Saw Me Bangin' In The Honda (It Wasn't Me) – When the State's Theory Goes Off Track

Here at Another Not Guilty, we appreciate your support. Don't forget to subscribe or follow us. And please visit our website at anothernotguiltypod.com. Do you have a Not Guilty story you'd like to share with A&G listeners? Visit our website to submit your info to be a guest. Want to check out our updated new A&G merch? Another great reason to check out our website. That's anothernotguiltypod.com. Now, without further ado, here's this week's episode of Another Not Guilty.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it's going to be really hard for you to go back into this jury room on this murder case where we have an innocent grandmother who is dead for no reason. And then you have this prosecution charging Mr. Villalobos, who is a gang member with this. And here I am asking you to find Mr. Villalobos not guilty. You know, it's going to be really hard for you to do that and require a lot of courage and fortitude for you to do that. But then I like told them and as I was saying

that, I felt like the room got smaller in a way, like I felt like the jurors and I were like talking face to face.

It's season three of 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.

Now we're back for part two of our time with public defender Sajid Khan. Got Nikhil here. He's here to tell us about his not guilty he got earlier this year. Sajid, how are you doing there? Are you still with us?

I'm still here. Still doing well.

Still doing well.

All right. So what kind of case did you get a not guilty on earlier this year? What were the charges?

So my client, Israel Villalobos, was accused of a murder with a gang enhancement. So violation of penal code section 187 with a enhancement for violating penal code section 186.22.

What does the gang enhancement mean when it's attached to a murder charge?

Gleaming in lay terms that he committed a gang-related murder, that he committed it for the benefit of the street gang at the direction of a street gang or in association with a street gang and with a specific intent to promote the street gang.

In order, the law requires that they have to prove that this gang even exists and that they are, in fact, a criminal street gang.

And so it permits prosecutors and requires them to bring in proof of other crimes by other people, not Mr. Villalobos, in order to prove that this gang exists.

And even though it is a legal requirement of the prosecution ultimately is actually to their benefit because it permits them to bring in this very inflammatory prejudicial evidence that isn't about Mr. Villalobos and that will lead a jury to potentially find him guilty, not because he, in fact, is guilty, but because he is associated with this violent street gang or this violent enterprise.

Let's start at the beginning.

What are the government facts in this case?

Like, what did your client allegedly do?

So the facts are, or the alleged facts are, a man in a white Honda goes into what is allegedly a Sereno neighborhood in San Jose.

He pulls up in front of a alleged rival, Norteño Associated House.

He is seen on surveillance, this car and this person are seen on surveillance footage, pulling up in the street in front of this house.

He, this man appears to raise a firearm through the passenger window in the direction of the house for a few seconds.

It's not clear that anyone sees that or that it's directed at anybody.

He then puts the firearm down, puts his car in park, gets out of the car in the middle of the street, is standing in the middle of the street behind his car, looking around.

And then someone from this rival, allegedly rival, Norteño House comes out wearing all red and comes out looking like he's on the surveillance footage yelling and having this kind of angry confrontation with the man in the white car.

The man in the white car is arguing back, there's some kind of movement.

The man in the white car gets back in his car, people on the street and the man in the red start to kind of flee and kind of scatter in their respective directions.

The man in the white car, who's allegedly my guy, starts to drive away and in response to whatever happened that caused people to scatter, another person, a juvenile, who was associated with this alleged rival, Norteño House, is on video.

And he is seen standing up and shooting a gun in the direction of the white Honda Accord as it drives away.

The bullet doesn't hit the car.

Unfortunately, it goes across the street in a diagonal direction, enters a house and strikes a grandmother who is cooking tamales in her kitchen in the chest and kills her.

Really, really, really ugly, really, really, really sad, really, really tragic set of facts.

I'd just like to break it up for everybody.

Sure, sure.

Or make sure I heard everything correctly.

A white car drives into the El Sereno neighborhood.

Someone from a Norteño House comes out.

Words are exchanged.

The white car takes off.

The person that comes out of the house fires a gun.

A different person that had come out of the house, yeah.

A second guy out of that house, yeah.

And that person hits the tamale woman.

The lady across the street.

In the house.

Who's in her kitchen, yeah.

And then police are kind of arriving at the scene.

And a police officer and his partner see the Honda Accord that is associated to my client in the general vicinity, you know, within about a 10 to 15-minute time period.

And there's no attempt to stop that car because they hadn't made the association that this could be a suspect car.

So my guy's car drives off.

But before it drives off, two people exit the car.

And those two people, one guy's name is David Chavez and another guy actually is never detected.

And they catch up to David Chavez.

David Chavez is from the same gang, local Sereno gang, as my guy, Israel Villalobos.

And then the car is associated to Mr. Villalobos.

So that's how they then hone in on Mr. Villalobos as the suspect, as being the person who was the driver of the Honda Accord that had been at the scene of the shooting.

Okay, so my question for you is, you've described, you know, a set of facts.

And if Mr., you know, let's say, assume for a second that Mr. Villalobos is the driver of the white car in the government's case.

I don't understand how, how's your client being charged for murder?

He didn't shoot anybody or kill anybody.

Well, that's a great question.

We litigated that through and through.

It's based on this provocative act murder doctrine of law that is longstanding in our jurisprudence here in California.

It is, it is where someone commits a provocative, violent act where it is, I don't have the jury instructions in front of me, but someone who commits this really violent, provocative act that's dangerous to human life.

And there's a high probability that that act would provoke a deadly response.

And, and in, in provoking that deadly response, someone is, is killed by another person.

So they're kind of the classic example of it, which actually can be pretty reasonable to understand, is where there's a gun battle.

You know, like I pull out a gun and I start to shoot at, um, at someone in the street, um, that person reasonably, uh, starts to shoot back at me.

And when that person shoots back at me, they miss me and they hit the old lady who's walking on the sidewalk behind me.

Um, the law allows for me as the person who initiated that gun battle to be held accountable and responsible for the murder and killing of the old lady behind me, because I committed a provocative act that was in and of itself dangerous to human life.

And that there was a high probability that by me doing that, that that would provoke a deadly response from someone else.

Another example is where, um, you know, someone goes into a bank and they, uh, have a gun and they take, uh, someone hostage at the bank teller hostage and the police come and they try to kill the bank robber.

But in doing so, they shoot the bank teller, um, and the bank robber in that scenario could be held liable for the killing of the bank teller, even though they didn't pull the trigger themselves because they committed this, or, you know, this arguably provocative act that, uh, could provoke a deadly response.

So the DA's theory was that my client, if this was him by driving into this neighborhood and by confronting alleged rival gang members by, by brandishing a firearm, by standing outside of his car and engaging in this kind of verbal altercation and gesturing and movements that he, in and that he, by doing all of those things, committed a provocative act.

