The Palmdale Special – When the Wildest Part of L.A. Goes to Trial

All right, my faithful A&Gers, we're back this week with another awesome Not Guilty starring in another awesome public defender. Thought you might like something to listen to this week as you travel for the upcoming holiday break. I am definitely thankful to be able to present these amazing stories. Also, I hope you all enjoyed meeting Rachel and Dallas in the previous episode, two badass public defenders from Cincinnati. There'll be plenty more of them coming in the near future, I can promise you that.

If you too would like to make your own Another Not Guilty episode, then hit me up. Come on, you can do it too. Let's do this. Also, I am thankful for Christian Bayette, Emily Casillas, and Kelly Frazier, our newest members to the A&G Patreon program. Thank you for your contributions and donations to keep the podcast going. It all helps in keeping the lights running over here at the A&G studios. And if you too would like to contribute, then please visit our website at anothernotguiltypod.com

and click on the Patreon link. And with that said, you know, defense call your first witness. And I just looked at him and I stood up and I said, the defense calls Roger to the stand, right? And he just looks and he goes, I ain't fucking getting up on that. Yells it out. I ain't fucking getting up there on the stand. She's gonna destroy me. That's what he says. I just freeze. I freeze.

I freeze, right? And I just have this like fake smile. Like, your honor, you know, just technical difficulties. Can we just take a five, you know, just a five minute break. We'll be right back. And he's like, yeah, yeah, yeah.

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-guilties public defenders get on a daily basis.

In an unjust criminal system.

With a deck stacked against us.

The not-guilty.

And we're back. Welcome back, everybody, to Another Not Guilty.

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

What's up, everybody? Glad to be here.

Glad that we can bring you the stories of the public defenders and defense attorneys taking down the system one case at a time.

And, of course, I cannot be telling you these stories alone.

I need my awesome co-host, Lauren, to do it with me.

What's up, Lauren? How you doing?

Hi, guys.

I always feel like after your introduction, I should go, brr, brr, brr, you know, make some exciting sound effect or something.

Well, you know, I do edit in the music, and people think I'm actually playing the music, and then I just start talking, you know.

But, no, there's a whole process going on.

So, yeah, Lauren, that's a cool sound effect. Do it again.

Brr, brr, brr.

Brr, brr, brr, brr.

Yeah.

We got DJ Khaled here.

No, he's not here, but.

Yeah.

So, Lauren, I am excited about today's podcast, though.

You want to know why?

Because we got a homegrown, homegrown, not guilty, straight from L.A. County here today.

That is always exciting.

That's right.

The best county, the best coast, the West Coast, Dodgers World Series champions.

There's a reason why it's out of Los Angeles.

The champions of justice.

All right, we have Christina Sarkis, fellow L.A. County public defender here.

Christina, how are you doing today?

Welcome to the show.

Thank you.

I'm doing fine.

How are you guys?

We're good.

We're good.

We're excited to have one of our own.

Yes.

Thank you for having me.

Yeah.

I mean, it's great for the people who aren't from L.A.

It's great.

But it is exciting to have one of our own.

Yeah.

We got to wrangle them back in and let people know how we do it.

Yeah.

The rest of the United States was getting a little cocky.

So, yeah, those were okay, not guilty.

Yeah, they can kind of do okay.

But this is how we – this is where it all comes from.

So –

No pressure, Christina.

No pressure.

No pressure.

Tell us something good.

Yeah.

So, Christina, how long have you been a public defender for?

I have been a public defender since 2016.

Gosh, has it been that long?

Yeah.

I feel like I remember seeing you, like your face in training, and that doesn't feel like

it could possibly be that long ago.

Yeah.

Yeah, in 2016, I worked for a private attorney a year before that, and then I joined the office.

And it's been magic ever since.

So, you're a seasoned pro.

Is this what you consider the sweet spot, David?

No, it's just a couple more years.

David has this theory that there's a sweet spot for public defenders.

As far as comfort or –

You're just like – you know, I think – because, you know, if you're 25, 30 years in, you're

kind of tired.

You've been through a lot.

I think 12 years – 12 years is when you've been through a lot and you know a lot and you

can handle things on your own, but you still got the pep in your step, so to speak.

The fight, yeah.

I'm not completely broken down yet.

I'm not sure that I subscribe to his theory, but –

But Christina, so you're eight years in, though, but you're over there in Lancaster, so you

guys do age quicker over there.

So, maybe you are in the sweet spot right now.

We do, yeah.

We're pretty seasoned over here the second we're sent here.

It's definitely a different world.

It's hard to believe that it's even L.A. County, but, you know, here we are.

It is quite far.

There's some crazy, crazy stories out here, some wild things that you don't think you'd

ever think are true happen here.

All right, Christina.

Well, that's why Christina is here today.

She's here to share one of her recent not-guilties that she had over there in the Lancaster,

Antelope Valley.

Go ahead, Christina.

Tell us about this crazy trial you did resulting in not-guilty.

What was your client charged with?

What was your client?

Who's your name?

We'll call him Roger for this purpose.

My client's name was Roger, and he was charged with attempted rape, assault with a deadly weapon,

using a knife, criminal threats, and that's it.

Yeah, those three charges.

Did he have any strike prayers?

No.

He had no record whatsoever.

And he was approximately, I want to say, 56 or 57 years old.

Attempted rape, criminal threats, and assault with a deadly weapon, right?

Yes, they were all felonies, all strikes.

I mean, it sounds like it could just all be one act, right?

Attempted rape with a threat and a weapon, you know, to accompany that.

Right, it was all based off of one series of events.

So that's how it originally was charged, and...

What did your client allegedly do?

What did the police report read?

So the complaining witness and her husband rented a room from my client's house.

He had a four-bedroom house out somewhere in the middle of Palmdale, and they were renting

a room, and he was helping them out.

She alleges that on this particular day, she was in the kitchen preparing food, waiting for

her husband to get home from work, when all of a sudden, she hears my client come behind her, grab her by her shoulders, spin her around, as she's against the stove, I guess, with a knife in one hand, saying,

"You will give, basically, you will give me sex or I will take it from you."

Because there's some translation issues going on, but that's what she claimed he said is she's threatening to kill her if she doesn't have sex with him.

And so he then rips her shirt, and she finally agrees to have sex with him as a ruse to get away, and so when she goes, "Okay, I agree I'll have sex with you, but let me just go to my bedroom, change my ripped shirt into a clean shirt, and then I'll come back to the kitchen and we can proceed to have sex."

Well, everyone knows you need a fresh shirt for the sex.

Exactly, right?

And so once she said that, she claims that he said, "Okay," and as she proceeded to walk to her bedroom, he stomped on her right foot, so she limped her way to the bedroom, closes the door, locks the door, calls her husband, and he calls the cops.

And my client just kind of disappears into the abyss of the house.

Okay, I already have so many questions.

Right.

You said there's a translation issue.

Do the complaining witness and your client speak the same language?

It's a translation issue when they were telling the story in court or when they're communicating with each other?

Well, I got the case later on, so I got the case after the preliminary hearing.

So the complaining witness and her husband were solely Spanish speakers.

My client spoke both English and Spanish.

So when the complaining witness said to the police what my client allegedly said to her, it was a variation of, "You will give me sex or I will take it," or, "I will fuck you right now," or, "I'm going to kill you if you don't have sex with me."

So it was a variation of that every time she mentioned the story.

Okay, so that's already important, though, because the 422 is just a crime of words.

We're talking about criminal threats.

What exactly was said that was the alleged criminal threat?

Right.

So at the preliminary hearing, which was the only thing transcribed, she actually said, he said, "I'm going to fucking kill you unless you give me sex."

Conditional.

How long had the complaining witness been living in your client's house?

So at that time, they had moved in around October 2021, and this was May 2022.

So, what, approximately seven months, but it was on and off, according to my client.

It was on and off.

And the complaining witnesses, this is the first incident, the first run-in she's had with your client.

She didn't say that there'd been any other issues even unreported before that.

No, so she claims that they never had any issues, they've continuously lived at the house, never fought with him, no problems, and this is the first time something like this had ever happened.

And did the complaining witnesses' husband work a regular schedule?

So, in other words, like, was he expected to be home around the same time every day?

So, according to, it depends on whose story you want to listen to.

According to them, he did work a regular schedule, and she was expecting him home around 5 p.m. or so.

But if you ask Roger, if you ask my client, he didn't have a job.

And so, no, it would be give or take.

But that's actually better, because you're saying he was on his way home from work, right?

That's when this happened.

Right, that's what she said.

So, she's saying that your client decided to attack her knowing that the husband was going to be there at any minute.

Potentially.

Okay.

I think I'm all caught up on all the facts.

Yeah, so another question I have is, did it state how your client knew the complaining witness and the husband of the complaining witness?

They just knew each other through, because my client sold tacos out of his house.

He was known as, like, the carnitas guy in the area.

So, he would sell tacos to customers every weekend.

So, they came to know each other through selling the tacos.

When he would sell tacos first out of his sister's house, they were customers, and then they just got to know each other through that.

And your client is a single man living in that house?

Single man, never been married.

Very, certain type of personality he has, where he doesn't really, he's not a people person, if you will.

Okay.

Kind of rough around the edges.

So, he doesn't really like to interact with people that much, but he did give them this opportunity when they kept asking him.

So, then, Christina, after you, like, you read the police report, at least see the prosecution facts.

Is there anything you're thinking right away before you meet the client?

Like, anything that stands out to you as a defense attorney?

Yeah, I'm reading the police report, and I just go, that doesn't make any sense, right?

Like, I'm reading it as the complaining witness described it to the police in the initial report, and I go, that makes no sense.

Like, I called BS on this.

What does not make sense?

Like, the part, the most glaring part of it that didn't make sense to me was the, let me go change my shirt and put on a clean shirt, and so you can then proceed to take it off and have sex with me, you know?

Like, that was weird to me.

If somebody's holding a knife saying, I'm going to fucking kill you unless you have sex with me, they're not just going to let you go change your shirt.

Like, who cares, right?

That doesn't make any logical sense to me, at least.

So, when I read that, I was like, maybe the police officer, maybe the sheriff wrote it wrong.

So, I went to the supplemental report.

I was like, maybe it's clarified here, but it was the same thing.

You know, he turned me around, threatened to kill me with a knife.

I finally agreed, but told him to, I want to change my shirt, and that was that.

So, that, to me, was just kind of like a red flag.

Agreed, yeah.

Yeah.

The second thing that was a red flag to me was when I saw the pictures of this alleged ripped shirt.

It was a completely straight line down the middle.

So, it was as if, you know.

Like, it was cut?

That's what I assumed.

I felt like it would have been cut towards the top and then maybe carefully controlled, ripped down, because it was literally a straight line down the middle.

And I thought to myself, if someone's holding a knife in one hand and pushed up against you, threatening you to have sex with him, he's grabbing it with the other hand.

And, like, the chances of a shirt being ripped straight down the middle, like, that's, I don't know.

I don't want to say impossible, but that's difficult to imagine.

So, that was another thing that popped in my mind.

It seems like the neck would be stretched out first, right?

It would be, like, a really stretched out, like, neck if you're pulling on it.

And then maybe it would tear at some point, but I don't, yeah.

Okay, so, Christina, tell us about when you meet the client and what was that like?

