Spin Cycle Justice — where the government’s case goes in dirty and comes out hung to dry.

He steps down from the bench. He's just walking around and he looks like he just wants to have a conversation.

So he just goes up to our client and he just starts having a conversation about like, did you eat today, man?

Like, what's going on? Like, how you doing? And this is all happening next to me.

The client asked the judge, why were there so many sidebars yesterday?

And I know this because I came in and I look at the judge super confused because he's five feet away from my client talking to him.

He looks at me and he's like, don't worry, we're just shooting the breeze.

He was asking me, why did the prosecutor ask for so many sidebars?

And I told him that's usually what happened when the state's case goes to shit.

Welcome to Another Not Guilty.

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

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

I prefer calling it the American criminal system.

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

And welcome back, everybody, to Another Not Guilty.

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

That's right, America, wake up, because the shit is going down in the courtrooms all the time.

And the cases, the government's cases are going down the drain because us public defenders and defense attorneys are fighting the real fight, bringing justice to the courtrooms, presenting the people with the truth.

And that's how we do it here at Another Not Guilty.

Am I right, Lauren?

How are you doing today, my lovely co-host?

Hey, that was impressive.

Bringing it today, Davey D.

I, you know, I had to.

I had to.

I'm just glad to be here today, you know?

While we can still have a podcast before the First Amendment is completely dead.

Do you remember when it was just the public defenders talking about injustice and the world falling apart and lack of freedoms?

You know?

I know.

We warned you, guys.

We warned you.

I hate to say I told you so, but we did tell you.

Yeah.

All right, Another Not Guilty verse.

Today's guest, he's been on the show before.

He's back because he's the badass private defense attorney in Florida.

It was two years ago.

Liar, liar.

House on fire.

That's what it was.

Yeah, it was a great episode.

Co-hosted by public defender Anya Higwood.

Pat, welcome back to the show.

And he's here with his co-counsel, Sahara.

So, Pat, go ahead and introduce yourself and introduce Sahara as well.

Hey, I'm Pat Wilson.

I was a public defender in Miami-Dade for six and a half years.

I'm in private practice now, and I'm here with Sahara Fonseca, who was my trainee at the public defender's office, and now we're working together in private practice.

I love that your first episode on this podcast was so successful.

It's launched you into private practice now.

People still talk about it, and in different counties, which is strange.

Like, I was in Manatee, and a public defender was like, were you on the podcast about Another Another Guilty?

And I'm like, yeah.

Well, I have high expectations now.

So, Sahara, so Patrick Wilson was your boss at the PD's office or your mentor, and now you've followed him into private practice now?

Yes, it's actually really funny because when we were both at the public defender's office, I always told him that when he decided to break out and go private,

I said I would be his first application as an associate attorney, and that is exactly what happened.

Nice.

Very Jerry Maguire.

Sahara, how long have you been a defense attorney for then?

I've been a criminal defense attorney for about six years now.

Okay.

All right.

You're still, you're definitely experienced, but you're still on the rise.

Still got a long ways to go before you get to the sweet spot.

But your trajectory is up right now, so that's good.

That's good.

Okay, so Patrick Wilson reached out to me by text because we're pals.

He doesn't have to go through the website.

He said he has another Not Guilty story he wants to share.

We've been back and forth as defining the right date and time that works for all of us.

Eventually, Laura and I just bended and decided to give in to the time that works for him because he's that important.

So, Patrick, thanks for reaching out to the podcast and being on.

I'm super excited to see you.

And Sahara, it's so nice to meet you.

And thank you for being on the show.

And tell us about this particular trial you did.

Patrick, introduce your client and tell us what he was charged with.

Okay, so my client, and I'll give him only his last name, Mr. Raymondville, was charged with carjacking and false imprisonment in Broward County.

And it was actually a court-appointed case.

So it was a private court-appointed public defender type case.

And what did he allegedly do?

What's the one that charges?

Mr. – what was his name again?

Raymondville.

Mr. Raymondville.

What was Mr. Raymondville charged with?

Can we just call him Raymond?

What did Ray do?

So, Ray was falsely accused of carjacking.

And that involved his girlfriend or former girlfriend saying that he forced her to drive him in her car from a La Quinta Inn in Fort Lauderdale.

They pulled over at a coin wash.

This is like right before Christmas when this happened.

They get out of the car, she walks into the coin wash, and he allegedly goes up, snatches the keys from her, drags her a little bit, and then goes into the car and drives off.

While this is happening, her three-year-old is outside of the car when they're having the struggle, and her six-month-old is inside the car seat still.

So, this woman, Ms. Jones, gets into the passenger seat as he's driving away, allegedly, and her three-year-old's left behind, gets stopped from running to the street by a Popeye's worker, and eventually the car pulls over at a CVS.

She gets out of the car with a six-month-old, and the car drives off.

Are these his children as well?

Not his kids.

Bad fact.

Yeah, bad fact, and they're Mr. Wright's kids, which is important for later on.

So, Mr. Raymondville drives his girlfriend, they're at a La Quinta, he takes the keys from her.

Wait, no, didn't he say the girlfriend drove?

That he made the girlfriend drive him, and then when she gets out at the gas station, he wrestles the keys from her?

Yeah, at the coin laundry.

So, wait, what are the charges?

It's carjacking and-

False imprisonment, because there's a six-month-

They didn't charge a kidnapping?

They initially did, but they didn't file the kidnapping.

What about child endangerment or something?

Child endangerment, for sure.

Easily could have. Easily could have.

Because at this point, you have the kidnapping of the girlfriend when he forces her to drive him to another location.

And then you have the kidnapping of the child, they could have added, and the child endangerment.

Carjacking is taking the keys by force, getting in the car, right?

Yeah, it's all in surveillance video from the coin laundry, so it's not crystal clear surveillance video, but you can see that it's clearly a force of both taking a few.

Okay. Do you want us to tell us about the surveillance video right now, then? That was part of the discovery?

There's a, not high def, but like a grainy surveillance footage that shows the car pull up, sees her get out, then a gentleman get out, and then a three-year-old get out.

You can see a struggle between the man and the woman. You can see him grab the keys, go back to the driver's seat, start to drive away, and she eventually runs up, gets in the passenger seat as the three-year-old is left behind and then runs out.

I want to just add that the other important evidence, the important fact was that this happened in front of a laundromat on Christmas Day, and there was a little old lady and a couple other people at the laundromat who were watching this all happen in a distance, so they actually observed the violent taking.

Okay.

On the video, can you see people's faces?

No, it's very grainy, so you weren't, you're not able to make out, like, a face.

Was the three-year-old not in a car seat? I mean, you say the three-year-old just sort of pops out of the car.

Not in a car seat.

So, allegedly, client's driving the car with his girlfriend, Mrs. Jones? What was her name?

Jones, yeah.

Yeah, Mrs.

Jenny Jones.

And then the three-month-old, or what was the age of the kid in the back?

I think six months.

Six months.

And then eventually, client allegedly pulls over, she gets out, takes her son, her six-month-old child with her, and then he continues to drive off, right?

Okay.

Let's hope at least the six-month-old was in a car seat.

Does she call the police at that point? 9-1-1 or anything like that?

The people at the laundromat call 9-1-1.

Oh, okay.

How far away did he pull over and let her out?

Like, a couple blocks?

Mile?

Quarter mile.

Quarter mile, okay.

And then she gives a statement then, right, to the police?

Yeah, the police show up pretty quickly, because obviously it's a pretty serious offense, and start asking her immediately what happened and who did it.

Wait, hang on.

She was in another location already, though.

She ran back because her three-year-old was still there.

Sorry.

Got it.

Okay.

But yeah, she was at the CVS, but the CVS, if you're, like, on the street looking to the right, you can see it from the coin laundry.

But wasn't far at all?

Not too far.

So she ran back with the car seat to where the three-year-old was at, and then the police show up, and they start asking what happened.

And she says essentially what you said earlier, but it says it was a client that was driving, right?

She says, they ask her, do you know who did this?

And she says, no, no.

She's, like, very, very, like, emotionally shaking.

But she's, like, no.

