defender Service of Detroit.

And so then-

By way of Harlem.

Yep.

Okay, great, great.

So, then tell the A&G audience why you became a public defender.

So, the short answer is my parents are first generation immigrants from Korea.

They came over here with basically nothing.

They couldn't speak English, not a lot of money.

They settled in Los Angeles, working a lot of blue-collar jobs.

And so, when I was growing up, I have friends, families who have a lot of contact with the

criminal legal system.

But when I was in middle school, my parents had some class mobility and moved up to sort

of middle-class jobs and moved us to a better school district.

So, from a young age, I got to see how my friends growing up were treated and how these

white kids in this middle school and high school setting.

But at that age, I didn't have the vocabulary to describe the injustice that was happening.

I just viscerally felt it.

What did you-

Yeah, can you be more specific?

Like, what did you see or notice?

So, when I was growing up in L.A. and SoCal, a lot of my friends were in gangs.

They're gang-affiliated, selling drugs or around guns.

And even at parties, when the police are called, there is a very different reaction when they're

called to a party in L.A. or Anaheim or St. Anna versus a party, a police responding to

a noise complaint in, like, say, Huntington Beach or some beach city.

Okay.

So, the same conduct that they were doing in this middle-class neighborhood that my friends

and I were doing in this low-income neighborhood, getting criminalized versus not criminalized.

Yeah.

So, you witnessed that, and then how did that lead you to going to law school and wanting

to be a public defender?

So, I went to an undergrad, a very liberal undergrad in the Bay Area, and I had a focus on racial

justice issues, but I didn't know what public defense was, and then I majored in philosophy

and gender studies, so I was super unemployable, so I went to law school.

And at law school, I took critical race theory, and I interned at Contra Costa Public Defenders

my 1L summer, and absolutely fell in love with it, and I never looked back.

Because then I went to intern.

Contra Costa.

Yeah, Coco Puyi.

And then I interned at Alameda PD, and then Sacramento PD, and then I did the-

You hit them all.

Yeah.

I did the whole interview circuit up and down California for a postmark position, and I

got an offer from LAPD and San Diego Public Defender's Office, but I had to turn them down

because of my wife.

Okay.

All right.

Well-

She took you to Motor City.

Exactly.

And now we're hood defenders, like Dave said.

That's right.

Yeah.

Defenders in the hood.

I like it.

Yeah.

Cool.

Well, great.

Great to meet you, Glenn.

Thanks for coming on and reaching out to the podcast, and-

This is fun, Glenn.

And Lauren, it's always great hanging out with you.

Glad we could step away from the madness and, you know, get back in touch with why we do

this, you know?

Yep.

Yep.

Call us back if you do it again, Glenn.

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

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

And guess what?

We'll be back in two weeks with another Not Guilty, straight from the trenches.