So, I finally met the client and –

In custody, right?

I'm sorry?

In custody?

He was in custody?

No, he's out of custody.

Oh, great.

He was out of custody.

Yeah, so that made my job a lot easier.

Strange things that happen in the Antelope Valley.

Yeah, he's out of custody.

So, I meet with the client, and I, you know, I go over the charges.

I go over the police report with him just to make sure him and I are on the same page.

And from day one, he said, I didn't see her that day.

I have no idea what she's talking about.

That didn't happen.

And, you know, reading the police report, I believe him 110% from the very beginning.

He told me his version and his history with the complaining witness and her husband.

Basically, you know, he met them through selling tacos.

They didn't have a job.

They didn't work.

According to – this became an issue later on, but – through trial that we can discuss later.

But apparently, the complaining witness and her husband were undocumented, and they couldn't get work, and they had certain issues.

So, he just finally decided to help them out, even though he didn't want to.

So, he finally let them move in under the terms and conditions that they pay rent, a certain amount of rent every month, and they just keep their area clean because he didn't want to, you know, have a mess at his house.

And so, you know, once they moved in, he kind of realized that there were issues between them, and the biggest issue was that he noticed that the husband was actually soliciting some of his customers that were coming to buy tacos, and they were complaining to him.

So, you know, Roger went and confronted him and said, this has got to stop.

You guys got to – you got to move out.

Soliciting what?

Yeah.

His wife, basically.

Like, he's trying to pimp out his wife.

Correct.

And so, I asked client if, other than customers complaining about this, have you seen anything?

And according to him, he said he's seen her walk into a bathroom with a couple of random men.

And so, he finally, you know, told them – I think this was around December – that, you know what, you guys got to leave.

This is not working out.

So, they do eventually leave sometime around December of 2021.

December.

And so, this is before the alleged incident in May.

Right.

Right.

So, this was a few – this is, like, a couple of months after he originally let them move in.

So –

And sees him go into the bathroom of his own home?

Like, his – sees her go into his – a bathroom at his home with a couple of dudes.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

Right.

So, they move out.

So, he moved out in December?

They moved out.

Okay.

And then, according to Roger, that every month, they kept begging him again, like, you know, we're sorry.

Can we please move back in?

We have nowhere to go.

We have nowhere to stay.

We don't have money to pay, you know, the higher amounts of rent other people are asking for.

Can we please move back in?

And basically, Roger kept saying –

Did they give the whole rent in L.A. is tough?

Is high?

Yeah.

Yeah.

They gave the whole, we can't – we can't afford to live anywhere.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Exactly.

So, client kept saying, no, no, I'm done, you know?

And then, according to him, they came at the beginning of February and asked again, and he said, look, I'm going to Mexico for a trip with my brother because he had some family dealings over there.

He goes, let me go on my trip, come back, and then we will, you know, I'll reconsider it, but right now it's a no.

So, client goes on his trip to Mexico for about three weeks.

Upon his return, he comes in and he sees the sliding glass door to his house is, like, basically broken.

And he walks in, you know, from the airport, from LAX at about 2 a.m. and sees complaining witness and her husband living inside his house.

So, that pissed him off.

But it was super – it was super late.

And he goes, you know what?

I'm going to go to bed.

We're going to talk about it in the morning.

So, the next morning, according to him, they basically got into an argument, like, basically, what the fuck are you doing inside my house?

Without my permission, I told you you can't stay here.

And they just kept begging, begging, begging.

And after some time, client said, you know what?

Fine.

You can stay.

But same terms and conditions.

You got to pay rent.

You got to keep your place clean and no more of this solicitation bullshit.

So, is this –

Just boilerplate language.

Boilerplate landlord, right a little –

Yeah.

It's your boilerplate stuff.

No prostitution.

Hit around, be clean.

No prostitution, you know.

No prostitution, right.

Standard terms and conditions.

So, you have to assume your client never called the police on the complaining witness and her husband.

No, and that came up at trial later on.

He didn't.

And his explanation was – he said, they're not strangers that were in my house.

I knew who they were, you know.

I knew who they were from the past.

I had no reason to call the cops.

I don't like cops.

I don't deal with cops.

I deal with it as a human being, and that's what I did.

He goes, if they were strangers, that's a different story, but I know who they were.

So, I was pissed, but I'm not going to call the cops.

Okay.

It is kind of like, oh, wow, the people who are homeless looking for a place to stay, and you told them, hey, I'm going to be gone for three weeks.

You know?

Yeah, yeah.

Of course they're going to move in, right?

Like, oh, you're not going to be home?

Okay.

Yeah.

Perfect.

Okay.

So, what happens next in the case?

So, you know, he's having the same issues here and there about them not paying rent.

That was an issue.

And then, again, sometime in May, he received customer complaints that the husband keeps, you know, coming up to us.

So, we're coming here on the weekends to have sex with his wife for, like, $25 or whatever, and we don't want to come here.

Oh, man.

That's a bargain.

Yeah.

Like, the Palmdale Special, you know?

So, but that's the name of the episode.

Yeah.

Palmdale Special.

But my client, Roger, he was just really pissed off because it's a family thing.

There's kids running around.

He has benches out there.

You know, people sit there and eat.

And he's like, I can't have this going on.

And according to him, his supply of what he sold in the past versus what he was selling when client and her husband were living, or I'm sorry, complaining witness and her husband were living there was drastically cut in almost half.

Because people didn't want to be around that.

Right.

They didn't want to be around that.

They didn't care, you know, the carnitas weren't that important to them where they wanted to be in their environment.

They weren't in for a taco and a happy ending.

No.

No.

Not in that particular.

What kind of neighborhood is this?

Because he's selling it out of his house.

So what's the neighborhood like?

Do you have people across his homes all around him?

Or is it big lots because it's Lancaster?

People have, like, acre lots?

Like, what's the?

Yeah.

In this particular area, there were large lots.

So it's a house on a really, really large plot of land.

So you do have neighbors, but it's like you got to walk 100 feet to get to their house sort of thing.

So he had a lot of room to set up and sell from his house and, you know, have benches and have people over.

There was a lot of land there.

So that was a setup there.

So in May, when, you know, the customers were complaining again, he went up to them and said, this is it.

I'm giving you guys until June 1st to move out and we're done.

I'm giving you guys a couple of weeks to find a place, but you got to go.

That's it.

I'm done with you.

And next thing you know, on May 31st is when these allegations were brought up against him, the day before they're supposed to move out.

We know your client didn't have a record.

Did the complaining witness and her husband have a record?

No.

Okay.

Nobody had a record.

Yeah.

Other than your client's statements, any evidence that, the corroborating evidence that he asked them to leave the residence?

So he had a girl who worked for him who helped him make tortillas on the weekends, and she was privy to the arguments that Roger would have with the complaining witness and her husband about not paying rent and basically not keeping up after themselves.

He would complain to her a lot.

So she was privy to those arguments that they had based on client complaining.

All right.

Well, let's talk about this then.

So this is the defense then.

The defense is that the complaining witness and her husband are lying about the allegations because they were going to get kicked out of Roger's residence.

So as the defense attorney, what are you doing to get ready on this case or prep the case?

What type of work are you doing?

So we had the DNA from the ripped shirt that the prosecution had tested, and their criminalist was going to say that client's DNA was on the ripped portion of the shirt, but the results were two times more likely than not that it was Roger's DNA versus some other random male.

So I had my DNA expert assigned to go over their testing to see what exactly is the DNA they found and what does this two times more likely than not actually mean.

Because, you know, in the defense world, we're used to seeing like one times 10 to the septillion or the octillion where it's like, you know, every 300 billion people, it's one out of every 300 billion people.

But this was two times more likely than not, which is basically every other male has this specific portion of DNA.

Well, we know she's been going with every other male into the bathroom.

So the DNA that tested is just the ripped portion of the shirt in the middle.

That's it.

So his DNA was found on the ripped portion of the shirt, right?

Right.

Or, no, sorry, sorry.

No, there was someone's, some DNA, which could possibly be your client's.

It's only two times.

Right.

Usually in DNA, it's like, it's a one out of 100 billion chance.

It has to be your client because there's 100.

There's not enough people in this world to, it could be.

This is just like, there's some things in common with your client's DNA and the DNA on the shirt.

There's some things.

So the complaining witness had, there was no actual sexual contact, right?

I mean, they're saying that your client ripped her shirt and had a knife, but that's it.

There was no other way to test for DNA or bodily fluids because they didn't actually have any relations, right?

They didn't actually have any relations.

Outside of the police report at the prelim, she did testify that he went underneath her shirt and her bra and touched her breast for a couple of seconds.

But other than that, no, nothing else.

Okay.

Back to the DNA.

I mean, your expert was prepared to talk about transferred.

I mean, they live in the same house, right?

So his DNA is going to be on everything in the house.

Her DNA is going to be on.

I mean, there's just – I mean, that DNA, if it even is your client's DNA, there's so many possible explanations as to why it's on her shirt.

I mean, we don't even know if it is your client's DNA, but just the whole idea of them living in the same place, of course it's going to be on her.

What did your expert say?

So that was the main thing that I was trying to gather from getting a DNA expert assigned to the case is, of course, his DNA is going to be present one way or another.

They lived in the same house.

That's not uncommon.

That's not a weird thing, right?

So once I got my expert on the case, they actually, after reviewing all the e-data for the DNA discovery, they came back and said, you know, yeah, transferred DNA is a thing.

But not only that, the DNA that they are attributing to my client, that's only two times more likely than not, is based on a certain genetic marker.

I think they said like marker 16 or something like that.

They said that certain genetic marker is present in up to 39% of males in the world.

It's not a unique genetic marker that, you know, it's just Rogers and Rogers specifically, or, you know, it's so rare that they don't see it.

What they are basing their analysis on is a genetic marker that is seen in up to 40% of men.

So how rare is that really?

It's not.

So basically, you know, if you're sitting in a room with 50 guys, 50 males, up to 40% of them have that genetic marker.

And this is their only evidence.

Their only evidence is this alleged DNA that belongs to your client and the complaining witness's statement.

There's no other physical evidence.

There's no other witnesses.

This is all that the prosecutor has.

And then upon looking at the e-data, my expert said that their cutoff to look at the DNA present is at a much lower threshold than my DNA experts.

So when they look at the DNA data, their threshold is much larger.

So they see more information.

And when they saw more information of the DNA that was present at the rib shirt, the rib portion of the shirt, they actually see another speck of what they believe is DNA that is present that was never tested, that it was at a higher rate at that place.

So basically, they're saying this could be somebody else's DNA that they didn't test because it's below their threshold, but it could be someone else's DNA.

And if it is, it's actually at a higher rate than what they're claiming is your client's.

So my theory would have been at trial, I already think that that ripped shirt is a controlled cut, so I was going to blame the husband and say, why wasn't the husband tested?

Why didn't they compare to see how much of his DNA was on this shirt versus my client?

Any other defense work you did, preparation, investigation, whatever?

Sounds like you interviewed the taco employee, right?

I interviewed the taco employee.

She did verify that, yeah, he did complain about, you know, arguments with them all the time, and he was basically fed up with them.

I also was given a name of another witness my client gave me where she basically came into contact with the complaining witness and her husband around 2017, 2018, when she bought a banquet hall out here.