And she says it maybe, like, four or five times when they're initially speaking to her, to the point where law enforcement really doesn't believe that she doesn't know who it is.

Because the people inside the coin laundry are, like, they showed up together.

Interesting.

Okay.

Wow.

And is that how the police report reads, too?

Like, sort of this uncertainty of the identity?

There's hours of body-worn camera of officers just trying to separate her from her, then the father of her children, and say, can you please tell us, with all honesty, who did this to you?

Because it seems like you know, but you just don't want to tell us.

And did they talk to the witnesses then, too?

Yes, but none of them could make an identification.

They could just say, it's a tall black man.

And so then the father of the children shows up to the scene, then, too, then, right?

Is he mentioned in the police report?

In a different vehicle?

In a different vehicle.

Yeah, he shows up, and he's in the police report.

He is with her, and then when she's separated from him, she says, it's Mr. Raymondville who did it.

Once she's separated from the father of the children, she says, it's Mr. Raymondville.

But when they initially question her, the father of her children isn't with her.

So when she initially says, I don't know who did it, she was alone.

And then baby daddy comes, and she's alone with him for a minute, right?

And then she talks to the police again and says, yeah, it's my boyfriend.

Not even her boyfriend.

She denies they're still in a relationship.

Ex-boyfriend.

Ex-boyfriend, Raymondville.

My ex-boyfriend that I was spending Christmas with.

Perfect.

Once she identifies that it's Mr. Raymondville, what happens next?

She mentions that the car has GPS, and she starts getting text messages from a 954, which is a Fort Lauderdale area code, phone number, basically saying that that person has the car and offering to return the car.

She doesn't recognize this number, though?

Well, she says that it's Raymondville's number.

But an important fact is Raymondville's from Miami.

She has Raymondville saved in her phone with a 305 number.

Oh, okay.

And we don't know if Mr. Raymondville's from Miami yet.

That's something that you know.

Yeah, I know.

They don't know.

Okay, so she's saying this is Mr. Raymondville, even though he's a 305 number in my phone.

Okay, so then what happens next?

Well, she gets a call from a number saying that the car is left at this location, and she doesn't call the police.

She goes with her mom and gets the car back.

After that, the case gets assigned to a detective, and he does how much investigation?

Nothing.

Nothing at all, actually.

It's a common theme on this podcast.

So she gives a statement to the police saying it's Mr. Raymondville.

But then after that, everything stops.

She goes home.

She goes back to where she's at.

And then later on at night or the next day, she gets a text message saying, I can give you your car, right?

And she doesn't tell the police about those text messages.

Not until after she gets the car.

So she gets the car.

What does she tell the police?

She says she got the car back, and they're like, why didn't she call us?

I don't remember the excuse she gave, but she doesn't have a particular great reason.

Did she get it back?

Did she say?

Yeah, it's like behind a warehouse.

It's in Fort Lauderdale.

I can't remember.

She just meets a random person?

Or is she saying she met your client behind a warehouse to get the car back?

The car is empty with the keys in it, according to her, when she gets the car back.

Lord, okay.

This is a very suspicious story.

All right.

So then she calls the police and says she's got the car back.

The detective is assigned.

Does nothing.

She got the car back.

Who cares?

Did they do a six-pack with the client?

How does he get arrested then?

They do a six-pack with her.

She identifies him.

Then they develop a probable cause message, and eventually he's stopped at like a gas station.

I can't remember what exactly for her, and he's taken into custody.

Okay.

Does he give a statement to the police?

No.

Smart man.

They bring him into the interview room, and he immediately lawyers up.

That a boy.

He was like, I want Johnny Cochran.

He's like, he's dead.

He's like, all right, I want Patrick Wilson then.

I'll take.

Did you get criminal histories on everybody?

The girlfriend or ex-girlfriend and her baby daddy and your client?

That became a major theme in our case, actually, because as the story goes, there's little to no credible evidence to prove this case.

So it's largely dependent on what she's going to say.

I did like a deep dive on her background, like looking her up on the Tri-County area in South Florida.

Eventually, she was convicted of.

Lo and behold, she was convicted of crimes of dishonesty, and she, and Patrick has a really funny story about impeaching her on felony convictions while on cross-examination, but he'll get to that later.

I like that there's convictions, plural.

Okay, so he's arrested, doesn't give a statement to the police, then he's brought to court, and he's arraigned, right?

Brought to court, arraigned.

He's enhanced as a prison release offender, which means that count one carjacking is mandatory life in Florida.

He had done time for a burglary, maybe like two years before the car burglary.

He's in front of the judge who handled the Parkland case, and that's when I get randomly assigned his case because the public defender's office has a conflict

because they have represented her before.

Okay, so you get the case, you go to the charges, the police report, and you meet Mr. Raymond.

Tell us about that.

Well, he was a pleasure from day one.

He gave me a contraband Jolly Rancher the first time I met him in custody, and I still have it.

Because I wasn't going to be in a jailed Jolly Rancher, but he was very nice, very positive,

and very adamant that he was actually innocent, and he had a great alibi.

It was his alibi.

His alibi was he was with his girlfriend, which was not a great alibi.

His girlfriend that is not the complaining witness.

Oh, okay.

So he has a different girlfriend.

Yeah, he's with his different girlfriend.

Multiple girlfriends.

Okay.

Another common theme of this show is guys getting in trouble when they have multiple girlfriends.

Did the complaining witness know that he had multiple girlfriends?

Is this a potential motive?

She did not, but she also had multiple boyfriends.

Yeah, as long as everyone's okay.

It's fluid.

So he says he was with his girlfriend that night, but that's not a good alibi.

Why?

What's wrong with that?

Like, does she not want to participate?

He doesn't want the new girlfriend to know about it?

What's the problem?

Christmas Eve, and there's not one photograph.

There's not like one other person.

There's just her.

And it's like, what were you redoing?

Oh, we were at his house.

Like, well, what were you doing at his house?

We were just like watching TV.

Like, she could have got on the stand, but to me, it did not seem like the optimal defense line.

All right.

I mean, it's always nice to have corroborating evidence, but you know, you can't expect everyone to take pictures and post it on Instagram.

It's just the two of them.

Time and date stamp it.

Maybe the holidays is a sad time for them.

Some families make postcards and send their family pictures out to everybody, and everyone has to hang them on the refrigerator for a year.

Maybe she was Jewish.

She wasn't celebrating Christmas.

Yeah.

Okay.

So did your client tell you anything else that you can share?

The offer he got before I got involved was 31 years, and he was 31 years old.

And he's like, I'm not taking anything like that because he had a one-year-old with a third woman.

Did he say why Ms. Jones would be making this up against him then?

He said that she was nuts, and that was pretty close to accurate.

That bitch is crazy.

All right.

Did he say when they broke up?

He said that they were together on Christmas Eve, which didn't fit the alibi.

Or they were together at La Quinta, which didn't corroborate the alibi.

Wait.

He was with each of the women?

Like, he left the one and went to the other one?

That wasn't clear to me, but he said he was at the La Quinta with her and her kids.

Like, he paid for the hotel room, and he paid for, like, food and stuff like that.

So when did he say he met up with the other girlfriend where they were just watching TV?

I'm assuming after La Quinta.

I just didn't get the right temporal break.

After he stole the car.

Patrice, tell us what he said.

What's the story?

He said she's nuts.

She's lying.

I don't know why she's saying any of this.

I was good to her.

I was good to her kids.

I don't know why she's saying it.

I didn't take her car.

And I showed her the video, and he's like, that's not me.

So just to back up, this happened on Christmas Day.

Christmas Eve.

Christmas.

What time of day?

Like, 4, 5 o'clock.

Okay.

So he's saying that that night, the night before Christmas Eve, December 23rd, he was at the La Quinta Inn with her and her kids.

Yes.

And then after that, he was at his house with another girlfriend while this incident is supposed to be happening.

Okay.

So December 23rd, he's at the La Quinta with Mrs. Jones and the kids.

He spends the night there.

The day of, he leaves and goes to his other girlfriends on Christmas Eve.

All right.

So this is the case.

This is your defense.