Uh, that was likely to provoke a deadly response from a rival gang member that ended up killing, um, this woman.

And so their theory was that, um, Mr. Villalobos, if he was that person was the first to kind of set off this chain of events and therefore is also responsible for this killing in addition to the shooter.

Um, so that's kind of the theory of the, of their case.

So it's, it's, it's, uh, it is a lot easier breaking down that, that with those two scenarios, right?

The bank robbery scenario or the gunfight scenario, understanding it.

But so, I mean, I, I would, I would guess that, you know, part of your defense is already that this doesn't sound like that much of a provocative act.

I mean, people get in road rage incidents all the day, all, you know, all day and gangs have these like, you know, kind of minor skirmishes, um, where people are, you know, talking shit and, you know, that doesn't necessarily lead to, you know, the death of, of, it's not like we live in like a, such a violent society where like, if you just, you know, look at someone the wrong way or say, Hey, I'm from this gang.

That automatically means everybody's going to die.

Right.

Isn't that, that seems a little bit, it seems like an overcharged case.

Correct.

That's how I, uh, we approached it.

We, we litigated that from the beginning, both, uh, informally and formally.

Um, you know, at the, we set the case for a preliminary hearing as soon as reasonably possible.

Once I got all the discovery and made that pitch to the preliminary hearing judge or magistrate and asked them to dismiss the murder charge, because there wasn't sufficient evidence that this was a provocative act, that it was so, so dangerous that, um, it would provoke a deadly response.

And, and definitely, you know, murder requires, in addition to everything that I've described, it requires like a, a conscious disregard for, for human life or commonly known as malice of forethought.

Um, and that just wasn't present, not when someone is just engaging at, at worst in some shit talking and is gesturing, um, and arguably did brandish a weapon, but didn't brandish it at anybody, put it away.

And then was ultimately driving away when someone shot a gun at him.

Um, and so.

Did he have, did he have an angry blog?

Oh yeah.

I don't know.

We didn't get that discovery.

Maybe, uh.

Is he posting pictures of prominent civil rights heroes?

Maybe if he had posted, if he had held up a picture of Malcolm X, then that would have been.

That's like posting his homie that has guns, like on your, you know, you get that discovery.

I know you do.

Probably like that Instagram dump with like just all kinds of pictures, right?

Oh yeah, for sure.

So I fought to try to get the murder charge dismissed at every level.

After evidence at the preliminary hearing, uh, I made arguments to the magistrate or the sitting judge there, um, asking him to dismiss the murder charge on the grounds that the provocative act theory of murder has actually been abrogated or is no longer on the books.

After the passage of SB 1437, which amended the felony murder rule, but from the defense position also, uh, abrogated the doctrine of being, uh, responsible for murder under a natural and comparable, probable consequences theory.

Um, and then I also argue that even if this natural and probable consequences theory of murder still exists, that Mr. Villalobos is, uh, not culpable for murder because he just didn't commit a provocative act.

Um, so I argue that at the prelim unsuccessfully, the judge held Mr. Villalobos to answer.

I then brought a 995 motion, uh, to, uh, to a different judge to get the murder charge dismissed, making the same.

And a 995 motion is, you're pretty much saying to another judge, the prelim judge messed up.

They made a wrong, their, their ruling was incorrect.

They should have dismissed the murder charge at the prelim.

They didn't.

So I'm asking you to dismiss the murder charge.

Correct.

And so I asked, uh, the prelim, the, the, uh, 995 or motions judge to, to do the same thing that I had asked the, um, the prelim judge to do.

And, and I, that was also unsuccessful.

Uh, but I didn't stop there.

I then took, uh, took up a writ with the, um, our local appellate court, the sixth district appellate, uh, court of appeals.

And I asked them, uh, to dismiss the case, um, and arguing that the 995 judge had gotten it wrong by not granting my 995.

Um, they denied me just, you know, like a postcard.

Oh, so you, you, they didn't, they didn't even hear the writ?

No, they didn't hear the writ.

No.

Um, I was really concerned that it wouldn't matter that Mr. Villalobos didn't kill this woman and that he wasn't responsible for her death.

That the jury potentially could be so inflamed by the circumstances of the case that they would convict him.

Um, and so I was, I was trying to get a judge, any judge, a prelim judge, a 995 judge, the court of appeals, and then ultimately the trial judge to do the right thing and dismiss the case because it just legally did not meet threshold for murder.

Um, and then, um, we also attempted to meet with the DA's office and, and, and laid all of this out there and, and asked them to, uh, dismiss the murder charge.

Um, and that Mr. Villalobos, um, might be willing to take some, uh, lesser non-homicide charge that there was no movement there.

Um, and so we were, I mean, there was, there was some offers that were presented, but they all involved, you know, double digit prison terms and some sort of homicide related charge.

Um, and, um, Mr. Villalobos wasn't, um, wasn't ready or willing to take that.

And I didn't think he, he should, but at the same time, he was looking at the possibility of 30 to life if he was convicted after a trial.

And, um, so there was, there was, it was a very, um, scary set of circumstances to, um, to take forward to trial, uh, given, um, what we were up against, you know, all of this sounds very reasonable legally that he has all these legal defenses.

But then when we're up, what, what you and I both, we all know is that when we're in, in our courtrooms, what we're, we're not always against, up against kind of the elements, uh, charge.

We're up against the very emotional, very visceral, um, uh, facts in this case.

And in, in, in this particular case, we have a dead, innocent grandmother who was cooking in her kitchen and did not in any way, uh, remotely deserve to, to suffer the fate that she did.

And we're also dealing with the optics of a gang fight, uh, gang, alleged gang neighborhood.

And then my guy, Mr. Villalobos, uh, who, um, it, uh, you know, and we, we can get into it.

He clearly, at least by the legal definition and by the DA's definition and by community definitions is a gang member.

Uh, he has all the markers of being a gang member in terms of the tattoos and the affiliations and the criminal history, um, and associations.

And so that's what we were up against.

We were up against the kind of those kind of big picture facts more than the actual facts, um, of the case, if that makes sense.

Hey, A&G fans.

Thanks for listening.

Got Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram?

Like us and follow us.

And please leave a comment if you like this episode.

Can we, um, talk about, I think we need a couple more, uh, to finish the story.

So one is, uh, what happened to the shoot?

So the shooter was a juvenile, um, at the time and he was, uh, he was ultimately identified and arrested and was being prosecuted for murder in juvenile court.

The DA's office, as you would expect, was, uh, had filed a transfer, um, motion to transfer him to be prosecuted as an adult.