And they were going to help her work at the banquet hall, but then unfortunately COVID hit, and so she had to close down the banquet hall.

And she was using it for other purposes, and she had come to find out that the husband was bringing in men, and men were going into the banquet hall restroom with the wife and coming out.

So she basically learned that they were prostituting in the banquet hall.

Wait, okay.

How did you find this witness?

So, long story short, my client gave me her information.

My client was aware of it because, I mean, out in Palmdale, like, everyone in the area kind of either knows each other or, you know, has heard of each other.

It's a weird community where you kind of know one another either personally or through someone.

So this woman, my client actually found out through a friend of his who knew them because he goes, hey, those people that are saying these things against you, I actually know someone who dealt with them, and this is what happened.

Here's her information.

Contact her.

So that's when he gave me her name and number, and I contacted her, and she goes, yeah, I found this information out.

I told them they got to give me the keys back to my banquet hall, and they got to go.

And after I did that, they basically threatened my life.

They told me that no one's ever gotten out of, you know, away from them or that weren't punished.

And she started getting, like, letters, like, threatening letters placed in her mailbox, and she said the only people that knew where I lived were them.

This is kind of incredible.

So you have this independent witness who's otherwise unrelated and has no motive to lie and cover up for your client who's basically giving the same information that your client's giving about the complaining witness and her husband

and the ways that they're problematic in terms of illegal prostitution and also acting out.

So when they get caught, right, acting out to harm the person.

Exactly.

And that was going to be my theory at trial is basically bringing this witness in to talk about her experience with the complaining witness and her husband to say, look, when they were caught or things didn't go their way,

they are basically doing negative things towards that individual.

And I wanted to tie that in with my case.

Did you share that information with the district attorney?

I did.

I turned over all the witness statements.

What did the DA say?

You know, the DA from day one, just anything I presented didn't care.

And I, you know, I kept saying, did you read this witness statement?

Did you see the DNA report?

Like, are you really going to proceed on this?

And it's, and it just kept going like, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, we can talk about it.

You know, there was a lot of 402 issues.

So you don't even know if you're going to be presenting this evidence in.

But I believe my victim and therefore I'm going to proceed with the trial.

I was just like, okay, that was, that was her stance from the beginning.

I believe my victim.

So therefore I'm going to proceed.

Okay.

And I said, all right.

Any other defense witnesses you may have talked to or any other defense prep on this case?

That's, that's all.

That's it.

It's very simple, kind of very clear cut.

I mean, it's pretty good too.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's a pretty good witness.

Yeah.

I mean, it would be nice though, if there was like a text message from him to them saying,

Hey, you guys got to go like, you know, on May 30th and then May 31st, you know, like

sometimes that'd be, that'd be, that would be like the nail in the coffin.

I feel like, I mean, I'm just, we don't normally have witnesses.

So the fact that she has someone in the first place is pretty great.

Yeah.

And it corroborated what Roger was saying, you know, with the arguments because complaining

witness and her husband swore up and down that we had zero issues with Roger the entire time.

And, you know, this day was just.

Oh, right.

So you have, I forgot you have two, cause you have the tortilla maker who can at least testify

that that statement isn't true.

At the very least she can say it was not smooth sailing.

They did have issues.

Right.

One thing I think we haven't gone over was the arrest.

So how was your client?

So she, like he, she, she claims she runs into the bedroom and locks the door.

Right.

And then did she call the police right away or she called.

She called her husband and then her husband calls the police.

Did you get the husband's call?

I did.

What was that like?

So that was another thing because the police report read from her husband's perspective that,

you know, my wife called me.

She was frantic.

She was crying that, you know, Roger had assaulted her.

Mind you, she doesn't tell him that he tried to rape me or he tried to, you know, he, she

just says he tried to assault me.

Right.

She doesn't mention anything about him trying to rape saying, you know, you have to give

me sex or I'm going to kill you.

None of that.

And so he said, said in the police reporter read that he was so nervous.

He called 9-1-1, he was begging him to come that she's in danger and he's on his way home

now.

And once I got the 9-1-1 call, it was just another red flag to me because it just sounded,

he was just calm.

Right.

Like at times I was like, is he even there?

Is he breathing?

You know, it's like, hi, yes, I just need to talk to someone.

And they're like, okay, hold 9-1-1, you know?

And so he's like, okay.

And so, um, he's waiting and then they finally connect them to the station and he's like,

my wife just called me.

She said, um, our landlord attacked him and, um, you know, I'm going there as fast as I

can, but please send someone like, there's no background noise, no urgency, no screaming,

like talking very slowly, very low.

And it was just odd to me.

Right.

Like if your wife is calling you saying the landlord is attacking.

Yeah.

Man just tried to assault your wife.

Yeah.

Like I would be like, you guys need to get there as soon as possible.

She's there alone.

I'm going to try to get there.

Please, please, please hurry.

And he's just like, I had to, you know, it was weird.

He kind of sounds very, very weird.

It sounds like your standard husband.

And my wife's complaining about, you know, uh, she's claiming husband, just,

you know, I mean, even, yeah, but he was just calm, just calm.

And like, it didn't sound like he was moving.

Right.

Cause in the 911 call, he goes, I'm running home.

I'm running home.

I'm within five minutes.

I'm running home and I'm listening to the background noise and there's not right.

It's just, he's not out of breath.

He's not out of breath, not running.

And in my mind, I'm thinking he's probably sitting right next to her inside.

That's what I thought.

Right.

As a defense attorney, I'm like, he's at the house sitting there and he's making this 9-1-1

call.

And at the end of the 9-1-1 call, what was also interesting is he goes, please hurry because

he's the landlord is very violent.

Right.

So to me, I was like, this whole time you guys claimed that he was basically a perfect

angel.

You guys had no issues.

But at the 9-1-1 call, you're saying, please hurry.

He's violent.

Like it just makes no sense whatsoever.

What, um, any, any other evidence, like pieces of evidence?

There's a 9-1-1 call.

Was there body worn video?

There was body worn video, um, when they got to the house, uh, to see what was going

on.

Um, and my client was home.

My client was home when the, when the deputies arrived, he was sleeping inside his bedroom.

And according to my client, he goes, I'm sleeping in my bedroom, taking a nap.

Because like I said, he had the medical issue.

So he had to nap daily.

And so he goes, I hear a pounding on my door, pounding on my door.

And it was a complaining witness's husband.

And he goes, basically, what the fuck do you want?

Like, why are you pounding on my door?

And when he opens his bedroom door, he sees the husband running out.

So he kind of chases him saying like, Hey, why are you pounding on my door and walking

away?

And he walks outside.

And next thing he sees are like deputies pulling up.

And in his mind, he's going, what did these two do now?

Right?

Like, what do they do that the deputies are there?

And once the deputies approach him, he learns that they're actually there for him.

And he's like, I haven't seen these two all day.

I have no idea where they were all day.

I haven't seen them.

I ran errands.

I come home.

I take a nap and, and I just woke up and this is what I see.

And that's basically what the body worn shows.

And they go inside the house.

They find her like in her bedroom on the floor crying with her ripped shirt on.

And was the husband there at the time?

Husband was there.

Yeah.

So husband, I walked out to the deputies and clients.

You see him running, like kind of walking out saying, what the fuck?

What the fuck?

And then he sees the deputies and he's like, what is everyone doing here?

And then the husband, did they, I know you said he talked on the 911 call.

Did the police interview him?

What's the statement he gave in the police report?

The statement he gave is basically, I got this phone call.

I came home.

I told her to lock the door.

I come home.

I see her on the floor.

And I was just waiting for you guys to show up.

But that was it.

Didn't confront the aggressor?

Didn't confront your client about attempting to rape his wife?

Yeah, they confronted him and he loses it.

He goes, you know, like I said, he had a certain personality rough around the edges.

But he goes, I didn't touch that bitch.

I haven't seen her all day.

You know, I don't know what they're trying to claim.

Yeah, I mean, rightfully so, right?

If you're being accused of something you didn't do, I mean, I'd be pissed too, right?

Like if the deputies show up to my house to arrest me.

Yeah, for something so serious.

He's like, I haven't seen him all day.

But the police confronted him, not the husband.

The husband never did.

Not the husband.

No.

No, it was the police.

So he learned through the police.

And he's like, you guys can go inside, search whatever you want, do whatever.

And then they finally put him in the car.

And, you know, you can tell the deputies were kind of like newer deputies.

Because they kept asking him like, so when did you see her?

Like, what happened?

And he goes, I just told you.

I haven't seen her all day.

And they kept repeating these questions.

And clients just getting pissed off.

Like, I fucking told you.

I haven't seen these two all day.

Listen to what I'm saying.

You know, he kept saying, you're listening to what she's saying.

Now listen to what I'm saying.

How come you're believing her, but you're not believing me?

But, you know, as defense attorneys, we know that once you're in the back of a cop car at that point, unfortunately, nothing you say is going to get you out of it.

It's better to be quiet.

Just be quiet.

Right.

Any other evidence in the police report or through discovery that we haven't gone over yet?

That's it.

That's all they had.

They didn't recover a knife.

They didn't look for a knife, asked to see one, asked her to identify nothing.

Oh, yeah.

That's right.

I forgot about the knife.

So, yeah.

So, there's no weapon.

They didn't find the smoking gun.

Okay.

So, then let's talk about negotiations.

Was there an attempt to resolve this case?

Was your client willing to take anything?

Client was not willing to take anything from day one.

It was basically like, I'm not taking anything.

Anything he would take would have to require him to register as a sex offender anyway.

So, he was not, he was like, I'm not taking anything.

I'm going to trial.

What's the max here?

What's he looking at?

Attempted rape?

Is that 261?

It was 261 C2.

They ended up changing the charges right before trial.

For like eight years, probably?

It was, yeah.

Eight years.

And then the, we got the 422 and the 245.

245 with the knife, allegation.

16 and, they look at it close to 10 years.

Let's just say that, right?

Yeah.

And so, from day one, you know, when I would talk to him about negotiations or, hey, is there

an offer that you'd be willing to take that if I could talk to the DA and get you that

you would accept?

No, no, no.

They're either dismissing this or we're going to trial.

Well, I mean, also, your client's out of custody.

I feel like it's always harder to have a conversation with your clients who are out of custody about

accepting an offer to go back into custody.

Well, I was even talking about probation offers, you know, because I think the DA understood

her case was not strong, but she kept falling back on the issue of, I believe my victim and

therefore I will proceed.

Like, she was just a true believer at that end that I'm just going to proceed even though

I know my evidence is weak, even though I know her story, you know, changes here and

there.

I'm going to proceed because I truly believe her and that she is a victim in this case.

And I was like, okay.

All right, great.

Well, that makes it easy.

Yeah.

So, we set it for trial.

And right before trial, actually, the DA comes to me and says, would your client be willing

to accept a misdemeanor in this case?

Oh, my God.

Yeah.

A sexual battery misdemeanor, time served, just probation, just register.

I think it was-

For 10 years?

Yeah.

10-year registration.

And I basically said to her, I'm going to say no, because I know my client's going to say

no, but let me go ask him.

Because I know my client at this point, right?

I've had multiple, multiple conversations with him.