She's crazy.

I have an alibi.

Maybe.

Is that a Carly Rae song?

Bitch is crazy.

But here's my alibi.

Maybe.

I don't know.

I like the remake.

I like it.

All right.

So as a defense attorney, where do you go from here, Patrick?

The defense is he didn't do it.

Maybe I have an alibi.

She's lying.

It's not me.

So where do we go from here?

I take Mrs. Jones's depo.

And she is, and I say it with love, she is legitimately nuts.

Like she's on serious medication.

She's had a rough life.

She's been to, she's been arrested, been to jail.

She's had multiple charges.

And importantly, at the time, she was seeing three different guys.

She was seeing her baby daddy.

She was seeing Raymondville.

And she was seeing a third guy named Kyle.

Okay.

And what did she say about the incident?

Importantly, she said that she immediately identified that it was Mr. Raymond.

Like when the police came, she told him it was Mr. Raymondville because she knew it was Mr. Raymondville.

And she either hadn't remembered or hadn't been prepped on the body camera, which there's this like, no, no, no.

There's like 20 minutes before she finally says who it is.

And it's after her baby daddy shows up.

This is what you ask her in your deposition.

So this is a sworn statement, but it's not in front of a jury yet.

Not yet.

Okay.

All right.

So then, and that's important to you because so she, during the deposition, she's pretty consistent with what she told the police at the scene,

except for the fact that she said she identified client right away.

But you know, it took, it took a lot of coaxing to get it out of her.

She wasn't forthright and took about 20 minutes.

So what does that say to you?

To me, it set up a theory that she, it was not misidentifying him.

Like it wasn't a mistake, but she was wrongfully identifying him because she didn't want to identify to her baby daddy who she had just met.

They didn't know each other, but he knew of Raymondville.

Yeah.

He didn't know about Kyle, the third gentleman.

Okay.

Go ahead, Jenny Jones.

Yeah.

And Sahara, are you working on the case at this moment?

Yeah.

So before the deposition, I was doing research on her prior criminal convictions.

And then while I was doing my research, I found that she had active domestic violence injunction cases against her third boyfriend.

So I, in my prep with Patrick, I said, this is perfect.

This fits the theory of, with her being a very heavily medicated person, very unstable.

She has this baby daddy and she has this other boyfriend that she has active domestic violence injunction cases with and whatnot.

It's a motive to lie because she's trying to save the identity of the other person.

So it was like third party guilt with like, this is the reason why she intentionally wrongfully identified our client.

Yeah.

So that's great.

Yeah.

So that's so that you guys are walking away from the deposition.

You're now your defense is a third person defense or a third boyfriend defense, as you know.

It's Kyle.

It's Kyle.

Poor Kyle.

If it wasn't him.

I'm sorry to Kyle, wherever you are.

It had to be very carefully curated, too, because we didn't want the prosecutors to get whiff of the hints of third party guilt until it came to closing.

So it was like we were holding our cards tight to our chest.

Any other defense things you guys are doing to get ready?

Any other defense prep?

Really?

We took her depo, announced ready for trial.

And that was I think I think I deposed like two of the cops before that that like interviewed her.

But everything was on body camera.

There wasn't like some big moment from that.

It was a pretty bare bones case.

It felt like a real public defender case of what we were used to seeing.

I know.

That's great.

And I love how you just you just take the depth.

Sometimes like sometimes these big, heavy life cases are just the most it just comes on the most simple workup, the most simple defense.

Don't overdo it.

Just go in there with what you got.

It's good enough.

You got it.

You got it.

So I appreciate that.

I want to get better at that myself.

Did you get to talk to the baby daddy?

I did.

I deposed him as well.

He was on house arrest.

No, no.

He was in jail at the time I deposed him because he picked up an aggravated assault against another girl.

Not not Miss Jones.

Not the mother.

Jesus.

This is like a Jerry Springer episode where everyone's on the stage and you're trying to keep them straight and they're throwing chairs.

Did he give a statement to you?

We took his deposition in jail.

Does he have a lawyer?

He has a public defender.

And they let you talk to him?

Oh, yeah.

They have to let me take the depo.

No, they don't.

That's not true.

It might incriminate him.

That's true.

He wanted to take the depo.

Did he have an alibi for the theft of the car?

Yeah, he was on scene 20 minutes after in his own car, a Mustang.

All right.

Of special note, he was the victim in another case that Mr. Raymondville was involved in.

Mr. Raymondville had two cases.

And this one that we're talking about, the baby daddy was not listed as a witness.

So the deposition is on a completely separate case.

Jesus.

Wait, he was the victim and your client, Raymond, was the perpetrator in another case?

But I thought they didn't know each other.

They don't.

Okay.

Is that other case still going on right now?

No, he got essentially time served for that case after we won this case.

Okay.

Oh, wow.

Okay.

Are you representing him on that other case?

It's closed.

Mr. Raymondville's home.

He's got a rap career now.

He's doing good.

Oh, Lord.

Did, no, did you represent him on the other case?

Yeah, I represented him on that one too.

Okay.

And that case was open at the time, right?

It was.

He had two mandatory cases at the time.

Wow.

And was he wrongfully identified in the other case, the robbery against the third boyfriend?

That's what I tried to argue in a motion to suppress, but I think that's a whole other episode.

All right.

So what statement does the third boyfriend give you?

He says, I wasn't, he denied it, right?

I wasn't there that day.

Yeah, he, oh, the, we only deposed the baby daddy.

We never spoke to Kyle, but the baby daddy.

Oh, the baby daddy you deposed.

Did you have an investigator speak to Kyle or anything?

Okay.

I'm sorry.

I'm getting it.

Okay.

Who was in custody?

The baby's daddy?

Baby daddy.

Oh, okay.

He was in custody and he, okay.

I'm sorry.

I thought you deposed Kyle.

My bad.

We're going to need a diagram for this episode.

So you deposed Kyle.

He says like he showed up, yeah, he showed up 20 minutes later.

You did not depose Kyle then.

Did you try to depose Kyle?

No, because he wasn't listed.

And I knew from booking data that he was like five, seven.

And what does that mean?

Therefore?

I didn't want to bring any attention to this third person so that they could distinguish

him from the man in the video.

But this is your whole defense theory that it was Kyle.

But yeah, it was like the defense theory was it was the third party.

It was Kyle.

But I knew from booking data from Kyle that he didn't match the description of the tall

slender man in the video.

This is plan B.

Did you ever watch the practice where they plan B someone?

You plan B'd poor Kyle.

You knew it couldn't be him.

All right.

That's it for defense prep.

Anything else you did?

No.

We showed up to trial.

So then let's talk about the trial then.

And I'm sorry.

Maybe just as I don't quite get this.

You're saying that Kyle's five foot seven.

Our client is six foot two.

And the man in the video is not five foot seven.

The man in the video is pretty tall.

Yeah.

He looks like this.

Like if you were to if Mr.

Raymondville were to stand up and you were to compare the video.

It's your client.

A silhouette ish type of they have similarities.

So your defense is you're going to blame a third party person who's five foot seven.

OK, this is this is straight defense.

This is such a defense case.

Yeah.

OK.

So all right.

So then let's talk about getting ready for trial.

You got your nugget.

You got your one thing.

You're going to go argue with the jurors.

You're going to hold on to it.

You're not going to show your car.

And that she didn't.

Jenny Jones didn't talk about Kyle in the deposition.

You didn't ask about that.

Only.

I only asked if she had any other men in her life.

And she said, Kyle.

OK.

OK.

Is that how you learned about Kyle, by the way?

No.

We I learned about him before.

So I was when I was doing my research on her.

I found that they had open domestic violence cases against each other.

Well, that's how you found out about Kyle.

OK.

There could be a fourth or a fifth guy or six.

We don't know.

Right.

Right.

OK.

So as you're about to start trial, do you have any witnesses you've subpoenaed for you?

No.

So this is a true public defender case.

You have no witnesses.

You don't have any real evidence.

And it's a bare bones.

We did a depo where we spoke to the complaining witness and her baby daddy, who was there 20

minutes after the incident.

The witnesses who were on scene couldn't identify anyone.