So that was still, as far as I recall, unresolved by the time we went to trial, but he had been arrested and was being prosecuted.

That's, that's, um, that's what I knew then.

And then, um, so the 10 minutes after the shooting, police officers see a white Honda Accord, uh, at a gas station or park and pull over.

And two people get out and then the car, the white Honda Accord takes off and then they did correct.

They detained the people that were walking out of the car.

One person they were able to detain who ends up being this man named David Chavez, who is a friend of my, my, my client.

And then another person who they are, they're unable to kind of catch up to.

And did, did it, how they know it was your client that was driving that car?

Was it registered to him?

It was registered to his wife.

And so they just kind of, um, I mean, it's, it's, it's the assumption that he was driving the car, uh, based on his friend getting out of the car, it being his wife's car.

Um, and then, uh, when they, so the kind of to close the loop in terms of the facts, when they end up arresting, uh, Mr.

Vio Lobos or bringing him down to the police station, they also bring his wife down to the police station.

They sit them in separate rooms.

They interview both of them.

My guy, Mr.

Vio Lobos, he actually, um, he invokes the fifth amendment, um, and doesn't say anything.

Um, but then they, they ask him if he wants to talk to his wife.

And then, so he starts sitting in the room with his, or he gets on the phone with his wife and then sits in the room with his wife.

And then during that conversation, he makes, um, some admissions that he was driving the white Honda that, that the police saw after the fact.

Not, he didn't, he didn't admit that he was driving the white Honda at the scene of the shooting.

He makes some admissions, um, indirect admissions that he was, uh, in the white Honda that left, um, you know, that drove away that Mr.

Chavez had gotten out of the car from.

And I'm, and I'm sorry, um, you know, my, my last question on the facts is, maybe you said in the beginning was the, the white car that drove into the neighborhood.

Do we know it was a Honda Accord or do we not, do we just know it's a white car?

We, we, we, we know it was a Honda Accord just by, by the look of it.

It's on surveillance footage.

It, it, it, it looks to be a pretty, um, actually that was part of the, my cross-examination of the police officers was that this was a pretty stock white Honda Accord of a, I don't recall exactly the general year of it, but it had no kind of modifications.

Nothing about it that, uh, made it unique in terms of like stickers or markings or anything like that.

In fact, the, in the surveillance footage, maybe like a minute before this white Honda Accord pulls up another white Honda Accord that looks almost exactly like it drove through the neighborhood too.

Uh, which was a good thing for me in the sense that it's just such a common car, um, as we all know.

And so that was another, um, another factor, but yeah, generally it was understood that this was a white Honda Accord.

Yeah.

So 10 minutes later, they know for sure your client was driving a white Honda Accord in the neighborhood.

You know, that, that's certainly enough evidence to arrest somebody and try to prosecute them and throw them away in prison for the rest of their life.

Don't you think so?

That's, that's, that's, that's in good faith can, you know, say we're doing, doing a good job for justice there.

Uh, I, I, I don't know, man, you know, it's, we just, we, you know, this is just another example of, of, of the fact that we as PDs, and I, I guess in this particular case, cause now we know the end result on jurors, but generally we as PDs and, and then prosecutors just see the world in diametrically.

Like, you know, like it just, it becomes abundantly clear through the work that we do that we just see the world, we see people, we see conduct so, so differently.

Like, um, and it's what our job is, is to try to convince them or jurors or judges to see the world the way we see it, um, which can be such an uphill battle.

But yeah, I mean, I, I can't relate to their instincts, um, uh, to prosecute Mr. Villalobos for murder and, and, and be okay with subjecting him to the possibility of, of a life sentence in prison for this.

But I'm not surprised by it.

I mean, are you, I mean, are any of you surprised by it?

It's just, it's like, no, I mean, this is what we do.

It is what we do.

I think more just like, I think from, um, maybe more of a lay person's point of view, it's wow.

We, it's not like they didn't, I can maybe understand on some level if they didn't know who the shooter was, that the shooter had escaped culpability.

And then there was like maybe a demand for, we need someone to be held responsible.

And this person was the, the kind of the provocative, like we say, the provocative act, but it just shows like, it's not just, it's not just because the community demands justice, right.

Or demand some type of accountability.

It is seems to watch it to the system seems to be designed in a way to allow for the most widest, for the widest net to be cast and everybody in what peripherally involved, no matter what, how that we're just going to put them all because they're bad people.

Let's put them in there.

And I think let's slapping on the gang label.

And I want to deep dive into that because we haven't done too much gang, um, stuff on this, this podcast is, is you mentioned it, right?

It becomes really more, we're not, we're not debating the facts.

We're not, we're not litigating the, the culpability on the murder.

We now are dealing with this very, you know, intellectually dubious enhancement that is very emotional, right?

That it just, it just really brings out, you know, decades of, of, of prejudice and bias, um, in the community.

And it kind of goes back to our conversation about systemic racism and policing.

What's one thing that's really interesting, uh, not interesting.

It's really ugly about our system is that so much policing effort, as you guys know, in Southern California and up here in the Bay is focused upon not prosecuting, um, people for committing discrete crimes, but it's policing.

It's something that's, uh, that goes into building evidence against alleged gang members, um, over a course of years and years and years so that when they perhaps do commit a crime, that the prosecution can use all of that evidence that they've collected over the years to then, um, try to impose these gang enhancement and enhancements and try to impose the harshest sentences possible.

Um, so yeah, I mean, these, uh, gang enhancements, they are, uh, really, uh, difficult to overcome because, uh, because of what you described, the jury, juries tend to be afraid of, of gangs.

They read the newspaper headlines and they hear the stories of, um, of gang violence in our communities, shootings and stabbings and deaths.

And, um, generally, uh, gang members are, uh, kind of pariahs of our communities.

And so there's not a lot of sympathy, uh, from the community for them.

Um, and, and they are cast as these violent villains.

And so what we're up against is that kind of demonization and those types of stereotypes, um, when, and if we have people that are accused of gang crimes, and on top of that, the gang laws allow for, uh, allow for and actually demand that there be requisite proof of this group being a street gang.

And that this person is a gang member or is, you know, is doing this crime in association with the street gang.

And so that allows for a backdoor of all kinds of prejudicial, um, prior evidence to show that this gang is in fact a gang.

And so they get to admit into evidence, all kinds of prior violent acts by not the person themselves, but by people that are of allegedly the same gang.

And not even, and not even right.

Like, I mean, I think the thing that's most shocking is that there's, there's no, there has no connection has to be shown other than that the government accuses or alleges that they're in the same quote unquote state street gang.

So, I mean, I, I have, we have prelims all the time or trials where it's like this guy, you know, Smokey Smith is can murder this person.