So, I go to him and I say, hey, look, she's willing to offer you a misdemeanor.

No jail time.

It's a misdemeanor probation.

It's summary probation.

You just have to register for 10 years.

And he goes, how many fucking times do I got to tell you?

I'm not taking anything.

They're either dismissing it today or we're going to trial.

And I go, I knew you were going to say that, so I already said no, but I do have a legal

obligation to let you know that she's offering you this misdemeanor, but I will confirm with

her that it's a no.

That's horrible, though.

He rejected it.

Look, I get that he didn't want to take anything.

He was innocent.

But as the defense attorney, you know that innocence doesn't mean he's not going to be

convicted at trial.

And so, you have a misdemeanor on the table.

That is, that's, that's a scary moment when they're like, no, I don't want this.

And you're like, I need you to understand the risk that you're taking.

It's a lot of pressure, right?

Because you have someone's life in your hands.

And, you know, in this particular case, like I, I read the police report from day one.

And I called BS.

So, I was there with him fighting.

And I thought this whole thing was BS.

But, you know, that being said, you don't know what 12 random people are going to believe.

Right.

It's a, it's still a gamble at the end of the day.

So, I knew he was going to say no.

Part of me was hoping he'd say yes, just to save himself 100% in a sense of not going to

prison.

But I think with 288 charges, it's hard because the registering part of it, right?

You can convince someone maybe to take a misdemeanor time served when they're facing over 10 years

on a felony.

But, you know, having to register as a sex offender, that's tough.

It's like, that's a, that's a sentence of its own.

Yeah.

And has so many negative consequences that would have hurt him.

So, I think that's, that was the major thing.

Being convicted of the felony means that there's registration and prison and strikes.

So, the difference here in what you're facing in the DA's offer versus if you lose at trial

is so significant.

That's a scary moment.

So vastly different.

But he just said, if I'm going to prison, it's because a jury found me guilty, not because

I signed my name off to it.

I like it though.

Christina, you didn't have the benefit of doing the preliminary hearing.

So, you didn't get a chance to see the complaining witness testify and how she would look in court

and testify.

Do you, did you have any insight from the, the prelimin lawyer or any idea of how she may

present?

I did not.

And that was a concern for me.

So, I basically just had to judge it off of what was in the police report, what she said

in the police report versus what she actually testified to.

And I did find some inconsistencies here and there.

But that was also a concern of mine is I didn't have that advantage of seeing how she

would come across.

You know, so I, I didn't know that going into the trial.

Okay.

So let's talk about the trial then.

Tell us about the judge you're in front of.

So the judge I was in front of was actually a former public defender.

Um, he, he's very fair and he actually listens to, he's one of the judges that actually listens

to both sides and explains his rulings, which as an attorney, I appreciate versus the judges

that make their ruling.

And you kind of want to understand why, but they don't explain.

So you're just left in this abyss of confusion of what's happening.

So I was thankful that I was in, in that particular courtroom because I knew the specific issues

I was going to bring up in my 402s would actually be considered with this judge versus some of

the other judges on the bench in this courthouse.

We start off with 402s.

The DA kept trying to keep my two witnesses out based on the theory of how, um, I'm based,

like 1101 evidence.

Like I'm trying to present that she's somehow prostituting herself.

Let's explain this.

So the DA wanted to exclude the, the employee, the taco employee, the tortilla maker, right?

And the other witness.

So I, I fail to mention one additional fact that the tortilla, the tortilla worker mentioned

that on one specific occasion, the husband actually confronted her and said, Hey, with a body like

yours, you could make more money than what Roger is paying you basically doing what my wife

does.

And she took that to mean prostituting.

Failed to mention that.

Oh, that's a good one.

Yeah.

This guy sounds lovely.

Yeah.

So the DA was trying to keep those statements out because she's saying I'm basically attacking

the complaining witnesses credibility and wanting to call her a prostitute.

And, um, you know, the jury's going to be tainted and this and that, and it shouldn't be allowed.

And I argued that I'm not trying to portray her as a prostitute.

I could, I could, I could care less about what she does or she does prostitute herself.

None of my business.

My, my issue is, is that them soliciting his customers was a reason that client was kicking

them out of the house.

It's a motive to lie.

Motive to lie.

And, you know, that's the reason I'm trying to bring it in.

It's not to attack her credibility.

It's not to attack her as a person.

It's to show that he client fought with them over this issue because it was interrupting

his taco business.

You're not saying she has a character for untruthfulness because of the potential prostitution.

You're saying the potential prostitution and being caught doing it and evicted is her motive

to lie about what has happened.

But also as impeachment, because I was under the assumption that they would both take the

stand and I was correct that they would both take the stand and say, we never had any issues

with client.

Everything was perfect up until this day where he just, you know, decided to grab a knife and

attack me.

And so I was going to impeach them with these statements that, no, everything wasn't perfect.

In fact, you did have issues.

And this was the major issue.

Yeah, it seems like if anything, maybe it could just be impeachment.

How do you forward to our impeachment?

Right.

I mean, if they're going to lie about something on the stand, then here's a witness that would

show that they're lying.

So if they're going to claim she's not a prostitute, well, then here is a witness saying

that she is a prostitute.

I guess the DA could have done a limited 402.

They could have said that you can't do it unless they open the door.

So that's basically what the judge ruled.

He ruled against my witness that had the banquet hall.

He said, that is not allowed.

That's going to be 402'd out.

At all?

But completely.

He goes, that's irrelevant.

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't really match too much with this case.

That's 402'd out.

But the worker, he said, she will be allowed in if you are able to bring out in cross

examination, that there were no issues, and then she would be basically an impeachment witness.

Which I knew I would have no problem with, right?

Because if they took the stand and said what they were saying, that there were no issues,

great.

It's impeachment.

But if they took the stand and said all of a sudden, like, yeah, there were problems,

then okay, so you're admitting there were problems, which would show why he would kick

you out.

Okay.

I mean, I can see the banquet hall.

I mean, that's...

Really?

You know...

What's a tough one?

At the banquet hall, it's definitely more...

It's definitely prejudicial.

It's maybe under 352.

But I feel like it's not just that it's prejudicial, right?

It has to be substantially more prejudicial than it is probative.

What's it probative?

What's it probative of?

What's the banquet hall's probative of?

Well, if her client's going to testify that this is what happened...

And this witness will come in and say, I had dealings, and when I confronted them,

this is what happened to me, it shows that they're out to get the person who finds out

basically about their bad act.

I think it's totally probative.

It's completely on brand for what the client would be saying, and I'm assuming the complaining

witness and her husband are not going to admit to any of that on the stand.

So otherwise, you're in a situation where you have the client just...

It's his word against theirs, right?

Now you have corroborating evidence through testimony of someone else.

The judge has said, nah, not here, not in my courtroom.

We're not doing that.

Okay, so the banquet hall person's out, and I agree with you, Lauren, and you too, Christina.

And then...

We got it.

Thank you.

You just got it.

You're convinced.

I forgot about the whole actions of once they get kicked out, then there was the threats.

I forgot about the threats.

That was...

I forgot about that.

So, okay.

Okay, so banquet hall's out.

Supposedly, this judge is a great judge, but he forwarded out the banquet.

And then the impeach...

It's...

The tortilla worker can come in.

Tortilla worker's halfway in.

Halfway in.

Okay, so that's the 402s.

Did you have any 402s or anything like that?

There...

Well, she...

The DA made another 402 because there were indications in the body warrant that the complaining

witness and her husband were undocumented, right?

And so I had asked before the trial if she had applied for a U visa, which the DA had

multiple meetings with the complaining witness.

And according to the DA, the complaining witness said, no, I have not applied.

I don't have any intentions of applying.

I don't want anything from this country.

I'm just calling the police to let you know my experience.

We should explain to people what that was because I had that question.

Someone can apply for a U visa to say that they should get citizenship when they're a victim

of a crime, basically.

So that can also be a motive to lie about your client, to say that he's committed this act

against her and now she wants a U visa.

Right.

And from what I learned is they don't necessarily...

The trial doesn't necessarily have to happen.

They just have to be a participant in one way or another in aiding the DA or the law enforcement

agency.

And that way they get some sort of certificate from them and therefore they can go apply

for the U visa.

Yeah.

So I explored that option, but the DA had nothing to give me as other than I had a conversation

with her and she's not seeking a U visa.

So I couldn't really proceed on that theory in trial.

So that was out, which I will get to because it was actually brought in through the DA herself,

which we'll get there.

That was basically it.

Oh, wait.

Did you try and 402 out the DNA evidence of the shirt?

I did not because I actually wanted that in because I knew it was in my favor.

Okay.

Yeah.

I actually spoke to a couple of people who recommended that I go with my theory and what

my DNA expert had to say.

It was just so...

My DNA expert described it as inconclusive.

They can't even come to a conclusion based on their findings.

So you decided essentially to not 402 it out because you could point then to the DA and

be look at how far they're reaching.

They don't actually have anything.

Exactly.

I like it.

Okay.

So then let's talk about the jury trial then.

Tell us about jury selection.

With jury selection, it was interesting because they hear the charges.

Well, before we start a trial, the DA actually ended up dismissing the original charges.

And she added a charge of assault with the intent to commit rape with a knife allocation.

So she dismisses the attempted rape.

She dismisses the criminal threats.

She dismisses the assault with a deadly weapon.

And she just adds a assault with an intent to commit rape.

It's penal code 220, subsection A.

Yeah.

With a knife allegation.

So he's facing, what, seven years at this point.

I mean...

She's basically lowering her burden.

Yeah, she's already aware that she doesn't have what she needs to proceed on the case

as charged.

Right.

How is this...

How...

Well, explain.

What's the difference then?

How is this lowering her burden?

Like, all of a sudden, what does she have to prove now, whereas before she didn't?

Can you explain that?

Well, with attempted rape, she would have to prove that he did something in furtherance of

the act, right?

Which here, she doesn't really have.

She has...

He turned her around.

He held a knife, threatened to kill her, and she walked away, and he just...

That sounds like...

That sounds like enough.

That sounds like a step in preparation.

But he lets her walk away.

Yeah.

He kind of, like...

He abandons, basically, whatever intention he had.

So I don't think it would have been enough for her at trial, beyond a reasonable doubt,

to prove attempted rape.

And she can't do the 422, because we're not sure what was said.

Because she went back and forth.

Criminal threats.

And so she just added the assault with the intent to commit rape.

And kind of tied that all into that one charge.

Okay.

So that was the only count we were proceeding on.

During jury selection, you know, when the jurors hear rape, automatically, I feel like

it's hard, right?

With cases like that, it's hard to get them to focus.

It's an electric word.

Right.

So my voir dire, of course, you know, that's the only part of trial where defense attorneys

get to go first.

It's the most awkward part of trial.

It's getting to know all these strangers who, you know, are there, not voluntarily, and get

them to talk to you about their feelings about really, really difficult issues.

And in this case, it's potentially raping someone.

So, so it's tough.

And I decided that this trial, I don't know if you guys heard of the Messner approach,

the jury selection.

Yeah, we've had some people talk about it.

Yeah.

So I actually decided, you know what, I'm going to use this for the first time.

This is going to be the trial where I use it for the first time.

And it actually worked out in my favor.

Describe what the Messner process is.

So it's asking a question.