This is everything that you have now you're starting trial.

OK.

Bought the client a suit because his current girlfriend brought clothes that were so not

great for trial.

Oh, yeah.

You spoke, I assume you spoke to the girl he said he was with and you decided not to subpoena

her and use her as a witness.

I didn't think she came off as credible.

Sure.

That happens sometimes.

Yeah.

It's just cleaner to do the third party instead of creating an alibi as well.

The thing is, we were so confident that this case was going to die at the testimony of the

complaining witness.

Like the prosecutors were relying so heavily on her testimony and we were so confident that

that that was just our winning pick was just to knock it down.

That may be a dumb question, but when you're deposing the complaining witness, are the DAs

there?

Yes.

So they could see that she was not going to be a great witness for them.

Like that writing was on the wall.

So let's talk about the jury trial then.

Patrick, Sahara, what judge are you guys in front of?

OK, so we were supposed to be before Judge George Odom, a wonderful judge, except he was

not in the mood to try the case.

He is a very motions-heavy judge.

He loves arguing the law.

He wanted to not try our case, essentially.

And then at the same time, we had another motion to suppress happening in a DUI that was around

the same building.

So I went before that misdemeanor judge and I told him that I needed a continuance on

the hearing.

The misdemeanor judge says, I'm not going to continue this.

What is this trial that you have going on?

And I say, well, this is a mandatory by life trial.

It's pretty serious.

And he says, well, if that case is going to get farmed out, why don't I try it for you?

And we've never had this situation happen where a misdemeanor judge has decided to become

the felony trial judge.

But that's essentially what happened.

The misdemeanor judge got off from the bench, walked over to the felony court building and

said, hey, my friend George, I would love to try this case.

Are you farming it out?

And he said yes.

And that's basically how we got a misdemeanor judge to try our felony mandatory by life

trial.

Great.

Is that a good thing?

We spoke to a lot of different lawyers in the community and Patrick called his former

boss who has like worked within that building for a very long time.

And we got really good reviews for this judge.

He said he's very fair.

He's kind.

And that was exactly what happened.

I mean, we couldn't have asked for a better judge to try this case.

Yeah.

Okay.

Excellent.

I was saying background for this judge.

His first career was he was a special forces officer.

And then he became a cop who got in trouble when he was a cop.

And then as a result of that, went to law school, became a defense attorney and then got elected

to the county bench.

Wow.

Okay.

I tried to DUI in front of him maybe a year before that.

And it wasn't a bad trial.

I just had never seen him do anything serious.

All right.

So now you've got a misdemeanor judge and a green DA and a client facing life in prison.

It's time for 402.

Yeah.

So at the last moment, the DA gets promoted or their assistant state attorneys in Florida.

But he gets promoted and we get a brand new attorney on the case.

He's had it for like maybe a week.

And we really like this prosecutor.

We got nothing negative to say about him from before or after.

He had been brand new to the division and recently promoted to that role.

Okay.

All right.

Are there any motions to limine you want to talk about?

Motions to exclude evidence before trial that you made?

Any pretrial motions?

Any mention of the other open case was like one of them.

What about all the rap sheets you were talking about?

Did you or the DA ask to exclude any criminal histories?

We didn't ask to exclude our client because it's pretty much not allowed.

So unless he testifies.

And we didn't bring up the other witnesses rap sheet because we had the certified prior

convictions.

We wanted to be prepared to impeach him without them being prepped.

So let's talk about jury selection then.

How did that go down?

Who did the jury selection here?

I did the jury selection.

I talked about Halle Berry, which you know that from last time.

You did that for Lauren.

Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about.

I start off every boy, dear, kind of like deadpan.

I walk up to the podium and I just, I question, I find a juror and I say, you know, David,

how are you doing?

He's like, I'm doing well.

I'm like, can I ask you a question?

And he's like, sure.

And I'm like, what if I told you that right now I'm currently dating the Halle Berry,

the Halle Berry?

Do you believe me?

And it's usually like, oh, I mean, there's like some chuckles.

And I'm like, why not?

And there's a pause.

And you can be honest.

Why not?

And they might not say anything, but like, I'll see the next juror shaking their head

and I'm like, ma'am, why did you believe me?

And she'd be like, well, she's a famous movie star and you're a looking lawyer.

And then it opens me until I talk about, you know, what if there's like a picture of us

together?

What if there's a picture and there's video of us together?

What evidence would I need to bring to prove that it's, that I'm dating Halle Berry?

And then some juror will say Halle Berry.

And then it ends with, you know, me saying, I'm not currently dating Halle Berry, married

to a more wonderful, beautiful woman.

But if I appreciate the way you scrutinized this case, then can you promise me to do the

same thing with the government's case at this trial?

Because that was a fun example, but this is a really serious moment in this person's

life.

Okay.

Pretty good, right?

Mm-hmm.

That's awesome.

I love that.

Okay.

So you did the Halle Berry.

What were the reactions?

I mean, it was pretty good.

I don't think it was anything more than it normally was.

Like some were like laughing and some were like blunt about why they didn't believe me.

The judge loved it.

I did it for him once before, but he forgot because he's like, I don't know who Halle Berry

is.

And I'm like, no, judge, you do.

And he Googled her on the bench and he's like, oh, I recognize her.

You know, she was in that James Bond movie.

And I'm like, yeah.

In front of the jurors, he says that?

Yeah, in front of the jurors.

Oh, so that's great.

Yeah.

That's great.

When you have that back and forth, that levity back and forth with a judge in front of the

jurors, everyone just relaxes.

And it gives you credibility.

Yeah.

Judges voir dire was was also very entertaining because the judge asked for a copy of the

information, which is like our indictment from the prosecutors.

They give it to him after they print it out and he looks at it and he tells the jury, he's

like, this is the charging document.

It's not to be relied upon its evidence.

Let me tell you what I show you what I think of it.

And he crumbles it up into a ball and he hits a 20 foot bank shot into the little garbage

can in the courtroom as if he's done it.

That's the epic of this.

It's evidence you can't rely on.

Oh, my God.

That's awesome.

I love this guy.

This is this is great.

I had a question.

So, Sahara, how many times have you seen Patrick do the Halle Berry voir dire?

Are you like almost sick of it now?

Like, yes, stick.

No, I'm kidding.

I'm not without hesitation.

Yes.

Here we go again.

Oh, boy.

Pause for a laugh.

It's it's so funny because it's consistently it consistently hits it consistently.

There's always you'll always get a handful of people who laugh, who make funny faces and

who just immediately relax.

And it's just it's so refreshing.

It's the most refreshing part of trial, honestly, doing trial with Patrick, especially in voir dire

after hearing the prosecutors remember, you have to hold up.

And then Patrick comes in and is like, do you think I'm dating Halle Berry?

And everybody's like, what?

It's just right on.

Any any interesting interactions with jurors that you remember?

Not during the selection.

Oh, Sahara.

The Batson challenge that you did, Patrick.

That was my favorite part of the trial.

What happened?

I love a good Batson Wheeler.

Let's hear it.

Yeah.

Now, Batson Wheeler is when the prosecutor or the defense attorney can kick someone off the

jury just because of some protected class.

Race, religion, gender.

We don't want them on a, you know.

So what happened?

So we're doing jury selection and we like the jury that we're getting.

And there's one Haitian guy in the veneer out of like the 40 people.

And Mr.

Ameel was, I'd like one Haitian person on my jury because I'm Haitian.

And I'm like, you know, I kind of like this guy.

So it's all you.

Like you want it?

We got it.

And I didn't really ask him any questions.

The government didn't really ask him any questions.

And it comes up for this juror to be selected.

And the state uses a peremptory challenge.

Was he the only black person on the panel or just the only Haitian?

Only Haitian.

There was a couple other black people on the jury, but it wasn't like a huge portion of

the veneer.

But they use the peremptory on him.

And I say, you know, he's a member of a protected class.

I'm asking for a race, a race, ethnic, mutual reason.

And they say that we don't believe that he was like paying attention.

And he was like really like focused in on the on the questioning.