And it's like, my client doesn't know Smokey Smith, you know, like there's no, he wasn't there.

He didn't witness it.

He wasn't involved in any way.

He might be 10 years younger than Smokey Smith, you know, like.

Um, I know that there's like a litmus for how, how recent it has to be, but, um, it's, it's, it is, it's crazy.

Like it's not only prior's evidence, it's, it's someone else's prior, right?

Like that they're bringing in to, to, to muddy up your guy in front of someone that he's never known.

And so now, you know, your client is now associated with the, all the bad, horrible, violent things from that enumerated list of people.

He does, we don't, they don't even have to prove that he knows.

And it's pretty absurd.

So Sajid, let's talk about some of the, the, the trial, the trial prep work you did in this case.

Like what did you do to get ready for trial?

In terms of prep, um, I wanted to prove to the jury that my guy never shot a gun.

Um, and so I had, um, ensured that I poured over the discovery that none of the witnesses at this alleged kind of rival house were claiming that their house was shot at.

There was no one saying that, um, that, uh, man in the white Honda had shot a gun in their direction.

Um, we also interviewed and connected with the, the crime lab, um, who actually is a Santa Clara County district attorney crime lab.

Um, but we had utilized them because they had done GSR samples of the interior of the white Honda that Mr. Villalobos owned that was ultimately seized and searched.

And that car was, uh, swabbed for gunshot residue and ended up, uh, testing clean for any gunshot residue, which was circumstantial evidence that no gun had been shot from that car.

Um, so worked up that angle and actually subpoenaed that criminalist to come in and, and testify, uh, as a defense witness to testify that there was no, um, no, no gunshot residue in the vehicle.

Um, so those are the primary, primary things.

The other thing, um, that's kind of a funny and really unique part of this case was that my client, Mr. Villalobos had a teardrop tattoo under one of his eyes.

Um, and luckily one of my colleagues, Kristen Carter, uh, caught it as I was sharing some of the, um, discovery with her.

And she's like, Oh, you need to move to exclude that.

You know, that's really, um, prejudicial because people make assumptions that if you have a teardrop that you've killed somebody.

Um, and so I moved to exclude the teardrop.

The judge granted that.

So it was excised from any pictures of Mr. Villalobos.

And then in court, Kristen, my colleague actually went out to target and bought me some concealer.

Concealer.

Yeah.

And so every day, um, before the start of trial, from the beginning of jury selection, all the way to the end, I became a, uh, quasi kind of makeup artist and would sit there and have to apply this kind of, uh, concealer to Mr. Villalobos's eye and like dab it and make sure that it blended well.

Um, but you know, these are the little things that we, we had to do to, to ensure that we stack things in our favor as much as possible and to try to exclude anything that could be, uh, damaging, um, in front of the jury.

So those are some of the things that we did, um, kind of pre-trial.

But those, um, those motions in limine, those were those motions that you heard like right when trial was starting, or is that something you litigated maybe a month or two before?

Like you, did you already know what judge you're going to be in front of?

Yeah, we got assigned to a judge in December.

So what was interesting about this case is that I actually had been in trial on another homicide case with that same colleague, Kristen Carter.

We were, we handled the double homicide trial all of last summer.

So the summer of 2019 and Mr. Villalobos, his case was time, not wave.

So meaning he had a right to a speedy trial, but because I was in trial on this other case, Mr. Villalobos had to wait for me.

Um, so a poor guy was just sitting in jail, uh, waiting for me to finish up this prior trial.

So I finished up this prior trial maybe in November.

And then I asked for a few weeks to ask the court for a few weeks to, um, to kind of reacclimate myself to Mr. Villalobos's case and kind of get oriented.

The judge granted that.

Um, and then we got sent to a trial department.

We started our in limonese.

Um, we handled those in limonese.

How did, um, how did Mr. Villalobos feel about letting you, giving you the time to sort of like readjust and get, you know, get your bearings straight?

He, he, he didn't mind.

He, he understood.

He was very patient.

I mean, that goes, that, that trust, um, is developed not at that point.

That trust is developed much earlier on as we, as you guys know, like that trust is developed in the first, first meetings.

You know, it's, it's about being at the jail, visiting, uh, the people that we've been assigned to represent.

Being at their court appearances, standing up with them, uh, getting to know them, answering their calls, uh, answering their family calls, uh, showing them that we're invested in them.

Um, um, doing all the litigation that I described earlier, you know, advocating at the prelim, bringing in 995, doing the writ, showing them, hey, I'm, I'm all in for you.

Um, I mean, and also the fact he knew I was in another trial.

So it showed, he knew that I was a trial lawyer and that I, um, was not gonna, um, kind of shy away from, from going to bat for him.

And that just like I was giving my all to this other man in trial, uh, he knew that I was going to go to bat for him.

So all of that, that type of trust, it doesn't just kind of come from nowhere.

As, as, as we all know, that trust has developed over a course of time.

So he was, he was very patient and he was very gracious with me, which I appreciated.

Mr.

Villalobos actually had, you know, he, he had an older son who was maybe like five.

And then he had a infant son that was born while he was in jail.

Oh my God.

So that was another of the human, um, aspects of this, of this case was that I had gotten to know his wife who I knew was pregnant and then knew that she had given birth to their son, um, while Mr. Villalobos was in custody.

And so that was just another, uh, layer to this layer to this story.

That's something that always breaks my heart.

I think when my clients are telling me about, they have kids being born, um, outside and they were like, you know, they asked me questions like, can, is there any way I can get released, um, to see my child born?

Or is there any way, you know, this baby can come in and I can hug my baby and cover it, you know?

And I think even on that basic level, it's like, I, you know, oftentimes I'm like, dude, nope, nobody is going to let you do this.

You know, like, I mean, you're charged with a very serious offense and, and it's sad to be able to say that, right?

Because even just like these small, I think moments of, of recognizing their humanity, I think would do a lot, could improve the system in so many ways.

Right.

But I, at least the bench officers I appear in front of, there's just, there's no, there's no appetite.

Oh no, they, they use that against our guys.

Yeah.

Like you should have.

Yeah.

You should have been thinking about that baby before you did X and, and they, they actually make them feel uglier for it, you know?

And it's, and yeah, they don't, generally they don't, they don't offer that type of basic dignity and humanity to the people we represent.

There are some really great deputies though.

I, I, that I appreciate that will allow for a hug and that will allow for some, you know, for some intimate contact in the courtroom.

So, you know, it's, yeah, it's just a really shitty system we operate in.

Um, when we talk about family separation and we talk about the way we incarcerate and, um, it's not really designed for, like you said, for really, um, equitable or humane outcomes.

It's really designed to dehumanize and separate and, and, and belittle.