So it basically starts out, you know, you know, juror number one, do you think you can

be fair and impartial in this case?

Yes, of course.

You know, okay, juror number two, do you think you can be fair and impartial?

Yes.

And it's like, okay, well, if I were to go out and ask 10 random strangers on the street,

hey, do you think you can be fair and impartial?

How many people would say no?

And the answer is basically no one, right?

Everyone likes to think that they can be fair and impartial.

But how is that possible when we're all, you know, separate people, different opinions,

different beliefs, what's fair and impartial is subjective.

So when I'm asking you, can you be fair and impartial?

The ultimate question of what I'm asking you is, can you follow the law in this case,

even when it's hard, right?

So you're going to hear the law presented to you, and you're going to hear someone take

the stand and tell you of this very traumatic experience she had, and are you able to take

that information, compartmentalize it, and listen to everything else in this trial to

then make a determination of whether what you heard is actually credible.

And that's what being fair and impartial really means is can you follow the law when it's hard?

You know, so instilling things like that into their mind.

So I followed that to a T, and it actually worked out pretty well.

Any interesting moments with jurors that you remember?

Or any types of, any line of questioning you want to share?

Where you're like, yeah.

Not really, actually.

It went pretty smoothly.

This was one of the ones where it actually went pretty smoothly.

I said, you know, using this method is either going to be really good or really bad.

And it actually ended up being really good.

There wasn't any, like, weird moments, except for the fact that I got to a juror and I asked

a question and she said, I can try to be, right?

I can try to listen to everything.

Love those.

And I used the example of, okay, well, if, you know, if my husband were going on a bachelor

trip in Vegas and I said, hey, honey, you're going to stay faithful to me this weekend when

you go on your bachelor trip and he says, oh, I'm going to try, that's not going to instill

much confidence in me that he is going to be faithful, right?

Like, I just use that example.

And she basically knows, she goes, well, I know my husband, so I would never ask that

question.

And I was like, that's not the point.

The point is, you know, the theory behind it is, you know, you want to be confident about

the decisions you're making.

So we don't want you to just try.

We want you to actually say that you can do it.

So did you kick her?

And then, what?

Did you kick her?

I kicked her.

I kicked her because she also said.

She was being a bitch.

Yeah, that was definitely.

She also said, when I was talking about credibility and believability of witnesses, I was describing

the difference between what, you know, credibility versus believability of a witness is.

I said, someone can take this stand and say that the earth is flat, right?

And that if you walk enough steps that you're eventually going to fall off the face of the

planet and they can truly believe that, right?

They can truly believe that what they're saying is true, but are they credible?

And the answer is no, right?

Because we know that the earth is not flat.

It's, in fact, round.

And I asked that same juror and I said, so if you heard her say that the earth is flat

and she really believed it and you don't think she's lying and you don't think she's trying

to be manipulative or malicious in any way, would you still give her credibility?

And she goes, yeah.

And I go, well, why?

And she goes, I know the earth is round.

And I know it's not flat, but if she really believes it, then I'm going to believe her

too.

And I'm just like, okay, you're just on another level.

It's a lot of reasons.

Thank you very much, right?

Just move on.

I know I'm going to kick her.

I'm with David, though.

If she's a bitch to you in Wadir, that's enough of a reason.

If they don't like you right away, you could have told her the sky is blue and she would

have been like, oh, maybe it depends.

Is it raining out?

I don't know.

Just anything you say.

Oh, you know, you're a defense attorney.

And then the prosecutor gets up there and she's like, yeah.

You know?

Whatever you say.

Yeah.

So at that point, I was like, okay, she's gone.

So I had an idea of the jurors.

It was actually a pretty good pool of people.

What about the DA?

Oh, go ahead.

Continue.

Were you going to say something else?

I'm sorry.

I was just going to say when the DA got up, you know, she started asking questions about

what if, you know, we're used to watching, you know, forensic files and CSI and all these

shows, like who watches them?

And, you know, in those shows, you see DNA evidence, you see fingerprints, you see, you

know, whatever.

And that ties the person to the case and, you know, the case is solved.

She goes, what if you were to not hear strong scientific evidence?

Or what if there was no scientific evidence in this case?

And I'm sitting there going, you're introducing science.

You're introducing scientific evidence.

She's already undermining her own evidence.

Right.

It's not that strong.

And you're here asking your jurors, what if you don't have that in this case?

Could you still convict?

And I was just like, oh, this is going to be great.

You know, that's I've seen the DAs do that a little too much.

The, hey, if I don't have evidence, can you still convict?

Even if we don't have any evidence, does anybody have a problem?

If I don't present evidence, does anybody have a problem with convicting someone if there's

no evidence?

Because maybe this is not the jury for you.

Can you convict them just because I asked you to?

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I was just like, okay, like she knows that there isn't much to this case, but I

mean, she's, she's rolling with the punches.

So basically some of her questioning, um, was tied to the lack of evidence she was going

to present, right?

Like that was a lot of her jury selection was, well, what about if you don't hear this?

Or what if you don't, what if there's no cameras or what if, you know, what if you don't hear

about that?

It could, you still convict sort of thing.

And it was all tied to the lack of evidence she had in this case.

So that was just very, very interesting to me that that was the approach she took.

Um, and then how's your client with the beginning of trial?

Is he excited?

Cause he, he's like, I ain't taking anything.

Let's go.

Uh, no, he, um, he's not like the enthusiastic type of like, we're gonna, you know, we got

this, we got this.

It was, it's basically like, I can't believe I'm here.

Like, fuck all of you.

The fact that I have to drive here every day, this is ridiculous.

And just literally huffing and puffing the entire time to where the judge had to be like,

sir, I don't want to be disrespectful, but if you keep doing that in front of the jury,

I'm going to admonish you in front of the jury.

So please stop.

And I repeatedly told him to please stop, but you know, he, he is who he is.

Well, let's talk about opening statements then.

How did that go?

Uh, so, you know, the DA goes, she presents her case.

She kind of goes into detail about what her, her, um, witnesses are going to say, you know,

one by one, the complaining witness, then her husband, then she's going to put a deputy

on the stand and for whatever purpose, then her, you know, her criminalists.

And she's, she's going really into detail and kind of losing the jurors personally for

me in opening statements, I'm the, the defense attorney that less is more for me in opening

statements.

I just kind of present my theory, let them know who they're going to hear from.

And, and, you know, like just a quick summary of what they're going to hear.

I don't really go into detail.

I don't like long opening statements.

The second I get up there, I kind of want to sit, sit back down and just let the questioning,

you know, work out for themselves.

So I just stood up there and said, listen, this is, this is the theory of the case.

They're making this up because they wanted to stay in the house longer than they were

allowed to because he was kicking them out.

You're going to hear from, you know, this person, this person, my DNA expert, who's going

to say this, you're going to, I knew my client was going to testify.

I said, you're going to hear from, from my client.

Um, and these witnesses, and at that point, uh, I just ask you to find him not guilty based

on the evidence that's resented to you.

And I just sit down.

Your opening is let's not talk about it.

Let's be about it.

Let's go.

Right.

Let's see what they have.

Yeah.

Right.

So, so that was basically it.

Um, and then she calls her first witness.

Who's the, the, the witness.

Time to put up or shut up.

Let's go.

Go.

Who do they put up?

So she puts up the complaining witness.

Okay.

She puts up the complaining witness first.

And she, this is your first time because you didn't do the prelim and you didn't have a

statement from her, from your investigator, right?

This is going to be your first time hearing her tell her story.

Correct.

I had seen her a couple of times with her husband, but this would be the first time I actually hear

her, see how she presents.

Um, yeah, the very first time.

So she takes the stand and her demeanor is very, I'm going to sit, I'm going to look down.

There's an interpreter next to her cause she only speaks Spanish and she's talking down

very low to the interpreter.

Doesn't look up and is kind of presenting herself as this like poor, you know, poor woman.

Like no eye contact.

No eye contact.

So it doesn't look.

Well, I mean, she might be, her husband is pimping her out.

Like that may not have been an act or a persona.

She may just be kind of traumatized.

Right.

That's actually an argument I made.

Was the interpreter speaking loudly for her?

Was the interpreter sort of mimicking the volume as well, right?

She was not mimicking the volume, which I was thankful for.

Cause some interpreters do that.

They try to mimic the tone of the person speaking.

I like it when they do that.

Really?

I mean, in this case, I particularly was thankful she didn't cause it was just like low, right?

It was just, you know, I couldn't hear her half the time.

So I was just waiting for the interpreter to talk because I couldn't understand anything.

But, um, yeah, she was just very shy, timid.

Just, you know, poor lady.

What did she testify to?

She testified to, I was making food, waiting for my husband.

He comes, grabs my shoulders, spins me around, has a knife in his hand, rips my shirt, threatens to kill me, uh, and says, I will, I will kill you.

I will fucking kill you unless you have sex with me.

I agree out of a ruse to get away, to go change my shirt and come back.

I go on my door, go lock the door, call my husband, and I don't hear from him again.

Did she say that he ripped her shirt with his hands or with the knife that he was holding?

With his hands.

Which, like I said, I don't, I don't know how that would be physically possible to get a straight tear in that situation.

It's not like he took two hands and kind of ripped it down the middle.

You know, if he has one knife in a hand, in his hand, and he's grabbing with the other, like, it wouldn't be a tear like that.

Did the DA introduce the shirt into evidence at that time?

She did.

She brought the shirt, put the gloves on, takes it out of the bag, holds it up in front of the jurors, and it's like, is this the shirt you were wearing at the time of the incident?

Yes.

And is this the tear that the defendant tore your shirt?

Yes.

And she's, like, holding it up in front of the jurors and then folds it back and puts it away in her little envelope.

Yeah.

She did all that.

So how did your cross-examination go?

So I basically got up there and I went chronologically and I said, okay, this is what you're saying, this is what you're saying, this is what you're saying.

And I decided to attack her based on her preliminary transcripts because in her preliminary transcript, she testified that the DA had asked her, oh, and he threatened to kill you, right?

And she goes, no, no, no, he never threatened to kill me.

He never said he was going to kill me.

He just had the knife, right?

And so I said, do you remember testifying about this?

No, no, no, he did threaten to kill me.

And I was like, well, isn't it true at your preliminary hearing you testified that he didn't threaten to kill you?

And so I kept impeaching her with the prelim transcripts.

I kept having to refresh her memory.

And every subject that I was trying to impeach her with her transcript, her prelim transcript versus what she said on the stand at trial, she blamed on interpreter error.

So every single point of contention where she said something different, she goes, that was the interpreter's mistake.

I never said that.

And so, you know, I use that later in my closing, how it's convenient that everything that I asked her about was an interpreter error, but everything the DA asked her about, that was perfectly clear, right?

There was no interpreter error at that point, but it was the, he never threatened to kill me that she said.

In her prelim transcript, she said she never locked the door to the bedroom.

She said there was a lock, but I never locked it.

Whereas on the stand, she's saying, no, I did lock the door.

That's why he never came in.

Right.

And so I was impeaching her that you never locked the door, even though you're saying you did.

Oh, no, no.

That was interpreter error.

I did lock the door.

So it was things like that, you know, how important is the door being locked?

Not as much, I guess, as him threatening to kill her or not, but it's just, you're saying things that are completely different.