And I can say that that's I think that's protectual because the judge didn't pick up

this for saying that this during his voir dire.

He answered my questions during my voir dire.

The state didn't ask him any questions during the voir dire.

The court gave an opportunity to bring people back individually and ask a follow up questions.

This never happened.

So I'm asking for deny this in the chat.

And the judge does.

But it's interesting what he says after because he turns to Pat.

From the bench and says, Mr. Wilson, did I do that right?

Is that I've never done a batsman before?

And he's like, Patrick's like the most experienced child.

Well, besides the judge, obviously.

But like the other two, the other two DAs, they're like super green.

So it's pretty hilarious to see.

And the thing is, the judge does this all with like a smile.

He's like having the time of his life being like, says after he's like, I'm going to deny it.

He's like, did I do that right?

I'm like, you did.

He's like, well, what do we do next?

And I was like, well, they can use their peremptor at someone else.

It just can't be them.

And then they don't use any more peremptors.

Bet you scared them real good with that.

Because also if that's something that can be reported to the state bar.

Why not?

Any other interesting takes that happened during voir dire?

Right.

Two jurors, Amber, I've known for him.

And it was like a middle age, maybe in her like 50s, liberal looking white woman with multiple tattoos on her arm.

She was like a social worker.

So those are the two that we like.

She was giving such affirmative body language throughout the entire voir dire.

And I was like, Patrick, that is our forward person.

She is totally in with like, I don't know.

I tend to have a good sense about it.

Patrick, you can correct me if I'm wrong.

But I play this game all the time where I'm like, this is our forward person.

I always tend to like do a betting of who the person is.

Yeah.

And for the most part, thankfully, I and I called that one.

I like it.

So Sahara, you're just kicking back with Mr. Raymondville then.

How's he doing?

He is cool as a clam.

It's I think because of the energy that we were giving him, we were we kept being as affirmative as possible, saying, you know, we have a good case.

Just hang on tight.

It's going to be OK.

And he was a man of faith.

So, you know, he kept saying, like, I've been praying a lot and think I think we're going to be OK.

So he was he was pretty chill.

He thought the trial was a lot.

There's a zero percent chance he could lose.

And that was stressing me out.

And that was partly my fault, too.

All right.

Let's talk about opening statements.

Then who did the opening statement?

I did the opening statement.

It was I was very nervous because as the judge was reading the instructions, you know, jury panel has been sworn in right before the prosecutor goes up.

I feel like my head's sweating.

I'm like super nervous.

This is like I've never been in a case that was like the client was facing a life sentence or at least mandatorily a life sentence.

And then the prosecutor went up, gave her opening statement.

And it was the most boring opening statement.

It was something like, may it please the court.

We're here for a yaka yaka.

And I don't I don't I don't like bashing people, but it was it was very boring.

She didn't tell a story.

And so as soon as she finished, I felt a lot better.

Sahara, we did not bring you on this podcast to bash the prosecution.

Never happens here.

Gosh, I want to edit that out.

That is unheard of.

Let's let's keep it professional.

So I got up and I told a story.

I told the story that they these jurors are probably waiting the entire time of one year to they want to find out what what what the heck the case is all about.

So I practiced my opening with Patrick, as I usually do, like about four, three or four times.

And I felt like I was able to grab their attention.

Like they kind of like woke up finally.

And I was telling them, I was like, hey, you know, this is a victim of a violent crime.

Their child was in danger.

There was multiple people who saw this and she claims that she knew him, but she did not want to identify him.

So I think then their attention was captured.

So opening was pretty short and nice.

The big part of the trial was Patrick's cross-examination.

We're going to get there.

We're going to get there.

I always feel like, though, like with the opening statements, like when you have a good story and you just lay it out for the jurors, it's like the juicy stuff.

All the drama, all the gossip, all that stuff starts happening because the prosecution version is just like a very, you know, simple cut and dry.

We'll show that we'll show and this and he's a bad guy and she's a good guy and she's just with their kids and he carjacks her.

Just like how it's done on the news, you know, and there's always no context to anything.

And the crime doesn't happen like that.

It happens like there's relationships and people and human beings involved here.

So it's always more complicated than how the prosecution wants to make it seem.

My criminal law professor in law school said outright, like on our first day of class, criminal trials are all about who tells the best story.

It's just storytelling 101.

And I've never forgotten that.

So if the prosecutor had a boring opening and you came in and told him a story, that's great because you hooked him right from the beginning.

So then.

All right.

So let's talk about the prosecution's case.

How do they roll out their evidence?

They start with their biggest card.

Ms. Jones takes the witness there.

Yes.

All right.

I feel like we should be going, Jerry, Jerry, like what's about to happen right now?

Because I have all my body cameras, timestamped and clipped.

I have my deposition, like fully annotated and my cross reference on my cross.

Like I know, I know when she's getting like whacked on impeachment and I'm just waiting for the state to finish the examination.

Yeah.

Like, so what's she testifying to then?

She testifies consistent with the deposition that she immediately identified him.

And then she said something else that was a little off kilter.

She said that he threw the baby in the car seat out of the car, which didn't make a whole lot of sense because the baby was in the backseat.

And anyone who built the car seat knows that that's not like an easy thing to do.

And it probably didn't fit through the window of a sedan.

But, you know, she, her testimony was pretty consistent with what was in the arrest report, which she, the statement she gave to the detective.

Did the prosecutor play the video during her direct examination?

Yeah, they introduced and played the video.

Which, which does not show him throwing a baby out the window?

No, there's, there's the video from, and then the video from the CDS.

And you don't see a baby being thrown out the window at the CDS.

And at the coin laundry, you see everything, but, you know, you can't really make an identification of who the man is.

Well, so that's not great for the DA already before you even stood up.

Yeah, it's not great.

All right, so tell us about this cross, this cross-examination then.

So I'd just been reading something about Roy Black at the time.

And I knew that he liked to lead off his cross-examinations with, do you consider yourself an honest person?

So I was like, I'm going to try it.

So I led off with Miss Jones, do you consider yourself an honest person?

And she's like, of course.

And then I say, you, you, yeah, exactly.

You understand that it's important to tell the truth, right?

Brilliant.

And she's like, yeah, you do tell the truth.

And she's like, yeah.

And then we played, I say, on direct examination, you claimed that you immediately identified Mr. Raymondville.

And she's like, yeah.

And I played the video.

And it's like, who did this to you?

And she's like, I don't know.

Do you know who did this?

No, no.

And pause.

And I'm like, that's you in the video, right?

And she's like, yes.

That's you talking to the police right after this.

And she's like, yes.

And I was like, and you certainly didn't say that it was Mr. Raymondville.

And then she's like, I didn't know I was supposed to say it at that time.

And I was like, okay.

But at the time where they asked you, who did this to you?

So we play a little more.

And I cue up a different part of the video when I play it.

And they ask again, like, who did this to you?

And she's like, I don't know.

Do you know who it is?

No.

I think we do it a third time.

And then I establish, it's not until your baby daddy or the father of your children,

Mr. Wright, showed up on scene that you said it was Mr. Raymondville.

And just to be clear, Mr. Wright is in the courtroom right there supporting you in a relationship

with him right now.

He was in the courtroom, like in the audience?

Supporting her.

Even though he was going to be a witness?

Not in that case.

And I didn't object for having him there because I wasn't going to call him and I wanted him

to be in the gallery.

So you, all of a sudden, when that dude shows up, then you say it's Mr. Raymondville.

And so how, how to go from there?

How does she respond?

I mean, she has to own the video and, but she's, she's absolutely fighting me on it.

And I, I have to, I have to like, I think I have to play it again for her a couple of

times.

And we take a lunch break because she starts getting very, very frustrated.

And before the lunch break starts, the judge is like, ma'am, he's being very polite

and nice to you.

If I was cross-examining you, I would be like a pit bull tearing you up.

I would be ripping into you.

Like, he's not doing anything wrong and he's doing a lot less than he could be doing.

So you have to answer his questions.

I think I have a crush on this judge.

We do too.

We do too.

Yeah.

We break from lunch.

And then at lunch, I can't remember who it was.