Um, and that's kind of, that's what happens.

At this time, I'd like to thank and acknowledge our newest member of A&G's Patreon team, David Allen Hayes, for his contribution to making our podcast go.

If you too would like to contribute to the podcast and receive a shout out on an episode or receive the unedited raw version of an episode, then please visit our website at another not guilty pod.com and click on the Patreon.

Thank you.

You know, I have, um, I have one more evidentiary question for now.

Did any evidence come from the juvenile case?

Did the juvenile make any statements about who he shot at or anything like that?

No, no, nothing came, um, out of that as far as, um, as far as I, um, as far as I recall.

Um, but I did argue, part of my argument was, you know, the DA can't have it both ways.

Um, they can't prosecute my guy for murder.

And then also, um, essentially, I mean, I was arguing by inference, turn around and prosecute the juvenile for murder too.

It's like, you know, if you're, you're claiming that my guy committed a provocative act,

then therefore by inference, um, by extension, you're saying that the juvenile was acting in, in self-defense.

And so which one is it?

Like you, you can't have it, um, you can't have it all, you know, both ways.

Um, and I was, I argued to the jury that the young man, the juvenile was clearly not acting in self-defense.

He was an independent actor who was acting violently and, and recklessly.

Um, and if he was acting in self-defense, the DA would tell you he was acting in self-defense, but they're not telling you that.

And so, um, that was another, um, kind of factor that I attempted to, to, uh, utilize, to convince the jury that this wasn't a provocative act.

Can we talk about jury selection and how you approached it?

We, well, a few things.

We did a questionnaire.

Um, so all the jurors that survived hardships, uh, did a questionnaire.

It was a pretty, pretty great questionnaire that the DA and I collaborated on, um, that covered gang crimes, stereotypes, and perceptions of gang members, uh, whether someone would be willing to convict, um, someone of a crime just based on the fact that they find that that person's a gang member.

So it really created for some, um, some good information for us to gleam, um, um, from, um, and then in voir dire.

Um, one of the, a couple of the things that I was able to do was, um, really kind of, um, try to empathize with the jurors, uh, from a very early stage, uh, understanding, you know, like trying to press them on the idea that, hey, if you're picked as a juror in this case, you know, you're going to hear that there's, you know, that there's a victim, that there's an alleged gang crime.

But, you know, um, trying to prep them for the possibility that they are going to feel sad about what happened here, but they have the, will they have the ability to set aside that sadness and still acquit somebody, um, if, if they're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, um, even, especially because we didn't have the juvenile, um, at trial with us.

And so this idea, like I would ask them questions about whether they're going to have this inclination to hold someone responsible for this death, um, even if it's not necessarily the right person.

Let's talk about opening statements.

How'd that go for you?

I'll, I'll just tell you what I, what I told them.

I told them that the evidence will show that Mr. Villalobos is not a murderer, that he didn't commit a provocative act and that he's not responsible for the tragic death of Lily, of this woman, Lily Hess by this juvenile and that he's not guilty.

Now, that was the thing that I opened with, that I, that I started my opening with, that ended my opening with, that I started my closing with, and that I ended at my closing with.

And so, um, you know, make it very clear that Mr. Villalobos wasn't, wasn't a murderer, that he's not a killer, that he's not responsible and that he's not guilty.

Just very succinct, solid statements, um, that, um, would hopefully resonate with them.

Nice.

So, um, let's talk about the, the people's case.

They were able to introduce the surveillance footage from, from the, um, the street that showed kind of the, uh, meat of this encounter.

They called a female that had been living at the residence in question, the alleged kind of like target house, um, uh, that the, the alleged kind of rival target house.

They brought in like the medical examiner to talk about the cause of death.

They brought in some police officers to testify about seeing the white Honda in the general vicinity of the, of the, of the crime.

Um, but they didn't have the man who had come out to confront the man in the white Honda, like the guy who came out first from the target house.

They didn't have him, uh, come in and testify.

Um, they didn't have anyone else from the neighborhood come in and testify about having seen or heard anything else that would indicate that this was a provocative act.

Can you tell us a little bit about how you sort of, uh, approach the, the different, different pieces, pieces of evidence you just mentioned?

Like, like what was your goal with the, with the, each piece of evidence or?

I honestly don't recall cross-examining many of them because like you said, the facts were largely not in dispute.

So like the medical examiner, for example, testifying about the cause of death, I didn't ask that medical examiner one question.

I, the, the, um, kind of the crime scene analyst who, um, who tracked the, the trajectory of the bullet from the, you know, the, from the, from the young man to the house and where it went through some walls and things like that.

I didn't ask that person any questions.

There were several witnesses like that.

Some of the police officers that responded to the scene.

I didn't ask them any questions cause there was nothing of value.

I wanted to make it very clear to the jury that we were honed in on very particular, discreet, uh, issues and dispute.

We weren't disputing cause of death.

We weren't disputing, um, certain things like that.

And my, my, the judge actually commented to us, um, or maybe it was telling it like an intern that was with me.

He said, you know, um, in baseball pitchers, uh, you know, you got to trust your stuff.

You know, he said, you talk about baseball, like a pitcher has got to trust their fastball, their curveball, their, their change up.

And so he was saying like, Mr. Khan, he trusts his stuff.

You know, like he, he, you know, like, cause you know, when you're younger, when we're younger lawyers, it's, it's hard to not ask a cross-examination question.

Right. Like there's this like anxiety in us that, Oh shit, I got to stand up and say something.

I got to ask a question.

Otherwise, like I'm being derelict in my duties or I'm dropping the ball or I'm not being effective as the council.

But as we grow older and we kind of get comfortable in our own skin and grow some confidence and we start trusting our stuff, you're like, Oh, I don't need to ask, um, every witness a question.

I don't need to like huff and puff around the courtroom.

Um, like I, I know what my game plan is.

I'm going to stick with my game plan, stay focused and kind of keep my eye on the prize.

And so that felt good too, you know, when you reach this kind of threshold of, of our careers, it felt good to not have that anxiety flowing through me where I had to be like a performance artist just for being a performance artist sake, you know?

So that, that, that felt good inside of me, um, uh, at this threshold of my career.

All right, well, let's, let's talk, wait, Nicola, were you about to say something?

I was just saying, let's, I want to do a little bit deeper dive into the gang expert.

Okay.

Yes.

Let's hear about the gang expert then.

Yeah.

So the gang, you know, gang cop came in and he testified that, um, you know, that this was a, uh, Sereno gang neighborhood and that, um, Sereno gang members have a duty to protect their neighborhood from, from, uh, rivals that move into their neighborhood.