So that's where it becomes important because that it's, you know, the devils and the lies.

Yeah, you're, you're impeaching her with her own words.

And I think it also looks bad for them when you have to keep refreshing their recollection, right?

Like, oh, you don't remember?

Anytime I ask a question, you don't, you don't know the answer because you don't remember.

Right.

I think that that looks really bad in front of the jury for them too.

So that was basically, you know, going through all her inconsistencies and then just asking her specific questions

about the arguments she had with my client that she claimed never existed.

Because I'm, again, I'm trying to get in those witnesses or the testimony that there were issues.

And she just kept saying no.

Like, she literally said he was an angel up until that day where he just decided to choose violence and grab a knife.

So you have what you need now to get in your tortilla maker.

He wanted, the judge wanted to hear from the husband because his theory was that it was the husband

who was soliciting the customers, not the wife.

The wife is just, right?

So I said, okay.

So the DA's next witness was the husband.

And I did the same thing is I basically asked him, didn't you have, isn't it true that you had issues?

Isn't it true that Roger kicked you out multiple times from his house?

Isn't it true that you broke into his house when he was in Mexico?

No, no, no, no, no.

So at that point, yeah, the tortilla worker was going to be allowed in.

Did you ask the husband about the solicitation or were you not allowed to ask about that?

I was allowed to ask.

So he allowed, the judge allowed me to ask.

I did it in piecemeal, right?

Isn't it true that client approached you with issues?

No.

And by issues, what I mean is that one, you weren't paying rent.

No.

Two, you weren't keeping your part of the house clean.

No.

And actually, you were interrupting his business.

No, I wasn't.

Well, what I mean by you were interrupting his business is, isn't it true that you were soliciting his customers?

You're trying to throw it into a brothel.

Right.

And so I just did it in piecemeal to where I'm kind of like catching him, right?

Because I feel like I would have been objected to if I just straight out, isn't it true you were prostituting your wife?

So, yeah, I was taking it step by step where I don't think the judge at that point can say I'm not allowed to question because at that point, he's just denying everything.

So that's how I was able to get it in.

And I said, well, isn't it true that you're actually soliciting his customers to have sex with your wife?

And I think one of the questions was objected to, and the objection was sustained.

But at that point, the jurors already heard it.

Really?

Yeah.

So I don't care either way.

What did the husband testify to on direct?

That what?

That he got a phone call from her?

Yeah, that he was out looking for work, which was at his friend's house.

So I said, so you're at your friend's house looking for work?

How long were you there?

Five hours.

And I was like, so you're just at your friend's house for five hours looking for work?

What does that mean, right?

Drinking beer.

That makes sense with that.

Yeah, exactly.

What does that mean?

And so he just said, I was there looking for work.

I get this phone call, this frantic phone call, and I rush home and I call 911 and I come

home and I see her in our bedroom on the floor crying hysterically.

So you played the 911 call?

Then she played the 911 call.

While the husband was on the stand.

While the husband was on the stand.

And is that you?

Is that your voice?

Yes.

Yeah.

And in the 911 call, again, it was in Spanish.

So some of the translation was, is, um, I am walking over, right?

I'm walking over.

But he testified that he got in his car and drove and he goes, I'm five minutes away.

So I basically asked him like, Hey, where were you when you got this 911 call?

Like how far away from the house were you?

And he said, I was about, uh, five miles away.

So I said, when you say you were walking over and you're five miles away, how is it possible?

You walked to the house in five minutes, right?

It's a very, very fast power walk.

Right.

Right.

And, and I pointed out that he was like barely breathing in the 911 call.

So he goes, Oh, that's just a figure of speech.

I meant, uh, you know, I was actually driving.

I wasn't walking.

Um, I was driving.

So by driving, I was five minutes away.

And then I harped on the fact that, well, that's not what you said.

You said walking and you said, you know, and so he just kept saying it's a figure of speech.

Um, and that's, that was a translation portion of it.

I kinda, I kinda mentioned in my closing, I didn't want to harp on it too much.

Cause it was a translation thing, but I did mention, I said, how convenient again with the

husband where my theory is he's probably sitting next to his wife that he says I'm walking when

he probably was where now he says he's driving, you know, I just kind of touched on it and

moved on.

So who testified next for the prosecution?

The criminalist, the criminalist took the stand and testified to DNA.

Yeah.

This wonderful DNA, uh, discovery that they had for the ripped portion of the shirt.

And, um, basically described, yeah, it's two times more likely than not, which she said,

we're, I can't say that means every other male in the room, but it basically means, yeah.

Like every, every two people, like it's not, it's not a very strong result is what she said.

This is their criminalist.

This is their criminalist.

This is not your expert.

So no, the DA called their criminalist who said on the stand, this is not a strong result.

Right, right.

That's, yeah.

And then she, and then she, uh, talked about transfer DNA herself and she says, yeah, it's

possible, you know, that because they live together, that this would be transferred over.

Like that's not uncommon.

Um, did you talk at all to the criminalist about the way the shirt didn't look like it

had been torn or no?

She couldn't comment.

So she goes, we don't comment on the tearing.

She goes, I just do the testing.

Okay.

So yeah, she didn't comment on how she believes it was torn or anything like that.

She was just there to comment on what the results were of the DNA.

But she said that in response to one of your questions that like, so you had the jury thinking

about that at least.

Yeah.

So actually the DNA portion of it was handled by another attorney in our office in the DNA

unit, uh, Brad Siegel.

So he actually handled the DNA portion of it.

And in his cross-examination, like I was just sitting there in awe watching him the way he

was able to dumb down what the criminalists said on direct to where the jurors really understood

and, uh, how he was able to cross-examine her with how this is basically what she found was

nothing was just amazing.

And he actually took my DNA expert's report and was able to get her, the DNA, the DA's

criminalist to agree to every single point that my DNA expert had in his report.

She agreed to everything in it.

And she goes, yes, that's true.

Shout out to Brad.

Yeah.

He did a phenomenal job.

Like I was just sitting there just like, you know, and you could tell the jurors were

paying attention and they were just like, wow, like their minds were blown.

It's an impressive bill to break down.

Technical and scientific evidence for the jury in a way that everyone can follow along.

That's not always easy to do.

I mean, 10 out of 10, he did a fantastic job.

Yeah, he did great.

And so he was able to extrapolate the information that like, yeah, the DNA you found is actually

in about 40% of males in the world.

It's not a rare genetic marker.

It's very common in males.

And that's the only marker they had tied to my clients.

So theoretically, if you were to have tested, let's say the husband, could he have this genetic

marker?

There's a 40% chance he could.

Yeah, there was other DNA that we found or other like another spec we found that we could

have tested.

But, you know, we're very busy.

It costs a lot of money and a lot of resources.

So therefore, we didn't test it.

And we're just going to proceed with what we found here, which we think is two times more

likely than not that it's your clients.

So while Brad is doing this class, were you just sitting there with your arms crossed looking

at the jury like, are you getting this?

Like, yeah, I'm sitting there and I'm taking notes and I'm just like, I'm nodding my head

and I'm trying really hard not to smile ear to ear because there are times where I was

just like, wow, he got her, right?

Because I kind of wanted to keep it.

I didn't want it to look like I was really egging him on.

But yeah, I myself was just like, wow, I was not expecting to hear how amazing this is going

to be.

I knew it was going to be good based on their lack of evidence.

But the way that Brad had brought it out, I was just like, wow, this is great.

I knew we won from there.

I was like, we're done, right?

We're done.

Can you see the jurors then?

Is this resonating with the jurors?

Are they nodding along or do they seem interested?

They seemed 110% interested in Brad.

Every time, you know, when you're asking questions and sometimes you can tell the jurors are

just, they don't, they're not listening.

They don't care.

They're just kind of like spaced out.

Every time the criminalist was done answering, like they would look back at Brad, right?

And it was just like a back and forth.

Like they were interested.

It was great.

Another homegrown hero.

Yeah.

All right.

Anybody else testify for the prosecution?

At that point, no.

She, she, she didn't call a deputy.

She called a deputy in her rebuttal because she had a rebuttal and that opened another can

of worms basically.

But at that point, no, she had rested.

And at that point, it was like at 2.30 in the afternoon, 2.45, something like that.

I had prepped my client earlier that day because we're only in session in the afternoon.

So I had prepped my client earlier that day to take the stand and throughout the lunch

hour.

So he was with me for a good three hours and that was not the first time I had prepped

him before.

But that day I said, look, there's a potential that she's going to finish.

And if it's earlier in the afternoon, there's a good chance you're going to take the stand.

So let's, let's go over it again.

And so, uh, I basically prepped him and, you know, defense, call your first witness.

And I just looked at him and I stood up and I said, the defense calls Roger to the stand.

Right.

And he just looks and he goes, I ain't fucking getting up on that stand.

In front of the jury?

Yells it out.

I ain't fucking getting up there on the stand.

She's going to destroy me.

That's what he says.

And I just freeze, I freeze, right?

And I just have this like fake smile, like your honor, you know, just technical difficulties.

Can I just take a five, you know, just a five minute break.

We'll be right back.

And he's like, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Everything's fine.

Everything's fine.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Don't worry.

Like, we'll be back.

And so he excuses the jurors and I didn't know where to take him.

So I took him to the back where, um, like custodies are usually brought in, like custody

clients, the attorney room.

So I take him there and I am, I'm just upset.

Right.

Because I, I'm like, dude, everything is going so well.

I said, you're, you're winning.

And I had another colleague of mine in there at the time too, who was watching.

And, and I'm just like, you're winning.

I said, any chance of you winning?

Like you just threw down the toilet.

I, and I'm just going, I was just so upset with him.

Right.

And, and you have to understand him and I have spent many, many, many hours together

in my office talking about the case.

Um, and like I said, I I've had to control him throughout different court dates because

he has a certain type of personality.

So I had to kind of break him down and let him know that it's not okay.

Like a tough mom sort of approach, even though he's in his, you know, late fifties.

And so I just said, any, any sliver of hope you had is down the toilet.

Like, what are you doing?

Why didn't you just tell me?

I asked you beforehand and you said you were ready and this and that you could have just

told me I could have handled it.

And he just goes, she's going to destroy me and this and that.

And I go, listen, you have a story and you have a great story.

I said, you have a great story to tell.

It makes sense, especially with all the evidence the DA presented.

It makes perfect sense what you're going to say.

I said, there's nothing to be scared of.

And so, you know, we kind of talked him down after 15, 20 minutes and he goes, look, I want

to think about it.

Is there a way you can ask the judge to break for the day?

Maybe I come back tomorrow and we prep again.

And I go, look, I'll try, but you got to stop with these outbursts.

Like, yeah, you can't do this.

I said, it's still savable.

Like you haven't completely taken, right?

At that point I'm caught, I'm more calm too.

And I'm like, we're doing good.

You just, you can't do this.

And so I went out and I asked the judge, I was like, look, can we just break for the

day and come back tomorrow?

And he said, sure.

Like he was nice enough to be like, sure.

You didn't want to just call the other witnesses.

There was no one there.

There was no one.

I didn't have anyone lined up because my plan was to just put him first and then have them

corroborate his testimony.

So there was nobody waiting after him.

Oh boy.