I think it was one of the courtroom deputies, but one of the courtroom deputies snitches on

the fact that Ms. Jones was discussing her testimony with her boyfriend or baby daddy, Byron Wright.

And the judge obviously told him.

One of the jurors?

No, no.

I think it was the deputy.

The deputy.

Yeah.

Wow.

Okay.

So then the deputy tells the judge that.

Yeah.

And the judge rips into her and the boyfriend and basically says like, you know, something

really bad is going to happen if you, if you do something like that again.

And he asked me like, what do we want to do?

And I'm like, I don't want to continue with my cross-examination.

I just might want to ask him about that.

So we continue on the cross and we get into her crimes of dishonesty.

And I say, Ms. Jones, isn't it a fact that you've been convicted of misdemeanor theft,

a crime of dishonesty?

And she's like, do you mean the burglary?

And I was like, no, I'm not talking about that crime.

I'm talking about this misdemeanor theft that occurred back in like this date.

And like, she's like, I was, I was arrested for a burglary.

And I show her the prior conviction for the path.

And I think eventually the judge makes me move on.

And I'm like, and by the way, you're also have a pending charge for driving with a suspended

license, right?

And she admits to that.

She's like, yeah.

And I'm like, and certainly you want the state attorney's office to be lenient.

Lenient on a suspended license case?

Hey, that's a wobblet.

It's so funny.

Like during trial, it just sounds so much more sinister than what we care about.

Like it does.

We see like, oh, driving with a suspended license, whatever.

And then somehow that can come out and impeach you at trial.

Millions care about that in South Florida.

That makes all our insurance so much more, but, um, but anyway, so now we start, I start

talking about her relationship.

And I was like, I want to talk about the relationship, some of your relationships.

And I talk about Byron, right.

I point him out again.

I was like, he was the guy that you were talking about your testimony with before you came back

from lunch.

And I talk about how she has the, the two, the two children in this case are his kids.

I talk about how he's from Fort Lauderdale.

Then I talk about Mr. Raymondville, how she had a relationship with him.

She claimed that it was very, very short, which in deposition, she said it was like over a

year.

So I impeached her on that.

And then I got her to confirm that Mr. Raymondville is from Miami and he's safe in her phone.

And he's safe in her phone as a 305 number.

And then I was like, I want to talk about a third gentleman in your life.

You're also currently dating a gentleman named Kyle Hall.

And Mr. Hall, like Mr. Wright lives in Fort Lauderdale.

And then I asked her, were there any other men at the time you were seeing that?

In a polite way, of course, you know, what'd she say?

She said, she says no.

And when I'm like talking about the men, she's like, so what?

I was dating, dating all of them.

What's the problem with that?

And I'm like, I'm not, I'm not saying there's a problem with that.

I just want to establish who you were with.

And that leads to her medication where I cross-examine her on that.

And she, I should only be able to bring up what medication she's on, but like she's

going into it.

She's like, I, I'm prescribed Celexa because I have schizophrenia and like I have, you know,

I got this drug in a, in this mental health center and she confirmed that it affects her

memory.

Did you ask her if she was on all of her medication at the time of the incident?

I did.

And she had just got it off of it.

Interesting.

Okay.

So what was that?

What was your perspective on the cross-examination?

I was like, this, this poor girl is getting demolished.

I mean, not, I was like, I don't feel too bad for her because my client's facing life

and over something that they obviously cannot prove.

It was very clear that her credibility after that cross-examination was totally shot.

It was like her, her memories affected.

She has every incentive to testify favorably for the prosecution in this case.

And it was just like, it was, it was great.

Me and me and Ravenville were having a great time, like watching Patrick, like demolish this

poor girl.

And she's really the only evidence they have.

They didn't do any other investigations.

Okay.

So then after Ms. Jones testifies, who else did the prosecution put up?

One of the old ladies from the coin laundering.

One of the old ladies who really couldn't see, who couldn't identify anyone.

Correct.

Yes.

So all they could testify was that a crime happened, but they don't know who did it.

Correct.

Yeah, exactly.

Who cares?

Yeah.

Who cares?

Did she say anything of words of note then or?

No, it's a hard crosser.

Like one question where she was like, like, ma'am, you're not able to sit here today and

identify who did this.

And she's like, no, it was the best cross-examination I've ever done.

Nice.

And then who else did the prosecution put up then?

Is that it?

They called the lead detective.

Yes.

I was just about to ask about him.

The lead detective who didn't do anything on the case.

Yeah.

The one who won up for Christmas.

All right.

How did that go?

It was fun.

I personally, so I got to do the cross-examination.

I really love cross-examining the detectives because it's a lot of like building them up

to be Sherlock Holmes.

And then it's like, wait, you didn't do anything.

Knocking him down.

Yeah.

Was the detective at the council table the whole time?

No.

No, not in Florida.

So tell us about the cross-examination.

What'd you do?

So it was a lot of like building him up.

He was a seasoned detective.

He'd been a deputy for about like 20 something years.

And the way I usually do it, I try to put myself in the shoes of like what kind of evidence

you could get, like what in the web of like things that you could get.

So in this case, when they retrieved, it was critical that they obtained all the evidence

from the car.

So when they recovered the car, I mean, they didn't call for CSI to get DNA or fingerprints.

And then above all, the car had GPS.

So they didn't subpoena OnStar to get any tracking data or retrace the steps of the vehicle.

It's so crazy because that's such an easy thing to do.

Yeah.

I really wanted to make a, I made a big stink about it on cross-examination.

It's so much so that like the whole cross is usually built up of like, you didn't do this

and you didn't do that.

And you didn't do this and you didn't do that.

And then I've never been objected to this on cross, but the prosecutor objected and he's

objected to relevance.

I was like, what?

The only time I've been like, what school?

Like, what?

Are you serious?

And the judge is like, she's totally allowed to do that.

He's like, but it's getting annoying.

And I'm like, but I'm allowed to be annoying.

But it's devastating in my case.

Wait, wait, the response from the prosecutor was, it's getting annoying?

He's basically said that.

He was like, judge, he keeps getting into like what he didn't do.

And I was like, that's the whole point.

That's why we're here.

Pat, did you say there was a sidebar?

There was a couple of sidebars throughout Miss Jones's cross.

And then during this one, though, he brings the prosecutor over.

He's like, he's like, understand that it seems like she keeps asking the same type of question

over and over again.

But it has to do with a lack of evidence.

And she's able to, as long as she's asking about a different thing, she's able to ask it

as many times as she wants.

Really do love this judge.

The guy's just eating it the whole time.

Like, he's not fighting her at all.

He's like, no, I didn't do that.

No, not that either.

No, I could have done it.

Didn't do it.

Could have done it.

Should have done it.

Just didn't.

Did he even throw in the lack of funding or anything like that to blame it on like the

defund the police or something like that?

No, we didn't.

It was because it was Christmas.

That's why.

He can't come up there and say that.

Yeah, it was Christmas.

Patrick and I do this thing where like before the trial or before they testify, we go up

to the officers and shake their hands just out of goodwill.

And so that way, by the time they show up on the witness stand, they're like this very

kind person, you know, and it's very.

You disarm them.

I disarm them.

And I am very matter of fact, when I'm on cross, I'm not trying to like, I'm not trying

to like this person on fire.

I just want to get the facts.

And you just want to push them over a cliff.

It's fine.

Pretty much.

You got to be as a defense attorney.

You have to be nice.

I feel like you can't be a dick.

And Sahara is super disarming because she's like four foot eleven.

She is tiny.

And she'll like walk up to this officer and like, hi, detective, I'm the defense lawyer.

And they go, what a nice lady.

And then she'll get up there and just just destroy them.

They're the same.

You didn't do your job.

It just seemed like nice young lady way where it's like, and you didn't do that either.

And it's like, no.

And you could have.

No.

Yeah.

But you didn't do it.

No.

Right.

OK.

So who testified next for the prosecution?

They rest.

Wow.

This is great.

That's their whole case.

Their whole case.

And we break for the day and we come back in the afternoon, the next day to close.

I mean, did you 1118 it?

Motion to dismiss.

We did.