And so, um, Mr. Villalobos as a longstanding, uh, Sereno gang member, uh, would have a responsibility or a duty to come and intimidate and check this, uh, rival, uh, Norteño family or these Norteños that have moved into this, into their neighborhood.

And that, um, and that, um, this is what people, that's, this is what gang members do.

And that gang members also know that when they initiate or engage in, in these types of confrontations, that it's very likely that, um, it could escalate and lead to, uh, violence and that rival gang members will, will shoot back or engage in violence.

And so therefore, um, you know, kind of trying to amplify the, the, um, provocation, uh, the reasonableness of the response of the, of the juvenile to, uh, the person that they claim was Mr. Villalobos.

Can I, um, can I take this as, uh, can I go even deeper on this?

Sure.

So this is a Sereno neighborhood, right?

Well, I didn't accept that.

That I can, we can get kind of get into that.

But that's what the gang expert said it was a Sereno neighborhood, right?

So he's saying a Sereno neighborhood, but when I cross examined him, you know, he admitted that he hadn't even been to that neighborhood, um, in the, in the, um, months before this incident had not been to that neighborhood in the months before this trial.

You know, there's no, um, there's no tagging in that neighborhood that he was specifically aware of to indicate that this was a Sereno neighborhood.

There's no like sign, you know, like you're entering, uh, the gang was called SPV, Sereno's Por Vida, like that you're entering SPV neighborhood.

There's no people with like flying flags in their neighborhood to indicate this was a Sereno neighborhood.

They hadn't talked to anyone in the neighborhood who said that this was a SPV neighborhood.

So I did not accept that this was an SPV or Sereno neighborhood and, and used my cross-examination to attempt to point out how little this gang quote unquote expert, um, knew about the neighborhood at all.

It's, it's, it's kind of interesting to me though, because I think juries, um, often with gang experts just like, you know, buy into like this wildly prejudicial and speculative testimony about beefs or about how gang members operate or confront problems, you know?

And it's always like, you know, I mean, they're always discussing people putting in work and going into having these intense confrontations.

And it's just, it's very interesting because it is not really rooted in reality, right?

There's no, there's no peer review.

There's no, it's, there's no data analysis.

There's like, it is really just this, like, you know, I talked to some people or I was trained in this way, or I read this salacious book written by another officer.

And this is what, you know, it's kind of this self-perpetuating myth and prejudicial like stereotype and, and, you know, and, and it is a lot of this, like, you know, the kind of colors.

I mean, I think growing up watching that Robert Duvall movie, right.

It's just like, I mean, just like these characters of who these people are and, you know, I mean, it's so, and people are convicted every day on this, on this kind of expert testimony.

It is, it is.

Yeah.

It's just, you know, and we see it for what it is, but the challenge is, is obviously getting jurors to see it, see what, see that.

And so, you know, we're, we're able to at least kind of get some, some little victories and little nuggets through, through the gang, um, uh, cop, um, or some concessions from him that, that helped, um, just kind of demystify this whole incident.

Cause I was going to say this, this is what I was going to say though, cause if it's a Serenio neighborhood and then this is a Nortenio house within a Serenio neighborhood, right.

That's the DA's theory, right?

Correct.

So then if a Nortenio guy moves into a Serenio neighborhood, then that Nortenio guy knows the Serenios are going to be upset.

So moving into the neighborhood is a provocative act.

Signing that lease, signing that lease was a provocative motherfucking act.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So where, where does that end?

Yeah.

Right.

Where does this like logical extension end?

And then like, yeah, who do we, um, yeah, it's, it's, yeah.

Here, you know, it's, it's very, it kind of highlights how attenuated this theory was, um, under those circumstances.

Um, and, um, so is that it for the people's evidence then?

Yeah, it was a relatively short.

I mean, I think evidence once we picked the jury and once we, um, did everything, the evidence ended up just being a couple days, uh, from the prosecution.

And it was, um, it was, again, so much of it, I didn't even cross examine on.

And so it moved really, really quickly.

So then did you put on any evidence?

The only evidence we put on was, um, the, uh, gunshot residue analyst from the crime lab to testify that he had, uh, taken samples from the vehicle, the Honda Accord that my client, um, and his family owned.

And that, uh, it came back negative for any, uh, gunshot residue, um, to again, confirm and corroborate that there was, um, no, no gunshot that had been fired from that car.

Now, did the DA do his best, uh, public defender, uh, impersonation and try to be like, well, gunshot residue is actually not that reliable.

But, uh, yeah, he did a little bit of that and he also did like, you know, it can be cleaned, it can be kind of, you know, washed away and, um, and yeah, but.

This is pre, this is pre-COVID.

So nobody was rolling around with like Lysol wipes.

Right, yeah, exactly.

Like nobody was, that wasn't, that wasn't our life back then, so.

It's on the closing arguments then, right?

And yeah, I know you've told us a little bit about your closing already, but do you want to just rehash some of the main points or anything of note that you want to talk about with your closing argument and how you approached it?

Yeah, I do.

A couple things, um, you know, one thing was, I always start with the, kind of the foundations of law that we, that I covered during voir dire with them.

Presumption of innocence, circumstantial evidence instruction, um, the prosecution's burden of proof, our client's right not to testify, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But within, um, within each of those things, I covered some specific things.

Again, it kind of goes back to what I was describing earlier, like trying to empathize with what,

uh, the jury would be thinking about and trying to get into their brains and try to get into their bodies and understand,

like, what are the things that they're going to be feeling and they're going to be thinking about and address them kind of head on.

And so, um, you know, I talked to them about how they all promised during jury selection that they would presume Mr. Villalobos was innocent, despite the fact that we were here for this murder case, despite the fact that he was been arrested, despite the fact that we know that he looks a certain way and that he has a certain background.

And I also tell them about the presumption of innocence, I tell them when they go into the jury room that they should say it out loud, that they should say, Mr. Villalobos is innocent, like, and write it down on the board.

And, um, like, almost like giving them an exercise to do.

Um, and I, I kind of give them that, that kind of starting point.

And I tell them that that's, um, you know, the presumption of innocence is their, is their kind of compass.

It's their guiding light.

It's the, it's the prism that they're going to have to evaluate the evidence through.

And then I moved into like talking about the, um, the actual, the, the case.

And I started by talking about the fact that this was a tragedy, you know, um, that we didn't dispute that the victim, her name was Lily Santiago Hernandez was shot and killed that we don't minimize what happened to her, the pain and tragedy that her family has suffered.

Um, and, and asking, you know, and letting the jury feel those, um, that pain, feel that sadness, um, um, honoring that, that tragedy.

Um, but then asking them to, to let that, let them feel those emotions, but then return to their role to object objectively, um, you know, assess whether the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt on my guy, Mr. Villalobos, and not try to hold him responsible just because they're sad.