And so we took a break and we came back the next day and he took the stand and, you know,

with a couple of hiccups here and there.

And by hiccups, I mean, kind of getting into it with the DA due to his personality.

He did fantastic.

Did you ask him about his outbursts in front of the jury?

No.

You didn't address it?

I didn't.

I didn't address it until closing arguments.

I addressed it in closing arguments.

Smart.

So what did he testify to?

What do you say?

He said, you know, that day that he woke up, he didn't see either the complaining witness

or her husband.

He didn't know if they were in the bedroom still sleeping when he woke up or if they had

left.

But he woke up, he had errands to run in the San Fernando Valley.

So he drove to the San Fernando Valley, ran his errands, like paid his car insurance and

he had a receipt for it, you know, went to go buy meat to sell and prepare for that weekend

to sell the tacos.

And he did all these things.

And then by the time he drove home, it was close to like 4 p.m., 4.30, something to that

effect.

He gets home, he unloads his truck with all the meat.

He had food for himself, he eats, he takes his food to his bedroom, he eats his food and

he passes out of sleep.

And he basically testified that, you know, he has health issues, he has feet issues, like

he, there was pictures of his feet that I showed where they're basically swollen and

not, he walks with a limp, right?

He has issues in his feet.

So that also went to the, he stomped on my foot theory that she goes, as I walked away,

he stomped on my foot because he goes, even if I wanted to, I wouldn't be able to.

Um, so he goes, I, I napped next thing.

I know the husband's pounding on my door.

I walk outside and there's police and I get arrested.

And then he talks about the issues in the past.

Okay.

He talks about the prostitution and the, and the no rent and how he kicked them out or

was going to kick them out on June 1st.

Right.

So I kind of took him and I, and I had to explain, like, how did you meet them?

How did they come about moving in?

Right.

And then why did you kick them out?

And then how did they get back to your house?

And, you know, the whole, I went to Mexico and they had, you know, broken in and this and

that.

So he, he went chronologically and described that whole history.

And then towards the end where he goes, I found out that they were soliciting my customers

again.

I gave them till June 1st.

And on May 31st, I was arrested.

What did he get into the prosecutor with?

Like, what was the back and forth about?

She didn't really have much to ask him other than the fact that he kept saying they didn't

work.

Right.

And then she kept saying, well, isn't it true that she worked and helped you feed the

animals on your land?

And he goes, no, she didn't work for me at that time.

Like he's talking about the present date when these allegations are brought up and she

goes, so you're saying she didn't feed your chickens that day.

And he's like, I don't know if she fed the chickens, if she wanted to feed the chickens

on her own, like, okay, she could feed the chickens.

I'm not paying her to feed the chickens.

So no, she's not working for me.

So like, at one point they're fighting over if she fed the chickens and if she got paid

to feed the chickens.

And I'm just like, what are we, you know, and he's just getting wild.

Yeah.

And it's just like, I'm just sitting there like, what are you asking him?

Right.

So it was, it was like little things like that.

Like, oh, you're saying that you guys argued.

Well, do you have any proof that you argued and just things like that back and forth.

Oh, they broke into your house.

You didn't call 9-1-1.

So you're saying these burglars came into your house and you didn't call 9-1-1.

And he, and that's when he said, like, I know who they are.

I'm not calling 9-1-1 when I know who they are.

They're not strangers.

And it's 2 a.m.

I'm tired.

I just want to go to bed and deal with it the next day.

I'm not going to call the police.

He goes, well, why wouldn't you call the police?

You felt safe with them, right?

Like they were already there.

You never kicked them out.

He's like, no, I kicked them out.

They caused this damage to my door.

But like I said, I don't call police.

I don't like police.

I don't involve police.

And I know them.

I'm not going to call cops on someone I know and something I can handle as a man and a human

being.

I was like, great.

You know, things like that.

Yeah.

That's such a funny cross, though, to get into it over the whole chickens thing.

Chickens.

Yeah.

It was amazing.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, OK, cool.

So that's it for the defense then because your impeachment witness was not there, right?

Didn't show up.

My impeachment witness was not there.

She didn't end up showing.

And I couldn't call my other witness, obviously, because she was 402'd out.

And I ended up not calling my DNA expert because Brad did such.

I didn't need to.

She agreed to everything in the report.

So I ended up not even calling him.

So the only witness I had was my client.

All right.

So defense rests.

And then you said there was rebuttal from the prosecution.

There was rebuttal from the prosecution.

So is it worth talking about?

A little bit.

OK.

A little bit.

Because in the body worn video where my client got arrested, he basically made a statement

like, you're going to believe her over me.

And she's undocumented.

And I was born and bred here.

He made a statement like that.

So in cross, she actually brought that up with my client saying like, oh, you think she's

you're out to get her because she's like, she opened the door.

She goes, you think you're a better person because you were born and bred here.

Right.

And he goes, no.

He goes, well, you said, how can you believe her when she's undocumented and not believe

me when I was born and bred here?

That's so dumb.

And then he goes, my father was undocumented.

And he goes, I have nothing against that.

I'm just saying how you not believe me.

Don't paint me out to be this person.

Da, da, da, da.

So she kind of brought it up on her own.

Right.

Yeah.

And then in her rebuttal, she ends up recalling the complaining witness to the stand.

And her sole question was, when you went to your bedroom and locked the door to call your

husband, did you have any other contact with Roger?

And originally she testified, no.

Right.

He like left.

In one of the supplemental reports, she did mention this, but she did it on the stand.

But she said, yes.

When I was in the room, I heard him pacing outside my bedroom door saying, no one's going

to believe you.

You're undocumented.

Right.

So she calls her to take the stand to say this.

So she's basically opening the door.

So at this point I asked to approach and I said, look, I know it was forward to it out.

I wasn't, I didn't bring up anything.

But she brought this up.

Now I have to be able to inquire if this is a, this is something that she's, she's a motive

or something.

He goes, I agree.

Go ahead.

So knowing that she hadn't applied for the U visa, I just asked her, isn't it true,

true that you had multiple conversations with the DA about a U visa?

No, I've never had any conversations.

So smart to ask.

Isn't it true?

U visa is you can get citizenship by saying that you're a victim.

I don't know.

But isn't it true that you sat in a room with this DA and had a conversation about it?

No, I never had a conversation about a visa with anybody.

And at this point, I kind of take a break stipulation.

So at this point I take a break and I'm telling the DA, I'm like, now you're a witness, you're

taking the stand in your own trial or you're going to stipulate to the fact that you have

these conversations, right?

And so the DA gets up on her cross and she goes, so when we had these conversations about

the visa, isn't it true?

You said you're not applying, so you're not applying, but we had the conversations, but

you're not applying, right?

So that's how she was trying to fix it.

But by her own questioning, she's admitting that these conversations existed and then that

she could still apply for it.

So it was great for me all around.

And so pointless for the DA.

What a stupid risk to take.

Right.

And I told her before she recalled her, I was like, what purpose are you calling her for?

And she goes, I'm going to ask her about the statement he made about no one believing

her.

And I said to her specifically, I said, are you sure you want to go down that route?

I literally said that to her.

I said, are you sure that's what you want to do?

And she said, yeah, yeah.

What do you mean?

Yeah.

I was like, okay.

And literally when she answered on cross that those conversations never happened, even in

front of the jury, I looked at the DA and I said, I told you, I literally said, I told

you.

I said, so what do you want to do?

Love it.

Right.

And like at that point, I'm like, I don't care.

I'm just going to do whatever.

Right.

Did you have any rebuttal evidence to the DA's awesome rebuttal evidence?

No, that's it.

That's it.

And then she just called her deputy real quick, which didn't help her either because she called

him to say that he saw her really traumatized on the bedroom floor.

But then he went an additional layer to say that, oh, she told me that this was the bedroom

she was attacked in.

So I was basically able to say, oh, she didn't say she was attacked in the kitchen.

No, no, no.

She told me this is the bedroom she was attacked in.

So her rebuttal witnesses just did not work in her favor whatsoever.

So it was great for me.

She was not having a good day.

No, no.

All right.

All right.

So tell us about closing argument then.

How'd that go?

So the DA gets up, gives her closing argument, says, look, this, she was attacked.

Here's her ripped shirt.

His DNA is on it.

Albeit it's very small, but it's there.

Why would she lie about this?

She has no motive to lie.

His DNA is on it?

Yeah.

His DNA?

Are we sure?

Yeah.

I don't think that's what was established at all.

Mistakes to objection.

Mistakes to evidence.

Yeah.

So she just said that and that's it.

Basically, she just went through, oh, you know, when someone's nervous, they say things,

but the fact is that this was her experience.

And what was her experience?

In the kitchen?

In the bedroom?

In the kitchen, yeah.

I mean, what was her experience?

Yeah.

And that he attacked her and why would she make this up?

And she didn't stay at the house, even though there was evidence that she did.

They were able to stay at the house and were told by the prior detective that they have

to go.

That came out, too.

So the prior detective on the case actually ended up passing away, but somehow I was able

to get him in his recording when he interviewed my clients, where my clients, like, they, you

know, I'm going to go back home now.

Like, if I get out and they're like, well, they're actually living there.

And he's like, well, they can't live there.

It's my house.

And he's like, well, they're there and I can't kick them out.

You know, he's like, you know what it's like.

It's a whole eviction process.

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

That's my house.

They can't be there.

And the detective was basically like, look, I'll try to get him to leave.

But if they don't, you got to go through an eviction process.

So I was able to establish that they basically got what they wanted.

They got him arrested and they were able to stay at the house.

So they heard that too.

So she just kept saying, like, you know, they had no motive, whatever, they were gone

and this and that.

And then she sat down.

And then when I got up, I just went witness by witness, showed her inconsistencies.

So the inconsistencies of the husband basically said how convenient for her to blame all her

inconsistencies on the translator, but everything else she said was not a translator issue.

That was correct.

That was translated correctly.

But the parts where she said different things is not correct, right?

In voir dire, the DA had asked the jurors, like, you know, when you go to a baseball game

and somebody tells you four days later, like, how was that?

You know, tell me about the baseball game.

You're just going to tell the highlights, right?

Not all the facts of your experience you're going to share with that person.

You're just going to share the highlights, the important facts.

So I took what she said in voir dire in my closing and I said, he couldn't tell her inconsistencies

was whether the guy said, I'm going to fucking kill you unless you had sex with me.

That's what she's inconsistent about.

That is the highlight, right?

That's the highlight of this entire thing is if someone's holding a knife saying, I'm going

to fucking kill you unless you have sex with me.

That's not something you're going to forget, right?

The parts where he grabbed my shoulders and then he turned me like this and then he took

his right foot and stomped my right foot and then he held it like the knife like this and

then he held my shirt.

Like, those are stuff you're not going to remember.

The fact that he's holding a knife in your face saying, I'm going to fucking kill you.

That's something that you're not going to forget.

And the fact that at prelim, you said, no, he never threatened to kill me.

That's a problem.

That's the highlight, right?

So I brought that up.

I brought the DNA up.

The lack of DNA, which they were totally, you could tell they were totally on board for.

I argued, like, why would a DA in jury selection talk about, can you convict if you don't have

scientific evidence, you know, when they're introducing scientific evidence?

And so I argue that that's because they didn't have any.