But in Florida, the standard is so bad.

It's just prima fashion.

Like you can't interpret credibility.

The judge, I'm like, I do feel very profundo.

I'm like, your honor, I renew all previous motions, objections.

I raised first judgment, but there's no prima fashion case.

I sit down.

And the judge.

So then what?

Tell us about the decision to rest and you didn't put on a defense.

Why is that?

I told him that there was no reason to call an alibi witness.

I we we were there.

He did not want to testify from the beginning.

And I said, that's a good idea because like, what are you going to say?

You didn't do it.

Like, that's we already know that's your position.

So we were not putting on any case at this point because the case just went so poorly for the

government.

OK, so then.

Yeah.

And your client was down for that.

So that's good.

This really is a true public defender case.

There's next to nothing.

You've got no witnesses.

Your client's not testifying because you're just saying they didn't prove their case.

Well, the public defender cases you have witnesses, but you decide that they're kind

of shaky and unreliable and not credible.

So you're not going to go with them.

And, you know.

OK, so let's talk about closing arguments then.

But before we move on to closing arguments, was there anything else about the trial you

want to share that we just forgot to talk about or I didn't ask the right question?

Was there something we missed?

Patrick, you think you want to share how Mateer was losing his mind with his star witness?

Oh, yeah.

So our prosecutor friend, and he's a very nice person.

He's not a not a bad prosecutor person.

He is getting visibly frustrated with with his witness on both direct cross and redirect.

And on redirect, she says something.

I know, Sahara, if you remember, let me know.

But he objects to her testimony and I'm like, objection to the objection.

And the judge is like, yeah, it's not how this works.

He can't like he's like, you can't object to your own.

So he goes side by.

He's like explaining that.

And I'm like, and the other thing I want to point out is that the prosecutor is doing

these hand motions like like become hand motions.

I've been letting it go because I understand his frustration, but I'm going to have to object

at this point because he can't he can't like help her up.

Yeah.

So the judge shuts that down, too.

And that's important because that leads to my favorite moment of the trial.

And it's when I walk in before closing argument and I see my client talking to my judge with

my co-counsel standing right next to it before the jury's coming in for closing argument.

Wait, what?

Your client was talking to the judge?

Correct.

With Sahara standing right next to him?

To the client?

So when usually the judge is not supposed to just come up to our client, like at least

that's what in practice is like that doesn't happen.

Yeah.

But Judge John Frye is like a very special person.

So sitting next to client, he steps down from the bench.

He's just walking around and he he looks like he just wants to have a conversation.

So he just goes up to our client and he just starts having a conversation about like, did

you eat today, man?

Like, what's going on?

Like, how you doing?

And this is all happening next to me.

But I'm like, it's John Frye.

This is let this go.

The client asked the judge, why were there so many sidebars yesterday?

And I know this because I came in and I look at the judge super confused because he's five

feet away from my client talking to him.

And he looks at me and he's like, don't worry, we're just shooting the breeze.

He was asking me, why did the prosecutor ask for so many sidebars?

And I told him that's usually what happens when the state's case goes to shit.

Oh, my God.

That's amazing.

And this is before closing argument?

This is before closing argument.

Was the prosecutor there?

One.

I think one of them was there.

Not the main guy, but the second one.

So inappropriate and so beautiful.

How did the prosecutor react?

I think they just ate it.

They think they just.

Yeah.

Tail between their legs.

Fact.

Yeah.

Okay.

So anything else before we move on to closing arguments?

No, that was that was my favorite moment because I walk in.

Edge is wearing a UM polo.

He's not wearing like a shirt and a tie.

He's got the robot under his arm and and he's having a full conversation with the guy accused

of a mandatory life charge.

Telling him the prosecutor's case has gone to shit.

That's amazing.

All right.

So what happens next?

So we close and the prosecutor gives like a very impassionate quote, like talking about

like how how she was telling the truth and how how this is how we know she's credible.

And this is like a very serious offense and just going through like all of that.

But, you know, like passionate, but content, like passionate, but what content, like content,

like content, like, oh, right, right.

Not much substance.

Just all conclusory statements, but not be able to back it up.

She was very able.

Her testimony was corroborated because there's like a video and just but, you know, not a

lot to back up why that's proof so then so then I close and I I tell her the jury.

I was like one of the first questions or one of the most important questions I asked and

I forgot to mention this earlier was, did you have any reason to protect Mr. Raymondville

and that was one of the few moments when she testified that she told the truth and you could

tell she told the truth that she was taken aback and confused by the statement.

And she said, no.

And that's an important question because, you know, why was she denying that?

Yeah, if your car was stolen from you, your toddler was almost hit by traffic because they

were left behind.

Your six month old was being literally kidnapped and you had to like choose between your three

year old and your six month old to get in the car.

You know, this like violent, terrible crime happened and you knew who it was and you have

no reason to protect that person.

Why wouldn't you immediately identify them?

We know it's not him because she acknowledges she had no reason to protect him, but she

showed she did not identify him immediately.

Then I start talking about the people that she had a reason to protect.

And I talk about Mr. Wright and I don't I don't think I believe it was Mr. Wright because

he arrived later on scene.

But then I talk about Kyle, the other boyfriend.

And how Mr. Wright doesn't know about Kyle or Kyle.

And I'm saying I'm not I'm not saying for certain Kyle was Mr. Raymond doesn't know who

did this.

But I'm saying that, you know, that's the most logical choice between all of the gentlemen.

So I talk about that.

And then we have one Haitian person on the jury.

Right.

And Mr. Raymond built Haitian.

And I decide to say a like a Haitian parable, a Creole parable.

So I say to my that you just know offhand.

Yeah, but I was I say, you know, like it makes me think like you you've all surmised that

Mr. Raymond is is is Haitian.

And this this case makes me think about a Creole parable.

And I was like, come on, which is that our lives are buried in shallow holes.

And I said, it didn't take a lot of time in this case to dig up the lies of Miss Jones.

So is that is that the title of the episode?

Our lives are buried in shallow holes.

I like that.

OK, sounds very depressing.

I know, right.

You know, and it's funny because when you say something in like Creole, like the whole jury

looks at you with like a blank stare.

But the one Haitian guy in the jury like smiles and like nods.

And I'm like, oh, yeah, I guess I'm like it landed.

And then you break it down in English.

And then the four person juror is nodding at this point.

And I'm like, OK, so we're doing we're doing pretty good.

So they're with you.

Yeah, they're with me.

So we we wrap up on the obviously like the lack of investigation.

And that was fun because I was like, I'm not sure why this detective decided not to do

his job that day.

I have a couple of thoughts of them, but I'm not certain one way or the other.

It could be just because he's incompetent.

But I don't think that's true.

Like we got to meet him and talk to him.

He seems pretty smart.

He's got a lot of experience.

No, he could have did all those things in it.

And I was like in the second office, it's day before Christmas and only a real Scrooge likes

to work during the Christmas holiday.

But it's certainly possible he wanted to give him to his family and not investigate this

carjacking.

And then my last thought is, I don't know if a detective of 20 years would sacrifice his

credibility by not putting the work in.

And he certainly could have investigated it after the Christmas holiday.

And I was like, and the third option is he just didn't believe Miss Jones and he didn't

want to follow up on it because he knew she wasn't credible and he didn't want to dig

into anything she had to say.

And I think that's the most believable option of the three because he's experienced and smart

and he could have done the work after the holiday.

Nice.

Nice.

Okay.

I said, I think the prosecutors, they did a really good job in this case, denying the

fact that they had a very tough witness.

And I think you saw a couple of times, Mr. So-and-so get frustrated with this witness.

And I understand why he got frustrated with this witness, because she wasn't a very credible

or believable witness.

But I acknowledge that they have a job to do.

There's no loss of honor and committed second place in a case like this, especially when you're

dealing with the innocent man and that's okay.

We gave them an out.

So like, can you like on the, was that in the record, by the way, that the prosecutor

was getting frustrated?

Like, your honor, let the record reflect that Mr. Prosecutor is throwing his hands in the

air.

And I like that.

So that what was, was there a rebuttal by the people or they just let it go?