Um, for what happened to, um, for what happened to the victim.

And then what was most important for me, um, that I recall from this, uh, closing argument was when at the end, I, um, told them that this is another part of this, like empathy that I was trying to have for the jury.

I, I told them, you know what, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it's going to be really hard for you, um, to go back into this jury room on this murder case where we have an innocent grandmother who is dead for no reason.

And then you have this prosecution, uh, charging Mr. Villalobos, who is a gang member with this killing.

And here I am asking you to find Mr. Villalobos, not guilty and to, uh, not hold anyone in this courtroom accountable for this tragic killing of this woman.

And I told them, you know, it's going to be really hard for you to do that.

I am, I, I know that's going to be hard.

It's going to require a lot of courage and fortitude for you to do that.

But then I like told them, and as I was saying that, I felt like the room got smaller in a, in a way.

Like I felt like the jurors and I were like talking face to face, even closer than I was standing, if that makes sense.

Like, I felt like I was meeting them where they were.

Um, and then I told them, but you're going to do that.

It's going to be hard, but you're going to do it because you took an oath to, um, to, to presume Mr. Villalobos innocent.

You believe in the presumption of innocence in your bones.

You're going to fulfill your duty to hold the prosecution to their burden of proof, and you're going to do what I'm asking you to do and to find him not guilty.

And that felt really powerful.

Like, um, like I said, putting myself in their shoes, recognizing how difficult of a task this is for them, but then kind of empowering them and saying, you're going to do it because you guys are dignified, thoughtful, conscientious people who believe in the rule of law.

Um, and that felt really powerful.

So that's kind of the highlight for me.

And it was the first time I had done something like that in a trial.

Um, but I felt, I felt it being very impactful both for me and then hope, you know, for, for, for the jurors too.

Yeah, that sounded great.

I mean, I'm just thinking about all the things I want to say next time in my closing argument right now.

Yeah.

You know, we, we, we, uh, I mean, you guys hear a lot of stories that you, it's cool.

You guys get to kind of pick and choose the, the, um, the little techniques and the storytelling.

Um, I think that's a very interesting technique is to talk so directly to them and give and empower them.

Right.

Like to be like you, like, uh, you know, I feel like you have a very motivational, um, technique, right?

Like you talk a lot about being dignified, conscientious, you know, you're here because you're reasonable.

I mean, those, those type of, I mean, uh, you know, it's almost like you're dating, right?

You're like, you're giving them, giving them compliments.

They're feeling like, yeah, this is what I want to do.

Um, your ability, your ability to make random strangers do things makes you very dangerous.

The way you empower people.

Yeah.

Right.

People across the country are writing letters for you.

Yep.

I know.

I know.

So how long were the jurors out for then?

Were they deliberating?

Jurors are out for maybe a day, like a calendar day.

Um, and they came back with, uh, with the verdict.

I don't recall that they had any questions.

They may have asked for some readback, maybe, but then they came back in a day.

Um, there was no lesser included offenses.

Uh, it was a single count of murder, uh, with the gang enhancement.

And so the jury, um, came back.

We, we, uh, kind of huddled back in the, I mean, we should kind of all join back together

in the, in the courtroom and the single count.

Um, the jury read out, Mr. Villalobos was not guilty.

Uh, I started crying.

Mr. Villalobos started crying.

We, we hugged there at council table for felt like five minutes just, and he was, uh, thanking

me.

And, um, and it was just such an incredible, uh, incredible experience.

Uh, my colleague, Kristen Carter was there in the audience with me, um, and watched it.

And so it was really special to share it with her.

Um, and yeah, it was just so, so incredible.

And the, the cool thing, the cool thing was before we got the verdict, we walked in the

courtroom and the judge was off the bench.

He was a really nice judge.

And it was judge Ramon and he was off the bench and he's, um, there was some deputies

in the courtroom.

He's like, Mr. Khan, just to let you know, um, in case there's an acquittal, uh, I'm

working with the, um, with the, with the, uh, uh, the CEOs here are the, you know, the

deputies to ensure that your Mr. Villalobos gets released as quickly as possible.

And I was like knocking on wood and all that.

Hey, what are you doing, man?

But I think in, but I think in retrospect, he was tipped off in some shape or form, like

maybe from the bailiff or from maybe he had gotten wind of it because it's almost like

he knew that this was happening or maybe he just, maybe he watched it, right?

I mean, I, he watched, when you watched the trial, you can, you can see like, you know,

I think judges know when they see things going a certain way.

So, so that was cool.

But I was like, you know, just don't, don't jinx me, man.

This would be even more cruel if, uh, if it comes back guilty.

Um, but yeah, he was acquitted the CO's, uh, it was really special.

So he gets acquitted, we're hugging, we're crying.

Um, and then he's, he's Mr. Villalobos is dressed out in clothes that, um, that we had

provided for him from our office.

And he was wearing one of my ties, actually one of my ties.

Um, and then the CO's, you know, usually what, what we do is we, we, um, in the mornings

he has to put on, he gets dressed out in his, in his shirt and his pants, but then the tie

and the belt and the shoes he can put on only in the courtroom.

So usually, cause he didn't know how to tie his tie.

So I would tie his tie for him.

He'd put his shoes on, he'd put the belt on.

Um, and so when he, when we were, he was about to go back into the, like the holding area

to be released.

And, and I was like, Oh, do I need to take his tie and his shoes?

And like, no, he's going to walk out in those clothes.

I was like, Oh, that's dope.

Like he's going to walk out in like, you know, like dressed really nicely.

And they're like, they weren't going to hit their, they, they didn't have jurisdiction

to handcuff him.

So he was, you know, they had to process him through the jail.

He didn't mind that.

I didn't mind that.

Um, and, um, so they, but they let him wear the same clothes, the same, you know, the shoes.

And then he was not going to be handcuffed.

Um, so they took him back in the holding cell.

And then I went out and I called his wife, um, who was raising their newborn baby.

And I was like, uh, I called her and I told her like, you know, I had, that I had great

news that Israel was coming home.

And, um, and I actually asked her like, can you come pick him up from the jail?

Cause he's getting out like right now.

And so she was crying and, and she's like, yeah, I'll be there.

And, um, it was surreal.

So then, um, I went back to my office with Kristen and, uh, I told Israel's wife to call

me.

Um, and so maybe like an hour later, um, uh, he, so I get a phone call on my cell phone

and it's Israel.

So it's crazy.

I was just sitting next to him in court, um, representing him on a homicide case where he's

staring down the barrel of 30 to life.

And then within an hour, I'm getting a cell phone call from him.