Then I held up the shirt in my, in my little, you know, dramatic fashion.

And I said, look at this shirt.

And I said, this shirt was ripped with a scissor.

It was some kind of controlled tear.

And I said, I don't know who, who made the controlled tear, but I can, I can, uh, sum it

down to two people, either the complaining witness or her husband.

I said, I can't tell you which one, but I can tell you it was one of them.

And if I were to bet my marbles, I would say it's the husband.

And then I said something like, I believe that the complaining witness, I said, I believe

she's a victim.

I'm telling you right now, the only part of this trial that I agree with the DA is that

she is a victim, but she's not a victim of Roger.

She's a victim of her husband.

And that's what I argued.

You should have been like, you should be like, there's a 40% chance that, that this DNA on

the shirt tear, there's a 40% chance.

It's the husband who did this tear 40%.

Right.

And I said, why didn't they test him?

And I said, you're telling me the DA wants to charge a man with a very serious felony

with very serious consequences, and they're putting their criminalist on the stand who's

telling you that the largest sheriff's department in the nation doesn't have the time or resources

or the money to retest something that could potentially exonerate him because they don't

want to, and they want to proceed on this bogus DNA that they're presenting you.

I said, how is that justice?

How is that justice?

It's not.

So, you know, I was just going one by one with everything the DA presented.

And then I went back, I said, remember when I said, can you follow the law when it's hard?

This is what it is.

It's you heard her story.

You heard what she said, and it was very traumatic, but you have to take that and hear everything

else, take everything else you heard in this trial and make that decision of how credible

is her story beyond a reasonable doubt.

And it's just not, you can't.

And that was basically my argument.

Right.

So how long did the jurors deliberate for?

The jurors deliberated for a total of about three hours.

Oh, wow.

Any questions?

Three hours.

They had a question, and their question was, can we convict him of a lesser charge?

Interesting.

And the answer was basically no.

This is the only charge you can consider.

And so right when we sent the answer back within 10 or 15 minutes, there was a verdict.

How did you feel about that question?

I was a little confused.

I would not feel good.

I would not feel good with that question.

I didn't feel good, and then I talked to a couple of people.

It was clear they were trying to convict him of something, right?

Yeah, exactly.

They wanted to get him on something.

Right.

But to me, then I was just like, okay, if they want to convict him of something less, like

a lesser charge, that means to me that they don't have beyond a reasonable doubt to convict

him of this charge.

So I was happy in that sense, knowing like, hey, I don't think they have enough to come

back with a guilty for this charge.

But then I was worried that, okay, the answer is no, you cannot consider another charge that

they would just convict him anyways, right?

And so that was my concern, even though that wouldn't be them following the law necessarily,

but that was my concern.

And then 10 minutes later, they come back with a verdict.

Tell us about the reading of the verdict.

So they come in, they hand the envelope to the bailiff.

Bill of hands it to the judge who reviews it.

And then I'm just looking at the judge, right?

Like I try to get some signs from the judge of like what it is.

I got nothing.

And so the clerk then stands up to read it.

And, you know, people were in the state of California in this case, Roger, we find the

defendant not guilty.

And then I just kind of like take a sigh of relief.

I look at the jurors.

I kind of like smile and, you know, do a little mid nod, like, thank you for understanding.

And I look at my client who's just basically inebriated, sitting there inebriated at that

point.

Yeah.

Because I think he was prepared to that.

He thought it wasn't going to go his way.

He didn't think it was going to go his way.

He was drunk.

He was wasted.

He was drunk.

He, he, he was, yeah, you could smell it.

So basically you could smell it from a mile away.

So the jurors delivered it for three hours, but it was one hour after closing and then

two hours the next day.

Right.

So they came back the next day, two hours in the morning.

So when he had returned, he went home and got wasted.

He was, yeah, he was pretty inebriated.

Uh, you could smell it from a mile away.

Let me put it that point.

Like everyone smelled it.

The bailiff, the clerk, like everybody, he was just ready to go in.

You get a pass.

You get a pass.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I was like, whatever, you know, if I thought I was going to jail or whatever, I guess I

would too.

You know, one last one for the road.

But, um, then I just kind of, I look at the jurors and I look at him and he's just, I

don't think I'd hit him yet.

And I just kind of, you know, pat him on the back and I go, congrats.

And he just starts crying.

He starts crying.

Um, and that was that.

Yeah.

So then, um, I think Lauren was asking the, were you able to talk to the jurors afterwards?

Find out about what this lesser included, what they were hung up on.

So 11 out of the 12 jurors plus the two alternates stayed, but, um, one juror didn't stay.

Um, but everyone stayed and everyone had a lot to say.

And they basically said, we both did a good job.

They said, it's not that they didn't believe.

And they, they described her as the, to the DA, your girl, we believed your girl, but we

believe something happened.

We don't think what she claimed happened actually happened.

Like, we don't believe he, um, threatened to rape her.

Maybe there was some sort of assault.

Um, and I think that's what they were looking for.

Yeah.

They were looking for like a simple assault.

It does feel like there's missing information.

And with your client behaving the way he did in front of the jury, I could see how they

might suspect that.

Right.

Oh.

Right.

So they basically.

Inappropriate.

Maybe he took, like, she was cooking and who knows, but he like made some type of pass

at her or something like that.

No, I don't, I was thinking just more of like being aggressive.

Like, even if it's not related to any sort of sexual battery.

Right.

Just.

Right.

There was some sort of altercation, some sort of confrontation.

Right.

And I, and I pointed that out in closing.

Cause I said, you guys heard him on the stand, right?

You see his personality in an hour or two of him on the stand.

You saw how he is as a person.

You're telling me this entire time they lived there, they had no issues with somebody like

that.

And I even, like I said it, I said, that's his personality.

Right.

And I said, God bless him for it.

There's nothing wrong with it, but you're telling me that somebody with that personality

is not going to have any issues with you.

I don't believe so.

Too abrasive.

And they laughed when I said that.

Yeah.

What, um, didn't you, I mean, in our pre-conversations, what was the first thing he said to you when you

met him?

He said, uh, he said, yeah, he said, I am a certain way I'm an asshole.

And I know that, and I don't like people, but I didn't do this.

He, he described himself as an asshole.

And there was the beginning of your closing.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Basically, basically.

But, um, yeah, they said, we believe something happened, but not to the extent that she described.

And they said, um, the DNA evidence, they didn't consider at all.

They didn't even talk about it.

And they said they were actually pretty agreeable on a not guilty, um, earlier on.

It was just that one juror who couldn't say not guilty.

And that's why they asked the question of like, okay, can we convict them of a lesser charge?

So it seemed to me that they were going to give into her to say, can we convict them of

a lesser charge to appease you?

Right.

And the answer was no.

And so then they said, even when the answer was no, we let her decide for herself.

And she finally came around to, okay, yeah, you're right.

There's not enough here.

This is why I hate jury.

So it's not guilty.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's not how this works.

Right.

I mean, right.

Cause even like, let's say hypothetically, there was some lesser, right?

But it's still, the lesser still could have been a felony and the lesser still could have

meant prison time, but these jurors, as a misdemeanor, it still could have ended up

with registration.

Yeah.

Sexual registration.

But these jurors think they're doing a solid or justice somehow by appeasing one disgruntled

juror.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So thank God the answer is no.

Right.

You can't.

And I don't know why they didn't ask for a lesser.

I didn't ask for one.

Cause you know, I'm not saying, Hey, if you, if don't find him guilty on this, if you find

him guilty, you know, I'm not arguing.

A different charge.

I'm saying none of this happened.

So I wasn't going to ask for a lesser, but you can't without your client's permission.

Right.

And your client was saying, no balls out.

Let's right.

It's all or nothing.

Right.

So it was pretty good juror.

Um, I'm just thankful that, you know, they didn't a piece of that one juror.

Yeah.

Have you, uh, I mean, have you kept in touch with your client since then?

Is the taco shop up, back up and running the money's good again?

I'm assuming it is.

It's available for parties.

Yeah.

And he was really nice.

Like, look, he would, when he would come in on our multiple meetings, he would bring,

um, tacos and tortillas for, for the people, the office and stuff.

So he was nice in that aspect.

Um, but no, like even.

What was the best taco?

Are you Al Pastor?

What's your taco there?

What do you like?

He would bring carnitas.

He would just bring the carnitas.

I'm going to be honest.

I, I didn't try any of it.

Um, I just, I, I left it there and I, I sent it office wide email, you know, food in the

kitchen, help yourselves.

Uh, so, you know, even when we were talking with the jurors, he was inside waiting for

a minute order for his, his, uh, bond to be exonerated or whatever.

So he was waiting for that minute order and he comes out and I said, Hey, can you wait

inside for a little bit?

Let me just talk to him.

I'll come talk to you.

And he was just like, Oh, I got to stay here longer.

And this and that, like in front of the jurors.

Right.

Yeah.

And they laugh again, like, Oh, there he goes.

But it was just typical Roger.

He is who he is.

So I just said, please wait inside like five more minutes, you know?

Um, and so he did.

And then, um, when the jurors left, he just goes, I'm going to go home.

And get wasted.

And I go, I'm pretty sure you're already there.

And I, he was with his sister and I said, just please make sure you drive him home and

please make sure he doesn't leave his house because I do not want to see you again in this

courthouse for another case.

And so she goes, no, I got you.

And so that's it.

He, he left for the day.

Um, I, I personally thought I would hear from him, um, after, but I, I haven't, I haven't

heard from him.

All right, then I think that's it.

Lauren, any, any last questions?

Before we ask the ultimate last question for Christina?

Let's hear it.

Yeah, Christina.

So Christina, you've been a public defender for eight years.

Um, thanks for, for being a public defender.

Thanks for coming on the show, sharing your story with us, doing an awesome job for Roger

and representing the office.

Um, so our last and final question is when we have for all our guests and tell the audience

why you became a public defender.

I became a public defender because, uh, growing up, I quickly realized how, um, growing up in

certain situations that kind of puts you in a disadvantage in life in general could be really

hard.

I grew up in a more privileged background and I realized that a lot of the, um, advantages

I had in life was because of my background and a lot of people aren't as fortunate, um, in that

sense.

And in communities like out here, they are really, um, I guess, picked on, bullied on.

And, and that's why we see a lot of people with no resources getting themselves into trouble.

And I wanted to be that voice for those people that don't have resources, right.

That don't have that person standing up for them that don't have that family support.

I wanted to be that person in their life that says, Hey, even though you feel like you have

nobody, even though you feel like the world is against you, I'm here to tell you that I'm

with you from beginning to end.

And you can always count on me for whatever.

I'm not only your attorney in this case, but I am your friend.

I will be that mom.

If you need that mom, I will be that sister.

If you need that sister.

So I wanted to provide that to people that I know they, they never had that in their lives.

So that was my driving force is basically to be the voice for people that either didn't

have a voice or don't feel like they have a voice.

I wanted them to know that they matter and their voices matter and I will help them.

Well said, Christina.

Thanks.

Lucky for us.

You came to do it here in LA County.

Thank you.

It is my pleasure.

All right.

Well, thanks for being on the show.

It's good seeing you.

And of course, Lauren.

Thanks guys.

Good seeing you too.

Lauren, always good to see you too.

Till next time, Davey D.

All right.

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.

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

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