There's a rebuttal, but it was, the rebuttal was very quiet as opposed to the first being

like animated.

And it was-

He took the wind out of his sails.

So, um, so then how, how was Mr. Ravenville after the closing argument?

You know, was he cool?

He thought it, he thought it was a slam dunk from start to finish.

Mr. Ravenville and I were talking about how long it would take for them to come back with

a not guilty verdict.

Wow.

Okay.

That's, that's dangerous territory, guys.

Yeah, that is.

And usually we're like, we're, I'm a very cautious person.

I'm way more cautious than Patrick.

And this was like the one in a million times where I was so confident we were gonna, we

were gonna win this case.

So.

I mean, this really is a case that like they had their one witness is not believable.

Like, what are you supposed to do?

You can't convict someone based off this unbelievable witness, you know?

And their whole case came down to that one witness.

Right.

Because their detective was too busy drinking eggnog.

How long were the jurors out for?

Three hours and 25 minutes.

Okay, nice.

And then was there any questions between in those three and a half hours?

So tell us about the reading of the verdict then.

The judge read the verdict, which is unusual, but I think he was excited about doing the

case.

So the judge read the verdict and he's like, you're not guilty.

You're not guilty.

Get out.

We're all done.

The scary part is that he walked in with such a serious face and Patrick was dying.

And I was like, what is going on?

Why are you so serious?

And he read the verdict and then Patrick teared up and the client was hugging Patrick.

It was so euphoric and so wonderful.

Pat, how many verdicts are you going to tear up on?

Jeez.

Get it together over there, man.

That's a crier.

Man, it's really life bothers me, especially when it's so young.

And I think that's what got me, you know, like so stressed about that stress, but, you

know, like invested in the case was that like, I didn't want this 31 year old to get

mandatory life on my walk.

I mean, how, I mean, how is it, we allow such a shaky system that's like not bulletproof

at all with all the flaws to like threaten this young man's life with this shit evidence

that they don't care to investigate.

They don't fucking care.

That's why.

And now that falls onto us to make sure the right thing happens, even though, even in

not guilty is the right thing that didn't happen because he was in custody for how long?

Like two years before this.

For two years.

Wow.

Two years.

So then, and then, so Patrick was crying.

Was Mr. Raymondville crying too?

You guys are hugging, kumbaya-ing.

Mr. Raymondville knew the not guilty verdict was coming, so he was just overjoyed.

He was just fist pumping.

Yeah.

God shakes his hand in front of the jury.

Great.

That's nice.

Yeah, I know, I know.

And then the foreperson was that one lady, right?

Yep.

It was the one lady.

The one Sahara was vibing with.

One, I was like, that lady is vibing so hard with Judge, who is like very, like, you have

to give this, you have to presume him innocent, and you have to hold the state to the burden.

And she was just adamantly shaking her head, nodding her head up and down.

So, yeah, she was very happy to, she gave us also good body language after the verdict

was read.

So, that was cool.

Guys, did you talk to the jurors afterwards?

Nah.

She's shaking the heads of no.

It bounced.

We got out of Dodge, and the first song we listened to in my truck as we're driving back

to Miami from Broward is I'm a Zoe by Black Daca, which is a very famous, like, Haitian

krill anthem from Little Haiti in Miami.

Oh, okay.

I'll have to check that out.

It's a song about, like, an immigrant who runs from ICE.

This is a long time ago.

This song came back and then grows up in, like, Miami and becomes, like, established.

It's, like, a very, very, like, fun, like, anthem.

Like, a lot of, like, low brass.

And it's, like, da-da-da-da-da.

I'm a Zoe.

Never had a problem.

Get and go.

Making this music's all I know.

And the funny part is that Mr. Raymondville calls us from the jail while we're listening

to this song.

And he's, like, we were, like, guess what?

Where's the song we're listening to, Mr. Raymondville?

He's, like, what?

We were, like, I'm a Zoe.

We were, like, oh, my God.

So, what happened?

Like, how are you feeling?

He's, like, I am on top of the world.

I came back from jail.

I came back to the jail.

Everybody was cheering me on.

Like, it was, yeah.

So.

One more life case to go.

Yeah.

Well, that's what happens in, like, Bade and Broward when the guy comes back from the

jail.

And I only know this because another defense lawyer got held in contempt and he had to go

back with a client when his client got acquitted.

But, like, everyone's, like, all, like, on pimped and needles in the cell block.

And then they're, like, not guilty.

And, like, the guards and everyone are, like, shut up.

Oh, man.

That's great.

That's great.

Well, Patrick, Sahara, thank you for stopping by this afternoon and sharing your not guilty

story with us in the A&G-verse.

It was a great story.

Thank you so much for having us.

I love having Florida.

I just know it's going to be a good case whenever Florida contacts us.

It's just something.

There's something.

The defense bar in Florida is awesome.

And Patrick Wilson.

Well, they have to be.

They have to be.

They ought to be on top of it.

And Patrick Wilson, you're one of the reasons why.

And so are you, Sahara Fonseca.

So I'm so glad I got to meet you this afternoon.

We're going to close out our show how we always close it out.

And, Sahara, we'll start off with you.

Tell the A&G universe why you became a public defender and a criminal defense attorney.

What led you to this work, this life?

That's a great question.

I started off when I was a court reporter.

I saw my first trial and the prosecutors were always coming to me and say, aren't you excited

for when you become a prosecutor?

And I was like, hell no.

I'm super excited.

I was always cheering on the other side.

So I became a public defender, criminal defense attorney because, well, because of justice and

because I always am on the side of the underdog.

I'm always on the side of, you know, those who are presumed innocent.

And I love every day going into court and telling the government, you know, prove it, asshole.

It's the best part of the job.

And I love doing it every day, especially more with Patrick, who's just a wonderful boss.

So you became a court reporter and was going to law school at that same time?

Or how did that or did you want to be a lawyer when you became a court reporter or you became

a court reporter?

You're like, you know what?

Those guys, I could do that.

You know, like what?

I was studying international relations and I wanted to be a foreign service officer while

I was working as a court reporter.

And then I saw my first trial and I saw the not guilty verdict come down and the guy hug

his criminal defense attorney.

I saw the whole trial from start to finish and I was so overjoyed with what happened when

he was found not guilty, the euphoria of it.

I was crying behind the computer, just like typing away.

I realized and then I realized I was like, I had no idea that I wanted to be an attorney.

I knew I wanted to be a criminal defense attorney.

I knew I knew that before I decided to be an attorney.

All right.

Interesting.

Well, well, welcome to the glad you're on our team.

Glad to have you.

Yeah.

And Patrick Wilson, go ahead.

You know, I know you told us last time, but tell us again why you became a public defender

and a private attorney, defense attorney.

So my first interview at the Miami-Dade Public Defender's Office, I said I wanted to be a

public defender because I wanted to protect the community.

And I got a lot of pushback from that.

And they were like, does that mean that sounds like a job of like the prosecutor?

And I went home and my wife is like, that's a really dumb thing to say.

It's like, what are you, Batman?

And but I truly believe that because like law enforcement and the government and the prosecution,

they'll just steamroll our rights.

And it's sometimes it's because they're evil.

Sometimes it's because they're malevolent.

And sometimes it's just because they're incompetent and overworked.

And it's a combination of all those things, which is why we need someone on the other side

to push back.

Public defender work was really important to me because it starts from the people that

can't protect themselves.

Like if you can't go out and hire like talk to your lawyer, the concern is you're going

to get steamrolled, but you're not in a place like Miami or in like, you know, the jurisdictions

of California where you practice because you're going to get a really good public defender

and you're going to push back on that.

And as a result, you're protecting all of our rights.

And I like private civil defense work, obviously, because of a little more freedom.

I don't have like 75 first degree or punishable by life felonies.

I can still do the same thing and I can still interact and give CLEs and teach the puppet

defenders that are my like trainees, trainees and and keep that going because it is something

that really matters to me.

Like we need that that level of protection to protect us all.

Especially now.

Amen.

Yep.

That's right.

Especially now.

Well, thanks for being on the show.

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

Until next time, everybody.

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.