Um, where he's like, Hey, Sajid, like I'm out.

And he's like with his son, I can hear like, uh, his two kids in the background and he's

in his car.

It was just like, so, so surreal and so special.

Um, and so, yeah, he's, he's been out.

Um, and we, we actually got together for a, um, uh, celebratory lunch at a local restaurant,

me, Israel, his wife and his two kids where I have the picture up on my Instagram and,

um, and, uh, we've been in touch since sometimes I, I text, I text with them a few times here

and there just to check in.

They're doing well.

So it's pretty, pretty incredible.

Um, so yeah, that's great.

That is great.

Cause I, you know, I think about like, we talk about like, okay, the criminal justice system

and I mean, gosh, this lady, you know, we're talking about criminal justice reform and all

these things, but this lady was shot and killed, you know?

And I mean, and the, the, the system like prosecuted, you know, went forward and arrested some people.

But I think this case kind of shows your specific case and your client shows the, the, how they

just sort of like recklessly are like, you know what?

Okay.

We arrested the shooter, but let's, let's see if we can get this guy in a white car or let's

see if we can find somebody else to make responsible.

We know this guy was driving a white Honda Accord 10 minutes later.

We'll say he did it and we'll say he's a gang, you know, do the gang enhancement, you

know, like your client was in custody for what, a year because they wanted to float some bogus

theory and just like be, I mean, that's where, that's where, that's what needs to change.

Yeah.

Yeah.

They're, you know, they have so much discretion and, and, you know, but ideally their discretion

is checked by the courts and I'm not going to throw any judges under the bus.

I respect the bench and I, um, but you know, the, the case survived a prelim.

It survived a nine, nine, five.

It survived a writ.

Uh, it survived an 11, 18.1 motion, which we didn't talk about earlier, but it's fine.

I mean, we don't have to get into that, but it survived all of these other mechanisms

too, you know?

And, and, and so ultimately a jury had to, was passed with doing the right thing, but.

Well, Sajid, thank you for coming on the podcast today.

And I first heard of you because you're, you actually did a podcast before another not guilty

came out.

I think you were doing a podcast called eight.

You still do it called eight or an abetter, right?

Do you want to talk about it for a second?

Yeah, sure.

Um, eight or an abetter is a podcast that, uh, my colleague and friend and fellow Brown public

defender, Avi Singh and I host.

Uh, we started it in 2017.

We've been, um, at it, um, since then we put out maybe an episode a month, uh, or so, uh,

depending on our schedules, but it's a podcast where he and I talk about our lives as public

defenders.

We talk about the criminal legal system.

We bring on guests, uh, from all walks of the criminal legal system, whether they be other

public defenders, judges, uh, we've even, or a judge, we've interviewed, um, a police

officer in our, from our courthouse, uh, we interviewed, uh, Chesa Boudin, who's now the

DA in San Francisco, um, other, uh, Raj Jayadev from Silicon Valley debug, um, and, and just

have conversations about, um, our lives as public defenders, uh, the things that we do

to maintain and sustain in the work.

We also talk about current events that touch on the criminal legal system and add the public

defender, uh, perspective to those, um, events.

Um, so it's been a great, uh, podcast, a great forum for us to have these conversations,

to connect with some kindred spirits in the public defender universe, um, to, um, to hold

other public defenders up and, and help, uh, help us help them and them help us kind of sustain

in this work, which can obviously be very challenging, very frustrating, very difficult, very emotionally

taxing, um, so that's, yeah, that's eight or in a better, and we're excited that, um, I'm

here on with you guys, and then hopefully we'll have you guys on with us so we have, we can

complete the, uh, crossover, um, podcast, uh, uh, relationship.

So, yeah.

And the last question, which is a question we ask all our guests, and, uh, I mean, I, I

certainly know, I mean, I feel like we all understand or know why you're a public defender

because that's what we ask, but can you tell us maybe more on a personal reason why you

became a public defender?

Yeah, a couple, a couple things come to mind.

One is that I, I grew up idolizing, uh, Malcolm X, um, Malcolm X to me is, uh, when I was,

when I was, uh, coming up as a young person, he looked and sounded like what a lawyer should

look and sound like.

He wasn't a lawyer himself.

He wanted to be a lawyer.

He never got to be one, but in terms of his, his charisma, his, his brashness, his willingness

to encourage, to speak truth to power, to stand up for the marginalized and the dehumanized,

um, people in our country.

So I grew up wanting to be Malcolm X and to be, uh, someone to, um, stand up for, for, uh,

the disadvantage and kind of the, um, overlooked in our communities.

Um, and then added another layer to that is that I grew up in a, in a Muslim family that

I was very social justice oriented, um, you know, speaking truth to power, uh, standing

up for justice.

Um, so I, I had this kind of combination of, uh, of idolizing Malcolm X and then growing

up with a very service oriented, justice oriented faith, and then going to law school, wanting

to do civil rights work, um, to kind of harness those, um, those passions and then discovering,

um, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment jurisprudence through crim pro.

So my 2L year at Hastings, um, uh, really got fired up about fourth amendment jurisprudence

about what was a lawful or unlawful, uh, search or, or seizure of people really wanting

to, uh, push back against the police state, uh, wanting to effectuate these very critical

rights of, of human beings that have been racially profiled against and dehumanized by

police officers in our community.

So that was the kind of first entry point to wanting to become a public defender, um, was

to litigate fourth amendment, um, search and seizure, um, litigation.

And then now I've just discovered all the other layers of the work through the 12 years doing

it.

Um, and now it's really about, um, is it's about helping people in their, uh, in their

worst moments, uh, making sure that people aren't defined by their worst moments, um, trying

to ensure that people's rights are protected, that, um, that people's humanity is, is restored

in a system that robs them of that humanity, um, trying to breathe values of redemption,

mercy, compassion, um, into our court systems and into our community.

Um, so those are all kind of layers as to why I do this work.

Um, and then, um, clawing and fighting back against our system of mass incarceration is a

huge part of, uh, why, what, what continues to draw me to do the work and do the advocacy

work that we talked about at the beginning is, um, just wanting to revolutionize, uh, how

we treat people in our communities, um, and, um, and, and not being okay with the way we cage,

uh, and dehumanize, uh, people of color and people in general.

So that's my kind of, uh, the backstory is, so what brings me to work every day and what

keeps me, keeps me going.

Thanks.

I just wanted to just say, uh, we're looking forward to your next dust up, uh, on the blogs

or in the courtroom, hopefully soon.

Yes, sir.

You know, we'll be out there together, uh, out on Twitter together.

I mean, hopefully we'll be marching, marching together, like, uh, next to each other someday

too.

Six feet apart, mask on, you know.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

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.